NateWatchesCoolMovies Sin is known as the B movie that Gary Oldman did, and he himself has bad mouthed it on occasion. Back then though, this was the only kind of movie like that he had to explain away. These days he has quite a few more of this type in his filmography, so he can't really talk. It really isn't the best movie, and functions as well as its limited budget and mediocre script will allow, but I must say there are a few moments, ones with stars Oldman and Rhames, that are just killer, and one in fact that borders on greatness. Rhames plays Eddie Burns, an ex cop or military man who lives estranged in the country, until the organized gang rape of his sister (Kerry Washington) coaxes him back into Reno Nevada. This heinous crime (a scene which borders on exploitation, to be honest) is orchestrated by Charlie Strom (Oldman), a nasty pornographer and drug kingpin who has a decades old bone to pick with Eddie. The film has some lonely atmospherics to it, the eventual confrontation between the two playing out in a poetic, if contrived fashion. For all the two bit moments in the script (and there are a lot), there's one showstopper of a scene between Rhames and Oldman, that is reminiscent of Michael Mann's Heat, and is quietly but surely affecting in its sadness. Brian Cox blusters through as Eddie's former police boss, Bill Sage hangs out for a bit as a detective, and the one, the only Gregg Henry appears as a sleazy informant who feeds Rhames Intel. He also gets the best line of the film, exclaiming "I haven't even had my morning fattie" after being rudely awakened Rhames. Watch for Alicia Coppola, Daniel Dae Kim and Arie Verveen as well. There's some genuine ambition in the script, delving into the complex moral conundrum that exists between protagonist and antagonist, and how the two archetypes aren't always so clear cut. Conscience and lack thereof is explored as well, with surprising results. I won't lie and say it isn't just a trashy b movie, but I won't pretend there wasn't some moments and aspects which I greatly enjoyed. It's somewhere right in the middle.

Boba_Fett1138 I watched this movie for two reasons; The amazing Gary Oldman and for the music by Michael Giacchino of whom I'm a fan ever since his "Medal of Honor" scores. The movie was not completely a waste of time but it also was far from good.Man to blame is I think director Michael Stevens, you can tell by looking at this movie that he is just too unexperienced. There are some well executed sequences but there are way more scene's that are just poorly done also due to some weird and dumb camera positions and some poor editing. Michael Stevens tries to impress the viewer with some shots of nature, it only works distracting and doesn't do much good to the pace. Maybe he should consider a career as documentary maker?The story is also quite a problem. It takes a while before you understand what the movie is all about. Once you pick up the story the movie is actually not bad, it's just that it has been done about a hundred times before.Ving Rhames tries but he just ain't no good leading actor, I liked his costume but that's about all the positive I can say. Gary Oldman is in his element as psychopathic villain. He played a lot of roles like this before but in his case you just never get tired of it. Brian Cox is also excellent in a small supporting role. And keep an eye on Arie Verveen, I expect great things for him in the future.If you can ignore the bad dialog, story, plot-holes and directing you'll see that there is some good in this movie and that it is a watchable one that is fairly entertaining as an action movie but not a must see in any way.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Andy Casey This was worst film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through. It was painful to watch, the only thing that kept me watching this dreadful film was that it was so bad I felt I had a responsibility to warn the rest of the world not to waste a couple of hours of their lives watching it.There was no plot to speak of and any hints of a plot were so obvious that you work them out at least half an hour in advance. Every word in this film is a part of a line or a speech, there is no 'normal everyday talking' the script is rubbish! The direction was confusing in its absence and the editing seems to have been done ten minutes before the premier.Do not be fooled by the cast as they were also somehow fooled by the script.Worthy of the IMDb bottom 100, and in my opinion should be #1.

underfire35 Now keep in mind, the only reason I undertook to see this film was because Gary Oldman was on the cover. If it had been anyone else (Richard Grieco, Michael Pare, Brian "The Boz" Bosworth, for example), I would not have even picked up the box. SIN looked liked a B-grade thriller, but Gary Oldman...The truth is is that SIN has a decent ambition, but very little ability to back it up. The film contains both an anti-hero and an anti-villain, creating an interesting ambiguity, but it simply throws it away.A retired cop (Ving Rhames), and his kid sister, are threatened by a shadowy vindictive drug/porn/gun dealer played by Gary Oldman. There is a graphic rape scene I wouldn't go into, and other lurid happenings that lead these two characters into a final showdown, which could have been interesting, but is instead a car chase. Rhames' former chief (Brian Cox) shows up randomly to offer sage advice, all to the backdrop of Michael Giacchino's derivative score (although it is good to see him breakout from the video game scene). So is this film worth seeing? Ving Rhames tries his best, but is better suited for films like PULP FICTION, he does not emote as a crippled retired cop with a haunted past. Kerry Washington, as the sister, has talent, but is given poorly written scenes that even seasoned veterans would have trouble with. However, Gary Oldman is quite good...Oldman is by far one of the best actors working today, and one must assume that, like the rest of us, he has mortgage. He still plays one-dimensional bad guys better than anyone (LEON, LOST IN SPACE, TRUE ROMANCE), and in SIN he does try. (Watch him work in a powerful showdown in a mirrored bedroom, or his oration on conscience.) Perhaps he read the script and thought there was potential, which there is, but the director, Michael Stevens, decides to play the movie slick, wasting time and talent. I just hope this does not signal a trend to Oldman's career. There has been a couple of Oldman straight-to-video releases of late (NOBODY'S BABY, INTERSTATE 60, TIPTOES) after a steady string of high-profile films during the 90's. If he keeps making films like this he could end up like Brian Cox, a good actor who shows up as a police official or someone's crazy dad in below average productions like SIN. That would be a shame.SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I will give SIN credit, I have not seen a movie that ends with the villain being engulfed into quicksand in years. As improbable as that sounds, the quicksand scene isn't that bad, thanks mostly due to Oldman's pride during this surreal finale. 4/10.