Sinners (2025) – 7.5/10 – Fresh film blending symbolism and unlikely genres
Overall
SINNERS is an action drama with horror in a fresh and unique style. This was director-writer Ryan Coogler’s first movie based on an entirely original story, rather than a true story, prior material, or a story written by someone else. I wasn’t sure what to expect. My first thought was of a late-era Western, but it’s not a cowboy Western. There are historical contexts, themes, symbols, concepts, and origins that play into the story. Impressive considering it was Cooglar’s first chance in his own vision. Cooglar is a skilled director, and he flexes his mastery here. The mob history, the cultural elements, action, and character arcs to make things right are his strengths as a scriptwriter. But I don’t think horror is one of them. My rating is 7.5/10.
Plot (spoiler-free)
In 1932, the crime brothers, Smoke (Michael B. Jordan) and Stack (Michael B. Jordan as the twin), return to their hometown of Clarksdale, Mississippi after years of serving in the Chicago Mafia. With their stolen money, they decide to buy a sawmill and convert it into a club & bar business. They hire local friends and relatives to oversee different aspects of running the club, including a blues guitarist, suppliers, bouncers, a cook, and a singer. Each person has their symbolic stories that contribute to the plot. Things go awry when several evildoers enter the picture.
Technicals
SINNERS is impressive from a technical viewpoint, fusing multiple genres. The performances, cinematography, visuals, location, 1930s vibes, catchy music, and the camerawork are excellent. This was Michael B. Jordan’s career-best performance, and his personality fits the role perfectly. In a double role too as twins, which impressed me! Acting and chemistry are both solid with the cast. The first two-thirds of the movie drew me in and kept me wondering where it was headed. The era, the vibe, the atmosphere, the tension, the subtlety, and the nitty-gritty captured my interest. A few long shots, including a later one that showed multiple future generations of musicians (linked below), are especially memorable to me. Now for three flaws. First, SINNERS feels like two separate films fused two-thirds of the way through. The transition isn’t seamless, resulting in a sense of disjointedness. The story weakens somewhat during the final 45 minutes. Yes, the action, pacing, tension, and energy pick up, but I believe the horror falls apart. Instead of horror, that part of the story should have been drama. The symbolism, satire based on the Jim Crow era, undertones, and subtext make sense from a juxtaposition perspective. But it should have leaned less into satire and emphasized a more serious depiction of segregation. It makes me look at the script in the last third. Second, SINNERS waited too long to get to the story’s heart, and it rushes the ending. That leaves us wanting. The third (but smaller) issue for me was that the dialogue from several secondary characters appeared unconvincing.
Interesting facts
SINNERS was the second-highest-grossing horror film in the US after THE SIXTH SENSE (1999), and the highest-grossing original film in the US after SING (2016). This is only the second R-rated horror movie filmed with IMAX cameras after NOPE (2022). Cooglar said another inspiration for him was two episodes of THE TWILIGHT ZONE (1959), Salem’s Lot and The Last Rites of Jeff Myrtlebank. The Chinese American family’s depiction is grounded in historical research from an Asian-American journalist and documentary filmmaker whom Cooglar consulted. During segregation, these Chinese-Americans opened stores serving the Black community when the White-owned businesses wouldn’t. So, there’s a factual backdrop in everything.
Would I recommend this?
Yes, it’s worth watching once. There are inspirations and similarities to FROM DUSK TILL DAWN (1996), which goes in a similar direction. COWBOYS & ALIENS is another that combines two unlikely genres. SINNERS is a satisfactory flick, but with a couple of flaws. Vision and buildup are there. The technicals are awesome, and it’s fresh. Overall, the opening and first two-thirds are strong, but the final act loses its way. The brief post-horror sequence is solid, too. The horror part is where the three flaws lie. Rewriting the horror sequence as non-horror could have improved the movie.
*Obtained trivia facts from IMDb’s trivia page and plot/basic history/names information from Wiki
