Sinners (dir. Ryan Coogler)

Bring it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7joulECTx_U

So, yeah, this was fucking awesome and a half.

Going in a few hours

(I'll add: you can't miss the mid-credits scene and shouldn't, it's what really ends the film. There is a final separate beat after all the credits are done but it's more of a small but apt extra moment -- no bullshit sequel prompts.)

I'm psyched. Kind of intrigued by this aspect ratio/format stuff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Ru62uFM0s

Had some thoughts, but mostly about one specific scene.

I don't want to call this an ambitious failure, because across the board it is far too successful, but I do think it is a little more ambitious than it is successful. Still, I respect the big swing of a metaphor for the birth of rock and roll by way of "From Dusk 'Til Dawn." It's basically an instant cult film.

I know Coogler had final cut, but as I watched it in my head I imagined a different scenario where a more conventional studio-approved version of this film was released, did fine but mostly disappointed, and then later Coogler released a director's cut, and that stranger, shaggier version is the one in theaters now. Everybody would be praising all the extra scenes and character beats, the backstories, calling it a flawed masterpiece, etc..

I wasn't going to watch this because I've seen the trailer multiple times in theaters and it just didn't grab me, but now I can't watch it because I've been seeing so much praise for it online that I feel pretty sure I've been set up to be disappointed, the same way It Follows was semi-ruined for me by months of festival hype overpromising on its greatness. I guess I just left the train of keeping up with the new horror hotness, which honestly feels like a bit of relief after my experience with Nosferatu in December/January, where I took the trouble of watching it twice in theaters because the first time through it was such a bomb with me that I even fell asleep during part of it. I'm looking forward to the new Final Destination and M3GAN movies; those don't have the weight of expectation on them. Glad people are enjoying Sinners though.

I wasn't going to watch this because I've seen the trailer multiple times in theaters and it just didn't grab me, but now I can't watch it because I've been seeing so much praise for it online that I feel pretty sure I've been set up to be disappointed,

Live a little!

I dont think it lives up to the hype but I enjoyed it for the most part

lol just go see it, it is a blast in the theater, the mixing and sound design blew my mind

There were moments in this that were not like anything I had ever seen before, and then there were long stretches so familiar I was bored. Like I said, big swings, and worth it for sure when it connects.

Oh, Alfred, I dunno... The problem is I used to do walkouts when I felt like it since I primarily go to movies by myself, but I haven't since I started using Letterboxd nine years ago, after I accidentally sat through all of Eyes of My Mother with my brother, because it turned out we both wanted to bolt after about ten minutes in, but we were each being polite thinking the other one wanted to stay. I decided if I could sit through something I disliked that much, I could stay until the end of any movie and ought to unless it were somehow *worse* than my experience with Eyes of My Mother. I've had a couple close calls, but I've stuck to my resolution. I'm not anticipating Sinners to be bad, just to finding it somewhat mid and my attention slipping, which is a situation where I would just turn it off at home. *sigh* Fine, I'll go see it on Wednesday afternoon and report back then.

force yourself to sit through Carpenter's Vampires as a baseline first

i recommend suspending expectations before experiencing things

I’m so obsessed w Bill Simmons talking at length about how much he loved Sinners & Michael B. Jordan’s performance in it, only to be brutally rebuffed by Ryen Russillo thinking he’s talking about Michael Jordan. pic.twitter.com/LZe7CkAkyT

— jess (@jessstr8) April 21, 2025

So this was...something: a vampire movie about the blues. As usual it needed a trim, and some of Coogler's cross-cutting was clumsy, as if for condensing purposes instead of to create meaning between two disparate scenes.

Michael B. Jordan really is a star, huh? His most exciting performance.

Leaning into it, too! When they were introduced swapping that cigarette I all but cheered at the gimmick.

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:s4pz6gybij22owdbbmwbjf3i/bafkreie6ut7km2577ky3lwyk5bhmgvusw6s5ef77yis7avsinpq6zydevm@jpeg

I dont think it lives up to the hype but I enjoyed it for the most part

― Saxophone Of Futility (Michael B), Monday, April 21, 2025 3:24 AM (three days ago) bookmarkflaglink

basically how I felt. solid vampire movie, good performances throughout, but felt a bit incoherent to me. kind of on the fence about the MBJ dual role…I’m not really a fan of this technique

I'm not either but the role(s) exploited all his talents: for gab, moving in character, sex appeal.

I accept the incoherence because a couple of sequences are just bravura filmmaking.

