*The music. In particular, the time traveling music scene. But all the music was fantastic.
*Everything technical - costumes, effects, cinematography, etc.
*The main characters - in particular, the twins and their girlfriends. Also Delroy Lindo.
Aside from that, story and dialogue were excellent but maybe not exceptional. Acting was mostly excellent as well, rising to exceptional for the above. And also notably, IMO, not a single aspect of the movie was less then very good or better. At least not one that I can think of.
The film definitely took its time to introduce the characters and set up the payoff, but a lot of well-regarded films do that (perhaps not as much as they used to.) I talked to some people for whom that long setup pushed their limits (though they overall liked the film.) For me it really worked to introduce the characters and theme, set up the stakes and just let the story unfold at that pace. But for some people that probably didn’t work.
I think the acting and cinematography were excellent. It was a beautiful film to look at. I thought it did a great job externalizing its themes. This take on vampires as assimilationist struck me as innovative. That is a lot more nuanced than just having them be racist, and it represents a genuine temptation for the characters. One of my friends pointed out that in most depictions of vampires, they are very sexual, however in this film it was the sensuality of the living that is emphasized. I’m really drawn to this, for lack of a better word, high-concept horror/thriller genre.
I thought the final third was sort of weak once it went from a fairly unique premise to “Monster Fight Fest” complete with obligatory idiot character who ruins the working defenses. I would have liked to see more done with the “pricing the veil between the physical and spiritual world through exceptional music” thing than a set up for “and now, vampires”. That said, I didn’t regret or resent watching it and would recommend it based on it still being a good flick and most people liking it making it a fairly safe bet
In my case, by the time they got around to the needle scratch and plot shift, I kinda wanted to know what would have happened with the juke joint, preachers son, bootleggers on the run and rest of not for vampires
I watch a lot of the movies that will probably be nominated for some of the Oscars. When I compare my favorites among all those I’ve seen that opened in 2025 with those that got fairly good critical reviews, viewer reviews, and money earned, I’m pretty close to all those in terms of ratings. However, I know how good I am at predicting who will win the Best Picture Oscar. I find that my favorite of those nominated is the one winning only once in five to ten years. Remember, there are five to ten movies nominated for Best Picture for the Oscars each year. This means that I’m no better than a random chance among the nominees each year. So at a moderate level of quality, I sort of match other ratings, but at a highest level of rating, I’m just at the level of someone random choosing one movie in the Best Picture category.
If you’d like to know how good most people are at predicting (i.e., forecasting) anything, read the book Superforecasting by Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner:
In general, people overestimate how good they are at forecasting and how good the methods that they use frequently are. Among other things, they tend to think that if they once predicted something that few other people predicted, that means they are great forecasters, even if all their other predictions are. Becoming a good forecaster is very difficult. You have to learn how to discover how good you’ve been in the past, how good your methods are, and then improve them.
I agree w/ Joph. “Y’all come in” seemed pretty stupid - and invited everyone’s destruction. 5 against however many? Seemed pretty poorly designed to save her kid.
I was expecting more from the music sequence. I think I was overly put off by the George Clintonesque character on the Flying V. I think there was almost too much going on there for me to follow, other than thinking, “Ooh boy - this is supposed to be imprtant and meaningful.” But likely just my shortcoming.
Folk praise the cinematography. What do you mean by that? What exactly did you see that made you think, “Now that there is some fine cinematography!” Did anyone else notice the blurry backgrounds? I imagine it had something to do with the chosen film. On occasion, I found the interiors too dark. And some of those tiny shacks seemed to be Tardis-like in their long meandering hallways.
I thought the bigger scenes at the train station and the village street seemed a tad - I don’t know - artificially multicultural? Too clean, with whites/blacks/asians, horses and cars, …. There was a weird shifting back and forth between realism, sorta romanticized scenes, and completely over-the-top violence. Not the sorta thing I tend to like.
There honestly haven’t been many movies in the last 20 years that I’ve thought were even close to being excellent. This was the exception. I was mesmerized throughout the entire thing, and it was one of the first movies that I’ve seen in a long time that felt like it was of the caliber of the movies that Hollywood used to make before CGI took over. It was interesting and original, and I thought the acting, cinematography and music were outstanding. There weren’t 10 minutes in the entire film that I thought were dull. To each their own.
