IMDb > Saint Sinner (2002) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Saint Sinner
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Saint Sinner (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 29 reviews in total 

12 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

An Above Average Horror Movie

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
25 June 2004

In 1815, the curious monk Tomas Alcala (Greg Serano) releases two evil female succubi called Munkar (Mary Mara) and Nakir (Rebecca Harrell) from a prison with the shape of a sculptured ball. The demons kill his brother eating his arm and escapes to the Twenty-First Century using a weird device stored in the monastery. Tomas is marked on his hand by a dagger, and the priests understand that, in accordance with God's wish, this would mean that he would be a saint and should travel in time to destroy the succubi, using the dagger as a kind of compass to direct him towards the demons. In the present days, he is helped by detective Rachel Dressler (Gina Ravera), who is grieving the loss of her father and believes on his words. Meanwhile, the two evil demons are feeding themselves of blood of human beings and fighting against Tomas and Rachel. I have just seen this movie on cable television and certainly it is above average. It has a reasonable screenplay and good special effects. The cast is not bad, but something is missing to be a good or excellent movie. Maybe with a better lead actor, and some more fun in the scenes of the two succubi might improve the story. Anyway, I am a great fan of horror movies and I found `Saint Sinner' a worthwhile entertainment, specially considering that it is made for TV. I do not know why most of the present horror movies uses the expression `God's Plan'. As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not have this cliché, but it is used in many stories to designate what God expects from a character or situation. Does God have a plan for the humankind? I find this expression not appropriated, but maybe it is my misunderstanding of language or lack of knowledge of religion. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): `O Santo Pecador' (`The Saint Sinner')

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Barker delivers an enjoyable erotic horror flick.

Author: Ky-D from Hawaii, USA
29 October 2009

Judged against the majority of Clive Barker adaptations, this one ranks as one of the better; not as good as 'Lord of Illusions', 'Hellraiser', or 'Midnight Meat Train', but far more enjoyable than the dismal Candyman/Hellraiser sequels, about on par with 'Night Breed', 'Book of Blood', or the original 'Candyman'.

In 1815, a curious monk accidentally unleashes a pair of lethally seductive succubi, who swiftly kill his brother and then flee through time. Wishing to atone for his sins, the monk follows the pair to the 20th century where he must slaw them with a magical dagger. He is arrested after arriving too late to one of their murder scenes and is forced to try to convince a female cop with no religion to believe him.

Produced for the SciFi channel (or now SyFy, how dorky), the movie has some of the problems connected with made for TV flicks; that is a few tacky sets, less-than-stunning visual effects, and some cheesy lines of dialogue.

On the plus side, the film has an excellent color pallet and a good sense of mood lighting. The lead protagonists (the monk and the cop) are a likable pair of heroes and the succubi sisters manage to be both desirable and repulsive in just about equal proportions.

As mentioned, this was intended for cable broadcast, so the movie has to conform to TV standards of content; meaning no nudity or graphic violence. That being said, the film is surprisingly sticky (even without excess blood, there are a couple noteworthy gross-out scenes) and there is a fair amount of sexual content. On a side not, the DVD has a couple of unrated scenes in the special features which contain some nudity for those that absolutely can't do without it.

Imperfect, yet still satisfying; worth a look.


Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Mildly Entertaining Made-For-TV Horror From A Clive Barker Story...

Author: EVOL666 from St. John's Abortion Clinic
24 August 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Goofy fun.

Author: mightygeo from columbus, OH USA
29 October 2002

If you like Clive Barker film adaptations you will probably like this. This is a good and bad thing of course as Barker films tend to be uneven. On the plus side is decent acting and some genuinely spooky scenes especially in the first half. The two sucubi are especially interesting at first with quirky mannerisms and they do give an impression of supernatural beings in human form. The effects are generally good but do get a little cheesy in parts (the latex look). The protagonists also tend to become less interesting as the film goes on. Thats the main problem I have with this movie in that it just goes on too long. I really enjoyed the first hour but steadily lost interest as the story ran out of ideas and became pretty predictable. All in all though it was enjoyable enough and does show more imagination than a lot of what passes for horror these days. If you liked this I would recommend "Hellraiser" also by Clive and "The Prophecy" with Christopher Walken.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

One of the best horror movies I've seen

Author: PeterRoeder from Lyngby, Denmark
19 January 2004

I was shocked to see that this got so low a rating. I really liked this movie. The story is so good, and brings to mind the best work of Clive Barker. I thought this movie has some purposeless violence. However, that does not change the fact that a wonderful story is being told in a way which is far beyond most main-stream horror. 10/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Clive Barker does it again

Author: dustball23 from Maryland, USA
27 October 2002

Somebody tell me why EVERY horror movie isn't about demons that have sex with their victims? You can't go wrong with that.

