[go: up one dir, main page]

    Release calendarTop 250 moviesMost popular moviesBrowse movies by genreTop box officeShowtimes & ticketsMovie newsIndia movie spotlight
    What's on TV & streamingTop 250 TV showsMost popular TV showsBrowse TV shows by genreTV news
    What to watchLatest trailersIMDb OriginalsIMDb PicksIMDb SpotlightFamily entertainment guideIMDb Podcasts
    EmmysSuperheroes GuideSan Diego Comic-ConSummer Watch GuideBest Of 2025 So FarDisability Pride MonthSTARmeter AwardsAwards CentralFestival CentralAll events
    Born todayMost popular celebsCelebrity news
    Help centerContributor zonePolls
For industry professionals
  • Language
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Watchlist
Sign in
  • Fully supported
  • English (United States)
    Partially supported
  • Français (Canada)
  • Français (France)
  • Deutsch (Deutschland)
  • हिंदी (भारत)
  • Italiano (Italia)
  • Português (Brasil)
  • Español (España)
  • Español (México)
Use app
  • Cast & crew
  • User reviews
  • Trivia
  • FAQ
IMDbPro

Sisters

  • 2006
  • 16
  • 1h 32m
IMDb RATING
3.9/10
1.7K
YOUR RATING
Sisters (2006)
Theatrical Trailer from Motor Entertainment
Play trailer1:39
1 Video
12 Photos
CrimeHorrorMysteryThriller

A reporter witnesses a brutal murder and becomes entangled in a mystery involving a pair of Siamese twins who were separated at birth, one of them forced to live under the eye of a watchful,... Read allA reporter witnesses a brutal murder and becomes entangled in a mystery involving a pair of Siamese twins who were separated at birth, one of them forced to live under the eye of a watchful, controlling psychiatrist.A reporter witnesses a brutal murder and becomes entangled in a mystery involving a pair of Siamese twins who were separated at birth, one of them forced to live under the eye of a watchful, controlling psychiatrist.

  • Director
    • Douglas Buck
  • Writers
    • Brian De Palma
    • Louisa Rose
    • Douglas Buck
  • Stars
    • Chloë Sevigny
    • Stephen Rea
    • Lou Doillon
  • See production info at IMDbPro
  • IMDb RATING
    3.9/10
    1.7K
    YOUR RATING
    • Director
      • Douglas Buck
    • Writers
      • Brian De Palma
      • Louisa Rose
      • Douglas Buck
    • Stars
      • Chloë Sevigny
      • Stephen Rea
      • Lou Doillon
    • 15User reviews
    • 26Critic reviews
  • See production info at IMDbPro
    • Awards
      • 2 nominations total

    Videos1

    Sisters (2006)
    Trailer 1:39
    Sisters (2006)

    Photos11

    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    View Poster
    + 7
    View Poster

    Top cast23

    Edit
    Chloë Sevigny
    Chloë Sevigny
    • Grace Collier
    Stephen Rea
    Stephen Rea
    • Dr. Philip Lacan
    Lou Doillon
    Lou Doillon
    • Angelique Tristiana
    Dallas Roberts
    Dallas Roberts
    • Dr. Dylan Wallace
    JR Bourne
    JR Bourne
    • Larry Franklin
    William B. Davis
    William B. Davis
    • Dr. Lucas Bryant
    Gabrielle Rose
    Gabrielle Rose
    • Dr. Mercedes Kent
    Serge Houde
    Serge Houde
    • Detective Kalen
    Alistair Abell
    Alistair Abell
    • Detective Connors
    Colin Chapin
    Colin Chapin
    • Coffee Shop Worker #1
    Graeme Duffy
    Graeme Duffy
    • Coffee Shop Worker #2
    Talia Williams
    • Lily
    Rachel Williams
    • Eve
    Erica Van Briel
    Erica Van Briel
    • Sofia Tristiana
    David Purvis
    • Patrick - Aide
    Guy Jellis
    • Male Attendant #1
    Ross Viner
    • Male Attendant #2
    Michael Curluck
    • Grace's Father
    • Director
      • Douglas Buck
    • Writers
      • Brian De Palma
      • Louisa Rose
      • Douglas Buck
    • All cast & crew
    • Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

    User reviews15

    3.91.6K
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10

    Featured reviews

    dbdumonteil

    Birthday Bloody birthday

    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.
    3claudio_carvalho

    What a Mess!

    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")
    9threenails10

    One of the best remakes I've seen

    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.
    Michael_Elliott

    Decent Remake Until the Final Thirty Minutes

    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.
    3wildsmokey

    This would have been better if it never got released

    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.

    Storyline

    Edit

    Did you know

    Edit
    • Trivia
      This film is a remake of Sisters (1973).
    • Goofs
      Dr. Kent names "methanol" as one of the drugs used to treat Sophia. Methanol is highly toxic and not only has no therapeutic value but would have killed her if given in any significant quantity.
    • Connections
      Remake of Soeurs de sang (1972)
    • Soundtracks
      Suite No. 1 for Cello Solo: Prelude
      Composed by Johann Sebastian Bach

      Arranged by Edward Dzubak and Gretta Cohn

      Assistant Engineer: Eli Cohn

    Top picks

    Sign in to rate and Watchlist for personalized recommendations
    Sign in

    FAQ

    • How long is Sisters?
      Powered by Alexa

    Details

    Edit
    • Release date
      • February 2, 2007 (France)
    • Countries of origin
      • United States
      • Canada
      • United Kingdom
    • Official site
      • Official site (Japan)
    • Languages
      • English
      • French
    • Also known as
      • Sisters - Soeurs de sang
    • Filming locations
      • Kings Mountain, North Carolina, USA
    • Production companies
      • Pressman Film
      • Image Entertainment
      • No Remorse Pictures
    • See more company credits at IMDbPro

    Box office

    Edit
    • Budget
      • $5,000,000 (estimated)
    See detailed box office info on IMDbPro

    Tech specs

    Edit
    • Runtime
      1 hour 32 minutes
    • Color
      • Color
    • Sound mix
      • Dolby Digital
    • Aspect ratio
      • 1.85 : 1

    Contribute to this page

    Suggest an edit or add missing content
    Sisters (2006)
    Top Gap
    By what name was Sisters (2006) officially released in India in English?
    Answer
    • See more gaps
    • Learn more about contributing
    Edit page

    More to explore

    Recently viewed

    Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.
    Get the IMDb App
    Sign in for more accessSign in for more access
    Follow IMDb on social
    Get the IMDb App
    For Android and iOS
    Get the IMDb App
    • Help
    • Site Index
    • IMDbPro
    • Box Office Mojo
    • License IMDb Data
    • Press Room
    • Advertising
    • Jobs
    • Conditions of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Your Ads Privacy Choices
    IMDb, an Amazon company

    © 1990-2025 by IMDb.com, Inc.