Sisters

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

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")

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.