‘Sinners’ may be the best film we’ve gotten this decade!

I really do want to see as it’s my favorite genre, horror, as well. Michael B. Jordan is well on his way to being the new movie star of the decade.

Is it scary or just atmospheric?

Nope.

Shinnersh!

A big disappointment.

A mess.

I saw it today and I liked it. It's much better than Jordan Peele's movies.

I was bit sad by the end scene.

Michael B. Jordan is hot as hell. Isn't he rumored to be a closet case?

yes, even Kelly Ripa tried to turn him back in the day and failed. Now it's her son's turn.

R1 scary

I’m pretty sure MBJ is already that. He isn’t an up and comer. He’s been around for years now and the Creed movies made him a household name.

Saw it and loved it. I seriously hope it’s remembered in next year’s Best Picture race.

Gee. Who knew there were personal trainers for black people in the 1930s South?

R10 another ignorant comment from you. Shocker.

Personal trainers of any race were barely a thing back then.

Spoken like a Gen Z retard who didn’t go to college.

It's certainly better than Anora. But then what isn't?

R11 The South has always been notoriously racist. Even more in the 1930s.

If you're going to make a movie about African Americans in the 1930s South, let's try for a little authenticity, shall we?

R11 clutches her pearls over R10's post, thinking it's racist.

Then R10 calls R11 a "retard."

Only on DL.

Holy shit. That was great!

From the trailer, the movie seems to be full of anachronisms. Michael B. Jordan's jacked body aside, there's the Asian woman and the black woman dancing who both have 2025 hair and clothes, and even some of the weaponry looks like it wouldn't have existed in the 30s.

This is the kind of stuff that takes me right out of a movie.

R16, it's my understanding that some of the "anachronisms" are part of the plot. And some of the guys from that era would have been in good shape; they'd been through WWI and then gone into Prohibition-era smuggling.

R6, oh yes he is hot as hell, & I’ve long suspected the closet rumors to be… wardrobe adjacent, shall we say?

R16, I agree. Stupid mistakes that can be so easily avoided.

R10, the south is filled with black men who are in excellent shape, even all the way into their 50s & 60s, because many still work doing poor to well paying jobs in warehouses, loading docks, etc.

It’s always been this way. Why would it be a surprise to see fit, black men back in the day?

R19 Fit men, yes. Body by Gold's Gym men, no.

R9 What's it about (without giving anything away)?

The trailer doesn't seem to indicate anything about what the hell is going on.

R20 his body is not a bodybuilder type body. Do you know what a bodybuilder looks like?

PS black men going back to the 1800s had more Muscle on average than white men and it’s always been that way. Genetics.

R6 everybody’s rumored to be a closet case on DL if they are even semi attractive and successful. I don’t find his no chin ass that attractive. But I just love the idea of him and all his success. Plus he is a really good actor. Shame the Academy keeps snubbing him.

R22 Yes. Michael B. Jordan in "Sinners."

Brock Peters, fit 1960s African American Actor, and Michael B. Jordan, jacked 2020s African American actor.

Sure, women had hair like this and dressed like this in the South in the '30s.

R27 😂 so you are a stickler for historical accuracy. I wonder if she is playing a woman of color who passes. She reminds me of someone in my family whom I’ve never met but heard about and seen photos.

R28 That's Hailee Steinfeld. She's not a woman of color.

If this is another zombie movie, I'm not gonna be happy.

So the part where there are supernatural vampires falls by the wayside because he's too jacked and the hairs don't match the looks of the 30's? 'Kay.

R31 It's about vampires?

Ugh. I'm out.

R32, I've only seen the trailer, but they are an element of the narrative.

R6 This is the photo that sparked the gay rumors. It appears he got papped a few years back nude at a gay beach.

R28 Call me crazy, but if they're gonna make a movie set in the 1930s, I'd like the movie to look like, ya know, the 1930s.

This looks like "Funny Girl," which took place in the 1920s while Barbra sported her 1960s hairdo and eyeliner.

How did this movie cost $100 million to make?

And it probably won't be profitable.

R36 Half of the salary went to Michael B. Jordan's personal trainer.

That is so NOT him at R34.

MBJ is so much better looking than that guy.

R38 That's him.

R38 Yes, it's Michael B. Jordan.

Just because you say so, R39?

Prove it.

You can barely see his face, under that baseball cap.

R41 It's clearly him. I'm sorry about your cataracts.

I’d never seen Jack O’Connell before. He’s hot.

All black people look alike, to R39/R40/R42.

There are no defining tattoos, or birthmarks, or anything else that could positively identify that person as Michael B. Jordan.

Not only that, the photo is taken from a side view, from far away, and his face is hidden under a baseball cap.

So once again, where's the definitive proof that that person is Michael B. Jordan?

I mean, I'd love to know that the guy is gay (because I think he's handsome and that would be a juicy story).

But I don't see any definitive proof that the guy in the photo at R34 is him.

R44 Again, sorry about your cataracts. Your Medicare benefits should cover surgery for them, though. Look into it.

R38 That photo is from 2015. You do realize that a person's appearance changes over the course of a decade, right?

R29 I know who the actress is. I’ve always thought she was spicy white even when she was like 12 yrs old in that movie with Jeff Bridges. I googled a few years ago. One of her grandmas is half black/half Filipino.

R34 oh shit great body and packing.

R35 I feel yah. It’s just crazy to me that vampires and zombies existed in the 30s. What happened. Did they all go extinct?

Superb WOM on this - keep hearing great things everywhere. I'm now considering of actually watching in a theater which I haven't done in probably a decade. And it's #1 this weekend - biggest debut in years for an original and non-IP movie.

^ stinky linky

trying it again

R27, in the early thirties, women still wore twenties-influenced clothes and hair. Ann Dvorak in Scarface wears bias-cut slip dresses like the one in that picture when going out dancing. And it’s not as if the South was Saudi Arabia. Women all over the country knew what was fashionable and wanted that look.

In Scarface you can also see the Tommy guns and other weapons gangsters used then; they were all guns developed for industrial-scale killing in WWI.

Is anyone surprised this film would be gushed over and that critics would praise it as though it’s the new Gone With the Wind?

R53 No one is surprised but what’s your point. No one was expecting it either. I’m so sick of you softcore racists hiding behind language. Come on out and say what the fuck you tryna imply.

“And it won’t be profitable” ummm it’s doing well its first weekend.

Why is that poster who clearly didn’t watch the movie all over this thread? It’s set in 1932 and set in a small southern black town. Yes, some women dressed like that, usually women viewed as loose or sluts.

One of Hailee Steinfeld’s character’s grandfathers is black who procreated with a white woman. One of the character parents are white and the other is biracial. Because she had a biracial parent her character would be viewed as black despite how she looked because of the laws back then. She could, of course, move away and live her life as a white woman and never let anyone know her grandpa is black/dad is half black but she chooses to stay there as she’s in love with MBJ.

R55 No women had that kind of hairstyle in the 1930s.

R38 It's him.

R56 some did.

R58 Right. Creole women invented that hairstyle. You know basic white chicks are always the last to catch up on to trends. Think about today and how it used be in the 90s. Took them like 7 years to catch on to what black women or New York white women was rocking. It’s like 2-3 yrs nowadays because of social media. Imagine back then.

