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

Roll On 18 Wheeler: Errol Sack’s ‘TRUCKER’ (2026) – Movie Review – PopHorror

Published

on

Roll On 18 Wheeler: Errol Sack’s ‘TRUCKER’ (2026) – Movie Review – PopHorror

I am a sucker for all those straight-to-video slasher movies from the 90’s; there was just a certain point where you knew the acting was terrible, however, it made you fall in love. I can definitely remember scanning the video store sections for all the different horror movies I could. All those movies had laughable names and boom mics accidentally getting in the frame. Trucker seems like a child of all those old dreams, because it is.

Let’s get into the review.

Synopsis

When a group of reckless teens cause an accident swroe to never speak of it.  The father is reescued by a strange man. from the wreckage and nursed back to health by a mysterious old man. When the group agrees to visit the accident scene, they meet their match from a strange masked trucker and all his toys with revenge on his mind.

Roll on 18 Wheleer

Trucker is what you would imagine: a movie about a psychotic trucker chasing you. We have seen it many, many times. What makes the film so different is its homage to bad movies but good ideas. I don’t mean in a negative way. When you think of a slasher movie, it’s not very complicated; as a matter of fact, it takes five minutes to piece the film together. This is so simple and childlike, and I absolutely love it. Trucker gave us something a little different, not too gory, bad CGI fire, I mean, this is all we old schlock horror fans want. Trucker is the type of film that you expect from a Tubi Original, on speed. However, I would take this over any Tubi Original.

I found some parts that were definitely a shout-out to the slasher humor from all those movies. Another good point that made the film shine was the sets. I guess what I can say is the film is everything Joy Ride should have been. While most modern slashers are trying to recreate the 1980s, the film stands out with its love for those unloved 1990’s horror films. While most see Joyride, you are extremely mistaken, my friend; you will enjoy this film much more.

Advertisement

In The End

In the end, I enjoyed the entire film. At first, I saw it listed as an action thriller; I was pleasantly surprised, and Trucker pulled at my heart strings, enveloping me in its comfort from a long-forgotten time in horror. It’s a nostalgic blast for me, thinking back to that time, my friends, my youth, and finding my new home. Horror fans are split down the middle: from serial-killer clowns (my side) to elevated horror, where an artist paints a forty-thousand-year-old demon that chases them around an upper-class studio apartment. I say that a lot, but it’s the best way to describe some things.

The entire movie had me cheering while all the people I hated suffered dire consequences for their actions. It’s the same old story done in a way that we rabid fans could drool over, and it worked. In all the bad in the world today, and my only hope for the future is the soon-to-end Terrifier franchise. However, the direction was a recipe to succeed with 40+ year old horror fans like me. I see the film as a hope for tomorrow, leading us into a new era.

Trucker is set to release on March 10th, 2026

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Scream 7’ Review: Ghostface Trades His Metallic Knife for Plastic in Bloody Embarrassing Slasher Sequel

Published

on

‘Scream 7’ Review: Ghostface Trades His Metallic Knife for Plastic in Bloody Embarrassing Slasher Sequel

It’s funny how this film is marketed as the first Scream movie in IMAX, yet it’s their sloppiest work to date. Williamson accomplishes two decent kills. My praise goes to the prosthetic team and gore above anything else. The filmmaking is amateurish, lacking any of the tension build and innovation in set pieces like the Radio Silence or Craven entries. Many slasher sequences consist of terribly spliced editing and incomprehensible camera movement. There was a person at my screening asking if one of the Ghostfaces was killed. I responded, “Yeah, they were shot in the head; you just couldn’t see it because the filmmaking is so damn unintelligible.” 

Really, Spyglass? This is the best you can do to “damage control” your series that was perfectly fine?

I’m getting comments from morons right now telling me that I’m biased for speaking “politically” about this movie. Fuck you! This poorly made, bland, and franchise-worst entry is a byproduct of political cowardice.