Keep on Cooglin’

Yeah, I've seen John Carpenter's Vampires... Woof. Anyway, I lived a little, and while I'm happy to have seen it in a theater, I was just maybe a little more whelmed than I thought I would be from watching the trailer. I was kind of sleepy and the first forty-five minutes before the film gets to the juke joint and things start rolling had me dozing a little. There weren't that many people in the theater with me on a Wednesday afternoon, but still a stranger who had also come to the theater alone came out afterwards and raved about it to me. I didn't feel badly about not liking it as much as most people on the internet seem to, so in the end I was worried about nothing, I guess. What's the next big prestige horror movie that's going to come out this year? I've already seen The Shrouds, and I thought it was excellent; a very rewarding watch as someone who's seen every David Cronenberg film (even Fast Company).

Next prestige horror as such: probably Bring Her Back, out in a month.

Lol this movie whips ass

seeing this tomorrow morning - i am excite!

a ride, really good

Buddy’s loving it (spoilers and all):

https://variety.com/2025/music/news/buddy-guy-sinners-film-role-bluesman-interview-1236378816/

When the title card "October 16, 1992, Chicago" appeared on screen, I thought "Hmmm, I wonder when Candyman was released." Very happy to discover it was indeed that date.

pvmic

the more I sit with this movie the warmer I feel toward it. I still have misgivings about the ending(s) which seem a bit slapdash

felt like there were maybe too many ideas that didn't entirely cohere for me, but I am enjoying chewing on all of it. seems like the kind of movie that would reward a second viewing.

Jimmy the Mod otm upthread was otm

this
movie
whips
ass

The effortless ease of the first 40 minutes, introducing characters & establishing without any of the attending boredom of “ok but where are the VAMPS” … and then the vampire stuff comes in with all that extra great detail of Irish folk music … and the conflict is so intense because you already got to care about all these folks

Dude is always so good about making you CARE, telling a character’s story by letting them be actual people and not just archetypes

And then all the religion/Hoodoo/spirituality stuff in the mix, and the GORGEOUSNESS of the cinematography

loved loved loved

and the gorgeousness of Michael B. Jordan.

Handsome young man

A popular former ILXOR thinks MBJ was playing one of the brothers hotter than the other and as we were watching the movie with this in mind we gave up trying to figure out which one more or less instantly.

The more serious brother is the hottie.

Hunter Harris was an ilxor?
https://hunterharris.substack.com/p/michael-b-jordan-plays-one-twin-hotter

They’re both hot af but maybe Stack a ~tiny but hotter~ because of the 40-watt smile idk

Lotta stories going around -- rightly -- about how where, like, nearly every movie in general, especially but not simply every horror movie, normally has a notable large double-digit drop-off in its second weekend box office and the drop here was 6% -- that's RIDICULOUS. This thing's going to be an actual and well-deserved slow burn blockbuster.

I believe the last movie that opened above $40 million and had a second-weekend drop this small was the first Avatar.

Never would have guessed!

hell yes

I only make it to the theater a few times a year, but this was the first time that I've had to buy tickets a day in advance because all the showings on the day I actually wanted to attend were sold out.

I had a fucking blast though. The only thing I would kinda dock points on was

The transition from the vampires toying with them outside the door to "come on in motherfuckers!" (or whatever it was that Grace said) seemed a little abrupt. I felt like we could have used another 5 minutes letting the tension build inside the Juke.

xpost gotta keep it in the Bay Area!

xpost I also didn't quite get why Mary, freshly minted immortal vampire (whose reveal was spoiled for me in the trailer or a still or something) was *already* in the juke, then inexplicably races out with the warning "we are going to kill you all!", then we get several minutes of them trying to trick their way back in (even though she was already in and left). Maybe it was her own vampire inexperience, lol. Though later when they open the barn door I could have sworn all the vampires just rush in anyway. That's partly why I found the rote vampire lore stuff the most stilted sequences in here and also when I was the most bored, but like I said, there are too many otherwise great and memorable moments it more than makes up for it.

They all rushed in because Grace loses it and loudly invites them all in

she runs out because an individual vampire isn't be going to be able to do much against the non-vampires once they know that she's a vampire.

loved this movie, so fun and adventurous and lush

my one problem with is was that for a movie that was so centered on music and was produced by the director's longtime collaborative composer, the non-diagetic score was pretty bad. there was too much of it, it felt omnipresent, and then when it gets bombastic at the end it's so cheezy with big BRAAAWWW electric guitars

oh i loved that. i think i loved the score more than anything else about this movie (which was really good, so fun)

yeah same

the sound was a bit muddy in the theater i went to so maybe that colored my feelings about the score. i'll definitely watch it again once it's streaming.