AGAIN, her character is from a black area. She grew up around black men and women. Not white.

He has a nice duck

That isn’t even MBJ. Like please already.

Oops, I meant "dick" not "duck" 😆 🤣

R55, umm, sure, it will do well in its first weekend but will it have box office legs? I seriously doubt that it will. Even with good word of mouth. And the MCU film coming in a few weeks will decimate it.

Coogler making the main villain/vampire Irish was genius. This film is really good and smart.

R64 a few weeks from now. You just said it. In a FEW WEEKS. Most films in modern day make most of its box office in the first few weeks then fall off. Welcome to 2025. We aren’t in the age of films being sleeper hits anymore. That’s rare.

Your racism is showing. Most of the people going to see it are white.

R64 Why is it so important to you to minimize the success of this film?

If you don’t have an interest in it, just don’t watch it. But you seem especially triggered.

R67 Why is it so important to you to maximize the success of this film?

If you have an interest in it, just watch it and be done with it. But you seem especially triggered.

R62 Same chin, same lower lip. It's him.

R60 Creole people are black. Mixed race but still black.

R68 is a special kind of touched. I ain’t going argue with someone over speculation and yall shouldn’t either. It’s probably a racist troll. The same one on another thread that said the film would completely flop in its first week.

Exhibit A, R27.

Fuck off, R66. You obviously don’t know shit from shinola. And you certainly know NOTHING about me so…umm…in a FEW WEEKS when Sinners is declared a “box office disappointment” at best feel safe in the knowledge that I’ll be somewhere having a big ol’ laugh over your oh-so-predictable race-baiting response.

First of all, the studio accounting takes into consideration the films may make a little less in theaters because of streaming. It is worked into the finance and budget from the very onset.

It's great to see an original film get praise in 2025, but Sinners is unlikely to make a profit. It only made $15 million internationally, which is disastrous. Also, 60% of the US audience was black, so it's unclear how well it can do long-term in the US.

R72 That's not the hair nor the wardrobe that Hailee Steinfeld is sporting.

Not exactly of course, R76, but close enough unless you insist on splitting hairs.

A lot of women sported short hair in the 30s .There was a depression raging and who had money to keep up their hair ?

R75 no, it won’t.

This is the highest debut for an original film this decade.

The audience was 60% black? R75 please share the link with us

‘Shinnersh’ Findsh Shalvation At Eashter Boxsh Offishe!

This film will probably have a good first week and then see a huge drop, similar to The Color Purple. If I recall, Teacunt declared that film a box office champion, too, due to its first-week gross.

I’m 90% sure that’s him in the picture. And I know the guy. I’ve played basketball with him.

[quote]“And it won’t be profitable” ummm it’s doing well its first weekend.

It cost $90-100 million to make.

it will have to make $180-200 million just to break even.

R80 Even if that is true means nothing. Blacks make up a larger percentage of people under 40 and the movie going public, regular movie goers, than our 13% in the general population. This movie is becoming a phenomenon. It’s going to have legs. Watch. It’s excellent.

That is defiantly him with big luscious lower lip. That’s him all day long. Looks just like him. Been following him since his first film Hardball with a Keanu Reeves.

R82 You are mistaken because I never said such thing. When the opening week came out I contended it was going to be a dud. What I did school maybe YOU on was that Bad Boys 4 would be success. Willy Wonka too.

I was saying CP might do well because it too was critically acclaimed. But Taraji P. Henson, whom I like, made the mafuckin press tour about how her salary and pay equity for black women in the industry. That was dumb as hell. No one wants to hear a millionaire actress cry about pay while promoting a film. Do your crusade at a later time.

R85 where is a link showing the racial makeup of the audiences?

Only this isn’t The Color Purple, a musical remake of a classic. This is an original horror film.

What a shocker, r75 r85 were lying. What’s the point of lying? Look at your posting history. Filled with endless lying.

“ Nearly 40% of initial ticket buyers were Black, while 35% were white, 18% were Hispanic and 5% were Asian, reflecting a broad turnout.”

YES! He’s amazing in Sinners. What a great film. I can’t see it not getting a few Oscar nominations

Saw it yesterday. Stunningly good. There is a scene in the middle (I will not spoil it) that is one of the most beautiful and moving things I've ever seen put on film.

MARY!

But yes. That damn good.

Word-of-mouth is gonna be sensational on this one. The cinema nearest to me is the largest IMAX screen in the country, and the upcoming 4:30 pm screening is almost completely sold out... on a Monday.

That is not normal.

[quote]The trailer doesn't seem to indicate anything about what the hell is going on.

You're kidding, right?

I kind of want to see it, but I don't want to go to a theater to see it.

Hopefully, it'll be streaming soon.

R93 Do explain it then.

R92 stop saying MARY about your own posts. It’s cringe.

R96 Saying "cringe" is worse than saying "MARY."

Phenomenal vampire flick. Coogler making Remmick Irish was smart. Its a smart flick.

Just what we need. Another vampire movie.

So original.

Music is magic

R93 Those be the best films. Where the trailer is a bit chaotic but doesn’t give away the plot. Especially with sci-fi or supernatural thrillers.

R97 Shringey Mary

Overrated. I found it slow and tedious and difficult to understand the dialogue.

It was a big weekend for fans of original movies.

Ryan Coogler's deep South vampire movie "Sinners" pulled off an Easter weekend win over "Minecraft," taking in $48 million at the domestic box office and $63.5 million worldwide.

Going into the weekend, many in the industry forecast "Minecraft," the hit blockbuster based on the popular video game, to win out for a third straight weekend with "Sinners" coming in second place. But the thriller, starring Michael B. Jordan in dual roles, overperformed to take the top spot and dethrone "Minecraft," which brought in $40.5 million.

The film centers on Jordan portraying identical twin brothers, Smoke and Stack, who start up a Mississippi juke joint only to find it all unravel on opening night when a trio of vampires show up.

Some took to social media to downgrade the win for "Sinners," pointing out that with its $90 million-plus budget, it's still in the red. Others felt the movie was getting its high praise only because it was directed by the guy behind the "Black Panther" franchise.

Still, Warner Bros., which released "Sinners" (as well as "Minecraft"), went much farther to make the movie a hit than leaning on its director's name recognition.

"Sinners" is a box office hit because Warner Bros. made it an "event."

When Coogler originally came up with the idea for "Sinners," he was thinking very low budget.

"I thought we were going to shoot it on Super 16mm," Coogler told Business Insider ahead of the film's release. "I thought it was going to be a down-and-dirty movie."

That all changed when the director took a trip to Mississippi, where the movie would be set, and realized it had to be "epic and mythic." Then Warner Bros. put the cherry on top.

"An executive at Warner Bros. reached out and asked if I considered large format," said Coogler, referring to having the movie released for IMAX and other large format screens. "And he was asking from a business sense, seeing how complicated it's become to convince folks to come out of their house and watch something that's original."

"As soon as he said that, it unlocked something in me," the director continued. "It was the missing link to what the movie needed."

Coogler didn't just make a story for the biggest screens; he shot on IMAX cameras, which led to the movie having IMAX 70mm screenings, the first movie to have that kind of special treatment since Christopher Nolan's Oscar-winning best picture, "Oppenheimer."

