Sisters (2006)

Best movie of this year hands down!

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Sister This remake of the 1973 Brian DePalma horror classic is far less interesting than the original. Festival co-director Julien Fonfrede promoted the screening as the film's North American premiere while, in fact, it was previously shown at the Sitges Film Festival. Despite the marketing faux pas, the film caught this reviewer's interest as a remake of a DePalma film.The story centers around Siamese twins who, as adults, must face surgery to live in health. Physiological disorders place their health in jeopardy and a severe psychological disorder of one results in an evil act. DePalma's film focuses on Danielle (Margot Kidder), a young woman who apparently murders her date, and Grace (Jennifer Salt), a nosy reporter who sees the whole thing. Things get strange when it is revealed that Danielle is a Siamese twin, and her nasty twin sister may have something to do with the murder.This remake lacks engaging characters, which is not to blame the acting but the directing. Stephen Rea as the psychiatrist Dr. Lacan and Lou Doillon as the "slave" Angelique give themselves completely to the performances and keep you connected, but that's about it. Character arcs are weakly resolved and therefore so is the drama of being a Siamese twin. The plot's dramatic story is not explored in depth and is unfortunately not saved by the murder subplot.Lou Doillon's acting is perfect�she handles the schizophrenic role of Angelique/Annabelle with a perfect blend of charm, vulnerability and complete wackiness. She took over from Asia Argento who was initially cast as Angelique/Annabelle but dropped out at the last minute. Shooting took place in North Carolina and Vancouver, British Columbia and explains the Canadian money used in the birthday cake purchase scene.The bloody stabbing and the scalpel absurdity at the end creates a superficial yet childish gore without showing what is at stake for these characters. When the last shot which is the same as the opening sequence fades to black, moviegoers leave without an emotional connection to what just happened. The entire film seems to be a pretext to practice directing skills for director Douglas Buck. Apparently the director, impatient to launch his film career, settled for redoing a classic horror film.While the film is good enough for general distribution, one would think that with the amount of dollars committed to the project, the final product would have had more depth of character.Sister Directed by Douglas BuckLou Doillon, Stephen Rea, Chloe Sevigny, William B. Davis, Gabrielle Rose, Talia Williams, Erica Van Briel, Dallas Roberts, Michael Curluck and Dylan Basu

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.

I can't believe that this piece of garbage was released. Thankfully, I got the DVD from the library, so I didn't waste a cent on this poor excuse for a re-make.How low do standards have to go before they just stop doing all these pointless re-makes and sequels and actually come out with something creative?That there were people stupid enough to put millions of dollars into something like this says volumes on the general level of intelligence of the film business mindset.The film opens on what feels like the middle of the film, ignoring DePalma's great TV game show opening and thrusting us right into the reporter's investigation.Why remake a great film if you don't have anything good to add to it?Why remake a great film at all?There's ten times the amount of blood and gore than the original, and it just shows the poverty of the filmmakers' imagination.I never thought DePalma was a genius before, but now that I've seen how this film could have been made, I even like the original's stupid ending!If there hadn't been some good reviews here, I wouldn't have bothered writing this. I can't think of one thing good about this film.

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.