Sin (2003) User Reviews (25)

No thumbs up for this one...

[Boba_Fett1138 · 5/10 · 5 January 2005]

I watched this movie for two reasons; The amazing Gary Oldman and for the music by Michael Giacchino of whom I'm a fan ever since his "Medal of Honor" scores. The movie was not completely a waste of time but it also was far from good.

Man to blame is I think director Michael Stevens, you can tell by looking at this movie that he is just too unexperienced. There are some well executed sequences but there are way more scene's that are just poorly done also due to some weird and dumb camera positions and some poor editing. Michael Stevens tries to impress the viewer with some shots of nature, it only works distracting and doesn't do much good to the pace. Maybe he should consider a career as documentary maker?

The story is also quite a problem. It takes a while before you understand what the movie is all about. Once you pick up the story the movie is actually not bad, it's just that it has been done about a hundred times before.

Ving Rhames tries but he just ain't no good leading actor, I liked his costume but that's about all the positive I can say. Gary Oldman is in his element as psychopathic villain. He played a lot of roles like this before but in his case you just never get tired of it. Brian Cox is also excellent in a small supporting role. And keep an eye on Arie Verveen, I expect great things for him in the future.

If you can ignore the bad dialog, story, plot-holes and directing you'll see that there is some good in this movie and that it is a watchable one that is fairly entertaining as an action movie but not a must see in any way.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Signs of life, mired in some mediocrity

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 6/10 · 11 July 2016]

Sin is known as the B movie that Gary Oldman did, and he himself has bad mouthed it on occasion. Back then though, this was the only kind of movie like that he had to explain away. These days he has quite a few more of this type in his filmography, so he can't really talk. It really isn't the best movie, and functions as well as its limited budget and mediocre script will allow, but I must say there are a few moments, ones with stars Oldman and Rhames, that are just killer, and one in fact that borders on greatness. Rhames plays Eddie Burns, an ex cop or military man who lives estranged in the country, until the organized gang rape of his sister (Kerry Washington) coaxes him back into Reno Nevada. This heinous crime (a scene which borders on exploitation, to be honest) is orchestrated by Charlie Strom (Oldman), a nasty pornographer and drug kingpin who has a decades old bone to pick with Eddie. The film has some lonely atmospherics to it, the eventual confrontation between the two playing out in a poetic, if contrived fashion. For all the two bit moments in the script (and there are a lot), there's one showstopper of a scene between Rhames and Oldman, that is reminiscent of Michael Mann's Heat, and is quietly but surely affecting in its sadness. Brian Cox blusters through as Eddie's former police boss, Bill Sage hangs out for a bit as a detective, and the one, the only Gregg Henry appears as a sleazy informant who feeds Rhames Intel. He also gets the best line of the film, exclaiming "I haven't even had my morning fattie" after being rudely awakened Rhames. Watch for Alicia Coppola, Daniel Dae Kim and Arie Verveen as well. There's some genuine ambition in the script, delving into the complex moral conundrum that exists between protagonist and antagonist, and how the two archetypes aren't always so clear cut. Conscience and lack thereof is explored as well, with surprising results. I won't lie and say it isn't just a trashy b movie, but I won't pretend there wasn't some moments and aspects which I greatly enjoyed. It's somewhere right in the middle.

Your average revenge story

[Anonymous_Maxine · 4/10 · 10 December 2004]

Sin takes an average revenge story, adds in rape and pornographers, and ultimately turns into an average revenge story. At the very least, the plot thickens near the end of the movie when we realize that the bad guy (who is a really bad guy and the movie absolutely will leave no questions about that) turns out to have a reason for his actions throughout the movie beyond just being a really bad guy. It is odd, however, that a movie can take such talented actors as Ving Rhames and, especially, Gary Oldman and turn their performances into run-of-the-mill action clichés.

