I saw this film yesterday in a special screening. At least it was free! Oh my god what a terrible movie. The script sounded promising and i am sure they could come up with great ideas based on the central story. But No! This is just an awful mess. The directing is just average, and the story is lame. But the worst thing about this film is the acting. All actors seemed bored, there was no chemistry between them and their acting was much worse than a bad soap opera! Even the "random false-alarm scares" are the most ridiculous i have ever seen. There is actually one scene where the camera zooms at the main actress'es face and a loud, scary sound is heard and...well THAT'S IT! It happened for no reason. They didn't show anything after that! Half the theater was laughing all the time. Usually my ratings are between 5 and 9, because i can always see the "effort" even in bad movies. But this one gets a straight "3".
15 Reviews
What a Mess!
claudio_carvalho28 October 2009
While participating in a party for children in a clinic administrated by Dr. Philip Lacan (Stephen Rea), Dr. Dylan Wallace (Dallas Roberts) witnesses an incident between the host and the Spectator reporter Grace Collier (Chloë Sevigny) and he has a conversation with Dr. Lacan's assistant and former wife Angelique Tristiana (Lou Doillon). Her offers a ride to her to downtown and they have one night stand in the apartment of her twin sister Annabel. On the next morning, Dr. Wallace buys an ice-cream cake to celebrate the birthday of the sisters and returns to the apartment. Meanwhile the snoopy Grace that wants to expose the experiments of Dr. Lacan breaks in his office and finds that Angelique's apartment is monitored by many surveillance cameras. She witnesses Angelique stabbing Dr. Wallace to death and she calls the police. However the detectives do not find any evidence indicating a murder in the flat. Grace goes further in her investigation and discovers the hidden secret about Dr. Lacan, Angelique and herself.
"Sisters" is a messy story after a promising beginning. The screenplay is absolutely confused and the weird plot is unrealistic. The attractive cover of the Brazilian DVD with a picture of the sisters walking together is extremely beautiful and the best that I saw in this awful flick. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Almas Gêmeas" ("Twin Souls")
"Sisters" is a messy story after a promising beginning. The screenplay is absolutely confused and the weird plot is unrealistic. The attractive cover of the Brazilian DVD with a picture of the sisters walking together is extremely beautiful and the best that I saw in this awful flick. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Almas Gêmeas" ("Twin Souls")
This would have been better if it never got released
wildsmokey14 November 2007
The starting seemed like this will be a nice slow thriller flick that'll be interesting to watch. Boy was I disappointed. Sometimes you see such movies and realize that "not every time a director can carry the beginning to the ending". This movie is a disappointment. The acting - the least said the better. The background score didn't help. The story line was one of those where you knew what was coming your way and you would expect some nice ending to it to be a saving grace for the flick. Nah!!! The ending was the worst I have seen in any movie recently. It was like the writer or the director had no clue what to do and how to end this. Leaving much to be desired, I should have realized it midway that this was not what I was looking for, I have seen many story lines like these, but certainly treated better and finished better than this. One of those movies you would start scratching your head 20 minutes into it and barf at the sheer pathetic acting and storyline rendering. No wonder it took ages to complete this film and see the light of release. It was better left unreleased rather than putting us through this torture of pathetic story, acting, direction and all.
Yet another pointless horror remake
preppy-326 December 2010
Redo of Brian DePalma's "Sisters". Reporter Grace Collier (Chloe Sevigny) witnesses a murder from a computer cam and a window (don't ask). She gets involved with a creepy doctor named Phillip Lacan (Stephen Rea), his ex-wife/patient named Angelique (Lou Doillon)...and the murderer.