Warner Bros. built the movie up as an event so that you had to see it — not just on the big screen but on the biggest one you could find.

It resulted in 45% of the opening weekend domestic gross for "Sinners" coming from premium large-format screens. Twenty percent of that was from IMAX alone, the highest ever for a horror movie shown in that format.

Coogler's "Sinners" will not only turn a profit but will hopefully prove to the industry that audiences want more than just adaptations, sequels, and remakes when they go to the movies.

Yes, "Sinners" does have a big budget, but to put it simply, you have to spend money to make money, particularly when trying to get an original movie out to a wide audience.

And "Sinners'" overperformance domestically and taking in $63.5 million worldwide isn't just a step in the right direction for Warner Bros. toward profitability; it's a giant leap forward.

If "Sinners" were a major blockbuster based on an existing IP, taking in $60 million-plus worldwide would be a huge disappointment. But getting audiences out in droves is a gargantuan task for an original movie.

Warner Bros. executives must be doing backflips this morning. "Sinners" had the biggest opening for an original movie since the pandemic, passing Jordan Peele's thriller "Nope" ($44.3 million). That 2020 film went on to make over $100 million at the domestic box office and $171 million worldwide.

And if Warner Bros. is smart, it will keep the movie in theaters into the summer, as last weekend clearly showed that audiences want original story options at their multiplex.

[quote] YES! He’s amazing in Sinners. What a great film. I can’t see it not getting a few Oscar nominations

It may well do so, but if it does I doubt they would go to O'Connell. As effective as he is (and I think he's terrific), his character doesn't show much complexity, the way previous horror villain nominees have (Piper Laurie in Carrie and Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs). I think the acting nominations would go more likely to Michael B. Jordan and (especially) Wunmi Musaku.

I think Delroy Lindo would also be very worthy of a supporting nomination. Outstanding performance.

Just got back from the theater.

Surprisingly well done film. The second half follows a bit of a route kill them off one-by-one formula but the first hour or so does such a good job establishing the 10 or so final survivors that you really care about each one.

The musical numbers really take it into a different level, suggesting music as almost a kind of portal between the worlds of spirit and substance and past present and future.

I had trouble understanding a lot of the dialogue in the beginning so to the thick accents and period slang.

All of the performances were great and every actor had a chance to shine.

A great ensemble horror clearly grounded in strong understanding of the historical moment and the cultures it portrays

4/5 stars loses a star for somewhat generic plotting in the final third of the movie.

BUMP

Warner Bros‘ period horror movie Sinners had a great Monday earning $7.8M. That’s the second-best Monday ever for a R-rated horror movie after 2017’s It which did $8.76M, and it’s the third best Monday overall for a horror film after the PG-13 A Quiet Place Part II‘s Memorial Day ($9.5M) and It.

THE SCENE is one of the best I’ve ever seen in film and will be studied in film schools forever.

When Remmick has a hold of Sammy and Remmick joins in with Sammy praying the "Our Father", instead of Remmick immediately biting him he shoves him into and out of the water as though he's baptizing him.

Lol.

R29 Hailee has some black in her. Not a lot.

Sinners is one of the best movies I've seen in years, maybe decades. I can't remember the last time I was moved like that watching a movie. Mulholland Drive maybe? The horror/supernatural elements don't really kick in until maybe an hour into the film and I was so invested in the characters and story I wouldn't have cared if had just stayed a straight period drama. I plan to go see it again and I haven't done that in years either - maybe since Mulholland Drive.

Not a shill or fanboy (never saw Black Panther or Creed) just really enjoyed this

I saw it twice, r113, just so I could absorb more of the details, allegorical elements, and, plain and simple, just wanted to revisit the world Coogler created.

It was on the second viewing I describe at r111 when, during that scene I was asking, "Why is Remmick dunking him onto the water instead of immediately finishing him off?" and then I realized Remmick was mocking baptism, OR, appropriating baptism, which is even more brilliant direction from Coogler, once I thought about it.

Like a lot of others, I found Remmick's character sympathetic and insanely charismatic. I believed him when he said he wanted Sammy ("Preacher Boy") to be a conduit, not so much to steal Black culture but to retrieve Irish culture.

Ryan Coogler’s Sinners is the latest film to get the method dressing treatment. Before flocking to their local movie theaters to watch the critically acclaimed bluesy vampire epic that has some Hollywood executives shaking, many enthusiastic moviegoers are dressing for the gory but dapper occasion.

Set in Mississippi in 1932, the Southern Gothic horror flick stars Coogler’s longtime muse, Michael B. Jordan, doing double duty as entrepreneurial twin brothers with a criminal past. The characters, Smoke and Stack, return home to Clarksdale, Miss., to open up a juke joint. Steeped in blues music and rife with bloody showdowns against vampires, the film is seen as a metaphor for the appropriation of Black culture. It’s also been described as a love letter to African American culture.

Wearing outfits inspired by '30s fashion or leather-clad vampire slayers (or a bit of both), creators, many of whom are Black, are showing up and showing out for screenings of Sinners.

R115 Eye roll.

The movie is based on an old Twilight Zone episode where a fellow wakes up at his own funeral and sits up in his coffin. Instead of being relieved the townsfolk thought he was a demon or a zombie of sorts. I’ll watch that episode first.

Are Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan hooking up on the DL?

R118 I would hope Jordan could do better.

Variety came under fire over the weekend for a box office report that dinged Ryan Coogler’s hit horror film, “Sinners,” for having an uphill battle to make a profit despite its impressive $63 million global opening.

Ben Stiller and Patrick Schwarzenegger were among the Hollywood figures calling out the trade outlet for its questionable framing, defending “Sinners” for its clear box office win and emphasizing that — even in light of its $90 million price tag before expenses for global marketing — the $63 million haul is accounting for just three days.

“In what universe does a $60 million opening for an original studio movie warrant this headline?” Stiller tweeted Sunday, re-sharing Variety’s post.

That post read: “‘Sinners’ has amassed $61 million in its global debut. It’s a great result for an original, R-rated horror film, yet the Warner Bros. release has a $90 million price tag before global marketing expenses, so profitability remains a ways away.”

Comedian and actress Kristen Schaal responded to Stiller’s X post, decrying that “no one will write anything without a negative spin anymore,” even when the “Sinners” success should be celebratory moment.

“I guess that’s what gets the clicks, but it’s so gross and tired,” Schaal wrote. “And then people start thinking like that. It’s a disgusting cycle we are in.”

Schwarzenegger, a breakout star of “The White Lotus” Season 3, took to the comments section of Variety’s tweet writing, simply, “It’s opening weekend.”

In a more shady and sarcastic response, filmmaker and producer Joe Russo mocked Variety for raising concerns over what were unrealistic expectations for any film.

“Variety: “WHY DIDN’T THE MOVIE MAKE ALL ITS BUDGET BACK IN THREE DAYS,” Russo responded to the outlet’s original tweet.

The Black List founder Franklin Leonard has also become a major proponent for the film’s success — and began calling out box office coverage from The New York Times and Variety (among others) for what appeared to be a double standard for Black-centered works. He pointed out the differences in Variety’s coverage of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” from Quentin Tarantino, which “made 10% less at the domestic box office on 10% more theaters prepandemic and at the same budget with a similar deal structure.”