The production company was so adamant about silencing their outspoken star, who simply stated that she’s against the killing of Palestinian people by an evil totalitarian regime, that they deliberately fired her, conflating her comments to “anti-semintism,” when, and if you read what she said exactly, it wasn’t. Only to reconstruct the buildup made in her arc and settle on a nonsensical, manufactured, nostalgia-based slop fest to appeal to fans who lack genuine film taste in big 2026. To add insult to injury, this movie actively takes potshots at those predecessors, perhaps out of pettiness that Williamson didn’t pen them or a mean-spirited middle finger to the star the studio fired. Truly, fuck you. Take the Barrera aspect out of this, which is still impossible, and Scream 7 is a lazy, sloppy, ill-conceived, no-vision, enshittification of Scream and a bloody embarrassment to the franchise. It took a real, morally upright actress to make Ghostface’s knife go from metal to plastic. 

FINAL STATEMENT

You either die a Scream or live long enough to see yourself become a Stab.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie review: Ballet-themed erotic drama ‘Dreams’ dissipates in finale

Published

on

Movie review: Ballet-themed erotic drama ‘Dreams’ dissipates in finale

Mexican writer/director Michel Franco explores the dynamics of money, class and the border through the spiky, unsettling erotic drama “Dreams,” starring Jessica Chastain and Isaac Hernández, a Mexican ballet dancer and actor.

In the languidly paced “Dreams,” Franco presents two individuals in love (or lust?) who experiment with wielding the power at their fingertips against their lover, the violence either state or sexual in nature. The film examines the push-pull of attraction and rejection on a scope both intimate and global, finding the uneasy space where the two meet.

Chastain stars as Jennifer McCarthy, a wealthy San Francisco philanthropist and socialite who runs a foundation that supports a ballet school in Mexico City. But Franco does not center her experience, but that of Fernando (Hernández), whom we meet first, escaping from the back of a box truck filled with migrants crossing the U.S./Mexico border, abandoned in San Antonio on a 100-degree day.

His journey is one of extreme survival, but his destination is the lap of luxury, a modernist San Francisco mansion where he makes himself at home, and where he’s clearly been at home before. A talented ballet dancer who has already once been deported, he’s risked everything to be with his lover, Jennifer, though as a high-profile figure who works with her father and brother (Rupert Friend), she’d rather keep her affair with Fernando under wraps. He’s her dirty little secret, but he’s also a human being who refuses to be kept in the shadows.

As Jennifer and Fernando attempt to navigate what it looks like for them to be together, it seems that larger forces will shatter their connection. In reality, the only real danger is each other.

Advertisement

The storytelling logic of “Dreams” is predicated on watching these characters move through space, the way we watch dancers do. Franco offers some fascinating parallels to juxtapose the wildly varying experiences of Fernando and Jennifer — he enters the States in a box truck, almost dying of thirst and heat stroke; she arrives in Mexico on a private plane, but they both enter empty homes alone, melancholy. During a rift in their relationship, Fernando retreats to a motel while working at a bar, drinking red wine out of plastic cups with a friend in his humble room, ignoring Jennifer’s calls, while she eats alone in her darkened dining room, drinking red wine out of crystal.

These comparisons aren’t exactly nuanced, but they are stark, and for most of the film, Franco just asks us to watch them move together, and apart, in a strange, avoidant pas de deux. Often dwarfed by architecture, their distinctive bodies in space are more important than the sparse dialogue that only serves to fill in crucial gaps in storytelling.

Cinematographer Yves Cape captures it all in crisp, saturated images. The lack of musical score (beyond diegetic music in the ballet scenes) contributes to the dry, flat affect and tone, as these characters enact increasing cruelties — both emotional and physical — upon each other as a means of trying to contain their lover, until it escalates into something truly dark and disturbing.

Franco, frankly, loses the plot of “Dreams” in the third act. What is a rather staid drama about the weight of social expectations on a relationship becomes a dramatically unexpected game of vengeance as Jennifer and Fernando grasp at any power they have over the other. She fetishizes him and he returns the favor, violently.

Ultimately, Franco jettisons his characters for the sake of unearned plot twists that leave the viewer feeling only icky. These events aren’t illuminating, and feel instead like a bleak betrayal. The circumstances of the story might be “timely,” but “Dreams” doesn’t help us understand the situation better, leaving us in the dark about what we’re supposed to take away from this story of sex, violence, money and the state. Anything it suggests we already know.

Advertisement

‘Dreams’

(In English and Spanish with English subtitles)

1.5 stars (out of 4)

No MPA rating (some nudity, sex scenes, swearing, sexual violence)

Running time: 1:35

How to watch: In theaters Feb. 27

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending