Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Sinners Is Bold, Ambitious, and Just Misses Greatness

Published

on

Sinners Is Bold, Ambitious, and Just Misses Greatness

It’s a film that will haunt me just as much as it will keep me wondering who Ryan Coogler wants to be on the other side of Creed and Black Panther.
Photo: Warner Bros./Everett Collection

I have always felt that the South gives America back to itself, ripping illusions from truth. When I see Looney Tunes images of Bugs Bunny sawing off Florida, as if relinquishing land below the Mason-Dixon Line will save our fractured society, my heart breaks. When I read op-eds that suggest Manhattan should be fortified in the face of climate disaster but New Orleans should be consigned to oblivion, I see cowardice in the face of reckoning. The stories we tell about the region, specifically the ones that paint the South as solely a backward territory not worth saving, underscore a basic reality: This is a country built on forgetting. The majority of this country’s Black population is in the South. All this humor and resignation might as well ensure the Black, the brown, the queer, the working class toil under oppressive politicians to death. It certainly complicates the fact that, as poet Eugenia Collier wrote, “It is here that the agony of chattel slavery created the history that has yet to be written. It is the South that has dispersed its culture into the cities of the North. The South is, in a sense, the mythic landscape of Black America.”

With a curiosity that is capacious, Sinners — the 1932-set, southern-bound horror epic from writer-director Ryan Coogler — demonstrates something powerful: a deep reverence for the Black South. Its most beautiful and bracing imagery is that of cotton fields plumbed by sharecroppers, endless skies and dusty roads, the verdant expanse of a land that has witnessed so much sorrow. It opens with an animated segment that bounces through cultures to highlight the esteemed ancestral figures whose artistry pierced the veil between time and space, pausing on West African griots before it lands in 1932 Clarksdale, Mississippi. It’s the waning days of Prohibition when the infamous twin brothers Smoke and Stack (played with gusto by Michael B. Jordan) return to their hometown after cutting it up with Al Capone up North, packing illegal liquor and a firmly held dream to open a juke joint by us, for us. The film takes place primarily over the course of a single day and night, barely touching an encroaching dawn. “I heard they don’t have Jim Crow up there,” Sammie Moore (a sweet-natured Miles Caton), their young cousin with a spiritual talent for the blues, mentions to the twins. But Smoke and Stack respond with expeditious intensity. Chicago is just as racist as the rest of the country, even if its skyscrapers and largess give it a different casing: “We came back home to deal with the devil we know.”

Advertisement

The way the film swims through the contradictions, considerations, and cultural reverie of the rural South is genuinely enlivening. Sinners, festooned with intriguing ideas and even more beguiling characters, grabs the hem of greatness even if it never takes hold, hobbled as it is by a desire to hold more than it can properly contain in its over-two-hour run time, leading to a story that feels misshapen after the setup. Coogler does not rush these proceedings. Instead, he marinates in the happenings and taste of his characters and the world around them after the twins buy a disabused sawmill to operate as a juke joint from a man who is quick to call them “boy” and later proves to be a crucial member of the Ku Klux Klan. Blessedly, a didactic rendition of anti-Black racism does not follow. Coogler trusts his audience, letting the emotional stakes of his movie unfurl slowly. The twins are differentiated by color theory. Smoke in blue, Stack in red. But their differences would be apparent even without that visual cue. Stack is lascivious and abrasive. Jordan carries himself with braggadocio as a man who takes up space unapologetically and never moves quietly in a room, even if he says nary a word. He’s quick to a smile and even quicker to violence. But so is Smoke, though Jordan gives him a taciturn tenderness. He’s bound to Annie (Wunmi Mosaku), a hoodoo practitioner with whom he shares a dead child and all the grief therein.

The twins are crucial leads for the film, but Sammie is arguably the true protagonist. It’s his coming of age that provides Sinners its structure — in which he is forced to choose between his gifts as a supernaturally skilled blues musician and the reserved church-bound life his preacher father, Jedidiah (Saul Williams), desires for him. If the fortunes of Sammie, Stack, and Smoke were the only important threads, Sinners would still be an epic, but Coogler isn’t content to rest there. The film plays like it was made by someone who understands they may never be able to commit to such grand cinematic ambitions — or, at least, the resources necessary to make them a reality — again. (The rights to this film revert to Coogler in 25 years, a rarity in the history of Hollywood dealmaking.) There is also Sammie’s love interest, the married singer Pearline (Jayme Lawson). And Delroy Lindo as piano and harmonica blues musician Delta Slim. A drunkard with a golden spirit. Stack’s own ragged love story involves Mary (Hailee Steinfeld, feasting on the opportunity this film provides her), a woman with a half-Black grandfather who lives on the white side of town but prefers to spend time with the Black people she considers kin. One of my favorites of the important supporting cast is the charismatic Chinese couple who runs two shops in town and provides material support to the twins’ efforts to start their juke joint — Grace (Li Jun Li) and Bow Chow (Yao), who have an adolescent daughter, Lisa (Helena Hu). The actors are quickly able to sketch a deep bond between their characters, and their presence is a reminder that the soul of the South may be Black, but it is a region defined by a more complex diversity it rarely gets credit for.