The original was no masterpiece but it was a quick strong thriller. There was no reason to remake it but that never stopped Hollywood. It starts off OK but falls to pieces as it goes on. For starters the acting is terrible. Sevigny and Rea can be good--but not here. They seemed drugged and just walked through their roles. Doillon is OK but she can't carry the whole movie. There are two VERY bloody murders that liven things up briefly. I saw the original so I kept comparing them and this one kept coming up short. Everything seems to be just going through the motions--there's no action or urgency in this. They make a few changes in a nod to modern technology but it doesn't help. To make matters worse the ending is completely changed...and it makes next to no sense! Why follow the old movie so completely and then just veer off into a completely different resolution...and a bad one at that? I wasn't even aware that this even existed till it popped up on late night cable TV. Obviously it bombed badly. Avoid this train wreck and seek out the original.
The original was no masterpiece but it was a quick strong thriller. There was no reason to remake it but that never stopped Hollywood. It starts off OK but falls to pieces as it goes on. For starters the acting is terrible. Sevigny and Rea can be good--but not here. They seemed drugged and just walked through their roles. Doillon is OK but she can't carry the whole movie. There are two VERY bloody murders that liven things up briefly. I saw the original so I kept comparing them and this one kept coming up short. Everything seems to be just going through the motions--there's no action or urgency in this. They make a few changes in a nod to modern technology but it doesn't help. To make matters worse the ending is completely changed...and it makes next to no sense! Why follow the old movie so completely and then just veer off into a completely different resolution...and a bad one at that? I wasn't even aware that this even existed till it popped up on late night cable TV. Obviously it bombed badly. Avoid this train wreck and seek out the original.
Decent Remake Until the Final Thirty Minutes
Michael_Elliott3 October 2011
Sisters (2006)
** (out of 4)
Remake of the Brian DePalma thriller didn't cause that much bickering among fans when it was released because most people still don't know it exists. The film has a reporter (Chloe Sevigny) witnessing a murder by a mysterious twin (Lou Doillon) but when the police arrive on the scene there's no blood and no body. The reporter then starts to investigate the woman's doctor (Stephen Rea) and soon begins to unravel the secrets. This remake of SISTERS certainly isn't as good as the original but the nice cast and a good start are quickly ruined in a needlessly insane second half where everything just unravels. The first hour is pretty much exactly like the previous movie so if you've seen it then it's doubtful any of the plot points here are going to throw you. I found the opening hour to be a fairly well-made thriller because the director at least kept everything moving at a nice pace and the three lead actors were doing so well that it helped keep your attention. Then, the final thirty minutes just go crazy in terms of wanting to shock you and come up with bizarre story lines that just never make much sense. It should go without saying but any movie made after THE SIXTH SENSE needs that "shock" ending. I'm guessing the filmmakers didn't think the DePalma version had a big enough of a shock (I'd disagree) so they decided to take the story into new directions. The only problem is that the twists here aren't shocking and what they've added to the story just doesn't work. I won't spoil anything but we get all sorts of scenes where characters just sit down with the reporter and begin telling her about what really happened. I always find scenes where we have characters sitting down to explain things bad writing because it's obvious the film is lost and they just need to keep moving along so they try to fill us in on everything we've missed. What direction they take the doctor just doesn't work, comes off forced and at times it's almost laughable. Outside of that this is a pretty solid little thriller that cranks up the violence, sex and nudity. That's the one big adjustment over the DePalma version as this one here features a little more dirty moments and the reporter has an added backstory that actually works well with the twin's story. Sevigny can always be counted on for a good performance and she manages to bring a lot to the role of the reporter. I thought she was believable in the role and certainly helped keep the movie going at a good pace. Doillon is also extremely good in her part as the twins. I was a little shocked to see Rea in a movie like this but it was still nice to see him after all these years. Fans of the DePalma movie really don't have much of a reason to watch this unless they simply want to compare the two versions. I'm sure if you're unfamiliar with the original version then many of the story lines here will throw you for a loop but if you haven't seen either one then it's still best to go with the original first.
