Watch Saint Sinner For Free
Saint Sinner
In 1815 a monk, Tomas Alcala, unwittingly unleashes two female succubi, Munkar and Nakir, upon an unsuspecting 21st century. He is chosen by God to travel through the centuries and stop the demons' rampage.
Release : | 2002 |
Rating : | 4.2 |
Studio : | Seraphim Films, USA Cable Entertainment, Via Genesis Productions, |
Crew : | Art Direction, Production Design, |
Cast : | Greg Serano Gina Ravera Mary Mara Rebecca Harrell Tickell Art Hindle |
Genre : | Fantasy Horror Science Fiction TV Movie |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Related Movies
Reviews
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.
This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.
It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
SAINT SINNER is pretty much what I would have expected from a Sci-Fi Channel made-for-TV Clive Barker story - it was entertaining enough, but lacked all the elements that could have made it something noteworthy. Pretty much mindless "fun" with no substance - I knew not to get my hopes up just because Barker's name was attached to it, and it's a good thing I didn't...A monk unwittingly unleashes a pair of succubi who use a time-machine to travel from 1815 to "modern times". Once here, they go around feeding on unsuspecting males and causing general havoc. The reluctant monk uses the time-machine to track the two and with the help of a blessed dagger, hopes to end their killing-spree...The main problem with SAINT SINNER, is that it's a made-for-TV film, which means no nudity, no real gore, none of the "good stuff" that could have made this better. The acting was OK if a bit goofy, especially from the succubi-sisters - but I wasn't expecting Oscar-worthy performances. The "action" comes pretty quick, so I was never really bored - but the whole show was pretty predictable and straight-forward, with no real interesting twists or surprises. In fact - the one "twist" that I thought was going to happen (involving the one succubi's "offspring") never came, and was never explained or resolved at all. I'd say this is an extremely mediocre rental at best for a "popcorn"-style horror film, but would honestly suggest not even bothering - those expecting a well-made Barker film will be severely disappointed...5/10
don't know from where this master writer get these names (munkar & nakir),it's certainly in Islamic context but i don't about Christianity. Munkar and Nakir in Islamic eschatology are two 'malaikat'(angels) who test the faith of the dead in their tombs. After death, they prop the deceased upright in the grave and ask "Who is your Lord?, Who is your Prophet?, What is your Book?" A righteous muslim will respond correctly. He will then be shown the place that had been reserved for him in HELL, but told that Allah has exchanged it for a place in PARADISE. An infidel, of course will not respond correctly, and the angels will rebuke him: "Neither did you know nor did you seek guidance from those who had knowledge". Then they will hit him with an iron hammer between his ears, show him the place he could have had in Paradise, and throw him into HELL. IF THIS MOTHER/DAUGHTER DEMONS/SUCCUBI did not appears in the Bible. THIS CERTAINLY IS AN INSULT.
What a disappointment! A weak, illogical plot loaded with cliches. There is so much psycho-sexual territory to be mined in exploring the mythology of Incubi, but this stinker does nothing more than throw in the towel. Clive Barker has done some good original stuff, but not here, not now.
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.