Coogler luxuriates in the lives of these people, and the ecstatic performances they provoke, for about an hour before Jack O’Connell’s vicious Irish vampire, Remmick, cuts a bloodied path through their stories. Sinners is a horror film, stitched together with menacing imagery of sunlight as clear as crystal and blood darker than death. Smoke trails off Remmick’s body as he stumbles to the home of a family affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, just as dawn spills upon the land. He weasels his way into being invited inside, escaping the Native American vampire hunters on his tail. They eventually arrive at the doorstep of the couple, who refuse to trust the words of a group of Indigenous men and therefore guarantee an unsuccessful rescue. (It’s a pity we don’t see more of these characters. It’s such a delicious idea.) Vampires are the best of cinema’s major monsters, and Coogler mostly adheres to legible legends. There’s garlic, silver, stakes to the heart, invitations necessary to darken doorsteps. But he adds a few less common touches that have potential — eyes that glow, an elevated monstrousness that arises as they feed, drooling over the mere thought of blood. (In Sinners, draining a human doesn’t just sate an appetite. A vampire absorbs the memories and skills of their victim, too.) But Remmick’s motivations — explained in a stray line of dialogue — are too thinly drawn and haphazardly framed. (Remmick desires to connect to the ancestors vampirism has barred him from knowing; devouring Sammie’s talent for conjuring spirits of the past through music is the means to doing so. All this is only gestured at.) So is the horror he wreaks. It’s as if the camera flinches. Moments of tragedy and violence are never dwelled upon properly, like Coogler has too much to drink in otherwise to give these moments the time they need. There is no sonic tension; spaces like the juke joint feels visually scattershot and confused once Remmick’s fiery violence crowds the room. Then the emotional beats that mark the conclusions of these characters’ stories arrive without the heft necessary for the losses to bruise. Somehow, I was left wanting more. Certain connective tissue is lost in favor of excess elsewhere.

As much as Sinners succeeds as a celebration of the Black South, it ultimately fails as visceral horror. Yet Coogler’s film is distinct in a way I am curious to see audiences take in. While he fails to make his genre terror visually or narratively gut-wrenching, he avoids blunt messaging about racism and history and sidesteps the most laborious, rote choices of the modern Black horror boom, filled with films that prioritized making racial strife clear to non-Black audiences. Instead, Sinners communicates quite magnificently to Black folks at a register many recent, mainstream Black horror directors before him failed to reach. Coogler’s script is trying to shake the table. He brings up questions about Black people’s misguided adherence to Christianity, who counts as Black and a part of the community, the ancestral reverberations of Black music, finding love against the odds, and the beauty that is born when two distinct bodies become one. These themes make the vampire saga feel rapturous, bold, ambitious, and brimming with curiosity and care. Even with its sloppy flaws, in particular the script’s inability to cohere once the true action is under way, it is a film that got under my skin and continues to haunt my imagination.

And what Coogler accomplishes in the realm of sensuality is genuinely exciting. The characters, save for the young Sammie, feel grown. These are adults with the seasoning that time, heartbreak, and wisdom provide — and which the actors communicate with clear-eyed commitment. There are three sex scenes in the film, including a tender reconnection between Smoke and Annie. But it’s Stack having Mary spit in his mouth during their sex scene in a storage room of the juke joint that stands out for sheer delight. A surprising recurrence in the film is its appreciation of the real eaters out there; at one point, Stack straight-up explains cunnilingus by comparing it to the soft licks of eating ice cream. The film reaches its apex in a vivaciously ambrosial scene in which Sammie flexes dulcet tones and guitar skills, inspiring everyone toward sweat-laced dancing. A West African drummer and dancer appears, an echo from the ancestors of the introduction. A funk guitarist strides next to Sammie. When the hip-hop figures appear, the scene teeters toward being a touch too earnest. But for a moment, this blend of past, present, and future touches transcendence. A cinematic rapture capturing the best staging, framing, and composition of the film. It is a phantasm of Black Southern delights. As Delta Slim tells Sammie, “Blues wasn’t forced on us like that religion.”