I thought the big power chords leaned into the pulp, which I appreciated. Also sounded a bit like a nod to Tangerine Dream's "Near Dark" score. Stuff like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8prhbozKXH0

my one problem with is was that for a movie that was so centered on music and was produced by the director's longtime collaborative composer, the non-diagetic score was pretty bad. there was too much of it, it felt omnipresent, and then when it gets bombastic at the end it's so cheezy with big BRAAAWWW electric guitars

I don't like it either, but I also think overscoring has become way too common with big studio films in general. But it's wonderful seeing Raphael Saadiq's contribution to the film - he's always been great, but I don't feel like his newer work has gotten the widespread attention it deserved until now - and Buddy Guy making a memorable appearance, though he stole the show in Shine a Light (a concert film that probably has little appeal to anyone who isn't already a massive Stones fan).

the drummer for the metal parts of the score was LARS ULRICH????!?!??!?! ok this movie is a classic for that alone

lol might be the first and last time Lars was ever called in as a session drummer.

saw this in full 70mm at village east and was pretty blown away. there are things to nitpick i'm sure but i appreciate what a massive swing this was. mbj was great, obv, but delroy lindo continues to be one of our finest character actors. also struck by how much the cornbread actor resembles a young forest whitaker

yeah he really does!

Saw this a couple of weeks back and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Want to see it again.

Decent piece on the deal Coogler signed (and the bullshit Vulture article it, uh, inspired): https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/03/opinion/sinners-ryan-coogler-devil-contract.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20250503121858/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/03/opinion/sinners-ryan-coogler-devil-contract.html

Really enjoyed this thread:

https://bsky.app/profile/clarkishakent.bsky.social/post/3loa2l7kufk2c

It's great that he made that deal - I always wondered if it was possible given that it's done quite a bit in the music industry, and given how many movies end up neglected by the studios in the long run, it seemed feasible studios would be open to the idea.

I'd always heard Woody Allen and Jim Jarmusch named as directors that own their masters, I wonder what other notable filmmakers own their movies outright?

xpost That was good, but nothing about the birth of rock and roll as we know it largely being the collision of Scots-Irish-English mountain music (actual white vampires, in this case) and appropriated/imitated/exploited black blues?

Nobody's perfect.

I believe Tarantino has a very similar ownership deal for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I think he owns the rights to the characters but not the movie itself?

Though maybe you are right, maybe everything reverts to him at some point.

I'm sure there are some financial details that I'm not aware of. But from what I remember Coogler gets the rights back after 25 years and Tarantino gets them back after 30.

https://slate.com/culture/2025/04/sinners-movie-michael-b-jordan-ryan-coogler-post-credits-scene-race.html

good essay

xps in those cases, they’re independently financed outside of the studio system (though some of Allen’s films were financed by Miramax so they might have owned those). It’s usually how a filmmaker owns their films if they do, in which case they license it out to a film distributor (often times a studio).

I enjoyed this yesterday, though it needed tighter editing. Also agree with some of the music assessments above. Really loved the performances and dance sequences, but the music bed in the final act felt distracting and tonally inconsistent.

Still doing the business: https://www.thewrap.com/sinners-200-million-domestic-box-office/

On Saturday, Warner Bros.’ “Sinners” reached a box office milestone that no original film has achieved in eight years: $200 million in the U.S. and Canada.

Driven by critical and audience acclaim that has made it a must-see for millions of Americans, Ryan Coogler’s musical vampire horror hit is the highest domestic grossing original movie since the Pixar movie “Coco,” which grossed $210 million during its Thanksgiving run in 2017.

---

As for the rest of its box office run, “Sinners” is on pace to gross at least $275 million domestic. That would be enough to make it the highest grossing live-action original film before inflation adjustment since Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” in 2013.

Beyond that, passing $292 million domestic would put it above Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” to become the highest grossing original film of the past 15 years, and crossing $300 million would make it the first original film to do so since the highest grossing film of all time, “Avatar.”

i saw this w my oldest son last week. pretty spicy! we liked it. some notes:

- Hailee Steinfeld's accent was terrible
- Michael B Jordan's was basically fine but still a little distracting
- The main redneck vampire accent veered between hillbilly and Irish, which i guess was intentional?
- At one point the redneck says his own father had his land taken from him or something? I didn't quite get that? I guess he was trying to somehow make common cause to entice them to the dark side?
- How has Delroy Lindo remained the same age for 30 years??!!? I think we should be told
- Surely Dobro resonators are not silver??
- Wunmi Mosaku was just FANTASTIC. my favourite performance easy.

overall what a blast and I loved how hard it leaned into being a straight up vampire movie

Honestly, just seeing Delroy Lindo at all was more shocking than how he's (not) aged. Like, what has that dude been up to, especially on the big screen? Just casting him in this at all was an inspired choice.

