Saint Sinner (2002 TV Movie) User Reviews

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

[EVOL666 · 5/10 · 24 August 2006]

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

I was entertained.

[stormruston · 5/10 · 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!

Goofy fun.

[mightygeo · 5/10 · 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.

The Flesh Is Weak - So`s The Rest Of This Movie

[Theo Robertson · 2/10 · 18 August 2003]

!!!!! 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

Was Very Decent For A Clive Barker made for cable movie

[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.

main idea was good, but...

[goadabogdan · 1/10 · 9 December 2004]

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 Stinker" would be a better title....

[darrenlite · 4/10 · 28 October 2002]

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.

Not Bad

[NIXFLIX-DOT-COM · 5/10 · 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 www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review of the film)

What the... gross disgusting succubi?

[p-stepien · 2/10 · 29 November 2009]

Clive Barker has done it again. He has once again been part of the making of a crap as hell movie. Scary just how much his movies vary between great and downright awful.

In essence this is a gutless story about an adventurous, but not-to-saintly monk chasing after two demonesses - succubi - who he unwittingly let escape. This of course entails following them through a time device, that magically takes him from 1815 to now. Equipped with a magic dagger he is out to rid the world of the scourge of lusty brain-suckers.

Not really wanting to delve into the bad I'll treat this one quickly. Acting - terrible, it was actually the most scary thing in this whole movie, with the succubi especially terrifyingly bad actresses. Plot - with more holes than Swiss cheese. Dialogue - my 8-year old niece writes better and more realistic plays.

And for some reason they made the demons of sex and lust - succubi - ugly, gross and covered with slime. Why anyone would want to pay to have sex with them (as per script) is beyond my comprehension... Succubi really should be captivatingly beautiful, even if evil.

To add to insult I have no idea why Barker thought it would be cool to have two angels from Islamic eschatology to feature as depraved sex and brain thirsty slutresses? I'm not much into political correctness, but its almost like i.e. Iran making a horror movie, where Archangel Gabriel functions as a bloodsucking vampire, who gets of on killing young boys after copulating with them...

Also... what the hell happened with the demon-baby after the finale? It just suddenly disappeared as if it was a non-issue... I was at least expecting it to jump out in the very last scene.

On the plus side: Special effects are decent and quite gross (satisfactory for the genre). Other tech credits are fine, if nothing spectacular.

Barker delivers an enjoyable erotic horror flick.

[Ky-D · 7/10 · 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.

7/10

Demons-by-Numbers

[johnnysugar · 3/10 · 30 October 2002]

I admit it, I have a problem: I'm too suckered in by Clive Barker's name. He's a wonderful writer, and his adaptation average is slightly better than that of Stephen King's, so I decided to watch "Saint Sinner."

Clive Barker stands as story-provider and executive producer of this unfortunate and at times incomprehensible movie. In 1815, a pair of young monks accidentally releases two succubi -- ravenous female demons -- loose from their prison. The two escape through the "Wheel of Time" to the modern day, where one of the monks, Tomas, must follow in order to destroy them. He teams up with a skeptical detective to find the succubi.

This movie seems to have abandoned all sense of logic or continuity in its plot, and it has a lack of character development that is truly amazing. Greg Serano, as Tomas, is attractive enough but lacks the conviction his character requires. Gina Ravera is an almost non-presence as Dt. Rachel Dressler, seeming to know that she got the role because Gina Torres was busy. But pity Mary Mara and Rebecca Harrell, who play the demons Munkar and Nakir, who do little more than grind and glower in undead makeup that looks like it came from 1985 and who had to have all their lines of dialogue altered down 1.5 octaves.

With a director that's watched too much "X-Files" and with a script that seems to have been written by a 16-year-old, "Saint Sinner" is an unfortunate event that the Sci-Fi channel will undoubtedly play three times a week in the misguided sense that people will watch (and they cancelled "Farscape" to make stuff like THIS?). It's saved from being a total waste by an above-average score and Greg Serano's knack for looking like a saint and a sinner at once. Don't be like me: if you want some Clive Barker, next time pick up a book. 3 out of 10.

Clive Barker does it again

[dustball23 · 9/10 · 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.

An Above Average Horror Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 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')

see above

[suneurth · 2/10 · 9 January 2006]

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.

Munkar and Nakir - demons or angels???

[menaraqudus · 9 December 2002]

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.

Gut-Wrenchingly Horrible

[Tashiro · 1/10 · 14 July 2007]

I've collected most (if not all) the original Saint Sinner comics from when Marvel Comics released them as part of Clive Barker's 'Razorline' collection. The original comics is about a boy in the modern age who unwittingly gets possessed by a demon, and then an angel, having both torment him and try to guide him. He becomes a self-made Saint, 'I come to you, you are my court of last resort', whose miracles always have a positive and a negative side, whether he wishes them to or not. Creative, amazing, and would have made an excellent television series.

This movie is not that series. It has nothing to do with this series. The only thing that this movie has to do with the original Saint Sinner is the title, and that Clive Barker wrote the screenplay.

The movie is about a monk coming from the past to the present, to hunt down two succubi he happened to unleash upon the world. The succubi are over-the-top, and grotesque. The monk is unbelievable (though passable). The plot is horrible, jerky, and makes absolutely no sense. There is a 'clock' fade between scenes, saying what time it is, but not explaining why this is important to the flow of the movie. Characters do the stupidest things, and honestly, the ending was not satisfactory in the slightest.