From an editing perspective, it seemed about perfect to me. By good editing I mean I don’t recall a single scene, or a single line of dialog, that doesn’t have a character or storytelling purpose. It’s a rare bird. (Other movies that achieve this, IMO: Whiplash, The Godfather, Heat - the latter two of which are pretty lengthy films. But they are all as long as they need to be and no longer.)
This is my chief annoyance with Sinners. A very large deal was made of the “veil-piercing,” but in the end it didn’t make any difference to anything other than ‘head vampire is attracted to one character because he can do the piercing, and so sets out to attack the gathering.’
To my mind some interesting plot possibilities were ignored, there.
Also, the concept that ‘some people are Sinners’ seemed relatively unexplored.
That said, I like the music enough, and understand the hunger for a ‘diversity’ entry to win well enough, to be content if the movie takes all the big awards this year.
has specific comments as to the filming and lighting choices - which I tend to agree with.
Coogler proudly shot on 65mm with IMAX cameras, hoping to harness the large scale and aesthetic information the format offers. While the choice provides moments of unwavering, textured beauty, its tendency to create a shallow focus, thereby blurring the background, makes the characters appear separate from an environment integral to their lived reality. Why set a film in the South if the endless cotton fields, the bent trees, and even the life teeming around these characters will be held at a visual distance? The same can be said for the high contrast and deep shadows of Coogler’s compositions, which fit the film’s horror tone but shroud Jordan’s face, often, in his most emotionally heightened scenes. Even some of the cuts appear slightly off schedule, as though Coogler is furiously trying to spool the film before it jumbles in front of him.
Responses here? “Gee whiz! That was some awesome cinematography!” Parroting a phrase like that with no explanation does not sound as intelligent and insightful as I suspect many feel it does.
Back in the day, I used to play a little game with myself. In most of the categories, I’d rank my guess as to my expectation of being awarded (1-5 with 1 being the most likely). During he show, I’d keep track of my “score”. Over 20-25 categories, I’d seldom score worse than 5 points higher than the lowest possible score.
I was able to do this by keeping the following in mind:
The Oscars are not an objective measure of movie quality or greatness. They are not decided based solely on box office success. The Oscars are industry awards, voted on by a relatively small (compared to the moviegoing public in size) and select group of people.
The voters (mostly) vote for nominees they feel best represent the best of the industry they work in.
Most importantly, demographically the are not simply a representative sampling of the general public. They are:
Mostly actors (the actors section is far and away the biggest group in the Academy)
They are generally accomplished in their careers.
Partly because of number 2, they skew older and urban
They skew liberal and upper middle class
Like any other group of voters, their voting is going to be influenced by politics, current events, etc.
1-5 are the most important considerations when forecasting categories, especially the top ones like Best Picture. If you leave your personal assessment at the door, you can easily achieve a 70-80% prediction rate (no method is perfect).
Interesting idea. So the piercing of the veil was the thriller’s inciting incident. It couldn’t have happened without the characters trying to stake out a space that was culturally their own - through music.
Ultimately the assertion of that cultural space, that music, is what defeats the vampires. Quite literally, when the protagonist whales on the vampire leader with a guitar (am I remembering that correctly?)
I can’t think of how they could have made it more relevant to the plot without undercutting the theme. Their ability to pierce the veil is what made them powerful and what made them vulnerable, and I think that’s the role that the aforementioned scene played in the film. That plot point was, in my view, one expression of a larger theme.
I’d be interested to hear what plot possibilities you were thinking of. I’m not much of a plotter. Even as a writer I’m more of a “But what does it all meeeean?” kind of person.
See: cinematography. I thought it was beautiful to look at. I didn’t notice blurred backgrounds. I don’t notice that stuff and I don’t care half as much about that stuff as I do about story.
Yes, you are. And to me this is a failure to employ a plot possibility. Hitting the vampire with the instrument was nothing to do with ‘an ability to pierce the veil.’ It was purely an act of physical violence.
I don’t have time right now to expand on other possibilities, but, yes: having the defeat of the head vampire come down to the ‘veil’ aspect would certainly have been one of them.
Parroting? I was giving my honest opinion that was not based on anyone else’s opinion. I thought the film was visually beautiful. You disagree, I get it.
It’s also up against at least one other film with a diverse cast, One Battle After Another, but I was disappointed in that film and I’ll be disappointed if that film beats out this one. I have no predictions.