This is in the IMDB trivia:

Remmick mentions how Christians "took his father's land". Given that he's Irish, this would mean he was alive before the island was fully converted to Christianity, putting his mortal life somewhere between the 5th and 7th centuries, making him at least 1300 years old.

...and then dies because he fucked with the wrong brotha!

lol so we finally went to see this today and we really liked it and we got maybe 20 minutes from the end and the lights went out in the movie theatre. It's a mall theatre, and somehow the power to the entire mall got blown out. Emergency lights came on quickly, but there was no way to restart the movie. They had us wait for about 20 minutes to see if it would come back, then they evacuated us and gave us vouchers for tickets to another screening. Funniest thing was that we were in one of the CineBarre theaters with the reclining seats, and recliners wouldn't go down. So whole theaters full of people had to extricate ourselves from the stuck recliners.

But I do want to actually see the end of the movie.

highest domestic grossing original movie since the Pixar movie “Coco,” which grossed $210 million during its Thanksgiving run in 2017

I keep seeing this and find it interesting that "original" excludes Bohemian Rhapsody, which earned $216 million in 2018-19. Obviously, Freddie Mercury and Queen were real people, but the movie was not based on a book or an existing narrative work. It was eligible (though not ultimately nominated) for best original screenplay at the Oscars. I get why one would want to discount it to make a point about the last $200m-grossing movie with an *entirely original story and characters*, but I wouldn't necessarily have assumed that that's what "original" meant.

especially on the big screen

I feel this is specifically more Sarandos’ fault than Spike’s or Jeymes Samuels’.

Our 2nd viewing was more successful — finally saw the last half-hour. Our belated verdict was that it's pretty great! It has flaws, as variously discussed above, many imo the side effect of trying to do so many things simultaneously. But it works may more often than it doesn't. I loved the first hour or so, the long set-up and establishment of the place and characters and their histories. The 2nd hour-plus, where it turns more properly vampire-horror, was generally handled well imo. It wasn't really ever frightening, but it was plenty exciting. Anyway, it's the best pulp history of Black music, white supremacy and American capitalism we're likely to get on the big screen.

Also the Coogler-Jordan combo at this point has to go in the pantheon of great director-actor teams.

That Bluesky thread linked above is very good and has a good note: the movie could have been longer.

For the amount of stuff that he’s trying to cram into it, a little more time would have helped. I like how fast it moves once it gets going, but some turns do feel abrupt.

Really, I feel like I need to see it again. It was more fun than I was expecting, I thought it was going to be much darker. I genuinely didn’t know what was going to happen and that was exciting. Part of me wanted an army of black vampires to tear through a klan meeting. Like the ending of the Witch where she joins the coven.

Yeah I did fantasize about the Klan attacking in the middle of it all and being devoured. But I thought the way it actually dealt with the Klan was more effective and viscerally satisfying.

I keep seeing this and find it interesting that "original" excludes Bohemian Rhapsody, which earned $216 million in 2018-19. Obviously, Freddie Mercury and Queen were real people, but the movie was not based on a book or an existing narrative work. It was eligible (though not ultimately nominated) for best original screenplay at the Oscars. I get why one would want to discount it to make a point about the last $200m-grossing movie with an *entirely original story and characters*, but I wouldn't necessarily have assumed that that's what "original" meant.

Apparently, in movie terms, "original" also means it can't be based on a real life story or person.

Loved this but watching did make me sad that we didn't get a second season of Lovecraft Country

Funny you should mention this: Just the other day I saw a post claiming that Sinners is now the highest-grossing original film since Inception: https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/6/10/sinners-is-the-highest-grossing-original-film-since-2010

The list published there ("original" films that have made at least $151M domestic since 2010) also excludes Bohemian Rhapsody -- but it does include Dunkirk. I guess the difference is that the main characters in Dunkirk are fictional, even though the event is real?

finally watched this last night (at home), and this is more or less how I felt:

I dont think it lives up to the hype but I enjoyed it for the most part

however, I think if I'd seen it in a theater I would have been more enthusiastic as it probably works best in that environment (I meant to, but I was sick almost the entire theatrical run).

Just saw it again, and weirdly it was better than the first time and yet I still had the same (modest) issues with it. Either way, I can imagine this movie getting rediscovered down the road by subsequent film nerds. It has a lot going on, and without a doubt it's well made as hell.

Very badass movie. I was surprised by the anti-religion angle. Would love to read something about that played to a black audience