Sisters

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.

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.

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.

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 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.