Rhames utters the phrase 'she's my sister' so many times in the movie that by the end the movie has turned the phrase into a cliché all by itself. You messin' with my family you messin' with me, and so forth. I think that most of the reason that so many people hated this movie was because it raises your expectations because of the people involved but did nothing new within its genre. It's a standard revenge movie with standard plot points and turns and even the standard plot thickening in the third act.

Where the movie does not wallow in clichés, however, is in some of the characterizations. No one is as good or bad as they initially seem to be in this movie. The evil was heaped onto Charlie Strom, Gary Oldman's character, so heavily in the first half of the movie that it's difficult for him to escape from underneath the mountain of badness that he is under even when we see the reasons for his actions, but the good guys in particular, are not as good as they seem. Eddie Burns (Ving Rhames) lost the use of his left arm in the line of duty, but also played a role in the death of an innocent man that could really amount to murder. Bella, played by Alicia Coppola, is someone that we want to root for but may hesitate because of the, ah, sinful nature of her occupation.

There is, however, a lot of forgiveness in the movie, and I respect that. At one point, Eddie discusses some of the finer points in life with Strom over cups of coffee, despite their mutual desires to kill one another. Later in the movie, Eddie is attempting to save Strom from a pool of quicksand in the middle of the Nevada desert. I didn't know there was quicksand in the middle of the Nevada desert, but no matter. The movie's not about where there is quicksand or how fast you can get from large freeways in the middle of Las Vegas to open desert without even any discernible roads, the movie's about you messin' with my family you messin' with me. And who better than Ving Rhames to return the messy favor?

Rhames could take these people out with an arm tied behind his back.

Hopefully Gary Oldman's last stinker

[TheWrench · 14 June 2004]

I saw this movie only because Gary Oldman was in it. And once again he was great. Too bad he wasn't in the movie as much as he needed to be. The story is an Ex-Cop is looking for his sister who has entered a life of Sin, hence the title of the movie. The title is the basic theme, every character has done something bad that they either regret or embrace. While the cast wasn't bad, it was most likely just the story and the editing. I have to say this movie had some of the worst editing I have ever seen in a movie. It's almost like they spent all their money on the cast, the film, and the sets. And they couldn't afford much for music and editing. Gary Oldman is still great, but because this movie was so boring, I have to say this is his worst movie. Yes, even worse than Nobody's Baby. If you're a Gary Oldman fan, then you may have to see it. But other than that, it's not even worth renting.

I watched it anyway

[krobyn · 3/10 · 19 December 2003]

There were way too many holes in the plot to make this movie worth watching for everyone that likes the actors or genre. The only reason I watched the entire movie was because, as a woman, seeing the massive revenge against rapists was very satisfying. One of those rare moments in which the woman isn't continually re-victimized. I thought Oldman's performance was a little more natural than that of Rhames, but his was still decent. I can't say all women would gain anything by seeing rapists tortured. It's dicey. I gave it a 3 out of 10. My feeling is that veterans such as Rhames and Oldman should have seen all of the mistakes in dialog and plot consistency and maybe passed on it altogether. If you're up and bored in the middle of the night while it's on a movie channel, you might as well watch it.

The Only "Sin" About This Movie Is That The Investors Committed Suicide

[CAMiller · 1/10 · 30 May 2012]

I have to hand it to Gary Oldman for toughing it out to finish this movie; because, I could see it in his eyes, he hated working this film. I, too, hated this flick. The torture and abuse on the screen, while disingenuously hidden from the viewer — we only actually see Ving Rhames' reaction to a video of his sister's brutal sodomy-rape by two Chinese guys, and there's some kind of contrived flashback of Gary Oldman's retarded kid brother taking the rap as a cop- killer — pales in comparison to the EDITORIAL TORTURE heaped upon the audience.

Seriously, this movie tries your patience. Whoever was cutting this film lingered too long on mundane scenes and then ZIPPED to improbable action scenes, until I was blurting, "Oh, come ON!" every few seconds. Let's just disregard the horrible costumes and hairstyles and deliberately bad dialogue — I mean, it MUST BE deliberate, right, it must be a premeditatedly bad script — and tell me WHERE Ving Rhames is supposed to be exacting vengeance on Gary Oldman?