Stiller, Schwarzenegger, Schaal and Russo were hardly alone in calling out what they saw as slanted coverage of the “Sinners” box office. Many online flooded Variety’s tweet responses with clap-backs pointing out biased reporting.

R120 It's only white people complaining.

Somebody is really shilling this movie here.

R121 white liberals, of course, who are always offended for POC.

It's true, the film underperformed and probably won't be profitable.

Reporting that as a fact is not hating on the film.

Had a $90 million budget and as of today has grossed $79 million worldwide ($64 million stateside, $15 million overseas).

And the grosses have gone down considerably since the weekend and are trending southward.

Nah this will definitely be a hit in the end, whatever it loses in theaters it will more than make up for in streaming. This is gonna be the kind of movie people buy. It’s a success.

R118 Why belittle black professional relationships?

R124,

That's total and utter bullshit.

First off, it OVERperformed, not underperformed. It came in at #1 this past weekend (over MINECRAFT, which was expected to win a third weekend in a row) and brought in more bucks than expected.

And in addition to the strong opening for an original horror film and the wonderful reviews, word-of-mouth is sensational on this. On Tuesday it raked in another $8.6 million. And note: That's a Tuesday after a holiday week, and Tuesdays are typically discount days at cinemas, which means lots and lots of tickets were sold.

What confounds me the most are people like you insisting that this film shouldn't be considered a hit despite all facts to the contrary.

It's almost as if you can't handle Black artists having a major success. Hmm...

I hope Michael B Jordan surpasses Will Smith in ways never thought possible. Will Smith is the most arrogant piece of shit to ever come out of the east coast. But more irritating than his arrogance is his hypocrisy.

Michael B Jordan is humble and just a laid back guy and great actor. I want him to win so bad. My brother in my head.

I saw the film in IMAX (AMC Lincoln Square, NY). Can someone explain the change in formats throughout the projection?

R126, Coogler did a whole YouTube video about this. Film geeks, the people who insist on shooting with actual film, obsess about aspect ratios and color saturation.

It's doing amazing at the BO. Will easily make a profit. I'm guessing 200-250 final domestic gross. Of course there's still the overseas gross.

R124 it didn’t underperform. At all. It exceeded expectations and has continued to do so.

It’s 2025. Movies like this (and Saltburn and Challengers) make their money back via streaming.

R131 it’s not making that much domestically but will be fine.

The film has beautiful cinematography and a terrific score. Hailee Steinfeld made me laugh with her outlandish lines that she delivered perfectly. She has such a clean and wholesome image so it felt weird seeing her as a character like Mary.

[quote] It's almost as if you can't handle Black artists having a major success. Hmm...

BINGO!!! Racist gay men are really some of the dumbest people on Earth.

R135 I should know. I worked with Tyler Perry.

Kevin Spacey loved it

It’s expecting to hold onto number one at the box office again this weekend with around a $40 million haul

Meanwhile, R64 and its ilk are gnashing their teeth and twirling their mustaches.

Ok, Ok, I'll post it - That's Kevin Bacon at r137.

😂 Spacey trolling for a Tyler Perry film cause he know Perry loves redemption of train wrecks. I said what I said.

R141 oh no, you dint

Sinners is more anti-white woke propaganda.

Is it possible for black directors to make a movie that doesn't have anything to do with race?

You know like, Finding Nemo or E.T.?

R141 did you even click the link? It’s not Kevin Soacey it’s Kevin Bacon

R143 Fuck off you stankin ass bitch.

wtf is anti-white about this? wtf

R145 Get lost baboon ass ghetto trash bitch.

It's Kevin Sorbo.

Watch the movie again R146 but this time, don't forget your grandpa hearing aids, thick glasses and your dementia assistant dog you 90 year old queen.

R147 The racism is strong with this one. Demonstrate for us your true feelings bitch. That’s right ho, it always comes out. What happens in the dark shall always come to light.

R149 there was zero anti-whiteness in this movie. Showing racism in a movie set in 1932 southern USA is anti-white? Crack a fucking history book.

Like I’ve been telling you, get offline and get yourself an education. This is just sad now

Not only wasn't there racism, Coogler's dialog for Remmick makes it clear that Coogler acknowledges a very human condition - that we try to erase the "other".

That's the whole point of Remmick's words to Sammy about how he wants Samy's stories and for him to be a conduit to retrieve the Irish heritage that was all but forcibly erased by the invaders of Ireland.

Amazing movie with strong legs!!!

[quote] ‘Sinners’ Continues Remarkable Box Office Run With $45 Million 2nd Weekend

Warner Bros.’ “Sinners” continued its incredible run at the box office this weekend with a $45 million total that is a mere 6.2% drop from its $48 million opening. It crossed the $100 million domestic mark after just nine days in theaters and is well on pace to become just the fourth horror film ever to gross $200 million before inflation adjustment.

Thanks to resounding critical and audience acclaim, “Sinners” has achieved what Hollywood studios often can only dream of for their original films, finding interest from moviegoers who may not have been aware or interested in Ryan Coogler’s horror tale prior to its release. It is the smallest second weekend drop for any film with a $40 million-plus opening since the historic box office run of “Avatar” in 2009.

That has led to sell out screenings at Imax auditoriums in major cities as well as at theaters like the Vista in Los Angeles that are playing 70mm reels of the film. While “Sinners” will lose that Imax support on Thursday with the release of Marvel Studios’ “Thunderbolts,” it has enough momentum to become the highest grossing original live-action film since Alfonso Cuaron’s “Gravity” in 2013.

It’s an undisputed victory for Warner Bros., which took a risk on “Sinners” with its $90 million budget that has paid off big for both the studio and theaters. Thanks to “Sinners” and Warner’s video game blockbuster “A Minecraft Movie,” every weekend this April has seen overall totals well above $100 million. Prior to this month, there were only two weekends that cleared that mark.

Tammy Cruise loved it.

Jack O’Connnell’s role as Remmick, the master vampire villain in Ryan Coogler’s “Sinners,” isn’t just an evil blood-sucker who’s hellbent on destroying the lives of a group of joyful Black residents in a small town in 1932’s Mississippi Delta. His nationality tells a deeper story about the Irish community’s initial experience in the United States and abroad, its complex relationship with foundational Black Americans and how and why he ultimately used his whiteness as a weapon despite knowing what it feels like to be oppressed.

There was an intention behind every detail of “Sinners," including Remmick’s Irish background.

As “Sinners” lights up the box office, several folks have wondered just exactly why Remmick is Irish. Well, between a combination of interviews from Coogler and O’Connell, and some social commentary, we’re here to give you an answer.

Let’s just get to the big question, right? But it’s not necessarily a straightforward answer. First, let’s break down some key details about Remmick’s overall background and storyline.

Remmick is old. We mean like centuries old. He’s likely a 1,200 to 1,300-year-old vampire immigrant, who we are introduced to while he’s on the run from a group of vampire-slaying Native Americans.