Advertisement

See All

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – “Avatar: Fire and Ash” (20th Century), the third film in the always visually rich franchise that got its start in 2009, brings forward thematic elements that had previously been kept in the background and that viewers of faith will find it impossible to accept and difficult to dismiss. As a result, it requires careful evaluation by mature movie fans.

Against the recurring background of the fictional moon Pandora, the saga of the family whose fortunes were chronicled in the earlier chapters continues. The clan consists of dad Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his wife Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) as well as their three surviving children, teens Lo’ak (Britain Dalton) and Kiri (Sigourney Weaver) and tyke Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss).

Rounding out the household is Jake and Neytiri’s adolescent adopted son, Spider (Jack Champion).

As veterans of the earlier outings will know, Jake was originally a human and a Marine. But, via an avatar, he eventually embraced the identity of Neytiri’s Pandoran tribe, the Na’vi. While their biological kids are to all appearances Na’vi — a towering race with blue skins and tails — Spider is human and requires a breathing mask to survive on Pandora.

Lo’ak is guilt-ridden over his role in the death of his older brother, Neteyam (Jamie Flatters), and wants to redeem himself by proving his worth as a warrior. Kiri is frustrated that, despite her evident spiritual gifts, she’s unable to connect with Eywa, the mother goddess the Na’vi worship.

Advertisement

For his part, Jake is worried about Spider’s future — Neteyam’s death has left the still-grieving Neytiri with a hatred of the “Sky people,” as Earthlings are known on Pandora. He also has to contend with the ongoing threat posed by his potentially deadly rivalry with his former Marine comrade, Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who is also Spider’s estranged father.

As if all that weren’t enough, a further challenge arises when the Metkayina, the sea-oriented Pandorans with whom Jake et al. have taken refuge, are attacked by the fierce fire-centric Mangkwan, led by Varang (Oona Chaplin), a malevolent sorceress. A three hour-plus running time is required to tie up these varied strands.

Along the way, the religion adhered to by the main characters becomes more prominent than in previous installments. Thus Eywa is both present on screen and active in the plot. Additionally, Kiri is revealed to have been the product of a virginal conception.

Director and co-writer (with Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) James Cameron’s extension of his blockbuster series, accordingly, not only includes material uncomfortable at best for Christians but also seems incongruent, overall, with monotheistic belief. Even well-catechized grown-ups, therefore, should approach this sprawling addition to Cameron’s epic with caution.

The film contains nonscriptural beliefs and practices, constant stylized but often intense combat violence with brief gore, scenes of torture, narcotics use, partial nudity, a couple of mild oaths, at least one rough term, numerous crude and a handful of crass expressions and an obscene gesture. The OSV News classification is L — limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 — parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

Advertisement

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Gurram Paapi Reddy’ movie review: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah’s con comedy is hilarious yet overcooked

Published

on

‘Gurram Paapi Reddy’ movie review: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah’s con comedy is hilarious yet overcooked

If this week’s Telugu release Gurram Paapi Reddy were a human, it would most likely be a teenager. It bursts with energy, overflowing with ideas and wearing its unabashed enthusiasm like a badge of honour. The audience too might end up surrendering to its infectious energy. Yet, like a distracted teenager, the film also gets so enamoured by its very idea that it loses control and does not know where to stop.

The vibe is eerily similar to Jathi Ratnalu early on. Again, Brahmanandam (as Vaidyanathan), is a judge. Faria Abdullah, the actress in the former film, is the only female presence in the lead lineup here. The other oddball male characters — Gurram Paapi Reddy (Naresh Agastya), Chilipi (Vamshidhar Goud), Goyyi (Jeevan Kumar) and Military (Rajkumar Kasireddy) — are the not-so-smart ones who get entangled in a mess.

The similarities end there. Brahmanandam, who is in terrific form, sets the tone of the comedy, doling out harsh punishments to petty criminals, not for their crimes, but for their sheer stupidity in getting caught. Gurram, Chilipi, Goyyi and Military are the victims who reunite after their jail term. This time, they are joined by Soudamini (Faria).

Gurram Paapi Reddy (Telugu)

Director: Murali Manohar

Cast: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah, Brahmanandam, Yogi Babu

Advertisement

Runtime: 160 minutes

Storyline: A gang of four ex-convicts swap dead bodies for easy money and land in a ‘royal’ mess.

While their earlier heist at a jewellery store goes terribly wrong, the new plan is strangely simple. The four men need to swap a dead body from Srisailam with another body in a graveyard in Hyderabad for a meagre sum. While they execute it, albeit with difficulty, it gets messy when the motive behind the swap comes to the fore, dating back to a royal gift from the pre-Independence era.