Tell me.

Ving has Gary point-blank in his sights in the evil headquarters, right, then BOOM there's a scuffle and BOOM there's a night-time car chase in the city and BOOM now they're out of the city and it's daylight in the desert and BOOM suddenly Gary Oldman's car is sinking in quicksand.

Hey, all of that transpires in less than two minutes, okay?

Oh, yeah, I get it, I get the poetic justice of death by quicksand over a bullet in the — NO, I DON'T GET IT!!! I don't understand why or how this ending was slopped together. It's like the film editor was doing jello-shots.

I can hear the ENTIRE AUDIENCE moaning, their trust and credulity exhausted. Mercifully, Ving decides to shoot Gary Oldman's head sticking up out of the quicksand, but only AFTER insisting that Gary recite "Death Be Not Proud," okay?

Is that enough abuse? Not abuse of the actors on screen — God knows Ving and Gary were probably drinking themselves to sleep every night during production — but I mean abuse heaped upon the audience, cringing in their seats. If this hasn't been nominated as one of the WORST movies of all time, it should be.

Do not waste your life watching this dreadful film

[casey_andy · 1/10 · 10 August 2004]

This was worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. It was painful to watch, the only thing that kept me watching this dreadful film was that it was so bad I felt I had a responsibility to warn the rest of the world not to waste a couple of hours of their lives watching it.

There was no plot to speak of and any hints of a plot were so obvious that you work them out at least half an hour in advance. Every word in this film is a part of a line or a speech, there is no 'normal everyday talking' the script is rubbish! The direction was confusing in its absence and the editing seems to have been done ten minutes before the premier.

Do not be fooled by the cast as they were also somehow fooled by the script.

Worthy of the IMDb bottom 100, and in my opinion should be #1.

Rhames and Oldman in Duel

[lavatch · 2/10 · 7 November 2003]

Much of the film content of "Sin" is excessively violent and unpleasant. The screenwriters have also shamelessly recycled one of the classic screen thriller moments from the hall of mirrors scene in "The Lady From Shanghai." And was it not possible to come up with a more imaginative title than "Sin"? Yet there is one compelling reason to see this movie, and that is for the performances of Ving Rhames and Gary Oldman.

In the same way that the film "Heat" established a dynamic duel between Al Pacino's detective and Robert DeNiro's thief, the most interesting scenes in "Sin" are those that bring together the ex-cop (Rhames) and the sleazy drug lord (Oldman). The plot concerns the maniacal acts perpetrated by Oldman's character, who is pursued by Rhames' character, the former cop who lost part of his arm and all of his idealism after a shady police arrest and illegal interrogation of an alleged cop-killer.

There is one riveting moment when in the middle of an action scene, the characters discourse on the topic of conscience. In this conversation, our perception of both Rhames' and Oldman's characters change when we realize that one of the characters is totally without conscience and the other has been driven by the human emotion of guilt. But this moment remains buried among predictable and even cliched action scenes piled one on top of another.

If the film could have just focused on the internal development of the two principal characters, eliminating the violent action sequences, it would have been more watchable and more memorable. There is something special about these two exceptional actors, however, that enables Rhames and Oldman to rise above the material.

Utter nonsense!

[Poluprostor · 1/10 · 20 March 2005]

Have you ever seen authentic Hollywood drivel? Well, this is it!

The story is infantile, characters performed by the actors all have an IQ of zero, and the producers must've been drunk when they made this. I would've understood this kind of garbage being made a decade ago, but in 2003!? And by Gary Oldman?

Despite the comments that you can read on amazon.com (probably done by patriotic American boobs), this is one is a complete waste of time. It's unimaginable that this kind of stories still hold a grip over the public. Half the movie is a bunch of cliché sentences and the other half is a meager attempt to portrait cops as heroes. I mean, how many times have they done it before?

_Anything_ is better than this.