** (out of 4)
Remake of the Brian DePalma thriller didn't cause that much bickering among fans when it was released because most people still don't know it exists. The film has a reporter (Chloe Sevigny) witnessing a murder by a mysterious twin (Lou Doillon) but when the police arrive on the scene there's no blood and no body. The reporter then starts to investigate the woman's doctor (Stephen Rea) and soon begins to unravel the secrets. This remake of SISTERS certainly isn't as good as the original but the nice cast and a good start are quickly ruined in a needlessly insane second half where everything just unravels. The first hour is pretty much exactly like the previous movie so if you've seen it then it's doubtful any of the plot points here are going to throw you. I found the opening hour to be a fairly well-made thriller because the director at least kept everything moving at a nice pace and the three lead actors were doing so well that it helped keep your attention. Then, the final thirty minutes just go crazy in terms of wanting to shock you and come up with bizarre story lines that just never make much sense. It should go without saying but any movie made after THE SIXTH SENSE needs that "shock" ending. I'm guessing the filmmakers didn't think the DePalma version had a big enough of a shock (I'd disagree) so they decided to take the story into new directions. The only problem is that the twists here aren't shocking and what they've added to the story just doesn't work. I won't spoil anything but we get all sorts of scenes where characters just sit down with the reporter and begin telling her about what really happened. I always find scenes where we have characters sitting down to explain things bad writing because it's obvious the film is lost and they just need to keep moving along so they try to fill us in on everything we've missed. What direction they take the doctor just doesn't work, comes off forced and at times it's almost laughable. Outside of that this is a pretty solid little thriller that cranks up the violence, sex and nudity. That's the one big adjustment over the DePalma version as this one here features a little more dirty moments and the reporter has an added backstory that actually works well with the twin's story. Sevigny can always be counted on for a good performance and she manages to bring a lot to the role of the reporter. I thought she was believable in the role and certainly helped keep the movie going at a good pace. Doillon is also extremely good in her part as the twins. I was a little shocked to see Rea in a movie like this but it was still nice to see him after all these years. Fans of the DePalma movie really don't have much of a reason to watch this unless they simply want to compare the two versions. I'm sure if you're unfamiliar with the original version then many of the story lines here will throw you for a loop but if you haven't seen either one then it's still best to go with the original first.
A lot of ketchup died to make this movie...
cohuttablue-imdb24 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I picked this up at a video-store closing, but wish I'd known something about it first ~ I would have looked for the original instead of the remake. Some graphic sex in the opening scenes made me look at the wrapper and realize there was a tiny "R" on the store label ~ so I guess I can't complain about sex and violence. I give it higher marks for psychological innuendo than for plot or character interest. This director watched too many Calvin Klein blue-jean commercials in the 80s. Lou Doillon as "Angelique" was a little too "French fashion model." The suspense held my attention, but the plot falls into the post-Silence-of-the-Lambs-that's-just-a-little-too-bizarre-to-believe category. Can't anybody make a plain old murder mystery anymore? The murder scenes were blood-soaked ~ they hauled out many crates of ketchup for this one; and never did explain how the good doctor got that mess cleaned up in five minutes. Perhaps we are to believe the police kept the reporter outside talking for, say, four or five hours while the murder scene was scrubbed? I must have had my head turned when they explained where the body was hidden ~ someone told me it was in the TV (cabinet, maybe?) The flashback scenes filled in some of the history of the twins, and were better than the surface plot ~ a few more of them might have made the film more satisfying. There was a puzzling little scene in which one twin wielded a knife at the reporter (who had morphed into dead-twin Annabelle). I'm not too sure if both girls died, or just walked off in a drug-induced haze; but I suppose, symbolically, we are to assume that Angelique is once more conjoined to a twin. I wouldn't be quite so critical if the expectation hadn't been so great. The film pretended to be arty. From the promising blurb on the back cover, I was expecting an interesting and satisfying psychological murder mystery, sans the Halloween hack-em-up gore. My mistake...