His age means he’s seen and been through a lot of life, including Britain’s oppression of the Irish, which lasted about 700 years — from the Norman invasion in 1169 until the Irish Free State was established in 1922. During that time, the Irish people were discriminated religiously, exploited economically and endured cultural suppression.

Even after signing the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921, Ireland didn’t become fully independent until 1937.

In “Sinners,” Remmick, while trying to convince Smoke and Stack to join his regime, suggests that he understands the Black American’s plight in the U.S. whilst also asking them to hand over Sammie so that he can possess his musical talents for his own benefit. Just as his ancestors were forced out of their cultural origins and liberties by the British, Remmick makes a promise to bring the Black partygoers to freedom if they will assimilate. He tells them he wants to share his message of “fellowship and love.”

He’s not quite comparable to the Ku Klux Klan, and he doesn’t want to be. If anything he saw the terrorist group as the same type of oppressors his people faced, which is why he didn’t hesitate to murder them. However, he failed to decide against inflicting the same pain he endured.

The Irish community’s oppression carried over into their immigration to the U.S., which started in the 17th century and continued on through the 19th century. Many of the poorer Europeans who immigrated the States and other regions, including the Irish, worked as indentured servants, most predominately in the Caribbean and other territories controlled by the British.

But as history shows and as Remmick depicts in the film, whiteness grants power. Some of the Irish community participated in the enslavement of Black people as overseers and in some instances as enslavers. So while Remmick empathizes with the Black community, he lets his sensitivity to marginalization be overshadowed by his personal gain and ultimately to utilize his powers (whiteness) as a weapon.

Coogler shared that much of his reasons for making Remmick Irish were rooted in his own admiration of the Irish culture and people.

“I’m obsessed with Irish folk music, my kids are obsessed with it. My first name is Irish. I think it’s not known how much crossover there is between African American culture and Irish culture and how much that stuff’s loved in our community,” Coogler said. “It was very important that our master vampire in this movie was unique, and as specific as the situation was. It was important to me that he was old, but also that he came from a time that pre-existed these racial definitions so that he would be extremely odd, and that it would all seem odd to him. But also that he would see it for what it was and offer a sweet deal, if that makes sense. And that the music was just as beautiful.”

My sister saw it last night and won't stop raving about it. She said it was brilliant, complex and an absolute 100 % candidate for Oscar.

The Irish music was just as beautiful. As a little black gay boy who was OBSESSED with Riverdance and Jean Butler's original Countess Cathleen routine back in the 90s, I understand where Coogler's coming from :D

R156 thanks for sharing what we’ve discussed already. Only we understood what we were watching on our own. We didn’t need an article to explain it to us.

Remmick is an example of how sometimes the oppressed become the oppressor with time and change.

[quote]Britain’s oppression of the Irish, which lasted about 700 years — from the Norman invasion in 1169 until the Irish Free State was established in 1922.

Oh, it ended? First I've heard of it.

It's a great popcorn film. It kind of fell into formulaic story beats in the latter half, but it was well-done and always engrossing. The tapestry of characters was the strongest element.

This weekend's gross is almost at par with last week but not counting the previews, it is actually higher. That's such an amazing feat yet there are still naysayers arguing it will struggle to make profit. Smh.

I really enjoyed this. The beginning dragged with all the stories but it gets really good with the vampires. The multiple codas are a nice touch. It will have a life like Kill Bill. Sold out shows today in SF.

I so loved the Choctaw Remmick hunters.

One of the usual stupid tropes of vampire hunters is that they always get down to business when the Sun is setting, when the vampire soon will have the advantage.

WTF?

Instead Coogler has the Choctaw chasers look at the sun, assess that the racist couple they're trying to help ain't helpable, and with a polite "God be with you" haul ass outta there.

[quote] Sure, women had hair like this and dressed like this in the South in the '30s.

Some white women did. And white-passing, mixed race women would have as well --see photo of actress Fredi Washington circa 1933.

There probably were no vampires in the South in the 30s either.

[quote] [R28] That's Hailee Steinfeld. She's not a woman of color.

No, she is not a woman of color in 2025. However, the actress has the same amount of African ancestry as the character she portrays. In that time, knowledge of that ancestry would have made her "Black." Even though, many white people of that time with African ancestry lived as white.

[quote] Coogler making the main villain/vampire Irish was genius. This film is really good and smart.

The vampire was not the "villain." He wanted all the people of all races to live together in community with the music.

Unfortunately for [bold]Sinners[/bold], it will be losing its IMAX screens to [bold]Thunderbolts[/bold] this week. Based on the box office, it definitely could have used a longer run in the format—but maybe it will return later this year.

I thought the large woman that MJB entered from behind was his mother. That casting seemed off.

[quote] That's Hailee Steinfeld. She's not a woman of color.

Wrong.

[bold]Steinfeld's father is Jewish and her mother is Christian, and she has said that she "celebrates it all." Her maternal grandfather, Ricardo Domasin, was of half Filipino (from Panglao, Bohol) and half African-American descent[/bold]

That means her mother is a quarter Filipino and a quarter Black.

That means Hailee is 1/8 Filipino and 1/8 Black.

Here's a Steinfeld family photo.

The mother is 1/2 White, 1/4 Filipino, 1/4 Black. But she kind of pulls more on to the White side.

Hailee and her brother are 3/4 White, 1/8 Filipino, and 1/8 Black. They also favor their White heritage. Hailee more so than her brother.

Interestingly, Hailee's brother looks more ethnic than his mother.

Deport her

R166 Her hair looks nothing like Steinfeld's in Sinners.

Doesn’t it stand to reason that *especially in pre internet times*, low income people from rural areas would dress in slightly outdated styles? In some parts of the country you could find women wearing beehive hairdos well into the 1980s

R171

1/8th Asian and 1/8th Black is enough to be labeled a POC?

Lmao are you ok?

R27 That photo reminds me of "Dances with Wolves," where Mary McDonnell played the white woman who had been kidnapped as a child by the Native Americans. When she shows up, she looks like she's just had her hair styled at the local José Eber salon.

Took me right out of the movie.

R176 in 1930s it sure was. Are you unfamiliar with the “one drop” rule?

R176 is clearly NOT an American, and is completely clueless about the "one drop" rule.

R178 r179 I am aware of it. But we are now in 2025. The “one drop rule” is no longer a thing. Welcome to modern day.

Here’s Carole Lombard in the 1930s with near shoulder length waved hair, looks approximate enough to what Haley wears in the film , keeping in mind that the character is not a movie star with the means to recreate magazine looks perfectly

R181 Again, not the same hair at all. Oh, and yeah, Carole Lombard had a stylist, too. She wasn't in a barn like Halee Steinfeld's character was.

R182 it’s not exactly the same but it’s not so different as to totally throw the movie watching experience. It’s a relatively bland and simple page boy with a side part and some waves. Not the kind of look that causes a needle scratch when it comes on screen.

R183 Totally takes me out of the movie.

[quote] Instead Coogler has the Choctaw chasers look at the sun, assess that the racist couple they're trying to help ain't helpable, and with a polite "God be with you" haul ass outta there.

I love that scene! 😂

[quote] [R178] [R179] I am aware of it. But we are now in 2025. The “one drop rule” is no longer a thing. Welcome to modern day.

