Soeurs de sang

This one holds a nostalgic value for me, long before I saw the re-release of Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW. It was the *first* R-rated film I was ever able to get into (since I was like 13 at the time) and it scared the hell outta me. Add to it the frightening Bernard Hermann score and I wound up having nightmares for days afterwards.

I recently saw it again for the first time in 30 years, and it still holds up if you view it in the context of the time it was made.

We're talking the early 70s, folks. It's not Freddie or Jason or the dude with the weird mask in SCREAM. This is a deeper, twisted psychological film, sort of along the macabre lines of David Cronenberg, who I also happen to like.

Yeah, I suppose the slashing would be mild by today's standards, but this one was ahead of most all of 'em...

A good beginning for DePalma. 7 out of 10

The first time I viewed it was in 2003, on cable television. Considering that it was a Brian DePalma film, I was expecting something interesting and suspenseful. I really enjoyed his films BLOW-OUT(1981), and THE UNTOUCHABLES(1987). Here were two films where he demonstrated his effective use of creating suspense that was more integral to the plot. After recently re-watching his 1973 shocker, SISTERS, my opinion of him has been unchanged.

Sure, maybe there are things about it, such as visuals and styles,that are extremely similar to Hitchcock, but I thought that this movie was completely original story wise. The opening sequence is very cleverly played out so that you don't quite know what you're going to watch and by the end you are surprised by the direction it takes. The story involves a woman who says that her identical twin sister lives with her and is apparently crazy.

This may ring a bell with Hitchcock fans as sounding a little too familiar and indeed it does as there are very similar events that somewhat mirror scenes from his films. Before long, an innocent man is murdered and we are immediately introduced to a woman reporter who believes that there is something amiss. Afterward, the movie gets very creative with some of the strangest characters. The film also ends with a weird twist that seems to have some sci-fi overtones to it.

Despite being a little twisted and confusing toward the end, the film is very well made and effectively scary. I wouldn't recommend the film to people who don't really like thinking during movies as this film has an ending that leaves a confusing plothole behind. It is the kind of plot hole that was left in too obviously to be done on accident. But I guess that's part of the charm of DePalma. All of his films offer something similar in the suspense element, but different in every other way.

Sisters benefits from a terrific set-up, a well delivered first hour, a marvelous Bernard Herrmann score, and De Palma's able use of a split screen. Unfortunately it can't carry itself through to the end, and soon collapses into a confusing, formulaic, and ridiculous ending that obviously tries to cover up the fact that, well, De Palma simply didn't know HOW to end the film. Nonetheless it is essential viewing for fans of shock cinema, psychological horror, or cod-Hitchcock fans.

Although he had made a few films before,Sisters is perhaps the first film in the true De Palma style,you know,the obsession with voyeurism,the show-offy camera-work,the Hitchcock homages,the preferance for long,wordless dreamlike sequences interrupted by bloody violence,etc. Although De Palma HAS made films that are different,he seems to prefer making films that are like this. Sisters has all these elements,albeit sometimes in embryonic form.

The model here is obviously Psycho,and De Palma doesn't develop elements of that film as well as in the later Dressed To Kill,but it is interesting to watch. The director just about manages to have enough different elements,while riffing on obvious things from Psycho {such as a shocking murder a third of the way in,the basic plot} and even a bit of Rear Window. Things like split screen keep the interest despite a few dull bits,and towards the end De Palma is confident enough to resolve most of the film with some almost surreal dream/flashback sequences and an amusing pay off.

Accompanied by a sometimes TERRIFYING Bernard Herrmann score {nowhere near his best,but incredibly effective},and with plenty of humorous touches and an interesting feminist heroine,Sisters is nowhere near top De Palma,but it's a good dry run for classics like Dressed To Kill and Blow Out.

Hang on to your psychoanalysis, Ladies and Gentlemen...a young Brian De Palma has brought us a fine mindf*ck that is in good company with "Psycho," "The Tenant," and even "Fight Club." "Sisters" is a brain-sizzling thriller that probes the relationship between separated Siamese twins Danielle and Dominique (Margot Kidder) in a maniacally unsettling way. Danielle is a successful actress/model; Dominique is a raving lunatic who becomes violent when sexually aroused. When Dominique murders Danielle's boyfriend, reporter Grace Collier (Jennifer Salt) takes matters into her own hands after the police refuse to help. Meanwhile, Danielle's ex-husband Emil (John Waters doppleganger William Finley) runs a local psych ward. And Charles Durning plays a detective tracking the progress of a particularly heavy couch. De Palma weaves his character interactions seamlessly, employing the types of technical tricks that would be used more superficially in his later works (the use of split-screen to show action from two separate viewpoints, for instance), in addition to some of the trippiest black-and-white imagery this side of "Eraserhead." "Sisters" is an effective, highly influential work that holds up incredibly well today...just make sure you have a refill on your pills before watching it.