The key conflict is established prior to the intermission, but newer problems surface later. Though the story idea is deceptively straightforward, the director builds many layers to the fun quotient and it’s evident that he treats comedy like serious business.

The actors react to the situations without trying too hard to impress. The scenes are not only thematically funny, but also packed with outrageously hilarious one-liners. Every time one feels the film’s trajectory is sorted, there is a surprise. The screenplay is busy with backstories and subplots.

Advertisement

The second hour could have benefited from some economy in writing. Past connections are strung together, newer characters and their complexities are introduced, there are backup plans, flashbacks and a song is thrown into the mix. Thankfully, the humour quotient remains unaffected. Some breather would have been welcome.

The subplots involving Sangi Reddy, particularly the courtroom proceedings, and Markandeya Raju’s son crowd the screenplay, leaving the viewers with too many dots to connect. It’s inevitable for some restlessness to creep in towards the final 45 minutes — a stretch packed with several events and coincidences. A clever climax salvages the film.

Gurram Paapi Reddy is aware of the crucial balance between the goofiness of its characters and the seriousness of the plot. Too many characters and a packed, expansive narrative make the film exhausting, given its 160-minute runtime.

Naresh Agastya, Vamshidhar Goud, Faria Abdullah, Jeevan Kumar and Rajkumar Kasireddy share wonderful on-screen camaraderie and get ample scope to shine individually too. Yogi Babu, as a convict with night-blindness, brings the roof down even when he doesn’t dub for himself. Motta Rajendran’s antics look repetitive at times, though they land well.

This is also among Brahmanandam’s best on-screen appearances in recent times. It’s an absolute joy to see the veteran actor ever-hungry to prove his worth when he senses potential in a scene. John Vijay is in dire need of reinvention with his dialogue delivery and body language. Both songs in the film, composed by Krishna Saurabh, though well-shot, feel abrupt.

A narrative with lesser flab would have amplified the film’s impact. The makers tease the audience with a potential sequel idea, but appreciably it does not appear forced. The film is also complete in itself.

Advertisement

Gurram Paapi Reddy is a smartly written and performed con-comedy that delivers laughs aplenty, though a few segments become indulgent.

Published – December 19, 2025 08:22 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ Movie Review and Release Live Updates: James Cameron directorial opens to mixed audience reviews – The Times of India

Published

on

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ Movie Review and Release Live Updates: James Cameron directorial opens to mixed audience reviews  – The Times of India

James Cameron clarifies Matt Damon’s viral claim that he turned down 10 per cent of ‘Avatar’ profits

Filmmaker James Cameron has addressed actor Matt Damon’s long-circulating claim that he turned down the lead role in Avatar along with a lucrative share of the film’s profits, saying the version widely believed online is “not exactly true.”

For years, Damon has spoken publicly about being offered the role of Jake Sully in the 2009 blockbuster in exchange for 10 per cent of the film’s gross, a deal that would have translated into hundreds of millions of dollars given Avatar’s global earnings of USD 2.9 billion. The role eventually went to Australian actor Sam Worthington, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Jim Cameron called me — he offered me 10 per cent of Avatar,” Damon says in the clips. “You will never meet an actor who turned down more money than me … I was in the middle of shooting the Bourne movie and I would have to leave the movie kind of early and leave them in the lurch a little bit and I didn’t want to do that … [Cameron] was really lovely, he said: ‘If you don’t do this, this movie doesn’t really need you. It doesn’t need a movie star at all. The movie is the star, the idea is the star, and it’s going to work. But if you do it, I’ll give you 10 per cent of the movie.’”

However, speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Cameron said Damon was never formally offered the part. “I can’t remember if I sent him the script or not. I don’t think I did? Then we wound up on a call and he said, ‘I love to explore doing a movie with you. I have a lot of respect for you as a filmmaker. [Avatar] sounds intriguing. But I really have to do this Jason Bourne movie. I’ve agreed to it, it’s a direct conflict, and so, regretfully, I have to turn it down.’ But he was never offered. There was never a deal,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Advertisement

The director added that discussions never progressed to character details or negotiations. “We never talked about the character. We never got to that level. It was simply an availability issue,” he said.

Addressing the widely shared belief that Damon turned down a massive payday, Cameron said the actor may have unintentionally merged separate ideas over time. “What he’s done is extrapolate ‘I get 10 percent of the gross on all my films,’” Cameron said, adding that such a deal would not have happened in this case. “So he’s off the hook and doesn’t have to beat himself up anymore.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending