“Sinners” has been making its rounds throughout the Iowa State Daily, with Diversity already doing a piece on it. But, I feel like it’s really important to understand that Diversity’s job is to promote equality and share inclusive stories. Conversely, my job is to review movies on their own merits, and to that end, “Sinners” is an adequately made mess of a movie.
“Sinners” is the “Us” of 2025. It’s really well acted and shot, but does any of that matter if the story and scares don’t deliver? A previous reviewer at the Daily gave the film a 10/10, and I highly disagree with his sentiment.
“Sinners” is best represented with the scene the Diversity article praised, where the halls are filled with musicians throughout the past and future, all while the house is burning down. It’s a well-shot scene that doesn’t move the movie forward.
When the scene starts, it’s surprising and interesting, but as it keeps going, it feels self-indulgent and self-important. If it’s meant to portray how music can tie generations together, the movie never gives the viewer a reason to care.
While the music in the movie is phenomenal, its relationship to the plot feels undercooked. Unlike “Parasite’s” use of the Scholar Stone, the meaning of the “Sinners” soundtrack never evolves with the characters. Therefore, it ends up losing meaning entirely and anchoring the film as a nonexistent thematic through line.
The same can be said about the film’s antagonist, Remmick. Every time his character is on screen, Jack O’Connell is a joy to watch. His first scene sets him up as a legitimate threat, but like the music in this film, his character is underserved.
By the halfway point, he becomes a parody of himself that, while entertaining to watch, lacks the necessary menace required of a horror movie antagonist.
The music ends up degrading his character in a way that makes the parody feel intentional. By the end of the movie, “Sinners” felt like “Weapons,” actively insulting you for wanting a threatening antagonist in a horror movie.
Additionally, a scene toward the end completely undermines the ending of the film and everything involving Remmick. I’m being vague to avoid spoilers, but the ambiguity involving some rules leads to the movie feeling unimportant in the broader context of the central conflict.
On a positive note, the rest of the cast makes acting look effortless. Michael B. Jordan is impressive in a dual role that takes full advantage of his acting abilities. Newcomer Miles Caton is astounding in his acting debut and is the standout of the movie. Even though the performances try to anchor the film, they’re not enough to make me care about the characters.
For example, Smoke and Stack are well acted, but their personal stakes in the conflict failed to get me invested before Remmick enters the equation. This lack of investment in the characters, the parody of an antagonist and the ambiguity regarding the film’s rules lead to a film that lacks not only depth but stakes.
“Sinners” not only fails as a movie but also as a horror movie. Unlike what the marketing wants you to believe, “Sinners” is not a scary movie. Not only does it lack the bark, it also lacks the bite.
The violence in “Sinners” is shot to feel scrappy and grounded, yet it fails to feel like either. It’s similar to the ending of “Heart Eyes.”
The difference is that “Heart Eyes” embraces its absurdity as a tongue-in-cheek homage to cheesy slasher films, whereas “Sinners” aims for prestige horror and collapses under its own self-importance.
“Sinners” is a film at odds with its own execution. It wants to be an important story about racism, culture and how music ties us to where we came from and where we’re going. However, the film forgets to make me care about its characters and world.
Beyond that, however, “Sinners” is so important as to waste time telling you about themes it doesn’t explore. “Sinners” doesn’t just beat a dead horse, it sucks it dry.
4/10
