This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

This movie reminded me of a made for cable movie...guess what? it was.The special effects are average, the gore a lot on the low side considering the Canadian rating of 18A.This was filmed in Vancouver and West Van mostly and generally the filming was competent.The story was not original...vampires through time being chased by a slayer, but it was still enjoyable.I liked all the leads, the cops were a bit stiff, but the Monk was pretty watchable.All in all a OK Vampire movie....Oh ya, the two female vampires?...Campy campy campy...loved them!

Well, first of the art design is polished and makes the entire film look like something that's trying to be really... unimportant. The guy playing Tomas Alcala (his name will not be mentioned here) is presenting a horrid lack of acting skills. (Look up, curse God quietly, look sad, make audience laugh with embarrassment) and his female sidekick is only vaguely better. It looks to me like the good Mr. Barker has actually forgotten that he needs to give instructions to the actors. They're looking completely left alone in this.The basic idea could be OK, if it wasn't for the weird plot holes. Halucinations that come from who knows where, the wheel of time that is an artifact left completely unexplained. I know it isn't fair to demand intelligent script writing from Mr. Barker, but it makes me mad every time. The worst part is really that it looks so cheap, sort of like a pilot for a stupid TV-show. And the phonographic idea for the succubi is just bad. That straw they use to drink from their victims looks ridiculous on a good day. Had I only had a feeling that there was something he was trying to say with this, but no, some ramblings about Christianity and sin, that can't really interest anyone.Only plus in this, and the reason why I rated it a 2 and not 1, is the opening scene:we open on a shot of Tomas Alcala lying in the grass. Zoom out till we think he's naked, but no, he wearing this diaper, arms outstretched like a Jesus in the grass. Then he takes a bite of an apple (oh no), and sees a young woman washing clothes in the river. She bends over, and then - then - you can actually, for quite a while, see her breasts. And they are pretty.

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 watched this offering from the SciFi channel this weekend, and was vastly underwhelmed. I admit I wasn't glued to the tube, but was alert enough to keep a partial eye and ear on it -- enough so, that had it been interesting, I would have ceased what I was working on and paid serious attention to it. But, alas, no such luck. The acting was lackluster, the special effects were uninspiring, and the storyline pedestrian. It felt and looked like the wet dream of a 15-year-old male. There are much better ways to spend a couple hours.