Sinners (2025) Review

Quick Synopsis: From Dusk Till Dawn, but as a 30’s gangster movie with a black cast.

I went into this after seeing the trailer, but forgot what the trailer was like. I saw a post on Facebook saying it was a vampire horror movie. For about 40 minutes, I wondered if I had seen a post about a different movie. It wasn’t a horror movie, it wasn’t a vampire movie, it was a gangster flick about two brothers using money stolen from Chicago mobs to start up a bar. It had interesting character work, a lot of subtle references to the brothers’ past misdeeds, and how they acquired the money. It asked a lot of questions that the audience will want answered; the main one being what led to the opening scene, where Sammie (played by Miles Caton in his screen debut) stumbles into his father’s church, battered and bloody, desperate for comfort, only to see his father use him as an example in a sermon. Just when I began to doubt my own memory, the vampires made their first appearance. It’s a great genre switch, reminded me of From Dusk Till Dawn, only with less scenes of the writer sucking on an actresses toes to fulfil their own fetish.

I think I preferred this to Dusk; it’s much slower, and that glacial pace will be divisive, putting off a lot of people. It’s also not as bloody, but it does do something that the aforementioned Dawn never manages; it wowed me. There’s a scene in Sinners where Sammie plays his song at the bar. The song is so powerful that it connects across space and time, with spirits of the past and future joining in; electric guitars played Hendrix style join in with music from hundreds of years ago, and dances from different cultures, showing how music connects everybody. I’ve already written its nomination for best scene in the end-of-year awards. From a storytelling perspective, from a technical perspective (it’s a LOOOONG mostly unbroken shot), from a musical perspective, it’s all brilliant. I hate people who talk at the cinema, but I couldn’t help let out a gasp of “that was fucking cinema” when I saw it. I’m so glad it’s not just me. I’ve seen a lot of people online mention how much they loved that moment, and if you see it, it’s easy to see why. The mass sing-along to “Rocky Road Of Dublin” (which I always assumed Dropkick Murphys wrote, obviously not) is a few steps below it in terms of quality, but is just as powerful, and MUCH more terrifying.

Scenes like that, which show not only the power of music, but also the shared experiences between black and Irish immigrants (albeit, at two VASTLY different levels for most of American history) show just how smart Sinners is. The characters are just as smart. When a friend-turned-vampire starts asking for permission to enter the bar, the characters question why they suddenly need to ask permission. When they’re not sure who’s been bitten, they gather round and each eat a clove of garlic (in a scene very reminiscent of The Thing). The characters don’t die due to their own stupidity; they die because they’re overpowered, overmanned, and don’t know everything. Except for the klan members at the end, they die because they realised their blood can help the grass grow, and by dying they can actually provide some use for once in their pathetic fucking lives. I know, I’m anti-KKK, so controversial.

Sinners is not a perfect movie, but you have to be very picky to find those faults. It’s probably the best film I’ve seen this year. It’s not my favourite, but it is undoubtedly the most impressive, and the one closest to perfection. Cooglar is fantastic and cannot receive enough praise for the work he’s done, not just here, but throughout his whole career. Long may it continue.

4 reasons The Hateful 8 is worth seeing and 4 it’s not

4 reasons The Hateful 8 is worth seeing
and 4 it’s not

hateful-eight-banner-what

Out the gate; this isn’t Tarantino’s best film, nor is it his worst (like some people have been calling it), but like most things there are two sides to it. So here are those two sides, four reasons you should give up your hard earned cash to go see this lil’ epic, and four reasons to wait and see it by other means.

 

The Good

  • Tim Roth & Walton Goggins: The film is of course an ensemble piece with a stellar cast who are (mostly) outstanding; from Kurt Russel’s and Samuel L Jackson’s badass bounty hunters (Jackson is particularly on form), to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s now Oscar nominated turn as the creepily vulgar and frequently hilarious fugitive, Daisy Domergue. 973753f0-7b77-0133-4d9b-0e3f8b958f63

But it’s Tarantino veteran Tim Roth and Justified’s anti-hero Walton Goggins (seriously if you haven’t seen Justified DO!) who steal the show, the scenery and nearly the whole damn picture. Mr Roth is on rip-roaring scene chewing form as the extremely Twee British Hangman Oswaldo Mobray, who’s every smug verbal extremity and every sly glance and gesture leaves you in stitches, whether he’s debating the-hateful-eight-debuts-first-teaser-trailerthe ethics of justice with the brash Kurt Russel, or stopping everyone from shooting each other. Walton Goggins on the other hand is just having a blast as the fun loving, dorky, hill-billy-esque former confederate, who is so country and western he says things like, “I’ll be double dog dammed”, and you can’t help but smile at his every slapstick manoeuvre. He and Roth are like the two sides to the same chocolate and cheese coin. Goggin’s character also has the best (and I think only) arc in the film.

