Go in cold, and you're likely to emerge with your blood boiling. This has to be seen to be believed.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Now this may seem harsh, but I have to say this was one of the worst movies i have ever seen. The effects were a joke and the acting was atrocious. The time traveling scenes are laughable and not in a good way.Everything just seemed so low budget and amateurish even for a low budget movie.Made for TV or not, this was a pathetic attempt at horror and film making in general.Clive Barker should be ashamed to even put his name on this movie. Stay away, not even worth a peak.

First of all I want to say that I've seen hundreds of movie,maybe thousands and this one, made me register to IMDb to vote (1-awful). I like SF and Horrot, but this one, I did not. The first part (1815)is OK, but from the time that the main character travels in time to (2000)till the end is very awfull. The special effects aren't that bad, but i think the storyline was rong and it didn't capture my attention. There are to big names attachet to this movie (Williams B. Davis, and Clive Barker) and I think if they knew how this movie turned up, they wouldn't participate to this movie. Being my first comment on a movie, I'l stop, but not before I'll say this:== NOT WORTH RENTING IT, LET ALONE BUY IT. ===

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)

!!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!!I guess on paper the plot of SAINT SINNER resembles a sort of supernatural TERMINATOR with a 19th century monk goiing forward to the 21st century to pursue a couple of succubi , but the 19th century lacks any sense of time and place and the characters seem to be played as though they`re a bunch of 21st century flatmates , seriously they are which meant I couldn`t take them seriously As bad as that is it`s when the succubi get to the 21st century things really fall apart . You see these two demonic women have got a litle sideline of working as prostitutes to ensnare men . Fair enough you might say everyone has to earn a living , but unless you`ve seen SAINT SINNER you`ve no idea how ridiculous this is because the succubi seem to be covered in a slimy gel and there`s no way any man would pay good money to have sex with them . In fact I`d have thought everyman they came across would have paid good money NOT to have sex with them because they`re totally gross looking . Of course men paying good money not to have sex with them would have interfered with the plot ( But not with logic ) so we have several bizarre sequences of the gruesome twosome earning some money and killing their victims , but the most unconvincing scene is the bit where the succubi kill a policeman . What`s unconvincing about it Theo ? Well it involves the cop getting his spinal column pulled out of his neck and the succubi sucking on it . This happens on a ferris wheel at a crowded funfair where no one notices anything amiss , and no I`m not making this up I once had high hopes for Clive Barker who made my all time favourite horror movie HELLRAISER but after seeing this garbage I`m left believing HELLRAISER was a total fluke on the part of Barker