Worse than the original
Leofwine_draca14 November 2013
Brian de Palma's 1973 Siamese twin opus, SISTERS, is a film ripe for remaking; it has a low budget, rough-around-the-edges feel to it that would definitely benefit from some Hollywood gloss and an enhanced budget. Sadly, this 2006 remake is an equally cheap and inferior version of the same story that muddies its narrative from the outset.
The film looks and feels like it was made by amateurs. The director is clearly way out of his comfort zone because he delivers a movie that looks cheap and like it's a movie, instead of natural feeling. Don't hope for pacing or tension or excitement because those qualities are out of action. The cast is also a disappointment and it feels like a lot of the performances are rushed, as if the actors were in a hurry to get on with it and then just go afterwards lest they become too associated with the production.
Stephen Rea is a case in point; he barely registers in the pivotal surgeon role and THE X-FILES' William B. Davis is even less noticeable. Chloe Sevigny (AMERICAN PSYCHO) is horrible as the reporter lead, Lou Doillon inferior to Margot Kidder in the twin role and the only actor who makes an impact is THE WALKING DEAD's Dallas Roberts. Stick with the original and give this redundant outing a miss.
The film looks and feels like it was made by amateurs. The director is clearly way out of his comfort zone because he delivers a movie that looks cheap and like it's a movie, instead of natural feeling. Don't hope for pacing or tension or excitement because those qualities are out of action. The cast is also a disappointment and it feels like a lot of the performances are rushed, as if the actors were in a hurry to get on with it and then just go afterwards lest they become too associated with the production.
Stephen Rea is a case in point; he barely registers in the pivotal surgeon role and THE X-FILES' William B. Davis is even less noticeable. Chloe Sevigny (AMERICAN PSYCHO) is horrible as the reporter lead, Lou Doillon inferior to Margot Kidder in the twin role and the only actor who makes an impact is THE WALKING DEAD's Dallas Roberts. Stick with the original and give this redundant outing a miss.
Unbelievably poor remake
sgcim23 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe that this piece of garbage was released. Thankfully, I got the DVD from the library, so I didn't waste a cent on this poor excuse for a re-make.
How low do standards have to go before they just stop doing all these pointless re-makes and sequels and actually come out with something creative?
That there were people stupid enough to put millions of dollars into something like this says volumes on the general level of intelligence of the film business mindset.
The film opens on what feels like the middle of the film, ignoring DePalma's great TV game show opening and thrusting us right into the reporter's investigation.
Why remake a great film if you don't have anything good to add to it?
Why remake a great film at all?
There's ten times the amount of blood and gore than the original, and it just shows the poverty of the filmmakers' imagination.
I never thought DePalma was a genius before, but now that I've seen how this film could have been made, I even like the original's stupid ending!
If there hadn't been some good reviews here, I wouldn't have bothered writing this. I can't think of one thing good about this film.
How low do standards have to go before they just stop doing all these pointless re-makes and sequels and actually come out with something creative?
That there were people stupid enough to put millions of dollars into something like this says volumes on the general level of intelligence of the film business mindset.
The film opens on what feels like the middle of the film, ignoring DePalma's great TV game show opening and thrusting us right into the reporter's investigation.
Why remake a great film if you don't have anything good to add to it?
Why remake a great film at all?
There's ten times the amount of blood and gore than the original, and it just shows the poverty of the filmmakers' imagination.
I never thought DePalma was a genius before, but now that I've seen how this film could have been made, I even like the original's stupid ending!
If there hadn't been some good reviews here, I wouldn't have bothered writing this. I can't think of one thing good about this film.
The bloody stabbing and the scalpel absurdity at the end creates a superficial yet childish gore without showing what is at stake for these characters.
directorfredericeger9 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Sister
This remake of the 1973 Brian DePalma horror classic is far less interesting than the original. Festival co-director Julien Fonfrede promoted the screening as the film's North American premiere while, in fact, it was previously shown at the Sitges Film Festival. Despite the marketing faux pas, the film caught this reviewer's interest as a remake of a DePalma film.