I thought I did a good job of explaining at r167. It is an inane comment given we're talking about a film set in 1936 -- not modern day.

I wanted to play Adonis Creed.

I wanted to play Adonis Creed

The anachronisms and Hailee Steinfeld’s appearance are part of the plot. It’s honestly excellent.

Millennial American director Ryan Coogler was drowning in $200,000 of student loans when he started making Creed—now, a decade later, his new movie Sinners is taking in $121 million at the box office. Oprah Winfrey, Forever 21 cofounder Do Won Chang, and Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky also found billion-dollar success out of their sticky situations.

Show up to any movie theater across America, and tickets to Sinners have already been swiped for the next two weeks. But just 10 years before the $121 million box office success broke the vampire horror genre, its director was drowning in student loans.

“I was 200 grand in debt for film school. It was bad,” Ryan Coogler revealed recently on the WTF With Marc Maron podcast. “We don’t come from no money.”

It was 2015, and Coogler was on the verge of breakout success—but his wallet didn’t show it.

At the time the director had already filmed the critically acclaimed film Fruitvale Station with Michael B. Jordan. With the A-list actor as his muse, the budding filmmaker took on the tall task of creating a Rocky spinoff series, also starring Jordan: Creed.

He began shooting the first movie in the series, which went on to make $42.6 million in its opening weekend on a $35 million budget.

But the $200,000 in student loans from attending Southern California’s School of the Cinematic Arts was still burning a hole in his pocket. “I wasn't making no money," he added.

The 38-year-old director’s win with Creed marked the first of many to come: Creed II and Creed III also shattered ticket sales expectations; Black Panther and its sequel Wakanda Forever did well over $2 billion at the worldwide box office; Judas and the Black Messiah was nominated many times for Golden Globes and Academy Awards; and now Sinners has brought in $121 million so far in global box offices.

While he didn’t confirm whether or not his student debt has been wiped clean yet (Fortune has reached out for comment), Coogler is far past worrying about his repayment plan.

After making some of the biggest superhero and sports films, his net worth is slated to be around $25 million. None of it may have ever happened if it weren’t for Coogler confiding in his girlfriend at the time—now wife—about how his creative-writing teacher recognized his potential as a screenwriter.

“[My wife] bought me a screenwriting software, Final Draft,” Coogler said. “I found something that I really loved.”

Returning to nine IMAX 70mm screens on May 15 for one week.

“Audiences have spoken and we listened,” Jeff Goldstein, President of Global Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures, said. “If ever a film needed to be experienced in this incredible larger-than-life format, it’s [bold]Sinners[/bold]. Ryan has delivered a film that has been embraced by fans who appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into creating a film for this screen-filling format and we wanted to give everyone the opportunity to see it — or see it again — in 70mm IMAX.”

It's doing very well for a horror picture on a tediously overdone subgenre.

Agree, r192. Vampire movies are exactly what you've described but the way Coogler wrote the character of Remick and his being Irish takes it out of the usual vampire thing.

I've watched Sinners twice and I find Remick to be insanely interesting and charismatic, as a lot of villains are.

Also, I'll repeat what I said upthread. When Remick sings "Rocky Road to Dublin" and leads his coven in Irish jigging it blew my mind.

R193, one music critic said of American folk music that much of it indeed "came from Europe, but it was the wrong Europe." It was not the civilized Europe of waltzes and quadrilles but the Gaelic one with "demonic" jigs and reels and sinister ballads. Any movie about American music (and that is what Sinners is) has to include the Irish.

My coworkers have been raving about this movie, so I finally went to see it last night. LOVED IT and have been thinking about it all morning. Yes, it has vampires, but it’s really about a lot more. Loved the Asian characters. I’m from Mississippi, and I think a lot of people aren’t aware how many Asians moved to the Mississippi back then. And like in the movie, many of them ran general stores, including in the little town where I grew up. Read somewhere online where some dumbass was saying that the Asian inclusion was the filmmakers trying to be “woke” or “DEI”.

I had such a crush on the son of the store owners in my town. He had the cutest, thick..southern drawl.

[quote]Hailee Steinfeld made me laugh with her outlandish lines that she delivered perfectly. She has such a clean and wholesome image so it felt weird seeing her as a character like Mary.

Does she show her titties?

[quote]Unfortunately for Sinners, it will be losing its IMAX screens to Thunderbolts this week.

They'll pull "Thunderbolts" and bring back "Sinners".

It was really good. What’s up with all the haters slamming it before it was even released?

[quote] Call me crazy, but if they're gonna make a movie set in the 1930s, I'd like the movie to look like, ya know, the 1930s. This looks like "Funny Girl," which took place in the 1920s while Barbra sported her 1960s hairdo and eyeliner.

Oh My God, right?

No, they won't R197. Not without Disney's agreement. ([bold]Thunderbolts[/bold] is from the Mouse, whereas [bold]Sinners[/bold] is from Warner Bros.)

Warner Bros. has, however, announced that [bold]Sinners[/bold] will be returning to the 9 North American cinemas that can screen it in IMAX 70mm film, starting on May 15. In that case, they will be taking over screens that would otherwise be showing another WB release, [bold]Final Destination: Bloodlines[/bold] (which will still show at regular digital IMAX theaters all over). That run will only last a week before Paramount's [bold]Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning[/bold] takes over IMAX screens.

It’s an excellent movie and really entertaining. Coogler is a natural, a terrifi director who somehow caught the period, the location, the sense of a place and people and their relationships that feels earned and lived in. It’s well acted and introduces some incredible actors I’d never seen before.

And that’s apart from the dizzying feat he pulls off of making connections between black blues and Irish folk traditions , which directly led to the invention of tap dancing (implied but not emphasized) as well and leading to all forms of music that black musicians have excelled in, then and since. Of course that included Jewish traditions when it came to mainstream pop music, but that’s not in Coogler’s purview, it’s enough that he charts some of the black history and cultural traditions that affected the 20th Century.

As to his unusual deal, that’s between him and Warner Bros., who clearly know what they have in him. That so much has been made of this (under the false flag of ‘protecting’ the film business) just shows how much entrenched racism there is at the top of the business but more than that how much curdled envy there is at every level in Hollywood, which has just become more virulent once it was clear the movie is terrific and that Coogler is very ,very talented, two things that are unforgiveable if you are rooting for your competition to fail.

Because of this, I am trying to watch the nearly 3 hour Wakanda Forever. What a slog.

[quote] ‘Thunderbolts*’ Flies to $162 Million Globally, ‘Sinners’ Nears $250 Million Milestone

“Thunderbolts*” touched down at the global box office with $162 million, including $86.1 million from 52 international markets.

Those ticket sales are behind the previous Marvel adventure, February’s “Captain America: Brave New World” ($192 million), though reviews and audience scores for “Thunderbolts*” should help in terms of staying power. “Brave New World,” on the other hand, hobbled by terrible word-of-mouth, quickly collapsed at the box office.

Big screen endurance is important because Disney spent $180 million to make and another $100 million to market “Thunderbolts*,” which centers on a ragtag group of antiheroes including Sebastian Stan’s Bucky Barnes, Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova, Wyatt Russell’s John Walker and David Harbour’s Red Guardian.