Clive barker touched upon some "old horror movie" themes and styles during the beginning of the movie -- William Davis from the X-files (the cigarette-smoking man) plays a part in this. Once the main character travels through time to current day, the movie itself changes into "year 2002 horror movie" mode. Both were done very well.

The movie has a lot of character to it. They went through a lot of effort on this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

Not Bad

Author: NIXFLIX-DOT-COM from
16 September 2003

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 for a more detailed review of the film)

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

I was entertained.

Author: stormruston from victoria bc
21 January 2006

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Was Very Decent For A Clive Barker made for cable movie

Author: badgirlkane
28 October 2002

Was a decently made made-for-cable- movie especially concering the subject matter as a true succubi demon drains a man to death sexually and in this film you see your succubi sucking on a tube from the back of a mans neck/head rather than his privates. Also,I thought that succubi were supposed to be very beautiful women and both of the actresses hired for this film definatley leave a lot to be desired in the looks department though both women do pull off the characters of the succubi as extremely creepy.You as a man would not want to nail these two but since most of a sucubbis victims are usually hypnotized as in folklore they appear to be beautiful until the sex act begins and then they appear to the victim as the withred,disgusting demonesses they truly are supposed to be. Actor Thomas Alcala is a fine actor who deserves better movie roles in the future as his monk character makes this film very interesting. Low on the gore factor i guess since on it's on TV which definatley will disappoint some Barker fans, as it did yours truly the movie was decent it just needed more gore and if it was allowed some nudity would ahve be acceptable to the roles of the 2 actresses playing the demonesses and also better looking women playing the roles of succubi is a must.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular

Author: slayrrr666 ( from Los Angeles, Ca
17 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Saint Sinner" is decent enough but not altogether spectacular.


Uncovering a strange amulet, Tomas Alcala, (Greg Serano) learns from Father Michael, (William B. Davis) that the amulet was supposed to keep Munkar, (Mary Mara) and Nakir, (Rebecca Harrell) sister succubi from exiting their dimensional trap. Released into our world, he is sent out to stop them from unleashing their fury and destruction on mankind. Reluctantly accepting, the job, he sets out to the city to find that they have been on a giant rampage leaving bodies everywhere they go that eventually catches up to him. When Det. Rachel Dressler, (Gina Ravera) is assigned to the case, it takes them awhile to believe that the actions he's saying are happening until an unexplainable encounter forces her to consider the story. Finally on the same side, they decide to track them down before more fall to their fury.

The Good News: This here wasn't that bad and had some halfway decent moments in it. The main part of this one is that there's a whole lot of great special effects work in the film. This is due to the manner in which the deaths are accomplished, sucking out the life-force physically from the subject. To accomplish this, a small tube is dug into the back of the neck from which it's sucked out, while the victim is also seen to be completely covered in a strange goo from everywhere on the body, and these are greatly realized with some rather brutal scenes showing the fluid being drained through these devices. The manner of killing, by slicing open the neck to apply the tube also means that there's a large amount of blood to be seen, and a couple of non-fatal encounters also produce a fair amount of bloodshed to the mix. The film also has a rather incredibly disgusting birthing sequence where a pregnant stomach is seen with some form of creature scratching and clawing from behind it, with a large tentacle erupting forth and soon after a hideous millipede-like creature is seen to be coming out, later to turn on the mother in a fantastic scene. Mixed along side this with some nice brawling, a couple of decent action-packed encounters and a fun, exciting finale that has a large amount of life and entertainment, this one here has some really good points to it.

The Bad News: This one here wasn't terrible, but there was a few flaws to it. One of the big ones is that there's very little in here that go explained. The whole story starts with his letting them go, and in a sign of God, chosen to stop them, which really doesn't make sense as a colossal mistake of that kind doesn't really earn the kind of reward given to it. There's also the series about how the creatures haven't had trouble adapting to the new generation in the present time. It certainly should've come up, how that makes for fun times is missing as here, there's no scenes involving either of the time travelers having any trouble adapting to the changes between the times when they're really should've been. The film also fails to mention how the source of the demons power is achieved through their killing method. It's shown to be a form of hose coming out of the back of the neck, but whether or not it's a device planted on the back from the creatures or just the spinal cord ripped out. That others would find the deathly pale glow of their skin as attractive is yet another one, and these here are some of the minutiae flaws found. The film also has areas that aren't all there, especially the slow later half where the cops take over and the back-story is given. This is slow, meandering and doesn't really have a lot to offer in terms of entertainment, and combined with the other flaws, are what's really wrong with the film.

The Final Verdict: With a few good and bad moments, this one here manages to stay watchable through the bad even though it is flawed. Give this one a chance if you're into the creative side of the film or find the topic or the film in general interesting, otherwise there isn't enough for others to get into it.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Language, Nudity and a clothed sex scene

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings Awards External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history