wrightinchicago-231-671840

I've never seen a Coogler / Jordan movie that I didn't like. All his movies are well told stories, well acted and directed. Coogler can take his seat alongside Spielberg and Scorcesee as far as I'm concerned.

This movie engaged me, entertained me and I was never bored. The title "sinners" is appropos because of all the sin and wrongdoing that the characters do even though their personalities charm you over. I never expected the Vampire rampage segment. However, the story has a 180 turn that makes it make sense. Two twins originally from Mississippi return after living in the north with a stash of cash. It's hinted that they stole from Al Capone, all we know is that the money is not "earned." With that money they open a Mississippi juke joint and on opening night all the demons come out. I'll leave you at that. The casting was perfect, many of the actors were unknown to me and they embodied their characters perfectly.

I was never a big Steven Soderberg fan, only saw about 2 of his movies. So I went into this movie because it was an ADULT movie with ADULT actors and not a kid's movie. Now I wish I had gone to a Kid's movie, I would have had more fun and understood what was happening.

I cannot tell you what this movie is about because I don't know what agency the spies worked for and I don't even know if they were spies. I think the characters were spies, but I never saw them doing spy stuff. There was a lot of talking - LOTS of TALKING - and spying/surveilling each other to make someone do a dirty deed, but they never did spy things. They didn't use binoculars, they didn't talk on their cell phones, they didn't chase bad guys. And I still cannot tell you what Severance was, which is the device or weapon (I don't know which) that was top secret. The acting was good and moody, but they were cold characters and when I left the movie, I cared nothing about them or what they were doing. This movie is getting 90% RT reviews, and I'll have to read those reviews to see what the critics liked that I did not.

I read the user reviews and summary and the low ratings said the same thing I was thinking, "what is this about", "where is this movie going". I only rented it (on AMZ) because of Mikey Madison who's supposed to be in it. I'm not a big fan of Pitt and I have seen Leo in several movies. And I just didn't get this movie. It seemed to be a lot of little vignettes about movie making, and It was about a faded big TV star. A lot of small scenes with a large entourage of name actors many of whom are faded (like Pacino). I wondered, how much did they pay Kurt Russel for his small scene and Margot Robbie was practically non-existent. She did a lot of sashaying around, but I'm sure Sharon Tate was much more than what was portrayed. It won two awards and I don't see it. Screenwriting? What was it about. Supporting actor for Pitt? He has as many scenes as Leo. It was a waste of my rental money.