  • The cinematography/ the setting: Shot in glorious 70mm (which I didn’t see it in), there is just something awesome about a Western in the snow, and the landscape is captured beautifully to the point where the opening few shots could be confused with The Revenant. And then after the loooooong opening act (we’ll get to that in the next section), when we get to the much advertised cabin setting, it managed to keep that prestige in what really should of been a claustrophobic mess.
    hateful-81But the cabin is large and surprisingly complex, with each corner, from the bar to the fireplace, becoming their own country and safe ground for the characters. What I’m saying I guess is for a film predominantly set in one room, it still feels large and epic.hateful-eight-5

 

Morricone

  • The music: Of course with a score from the Godfather of Western composers Ennio Morricone, how could this not be one of the reasons? But beyond the classic western theme that’s winning all the awards, far less appreciation is being said for the other uses of music and score; with awesome music from The Exorcist 2 and unused tracks from The Thing being part of the soundtrack, and it fits perfectly. As well as a violin quintet that perfectly shapes the mystery vibe the film strives for in its second act. One thing Tarantino hasn’t lost is his impeccable ear for soundtrack.

 

  • The Ending: I won’t ruin it for the few people who haven’t seen it, but I will still reservoir_dogs_queer6talk about it. It’s bloody, it’s fun, its ambiguous, yet somehow also satisfying enough, as those you want to see get it do (for the most part) and those you want to see make good also do (for the most part), without resorting to anything overly happy….Though the more I think about it the more it seems like a re-tread of Reservoir Dogs. Still for a film that gets so messy in every way, it has strong closing minutes.

 

 

The bad (and the ugly…sorry)

  • The twist: So again I won’t ruin it for those who haven’t seen it and for some reason

    Picture2
    Without context this doesn’t give away too much

    may be debating whether to from this list, but I’ll say this: you can ignore it all you want and enjoy a lot of other aspects about it, but the twist breaks the film and makes the three hours you spend watching kind of pointless. As by the twists logic the film could have been finished within Kurt Russel storming into the cabin, and the more you marinade over it, the less it, and so many other situations, make sense. If you can put that aside (which I can do to a point) the film still works, but you shouldn’t have to ignore the plot to enjoy a film.

 

  • The length: This is Tarantino at his most Tarantino and self-indulgent. I understand the idea. He wants to make it a classic epic Western, but that isn’t an excuse for 40 minutes of set-up before ‘the plot’ sets in, nor another half hour of flashbacks just to explain the overwrought twist, orjust the endless monologues and detours, with only about half lending anything to the situation or are really entertaining.

    Picture3
    couldn’t think of a image to go with time

    Now I know what some of you are thinking, we need all that time to introduce all the characters and flesh them out…and that leads directly into the next point…

 

gage

  • Joe Gage and a third of the cast: A third the cast are just kind of dull, underdeveloped and uninteresting. I wouldn’t be shocked if Tarantino had the title first, but then gave up halfway trying to fill it with 8 interesting characters. Bruce Dern’s old racist confederate general is probably the most interesting uninteresting character, but he’s really just there to flesh-out Goggin’s and Jackson’s characters. Michael Madsen is….there; he showed up, he spoke. And dernDemián Bichir’s character’s biggest trait is that he’s Mexican…oh and he played piano in that one scene. For a film this long and boasting an apparently hateful 8 (even though theres like ten of them really), its inexcusable that almost half the cast are uninteresting mexicajnunderdeveloped characters, there just to pad out the length like tissue in a bra.

 

 

 

  • What it could have been: A lot of people have been comparing this to Clue or calling it a form of whodunit and it is…for a minute…when it feels like it.qz6uv0xwBut it gets so bogged down with detours, homage, pointless scenes, sucking it’s own dick, and having a bullshit twist it never really gets there. And it could have been great if it did! A Tarantino whodunit, that just sounds amazing. With the same set of

    Clue_Poster
    Very underrated comedy!

    characters (well maybe a few less), and the same set-up and location, all that needed to happen was someone dies, and then the film is them trying to work out who did it, as the tension and egos run high. Instead it kind of does that in the second middle, but then makes that whole section pointless with the reveal of who did it, how, and why. Rule number one of twists: if it isn’t more interesting than what you have already established then don’t do it.

 

Through writing these eight reasons, for all the things I like about it that make it worth a see, the more I’m discovering how big the problems are and how they weigh down what could of (should of) been a classic Tarantino, if Tarantino hadn’t gotten in the way.