Do not rent this movie. Do not watch this movie. Go, read the comics, and think wistfully about what may have been.

Puerile Fare

[morgana-6 · 3/10 · 28 October 2002]

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.

Beyond bad.

[lollypopkidspro · 1/10 · 13 July 2006]

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.

Killer Hookers from Hell

[snoomip0 · 1/10 · 14 July 2003]

This movie is neither worth the cheap rental-quality disk it was printed on, nor the time spent to watch it. Fortunately I got some other domestic duties done while watching this flick; unfortunately, I paid 2,55 euros to rent it. Utter waste.

¡¡¡COULD CONTAIN SPOILERS!!! Many of the faults of this film are pointed out in other comments, lack of acting, a story that appears to have come from a brainstorming session in a twisted-kid-only kindergarten class and horrible film-making to name a few. It's about 2 succubae who escape their imprisonment and manage to travel in time.

Now, the succubus, on top of being a wise old demon, is supposed to be a sexy seductress, or at least as far as I have always known. You know, one that cleverly lures you with her sultry beauty, and eventually knocks you over the head (or whatever) and sucks the life out of you.

So now being established what they are supposed to be, why are they disgusting slimy hags that are also dumb as rocks?

And then we can start in on the priest/monk/some-sort-of-religious-trainee that gets sent to kill these beasts (and calling them beasts is very generous). Since the succubae couldn't even agree on whether this guy was a priest or monk, I'll just roll them up together, conserve the pronunciation, and call him a punk. Which is exactly what he is. He is the only demon slayer that can't even take out two stupid dogs (the succubae) while they are practically lying on their backs sleeping. Couldn't he have practiced with that thing a little before setting out?

And the victims of the succubae, also well described in other comments: dumber than anyone. I was so mad I was wishing for this whole city of idiots to crumble under its own incompetence and fall straight down to the Inferno, taking the film crew with it.

I was going to give this movie 1 out of 10, simply because it had some gross effects, but when the only horror I experience is from thinking that people spent time, energy and money on making this film, and that I spent money to watch it, it just takes away all merit. 0 out of 10, for what would be more aptly named "Killer Hookers from Hell"

just plain gross!!!

[UNDERFROG · 5/10 · 28 October 2002]

This movie has too many disgusting scenes that seem to get in the way of enjoying the plot.For instance the demon secretions on the monk that seem to stay on him too long it's just gross.I'm a big horror movie buff and enjoy a good thrill but where's the suspense and element of surprise.

One of the best horror movies I've seen

[PeterRoeder · 6/10 · 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.

A Cinematic Pleasure - A Must See

[phat_crighty · 8/10 · 26 November 2005]

I rented Saint Sinner expecting the movie to be based from a complete atheist and stereotyped view of Christianity. The movie, although not exactly biblical, would have to be said to be, a work of art. Although this type of movie doesn't usually interest myself, it kept me on the edge of my seat until the end.

Based in the year 1815, two young monk brothers named Tomas and Gregory are guided by curiosity to break into a secret room and unleash the evil it conceals. They unwittingly unleash two demons on earth killing one of the brothers. 200 years later the demons are still alive and reeking havoc on society, as a wager, the brother is marked by God to destroy the demons by going into the future.

This movie definitely isn't for every one, with some scenes being quite voile. Its portrayal of society of being good and evil, right and wrong and judgmental is clearly shown through the movie.

I thoroughly enjoyed Saint Sinner and recommend it if you enjoy movies with deep meaning and criticism of society as a whole.

Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular

[slayrrr666 · 7/10 · 17 February 2008]

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

**SPOILERS**

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

errors in film

[baptized_2008 · 7/10 · 19 April 2010]

After watching this film, it was good but sent wrong messages thought it when certain characters were killed, they said they have gone to a better place i.e heaven, which is wrong the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus Christ into your heart and accept him as your lord and Savior, that is the only way, you cant enter heaven any other way, being good being a nice person doing good deeds and boasting about it, when you pass away and go to God he won't know you and turn you away, also the main character said hes not a saint and tried finding one this is a catholic mistake, Catholics believe your only a saint if dead or elite person as God says when you become saved you become born again all people who are born again become Saints, your a Saint your a King your a Diplomat your a Priest that goes for everyone Born again Christian on earth as it is told in the bible, Jesus Christ said I am the way, the truth and the life, the only way to the father id but through me, (John 14:6) God said, For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son, for whoever believes in him, shall never perish but get ever lasting life, (John 3:16)If you want learn truth, with no brain washing and have open mind check out or go on an alpha vouse it's free, and you get fed, you can find your closest one and more information at http://uk.alpha.org thank you and God Bless you all..... Paul ^_^

Double Trouble Drinkers

[jcholguin · 8/10 · 20 October 2003]

With Clive Barker involved you knew that something usual was going to happen and by golly it did. Two female Succubi are released by a monk, Tomas Alcala. Tomas was told not to open a pandora's box but did not heed the advice. These two Succubi are drinkers from hell, alcohol no, human syrup, yes. Sticky fingers and sticky mucus make this feature very different from most Succubi flicks. Tomas is no saint, or is he? Only a person "pure of heart" or is that from another movie, can use a sacred dagger to rid the world of these devil twins. Special effects are wonderful and very graphic. You if love to see the universal battle between "good & evil" then this is the flick for you.