Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

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

Ky-D 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

EVOL666 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

Goada Bogdan 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. ===

Claudio Carvalho 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')