Sisters

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.

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.

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

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.

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.