“Thunderbolts*” also topped domestic box office charts with $76 million. Outside of the U.S. and Canada, top territories were China ($10.4 million), the United Kingdom ($7.7 million), Mexico ($7.3 million) and Brazil ($4 million).

Elsewhere at the international box office, “Sinners” added $10.4 million from 71 markets, down just 27% from the prior weekend. Meanwhile R-rated vampire horror movie has become a sensation in North America with $179.9 million to date. After three weekends in theaters, “Sinners” is impressively nearing the $250 million globally with ticket sales currently at $236.7 million.

I never miss a Julia Louise Dreyfus Superhero movie!

The naysayers upthread who insisted this would never even recoup its cost have gone radio silent. Took a whole three weeks.

lol r64

I don't know if that pick at r34 is or isn't Micheal B. Jordan.

My strai-dar, however, is absent vibrations of heterosexuality.

I vote deeply closeted gay.

Yes, I loved this movie, too. I've watched it 6 or 7 times in the last week. I love the style and the music. I really like how they incorporated music. MBJ, is such a handsome guy, too.

I thought it was amazing in most respects—great performances (especially by Wunmi Mosaku, Miles Canton, and Delroy Lindo), great cinematography and production design, and most especially great music. I really enjoyed the story for most of the runtime, but felt it stumbled a bit with the big climactic brawl—vampire movies work better as suspenseful thrillers than action movies, imho. The writing and performance for Remmick was great, if it had just been him providing the menace rather than crowds of newly-turned vampires I think it would have been better. I'd also have been just as happy to see the story play out with no overt supernatural elements at all, as long as it kept the big show-stopping juke joint number for its symbolic importance.

So glad to see that word of mouth is continuing to buoy its success and make fools of the naysayers who predicted (or continue to insist on) its failure..

[quote]in a FEW WEEKS when Sinners is declared a “box office disappointment” at best feel safe in the knowledge that I’ll be somewhere having a big ol’ laugh over your oh-so-predictable race-baiting response.

Guess you won't be having that big ol' laugh after all, R73.

"'Sinners' is on pace to gross at least $275 million domestic. That would be enough to make it the highest grossing live-action original film before inflation adjustment since Alfonso Cuaron’s 'Gravity' in 2013."

On Saturday, Warner Bros.’ “Sinners” reached a box office milestone that no original film has achieved in eight years: $200 million in the U.S. and Canada.

Driven by critical and audience acclaim that has made it a must-see for millions of Americans, Ryan Coogler’s musical vampire horror hit is the highest domestic grossing original movie since the Pixar movie “Coco,” which grossed $210 million during its Thanksgiving run in 2017.

“Sinners” has passed that total before inflation adjustment with an estimated domestic total of $216 million after four weekends in theaters. The loss of Imax screens to Marvel Studios’ “Thunderbolts*” has done little to slow its momentum, enjoying a fourth weekend total of $23 million that alone is higher than the opening weekend of any horror film since Paramount’s “Smile 2” last October.

Sporting a reported $90 million budget and a rare agreement to return rights to the film to Coogler in 25 years, “Sinners” was a big risk for Warner’s film studio chiefs Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy as they seek to build relationships with filmmakers via big-budget original titles like Paul Thomas Anderson’s upcoming “One Battle After Another.”

That risk has paid off in a big way. While overseas grosses are low at $69 million, “Sinners” will pass $300 million worldwide in the coming week and turn a profit theatrically. It is also setting itself up for plenty of post-theatrical revenue with its early Oscar buzz that should play into strong interest in premium on-demand and Blu-Ray sales and could potentially boost streaming subscriptions upon its release on Max.

Beyond that, passing $292 million domestic would put it above Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” to become the highest grossing original film of the past 15 years, and crossing $300 million would make it the first original film to do so since the highest grossing film of all time, “Avatar.”

R210 This shit singing to be one of the most successful films of the year and the highest grossing original film perhaps of the 21st century. I knew it after its first week numbers and audience cinema score. Then the 2nd week damn near matched the first week. We might have a new classic on our hands. Award season will lionize it. Some are saying it’s the best film since There Will Be Blood.

I want to see this but I'm going to wait to see it on streaming. The days when I could nonchalantly sit through an ultaviolent horror film in the theater are long gone.

R212 yet you’re one of the people hoping it flopped a few weeks ago

According to Puck, Ryan Coogler's 'Sinners' needs to make around $300M to turn a profit.

Lmao now it’s $300 million? Please spare me.

R214 ???? I believe I commented on this thread unsigned. What are you talking about. I knew this shit would be a success. All my comments on all these threads have stated that. The film has gotten unanimous critical praise from day 1. Mainly I kept asking why haters were so convinced it would flop. The trailer looked good as fuck. Some people seem like they want black films to flop. Shit don’t even be out and yet they’ll insist it will be the biggest flop ever.

I can’t remember if it’s the same thread or threads. But anybody who uses that troll tracking feature or whatever can see my comments have been mad supportive of this film. And I haven’t even seen it yet because I am been so busy and now I’m sick. People just be lying on DL.

The way some of you racist self-hating white gays are losing their shit over the ABSOLUTE success of this great film is HILARIOUS! 😂

[quote] Lmao now it’s $300 million? Please spare me.

And once it passes that, the haters gonna say it needs $400M to make profit.

R220 yup. It’s sitting at around $280 million worldwide. So soon it will need even more

R220 Oh this film is going to break 400 mil even it takes 4 years from now. It’s going to be one of those films that continue to make money because it’s so popular. The highest grossing films not only were super popular at the time of release but they continue to make money year after year. It’s hard to explain. They become like cultural like Titanic or Wizard of Oz so they are always playing in some theater around the world.

Only it doesn’t need $400 million to break even. It cost $90 million to make. The highest it would need is $200 million. They didn’t spend over $300 million on marketing

R223 Right. This shit is already a success. Also only on DL is a film that makes double its profit not a success. ONLY on DL. Hell even on Hollywood trade sites, any film that makes double its budget is a success because that’s common fucking sense. Even if that film underperformed. But what I realize on DL because the big dummies would swear a film would flop and are comments live forever they just started lying to say a film that make makes double its budget is not a success, especially if it is one deemed underperforming overall. Thats common sense and pretty much applicable to any business model. Any product that grosses double what the fuck it took to make said product is fucking profitable. I see why people be saying our community is mentally ill. Shit defies logic.

I bet you my milkshake that Sinners will do better than There Will be Blood, come awards season.

Used to be that any film that hit the $100 million worldwide box office mark was considered a blockbuster, particularly if the budget was under $50 million. At any rate, SINNERS is a bona fide success both commercially and critically, no matter how you slice it. Anyone who says otherwise is a hater.

If it cost $90 million to make and they spent another $60 million to promote it, a $300 million break even sounds right. It will pass that next weekend.

R227 Wrong. I keep hearing people repeat this lie. I have a friend who works for a studio. A film’s marketing is allocated from a central budget unrelated to the film’s budget, meaning the funds to procure that have already been established. Think of it as advertisement for any company. Certain products may sell less than others. Doesn’t mean marketing things that eventually turn out to be a dud with the public, means they lost money via advertisement because they have products that are highly successful. It’s way more complicated than you think. Any big company will have a big marketing pool. All of what I’m saying is especially true for big tent films that are 100% studio.