The story centers around Siamese twins who, as adults, must face surgery to live in health. Physiological disorders place their health in jeopardy and a severe psychological disorder of one results in an evil act. DePalma's film focuses on Danielle (Margot Kidder), a young woman who apparently murders her date, and Grace (Jennifer Salt), a nosy reporter who sees the whole thing. Things get strange when it is revealed that Danielle is a Siamese twin, and her nasty twin sister may have something to do with the murder.
This remake lacks engaging characters, which is not to blame the acting but the directing. Stephen Rea as the psychiatrist Dr. Lacan and Lou Doillon as the "slave" Angelique give themselves completely to the performances and keep you connected, but that's about it. Character arcs are weakly resolved and therefore so is the drama of being a Siamese twin. The plot's dramatic story is not explored in depth and is unfortunately not saved by the murder subplot.
Lou Doillon's acting is perfect�she handles the schizophrenic role of Angelique/Annabelle with a perfect blend of charm, vulnerability and complete wackiness. She took over from Asia Argento who was initially cast as Angelique/Annabelle but dropped out at the last minute. Shooting took place in North Carolina and Vancouver, British Columbia and explains the Canadian money used in the birthday cake purchase scene.
The bloody stabbing and the scalpel absurdity at the end creates a superficial yet childish gore without showing what is at stake for these characters. When the last shot which is the same as the opening sequence fades to black, moviegoers leave without an emotional connection to what just happened. The entire film seems to be a pretext to practice directing skills for director Douglas Buck. Apparently the director, impatient to launch his film career, settled for redoing a classic horror film.
While the film is good enough for general distribution, one would think that with the amount of dollars committed to the project, the final product would have had more depth of character.
Sister Directed by Douglas Buck
Lou Doillon, Stephen Rea, Chloe Sevigny, William B. Davis, Gabrielle Rose, Talia Williams, Erica Van Briel, Dallas Roberts, Michael Curluck and Dylan Basu
This remake of the 1973 Brian DePalma horror classic is far less interesting than the original. Festival co-director Julien Fonfrede promoted the screening as the film's North American premiere while, in fact, it was previously shown at the Sitges Film Festival. Despite the marketing faux pas, the film caught this reviewer's interest as a remake of a DePalma film.
The story centers around Siamese twins who, as adults, must face surgery to live in health. Physiological disorders place their health in jeopardy and a severe psychological disorder of one results in an evil act. DePalma's film focuses on Danielle (Margot Kidder), a young woman who apparently murders her date, and Grace (Jennifer Salt), a nosy reporter who sees the whole thing. Things get strange when it is revealed that Danielle is a Siamese twin, and her nasty twin sister may have something to do with the murder.
This remake lacks engaging characters, which is not to blame the acting but the directing. Stephen Rea as the psychiatrist Dr. Lacan and Lou Doillon as the "slave" Angelique give themselves completely to the performances and keep you connected, but that's about it. Character arcs are weakly resolved and therefore so is the drama of being a Siamese twin. The plot's dramatic story is not explored in depth and is unfortunately not saved by the murder subplot.
Lou Doillon's acting is perfect�she handles the schizophrenic role of Angelique/Annabelle with a perfect blend of charm, vulnerability and complete wackiness. She took over from Asia Argento who was initially cast as Angelique/Annabelle but dropped out at the last minute. Shooting took place in North Carolina and Vancouver, British Columbia and explains the Canadian money used in the birthday cake purchase scene.
The bloody stabbing and the scalpel absurdity at the end creates a superficial yet childish gore without showing what is at stake for these characters. When the last shot which is the same as the opening sequence fades to black, moviegoers leave without an emotional connection to what just happened. The entire film seems to be a pretext to practice directing skills for director Douglas Buck. Apparently the director, impatient to launch his film career, settled for redoing a classic horror film.
While the film is good enough for general distribution, one would think that with the amount of dollars committed to the project, the final product would have had more depth of character.
