By the time you read this, “Sinners,” the new film from “Black Panther” director Ryan Coogler, will have made it through its sixth weekend of release, having crossed the $300 million mark at the global box office. It’s not just a rarity for an R-rated film or one predominantly created by and featuring Black talent, but one based on an original idea and not some piece of pre-existing intellectual property. It has held its own in the theatrical marketplace against an enormous movie based on a popular video game (“A Minecraft Movie”) and the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (“Thunderbolts”).
Set in 1932, the film follows frequent Coogler collaborator Michael B. Jordan as twin brothers Smoke and Stack, a pair of WWI veterans and gangsters who return to their home in the Mississippi Delta from a seven-year excursion in Chicago. The duo plan to open a juke joint, enlisting the help of their young cousin Sammie (newcomer Miles Caton) and blues veteran Delta Slim (Delroy Lindo) for the music, Smoke’s ex Annie (Wunmi Mosaku) for the food, old friend Cornbread (Omar Miller) for protection, and Grace & Bo Chow (Li Jun Li & Yao) for signage and supplies. But their grand opening is derailed by the presence of vampires, led by Remmick (Jack O’Connell), himself drawn to their new establishment by the power of Sammie’s guitar playing.
Suspense, carnage, action, and a whole lot else unfold in the ensuing drama, making it one of the most thematically dense and ambitious pictures of its kind. In addition to being one of the most statistically crowd-pleasing feature films of this century, it has been something of a firebrand for discourse of all types.
In addition to being one of the most statistically crowd-pleasing feature films of this century, it has been something of a firebrand for discourse of all types.
Though a largely straightforward genre picture in the vein of ’90s throwbacks like “From Dusk Till Dawn” and the works of horror icon John Carpenter, “Sinners” has inspired spirited artistic overanalysis the likes of which the internet hasn’t seen since Childish Gambino released the music video for “This Is America,” or more recently, anything Kendrick Lamar has said or done since March 26, 2024.
The film is meticulously layered with a bevy of different ideas, concepts, and emotions, all born from Coogler’s extensive research of the period and his inspiration from his deceased uncle’s real life. When folks make expansive threads on X outlining the rich texture of Hannah Beachler’s production design or noting fascinating details in Ruth Carter’s costume work, it feels additive to the experience of seeing the film. But when those less experienced in critical analysis or lacking in media literacy extrapolate seemingly random details about the film to suit engagement bait and truly dangerous rhetoric, it’s easy to see how the burgeoning fandom for the film has quickly lost the plot.
When dissecting Black art, there is a frustrating tendency to project an unassailable level of greatness upon well-liked work, regardless of the subjectivity in asserting quality. As “Sinners” has grown more popular, dissent of any kind has been characterized as trying to tear down Coogler himself. People who seem to consider themselves fans of this very talented young man have cast him in the light of an underdog — a man who has helmed two separate billion-dollar blockbusters for Disney! The strictures of “Black excellence” are so limiting that they become shackles, erasing the nuance and subtlety necessary to push the form forward truly.
We may have to work twice as hard to get half as much as our white counterparts. Still, true progress would be allowing a piece of Black art to exist outside of the insecure need to insist that something flawed is literal perfection, robbing it of the chance to exist as anything less than a victory lap against the establishment.
We may have to work twice as hard to get half as much as our white counterparts. Still, true progress would be allowing a piece of Black art to exist outside of the insecure need to insist that something flawed is literal perfection, robbing it of the chance to exist as anything less than a victory lap against the establishment.
When I first reviewed “Sinners” for another publication, Looper, I logged my piece on Rotten Tomatoes, where the film, at that moment, had a 98% critic rating, “certified fresh.” That initial review, written hastily an hour removed from the press screening I had attended for publication the very next morning, had a simple conclusion. I personally rated the film 7.5/10, or slightly higher than 3.5 stars. I used 3.5 to mean “really good, but not great,” and remarked then about how the film takes many big swings, hitting more often than it misses. But seeing the film again, five weeks later, after thinking about it often, after debating various friends, colleagues and strangers on the internet, I find myself having one major issue with the film, and with those insisting any criticism of the film is little more than nitpicking.
For Coogler the director, “Sinners” is a blistering triumph. He feels more confident and assured in his framing, in the way he composes shots, and seems to be having so much fun with cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw utilizing the large format cameras they were given access to. The result is a gorgeous picture with memorable images, striking visuals, and the sort of end product theatrical exhibitors are dying for. It truly begs to be seen on the biggest screen possible.
For Coogler the director, “Sinners” is a blistering triumph.
But for Coogler the screenwriter, “Sinners” feels like such a mixed bag that we have to wonder when this one creative discipline will catch up to the other. The movie is obviously a success for him as a writer. In 25 years, the copyright for the movie reverts to him from the studio, a contract feat usually only reserved for Quentin Tarantino. But unlike Tarantino, a filmmaker who wears his influences on his sleeve and loves to mix and match various genres into his own specific brand, Coogler has bitten off more than he can chew.
Though the film’s premise is simple enough, in the telling of this tale, Coogler has so many irons in the fire that it always feels like you’re longing for more of the threads to actually unravel, rather than be awkwardly juggled for the next creative impulse that takes its place. When discussing Coogler’s work in the MCU for the “Black Panther” franchise, both entries had a similarly messy feeling, but it was always chalked up to working within that strict studio system, trying to serve many masters at once. He was applauded for being the one filmmaker, save for “Eternals” helmer Chloé Zhao, to maintain his authorial identity within that world essentially.
So, what’s the excuse here? In a film that itself seems to be about the importance of ownership and equity, how can we watch a man who has final cut approval and full creative control then hand-wave away how unfocused and meandering his finished project feels? Watching “Sinners,” it feels as though Coogler is moving like he’s never going to get to make a movie ever again, and so, wants to shoehorn in everything he wants all at once, with little care given for balancing all the disparate elements. One can forgive the film’s polyamorous approach to courting multiple genres. Who doesn’t want a little western, a little gangster movie, a little historical drama in their expensive vampire picture?
But it becomes less forgivable when it comes to unraveling the themes and ideas. There’s so many different ways to interpret what “Sinners” thinks about the nature of racial solidarity, about the predatory ways Black music can be exploited, and about whether or not Black Capitalism is the answer to our people’s ills, but many of those conclusions feel contradictory, their metaphors tortured and rickety. In what could be considered his most personal work yet, it’s hard to know who Coogler really is.
Normally, one would be excited at the prospect of his next original script building upon and refining these ideas, having learned from what did and didn’t work about this film. But according to the majority who champion “Sinners,” he has no reason to improve or grow. This one is perfect, remember? And even if Coogler wasn’t poisoned by the endless procession of lazy praise, he’s got “Black Panther 3” to look forward to. Who knows when he’ll get around to making something for himself again?
That just makes the film more poignant, in its sad way. At its core, “Sinners” works best when dramatizing the pursuit of freedom, of a meaningful break from the rigors of daily life and, if only for one night, a sense of ownership for folks for whom that level of control is rarer than most. It’s just buried under so many other half-baked ideas. And now he’ll be returning to the IP fields.
“Sinners” is playing exclusively in theaters. It will likely be available on VOD this June, with a streaming release to Max later this summer.