70
Neither glowing hagiography nor gritty apologia, Sin wallows instead in Michelangelo’s melancholy, his vanity and later his paranoia.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
70
The New York Times by Ben Kenigsberg
An austere, demanding sit, Sin — a Russian-Italian coproduction with Italian dialogue — nevertheless has a stubborn integrity in exploring the competing forces of patronage and creative inspiration that Michelangelo confronted in the 16th century.
70
Screen Daily by Demetrios Matheou
Dramatically the film can feel a little one-note and overlong. But it stands comparison with Derek Jarman’s Caravaggio as a fascinating portrait of an artist fighting to survive in the cut and thrust of times quite unlike our own.
70
The Hollywood Reporter by John DeFore
A captivating lead performance and a truly massive central metaphor make it a memorable arthouse film.
75
Andrei Konchalovsky’s film is fascinated with the creation of great art in the midst of socio-political turmoil.
70
Los Angeles Times by Robert Abele
Neither agonizing nor ecstatic, but solidly cinematic, Andrei Konchalovsky’s Michelangelo biopic Sin sees the veteran Russian filmmaker tackling the mystery of genius with what might be described as sumptuous grit.
75
It’s a gritty, lived-in film that feels like a smelly, life-is-nasty-brutish-and-short for anyone not in the ruling classes depiction of the Renaissance — beautiful and painterly even in it’s ugliness.
50
Austin Chronicle by Steve Davis
Renaissance man extraordinaire Michelangelo Buonarroti is frequently accused of greed in the incohesive historical drama Sin, but the only real transgression is his pride, whether it’s nurturing his own divine genius or badmouthing the mediocrity of contemporaries like Leonardo and Raphael.