Saint Sinner (2002)

usually i do not bother to write reviews but i am writing this since its is astonishing that this movie has such a low rating. it definitely deserves at least a 7 on an average. PLEASE Don't GO FOR THE LOW RAITNGS. IT IS A MUCH MUCH BETTER MOVIE! i cant call it is the best movie i have ever seen but these low ratings are terribly misleading. i wonder how come this movie has such a low rating! it is a well made movie and if you like horror movies u are likely to enjoy it. i am damn sure that it deserves a better rating.it is not boring for even a moment.the story goes so fast and sustains your curiosity every scene. give it a try, and the low ratings are misleading.its not as bad as you might think. it is a very enjoyable movie. it appears to be a very different type of story.it does not have the pomp of a big budget movie. day before yesterday i watched it in wb movies and unfortunately missed the last 3 mins or so. waiting for a re telecast so that i can catch it.

With Clive Barker involved you knew that something usual was going to happen and by golly it did. Two female Succubi are released by a monk, Tomas Alcala. Tomas was told not to open a pandora's box but did not heed the advice. These two Succubi are drinkers from hell, alcohol no, human syrup, yes. Sticky fingers and sticky mucus make this feature very different from most Succubi flicks. Tomas is no saint, or is he? Only a person "pure of heart" or is that from another movie, can use a sacred dagger to rid the world of these devil twins. Special effects are wonderful and very graphic. You if love to see the universal battle between "good & evil" then this is the flick for you.

SAINT SINNER had the potential to be really good, but the final product is only average. There are some good scenes in here, but the screenplay also shows inability to prove it has a brain every now and then. There's enough of the "erotic gore" that Clive Barker is known for to make this "a Clive Barker movie". The film certainly has an intriguing pedigree, and perhaps even a nice premise, but the end result is just not that great.5 out of 10(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the film)

I admit it, I have a problem: I'm too suckered in by Clive Barker's name. He's a wonderful writer, and his adaptation average is slightly better than that of Stephen King's, so I decided to watch "Saint Sinner." Clive Barker stands as story-provider and executive producer of this unfortunate and at times incomprehensible movie. In 1815, a pair of young monks accidentally releases two succubi -- ravenous female demons -- loose from their prison. The two escape through the "Wheel of Time" to the modern day, where one of the monks, Tomas, must follow in order to destroy them. He teams up with a skeptical detective to find the succubi.This movie seems to have abandoned all sense of logic or continuity in its plot, and it has a lack of character development that is truly amazing. Greg Serano, as Tomas, is attractive enough but lacks the conviction his character requires. Gina Ravera is an almost non-presence as Dt. Rachel Dressler, seeming to know that she got the role because Gina Torres was busy. But pity Mary Mara and Rebecca Harrell, who play the demons Munkar and Nakir, who do little more than grind and glower in undead makeup that looks like it came from 1985 and who had to have all their lines of dialogue altered down 1.5 octaves.With a director that's watched too much "X-Files" and with a script that seems to have been written by a 16-year-old, "Saint Sinner" is an unfortunate event that the Sci-Fi channel will undoubtedly play three times a week in the misguided sense that people will watch (and they cancelled "Farscape" to make stuff like THIS?). It's saved from being a total waste by an above-average score and Greg Serano's knack for looking like a saint and a sinner at once. Don't be like me: if you want some Clive Barker, next time pick up a book. 3 out of 10.