Any film that makes double its budget is a success. Technically, any film that makes more than it cost to produce, made a profit. Datalounge does not know more about film and financing than my friend, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter. It’s a rotating pool of funds, meaning money is always there. It is a successful multimillion dollar company. I keep hearing that dumb fallacy repeated. If that were true only 10% of films would be successful including many considered blockbusters. What is true that huge tent pole films spend more on marketing exponentially higher than films with smaller budgets. It is known as a marketing blitz and the studios love it because they usually work especially after first screening and the shit pans out to be a turkey. Studios will gladly take 80 mil from the marketing budget for blockbuster type broad appeal film even if only to double its budget. And even if only double its budget it’s a hit. The funds for marketing have already been established by the other means. It is always there if that makes any sense. Some of it, I don’t even fully understand.

R228 yes. We should believe you because you claim You have a friend who works for a studio. Give us actual evidence of just keep the bullshit to yourself.

I will believe a random poster on DL with the posting history of a mentally ill patient over the professionals discussing it on movie pages and websites.

Can someone connected to the industry co-sign my post. I’m not making this up.

R230 co-signing doesn’t mean shit unless you can post proof.

I’m confused by these numbers. If the break even is 3 times the production cost, why does anyone bother making movies? You have to shell out 300 million to make 15 million? And most films ARENT hits. So the few that are profitable have to suck up the losses for the ones that aren’t. How is Hollywood making so much money?

The film is wildly successful but is it profitable? Not yet. That doesn't mean it won't quickly become profitable and then make even more from streaming, rentals, etc. The studio only gets half the box office, and only 25% from foreign, so I think you are just making up numbers to say it's already profitable.

50% of $214 million = $112 million

25% of $69 million = $17.5 million

Total to studio = $129.5 million

Cost to produce and market = $150 million

So, it will be profitable soon.

Lmao most of you just make shit up and run with it.

So according to r233 if the film makes 51 million More it will make 20 million for the studio. That’s the cost of 2 executives houses. How are these studios making billions of dollars in profit yearly?

R235 he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Or you don’t. I haven’t checked to see if you’re behind both accounts

All this hair-splitting over this wildly successful film's box office status is clearly because it is a majority black film from a black filmmaker. It couldn't be more obvious.

R237 100%. When it’s a white cast this is never even a question. It’s only a discussion when it has black people behind it.

R232 It’s because like I said marketing is a central pool. You point out my point beautifully actually. You will have a sleeper hit that used very little marketing funds to make 100 mil. Or an Oscar nominated film that then upticks to 80-90 mil. A big action blockbuster requires a big marketing budget. These films are not only breaking even. Double its budget or higher is a success. I’m not arguing with these idiots about this anymore any film that makes more than what is cost to produce made a profit. Marketing is not tied to a film’s budget or cost to produce. These finance isn’t. It’s separate.

R239 provide proof. Numbers don’t lie so show us actual evidence.

People said the same thing about Challenges or A Complete Unknown. The math ain’t mathing for profit.

R238 There is no hair splitting in the mainstream press. I mean I heard whispers over its first week numbers because of streaming but then it came out and put that to bed. It’s only datalounge because our comments live forever. I will say this until I’m blue in the face. Any film that doubles what its costs to produce, ie film budget, is a success. Not just a lukewarm success. Any film doing 3 or more times its budget is a huge success. Only on Datalounge is that not the case. Furthermore any film popular in theaters will only grow more popular in rentals and can also command higher streaming licensing fees. It’s going to make even more money.

R242 that poster didn’t even go to college. I just checked who it is. Don’t pay him any mind.

R243 Mmkay. You guys know each other personally? Thats a real question btw. You know him know him?

If a picture grosses $300 million, it doesn't mean the studio gets it all. A percentage gores to the exhibitors.

The back and forth bitching about whether or not a film is "successful" based on monetary calculations is the most tedious and predictable form of being completely captured by capitalism. The movie is successful because a lot of people seem to love it, enough to see it more than once in many instances. If that also happens to make a studio money, great. Good god some of you might as well be prosperity gospel evangelicals with your fixation on profits and money. What a tacky mindset.

Unfortunately r246 capitalism is the only common ground shared by many diametrically opposed groups here, for instance, racists and non racists, so it ends up having the final say on whose side “wins”.

R247 it’s ridiculous.

No one on here sees a dime of the money made, so why anyone would care what it makes is silly.

Mind you, when a film stars white faces it only needs double the budget to make profit, when it’s a black face suddenly it needs like 4x

I think no one here has been able to articulate what is very special and excellent about this film. It sticks in your craw. It surprises you, makes cultural, human and musical connections that move you while you’re watching it and give you food for thought when you think back on it. And you know within minutes that you’re in the hands of a skilled filmmaker who knows what he wants to do and knows how to use his camera (and everything else at his disposal) to tell a story. This film, it’s locations, it’s characters and its relationships feel lived in, which is incredibly difficult to do in something that isn’t a long form miniseries. In its way its a perfect film, lightning in a bottle. It’s gonna tale a lot for Coogler to top this,

I’m a gay white guy, a retired Baby Boomer who loves movies, grew up watching old movies on TV while attending movies every week with my parents throughout my childhood and after that on my own. I’ve seen it twice, once in standard format to see what all the fuss was about and a second time last week in 70 mm to focus on the filmmaking rather than the narrative. In my younger years I’d see a movie like “Nashville,” “Days of Heaven,” “Taxi Driver,” “Chinatown,” “Road Warrior” three of four times in a theater to relive the rush of a good film, and this is the first film in a long time to make me feel that way again (well maybe not so long, I felt that way about “Oppenheimer” too, which is a very different film experience.) So I’m not the ‘typical’ or intended audience for this film.

What intrigues me about “Sinners” (which I will see again on streaming with captions because I know I missed dialogue both times) is something mysterious and beautiful and ambiguous at its heart which really casts its own spell in on the viewer, and which I haven’t yet been able to unlock. I bought the score and have been listening to that to see if I can sort my feelings about it, haven’t yet.

The combination of storytelling, music, and the ancient legend of vampirism has created a really original American folk tale, an emotional and intellectual experience that I couldn’t fully grasp in one viewing, or even two. That is so fucking rare in movies for the last 30 years, when they are mostly commodities.

And I was struck especially on my second viewing with how the packed house, mostly but not exclusively filled with young people of color, was rapt with attention and applauded loudly at the end of it. “Sinners” is connecting with people who are open to it. It’s leaving the audiences with feelings they want to repeat by seeing it again. And again. That is validation of the highest order for a work of art and entertainment. It will certainly be one of the anointed 10 Best Picture nominees for this year.

Enough with the over the top ridiculous posts. Please

[quote]And once it passes that, the haters gonna say it needs $400M to make profit.

Captain Marvel made $1.1B and Comicsgate types were claiming it was a flop with inflated box office due to Disney buying tickets for empty seats. Bigots will always find some way to explain the success of minority or women-led media that denies credit to the people responsible for it.

Great post r249!

My friend saw it over the weekend and said it OK. And we saw all the classics from the 70's and 80's first run opening night. I'll wait for streaming.