An insult to any man's intelligence.

It is a Sin using actors like this in this movie

[stormruston · 6/10 · 6 September 2004]

Gary olman is a great actor...most of the time.and in spite of this movie he is still good.

So was Ving Rhames..but his lines are even worse.

This is not a bad movie,but with the caliber of actors in it I expected so much more.It almost delivered...but kept stumbling..some of the dialog is very clumsy and awkward.Continuity did not seem to be a concern here either.

This is basically a spaghetti western cop movie,starts pretty good and grabs you...then lets you go...what a shame.

Still it is worth renting if you like this style of movie.

its so bad you need to watch it

[sirfire · 2/10 · 14 March 2010]

Quote "What's wrong with you? You seemed to have swallowed a large poisonous insect?"

Quote 2 "I've been drugged, kidnapped and driven through the desert in the trunk of a "beeping" rental car and forced to watch you blow two men apart. The last part I am willing to forgive. But I will not have you call me baby!"

Can anyone believe that this was made in 2003??? The script is just too stupid to believe Gary Oldman and Ving Rhames said yes without a gun to their heads.

Direction issues.. Sister has overdosed and magically this women who only knew she was in trouble turns to the graveyard to help save her?

Bill Sage looks more like a porn star than a police officer and the porn star in the early scene looked more like the town drunk than a porn star.

Then hero Ving Rhames catches one of the men who raped his sister and beats him up then the police sirens are in the background suggesting they are coming. The bad guy says "diplomatic immunity" and instead of running away the hero shoots him dead. It is worth watching cause frankly it's impossible to believe they allowed it to be released. The writers are probably working for CSI series now!

Another crime movie, but still allright

[info-astute · 10/10 · 24 December 2003]

This movie is another crime movie, about the police, betrayal and sex. And of course some cockfights between the ego's of the criminals. Acting is allright, story is good. The only bad thing of this movie is that it isn't any special. Don't go see it in the cinema but rent it, or maybe buy it in the budget section.

Two great actors , one average movie.

[CharltonBoy · 6/10 · 8 April 2004]

Considering the caliber of both the main actors it is difficult to understand why they both decided to take this project on. The story is neither new or gripping and if you have seen Gary Oldman before playing a bad guy ( Does he play any other character?!)then this will be nothing new to you.He is rapidly being typecast . Ving Rhames comes out of this better because at least his character has some substance. If you are expecting a classic i'm afraid you are going to be dissapointed. For Ving and Gary fans only. 6 out of 10.

It Could've Been Better

[tarbosh22000 · 4/10 · 5 February 2004]

"Sin" is a uneven but entertaining revenge film. The plot: Ex-Cop Eddie Burns (Rhames) wants revenge for the rape of his sister. He encounters all sorts of seedy types when he realizes his old nemesis Charlie Strom (Oldman) was in on it. A cat and mouse game begins, and secrets are revealed, who will escape?

There is one great scene with Gary Oldman and Ving Rhames where they talk about the nature of life and conscience. That scene is almost worth the price of the rental. Besides that scene, the whole movie is piled with clichés and underwritten characters. The movie wastes Gregg Henry and Brian Cox. The chase scene near the end looks like a car commercial. I give a a ** star rating

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

Proof that films do still go straight to video because they're rubbish

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 12 April 2004]

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Retired detective Eddie Burns (Ving Rhames) is called back in to action when his young sister Kassie (Kerry Washington) is abducted by a sinister criminal named Charlie Strom (Gary Oldman).She's found fairly swiftly though,returned in one piece despite having been subjected to an horrific rape ordeal.As Burns sets out to seek justice for his sister,it emerges Strom is as eager to set up a meeting with Burns as he is with him,as he has some business of his own with the detective,in the shape of an unsettled score.