Sister Directed by Douglas Buck
Lou Doillon, Stephen Rea, Chloe Sevigny, William B. Davis, Gabrielle Rose, Talia Williams, Erica Van Briel, Dallas Roberts, Michael Curluck and Dylan Basu
Despite Some Imperfections, Really Not That Bad Of A Remake.
drownsoda9027 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Sisters" follows news journalist Grace Collier (Chloe Sevigny), who has been watching over Doctor Lacan (Stephen Rea), a psychiatrist with a past for hurting patients, in an attempt to expose him. She comes across his assistant/former patient, Angelique (Lou Doillon), who allegedly lives with her twin sister in a city high rise. But after Grace witnesses a bizarre and brutal murder in Angelique's apartment, and the body seemingly disappears, she finds herself immersed in a mystery involving Dr. Lacan and his odd history with Angelique... as well as her mysterious, allegedly violent Siamese-twin sister, whom she was separated from through a surgical procedure.
I had been waiting to see this movie and became unaware of its status after it seemed to be shelved from any release for over a year, and then happened to see it at the video store and quickly rented it. "Sisters" is a remake of Brian De Palma's 1973 psycho-thriller of the same name, which starred Margot Kidder in the role of the twins. De Palma's film is a favorite of mine, and over the years has become something of a cult classic - and of course, many cult classics (especially of the horror genre) have been prime pickings for being remade. I was hesitant beginning the movie, but as it went I found myself very interested, even though I knew what was ultimately going to happen, having seen the original. I have to admit that this remake was pretty well-crafted.
The screenplay here follows the 1973 film fairly closely, although does contain several nuances and some updates technology-wise (I found the entire spin with the camera surveillance to be quite clever). The recreations of some of the classic scenes from the original were also very well-done, and gave a bit of a different perspective while remaining respectful of the original material, which is always nice to see. For me, the recreation of the first murder scene was probably the most interesting to watch, and a bit more graphic. The cinematography is also professional-looking and there is a lot of stylish scenes and imagery to be found, mainly in the hallucinatory final ten minutes. There are a few silly moments that are kind of unnecessary, but besides that I felt that everything was there for a reason. One thing that is missed is Bernard Herrmann's score, we have a much darker, more menacing musical soundtrack here, but I suppose it fits this movie well. This remake does have an overall darker look to it, whilst the original bordered on quirky at moments.
Performance-wise, we have a pretty good cast here as well, the two leads being Oscar nominees. I've always liked Chloe Sevigny, and while her performance her was slightly shaky in a few scenes, she does a solid job. She carries the movie well and is as likable as an undercover reporter can be. Stephen Rea, of "FearDotCom" and "V for Vendetta" is also solid as the mad doctor character. French actress Lou Doillon was a surprise too, and did a good job in the part of the dysfunctional twin role - Margot Kidder is irreplaceable, but that aside, she fits the shoe well. As for all the complaints here about this movie, the reviews give me the feeling that the authors of them never saw the original film, or let alone knew it was a remake - with complaints about the ending and the story itself in general, they seem to not be aware that this is a remake, and that it follows the original movie fairly closely. I've seen many embarrassing remakes, and this was a pretty solid one if you ask me.
Overall, "Sisters" is not at all a bad horror movie, or a bad remake. I'm a little surprised at the negative reaction to this movie, because in my eyes, this was above-average. It stuck to its source material, but also incorporated some new ideas in an organized fashion. I will say it has its faults, as does any movie, but if you've seen the original 1973 film, I think this remake will more than likely be an entertaining and interesting watch. I personally always enjoy watching the recreations of certain things, and they did a good job here. In the end, De Palma's film is superior, but there are much, much worse remakes out there (anyone seen 2005's "The Fog"? ) Worth a rental at least, I don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be. 7/10.
I had been waiting to see this movie and became unaware of its status after it seemed to be shelved from any release for over a year, and then happened to see it at the video store and quickly rented it. "Sisters" is a remake of Brian De Palma's 1973 psycho-thriller of the same name, which starred Margot Kidder in the role of the twins. De Palma's film is a favorite of mine, and over the years has become something of a cult classic - and of course, many cult classics (especially of the horror genre) have been prime pickings for being remade. I was hesitant beginning the movie, but as it went I found myself very interested, even though I knew what was ultimately going to happen, having seen the original. I have to admit that this remake was pretty well-crafted.
The screenplay here follows the 1973 film fairly closely, although does contain several nuances and some updates technology-wise (I found the entire spin with the camera surveillance to be quite clever). The recreations of some of the classic scenes from the original were also very well-done, and gave a bit of a different perspective while remaining respectful of the original material, which is always nice to see. For me, the recreation of the first murder scene was probably the most interesting to watch, and a bit more graphic. The cinematography is also professional-looking and there is a lot of stylish scenes and imagery to be found, mainly in the hallucinatory final ten minutes. There are a few silly moments that are kind of unnecessary, but besides that I felt that everything was there for a reason. One thing that is missed is Bernard Herrmann's score, we have a much darker, more menacing musical soundtrack here, but I suppose it fits this movie well. This remake does have an overall darker look to it, whilst the original bordered on quirky at moments.
Performance-wise, we have a pretty good cast here as well, the two leads being Oscar nominees. I've always liked Chloe Sevigny, and while her performance her was slightly shaky in a few scenes, she does a solid job. She carries the movie well and is as likable as an undercover reporter can be. Stephen Rea, of "FearDotCom" and "V for Vendetta" is also solid as the mad doctor character. French actress Lou Doillon was a surprise too, and did a good job in the part of the dysfunctional twin role - Margot Kidder is irreplaceable, but that aside, she fits the shoe well. As for all the complaints here about this movie, the reviews give me the feeling that the authors of them never saw the original film, or let alone knew it was a remake - with complaints about the ending and the story itself in general, they seem to not be aware that this is a remake, and that it follows the original movie fairly closely. I've seen many embarrassing remakes, and this was a pretty solid one if you ask me.
Overall, "Sisters" is not at all a bad horror movie, or a bad remake. I'm a little surprised at the negative reaction to this movie, because in my eyes, this was above-average. It stuck to its source material, but also incorporated some new ideas in an organized fashion. I will say it has its faults, as does any movie, but if you've seen the original 1973 film, I think this remake will more than likely be an entertaining and interesting watch. I personally always enjoy watching the recreations of certain things, and they did a good job here. In the end, De Palma's film is superior, but there are much, much worse remakes out there (anyone seen 2005's "The Fog"? ) Worth a rental at least, I don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be. 7/10.
How not to do a remake
movieman_kev26 May 2012
Separated conjoined twins are investigated by a diligent reporter in this pointless and plodding remake of a mediocre yet vastly superior Brian DePalma film. Horridly acted with characters that one simply can not care about. The more well-known actors that appear in this mess should feel ashamed. I'm more than a tad angered that I waisted my time on this one. I guess I was sucked in by the usually dependable Stephen Rea. Consider this a lesson learned to steer clear of Douglas Buck written/directed films
My Grade: D-
Eye Candy: Lou Doillon shows T&A; Chloe Sevigny gets topless
My Grade: D-
Eye Candy: Lou Doillon shows T&A; Chloe Sevigny gets topless
One of the best remakes I've seen
threenails102 December 2011
This remake of the 70's Brian De Palma's classic (which I have yet to see) has got to be one of the best surprises I've seen in a while. I went into this film not really knowing what genre it fit into and assumed it was a drama mystery on the plot of a 'different' kind of twins. So if you go into this film knowing just this you may love this creepy and engaging experience. Everything works quite well here from the acting to the direction. Even the one character that plays 'twin' or character 'Angelique', (Lou Doillon) gives a haunting performance here that is likely to give anyone that watches it chills.
The tone and mood of the film feels somewhat inspired by a David Lynch film. If anyone isn't familiar with his work, he did the films Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr.