As I watched this dismal feature plod on,I was woken up to a fact I've chosen to overlook for a while now:Rhames really ain't that great an actor.In some of his other,more bearable features (in which he co-stars) his problems with delivery and tone are something I don't tend to notice,but when he's carrying the film,he ends up coming out in his true colours.As for Oldman,it's really a case of how the mighty have fallen,his once commanding presence in films of real vitality and inspiration now reduced to corny,hackneyed psycho turns such as his co starring role here.The plot is an uneven,patchy mess that dabbles in overtures of the ridiculous that by the time the laughably silly,clumsily self conscious ending has rolled by,have (ahem!) swallowed the film whole.*

We Want Our Money Back!!!

[jelmosworld · 1/10 · 15 January 2006]

That was the worst movie we have ever seen. And we want our damn money back. My mother says if we got it on bootleg, which we don't get bootlegs, we would've beat up the bootleg man. We excuse Ving Rhames for such a terrible performance because we understand times are hard and he just needed a little extra money. The costumes were horrible, the music was horrible, and the writing was beyond horrible!!!The movie was so bad it was comical. Don't waste your money!!! Don't suffer like we did. The movie was low budget and very apparently so. In the part where Ving Rhames lost his hand you could see his actual hand in the cloth. The movie is almost like Nepolean Dynamite according to my sister, because of the long pointless pauses. You spend half of the movie looking at people look at each other and listen to bad music without any action, at all! So again don't rent it, buy it, or even watch somebody else's movie, its that bad!!!

B Grade Stuff...

[underfire35 · 4/10 · 8 March 2004]

Now keep in mind, the only reason I undertook to see this film was because Gary Oldman was on the cover. If it had been anyone else (Richard Grieco, Michael Pare, Brian "The Boz" Bosworth, for example), I would not have even picked up the box. SIN looked liked a B-grade thriller, but Gary Oldman...The truth is is that SIN has a decent ambition, but very little ability to back it up. The film contains both an anti-hero and an anti-villain, creating an interesting ambiguity, but it simply throws it away.

A retired cop (Ving Rhames), and his kid sister, are threatened by a shadowy vindictive drug/porn/gun dealer played by Gary Oldman. There is a graphic rape scene I wouldn't go into, and other lurid happenings that lead these two characters into a final showdown, which could have been interesting, but is instead a car chase. Rhames' former chief (Brian Cox) shows up randomly to offer sage advice, all to the backdrop of Michael Giacchino's derivative score (although it is good to see him breakout from the video game scene). So is this film worth seeing? Ving Rhames tries his best, but is better suited for films like PULP FICTION, he does not emote as a crippled retired cop with a haunted past. Kerry Washington, as the sister, has talent, but is given poorly written scenes that even seasoned veterans would have trouble with. However, Gary Oldman is quite good...

Oldman is by far one of the best actors working today, and one must assume that, like the rest of us, he has mortgage. He still plays one-dimensional bad guys better than anyone (LEON, LOST IN SPACE, TRUE ROMANCE), and in SIN he does try. (Watch him work in a powerful showdown in a mirrored bedroom, or his oration on conscience.) Perhaps he read the script and thought there was potential, which there is, but the director, Michael Stevens, decides to play the movie slick, wasting time and talent. I just hope this does not signal a trend to Oldman's career. There has been a couple of Oldman straight-to-video releases of late (NOBODY'S BABY, INTERSTATE 60, TIPTOES) after a steady string of high-profile films during the 90's. If he keeps making films like this he could end up like Brian Cox, a good actor who shows up as a police official or someone's crazy dad in below average productions like SIN. That would be a shame.

SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will give SIN credit, I have not seen a movie that ends with the villain being engulfed into quicksand in years. As improbable as that sounds, the quicksand scene isn't that bad, thanks mostly due to Oldman's pride during this surreal finale. 4/10.

Sin sucks!