This is one of the better films from 2006. If you can seek out this film or catch it on one of the movie channels that's playing lately, do yourself a favour and sit down and enjoy this ride.
The tone and mood of the film feels somewhat inspired by a David Lynch film. If anyone isn't familiar with his work, he did the films Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr.
This is one of the better films from 2006. If you can seek out this film or catch it on one of the movie channels that's playing lately, do yourself a favour and sit down and enjoy this ride.
A Surprisingly Worthy Remake
Jonny_Numb4 April 2008
The original "Sisters" could very well be Brian De Palma's best film, showing an efficiency in screen writing and a surplus of style that earmarked him as the closest American filmgoers would come to an heir to Hitchcock (even if his string of '80s imitations and '90s sludge effectively silenced the initial hype). In a lot of ways, Douglas Buck's remake seems as pointlessly unnecessary as any other that has come down the pipeline in the past decade, but his "Sisters" quickly subverts our expectations--where De Palma's slick stylistic efficiency stood now gives way to an impressive character study (even those who favor De Palma's film--myself included--will find much to like here) that peels back psychosis like the layers of a particularly rancid onion. While Buck may lack the visual finesse that made De Palma's film so aesthetically compelling, he makes a virtue of his low budget: the performances are subtly convincing (Chloe Sevigny nails the deadpan drive of journalist Grace Collier; Stephen Rea boldly manifests the sinister shrink Dr. Lacan; and newcomer Lou Doillon possesses a foreign exoticism (think Isabella Rossellini in "Blue Velvet") as Angelique Tristiana, who is experiencing a peculiar 'separation anxiety' from her murderous twin, Annabel), the story surprisingly rich with detail, and some of De Palma's classic scenes (the black-and-white hospital hallucination in particular) are given an overhaul that invokes the unease of Polanski and Argento while putting the emphasis on a repulsion that stems more from the damaged psyches of the characters than any splattery gore effect. And it is especially during the climax in which Buck makes "Sisters" his own, leaving us with a twist more emotionally endearing and disturbing than De Palma's gimmicky, tongue-in-cheek denouement--the subtle image of two characters walking away from their past to begin anew carries a chill more effective than any overblown, blood-soaked redux from Platinum Dunes. This "Sisters" attests to the fact that a low budget, when wielded properly, can yield big rewards.
Birthday Bloody birthday
dbdumonteil4 April 2009
Brian De Palma 's movie was not a classic,but it was a good thriller,with a good performance by Margot Kidder.The remake is a complete disaster .The screenwriters have changed the names of the twin sisters ,the lover has become a white man,there's no TV show and they have tried some new tacks unsuccessfully.Particularly awful is Stephen Rea's portrayal of a wicked physician .The more he tries to be disturbing,the more he makes himself ridiculous.Bad performances by the three actresses too .The birthday cake episode has been kept but the people in the shop are rather unpleasant .One thing you learn from this movie is that you must keep this kind of cake in a freezer.
Impressive
RedQueenIMDB7 June 2023
As of this writing, there are only 14 reviews on IMDB with wildly fluctuating ratings. Most of the reviewers were not familiar with the 1972 DePalma film it's based on, & therefore can't be horror fans. Those of us who are know that it takes balls to remake a DePalma, who took horror to new artistic heights (rarely touched since) during horror's golden era.
It's been long enough since I had seen the original that I had actually forgotten the story, & I still liked this movie, even though psycho-thrillers aren't among my faves. I was shocked when the truth was revealed, & confused until the final scene. Fully engaged throughout.
This is a good movie even if you don't know it's origins. It took balls & it succeeded.
It's been long enough since I had seen the original that I had actually forgotten the story, & I still liked this movie, even though psycho-thrillers aren't among my faves. I was shocked when the truth was revealed, & confused until the final scene. Fully engaged throughout.
This is a good movie even if you don't know it's origins. It took balls & it succeeded.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