[=G= · 4/10 · 10 November 2003]

I've been watching this stupid movie for an hour and boy does it suck! Rhames just saved a woman from a fate worse than death and she had a hissy because he called her "baby". That's just an example of one in a long string of stupid moments in this unninspired, unoriginal amateurish junk flick. If it gets better, I'll let you know before posting this comment. Otherwise, just pass on "Sin". (C-)

Awful

[lgranholm · 2/10 · 18 November 2021]

This was so disappointing to watch with the star presence of Ving Rhames, Brian Cox, Gary Oldman, Daniel Dae Kim... Ving wears the same clothes over what is to be several days, Gary Oldman plays some snuff film pimp or was he some low level mob wannabe.

Movie wasn't fluid at all, plenty of violence though.

Well done , not great with a hint of Oldboy .

[shadowman123 · 6/10 · 7 November 2005]

Sin is one of those films that can promises a lot with a cast like Gary Oldman and Ving Rhames squaring off but sadly the film never really goes as deep as I felt it could . At the end of the day it is a basic revenge film which kind of incorporates an Oldboy style formula in it but that really does not seem to pick off so much . On the whole I was not entirely disappointed with this film as it did keep entertained through its course , Oldman stays on top with his fine form and Rhames also does good but could be better . If modern day spaghetti western flicks are your thing then check it out otherwise nothing new here which makes this film essential viewing but worth a rent or check it out if its on TV .

Wasted talents of Oldman, Rymes and Washington

[jordondave-28085 · 1/10 · 12 May 2023]

(2003) Sin THRILLER/ DRAMA

Straight to rental and a waste of great acting talent starring Ving Rymes as ex-cop, Eddie Burns with a busted left arm. He also happens to have a sister Kassie (Kerry Washington) who acts like a dope sniffing prostitute. Upon Eddie trying to convince his sister to come back home, she's then gets intercepted by Charlie Strom (Gary Oldman) who's seeking some kind of retribution. The movie then centers on this past history between Oldman and Rymes which they also explains why he got only one arm. There are some very crucial scenes that don't make much sense meaning that the direction of this movie may have been compromised.

Oldman plays a good bad guy

[iamjamalwhite · 6/10 · 2 December 2021]

Not a great movie but it did keep us interested enough to see it play out. Some nudity and lots of action. A good twist or two. Ving plays a good soft talking good guy, an accidental hero. His sister is well done, great acting there. Oldman steals the show. He didn't like the movie but did a good job here. Worth a peek if you are bored late some night.

The worst I've ever seen

[RoaringFourties · 25 March 2004]

This must be the worst movie I have ever seen. Never ever have I seen so many unmotivated and unlogical scenes. I thought Ving Rhames and Gary Oldman would make for a good novie based on their previous work - but no, this is by far the worst 'thriller' there is - although it is only the directing that sucks in this one. Rhames is an ex-cop who goes up against a bad guy played very well by Oldman (but with a lousy script). The first 75 minutes seem like a bunch of unconnected commercials shown in sequence to create an undefined affect. The characters are pathetic, the bad ones doubly so. The story could have been ok, with better directing, but even Rhames and Oldman couldn't pull this one off.

Well what can I say? a few little spoilers

[Bon_Jovi_chick · 14 January 2004]

Its a wee bit of a shame. The whole film had a terrific idea to it and I liked the twist in the plot on why Charlie Strom (Gary Oldman) was after Eddie Burns (Ving Rhames) and we see a side to Charlie of being a tortured soul out for revenge rather than a villain (this is not an excuse on the things he did to Burns' sister but it was still a nice touch). The whole thing though was flat and a wee bit too predictable.

The only actor who stood out was Gary Oldman (who was the only reason I watched this film- otherwise I wouldnt have bothered!) Ill watch it again but only because Gary does a good part in it..... and nothing else.

6/10

Got to admit, pretty much a failure

[esstee55 · 27 January 2004]

Yeah, George Parker pretty well has it right, especially the part about the woman who says "don't call me baby," after Ving Rhames saves her life. She's laughable. But there are some fine aspects here, such as some of the photography and the overall look of some scenes. And some of the acting isn't bad, particularly that of Gary Oldman. Kerry Washington, who played Rhames's petite younger sister, is to-die-for gorgeous.