Genres

Visitors Review

badalnow 2013-05-19 06:28:06

Just seen it. Not impressed

I just saw this yesterday on DVD. Being familiar with the original, Icouldn't help but draw comparisons. I thought it was only OK. They'vealtered a few things here. It's all stylishly done, with manyreferences to other films - not always a good thing. On the extras,they proudly announce the working with 2 Oscar nominees, strange then,that Slevigny and Rea turn in less than impressive performances. Infact, they all looked bored. Newcomer Lou Dillion looks great and she'squite intriguing in this. There were many opportunities here to be veryinteresting but they settle for obvious things and fright scenes thatwere just silly. I think back to the original - the great MargotKidder, De Palma's great style and Herrman's eerie score. It's allmissing here. And that's a sad thing.

movieman_kev 2013-05-18 10:43:59

How not to do a remake

Separated conjoined twins are investigated by a diligent reporter inthis pointless and plodding remake of a mediocre yet vastly superiorBrian DePalma film. Horridly acted with characters that one simply cannot care about. The more well-known actors that appear in this messshould feel ashamed. I'm more than a tad angered that I waisted my timeon this one. I guess I was sucked in by the usually dependable StephenRea. Consider this a lesson learned to steer clear of Douglas Buckwritten/directed filmsMy Grade: D-Eye Candy: Lou Doillon shows T&A; Chloe Sevigny gets topless

cohuttablue-imdb 2013-04-23 19:10:03

A lot of ketchup died to make this movie...

I picked this up at a video-store closing, but wish I'd known somethingabout it first ~ I would have looked for the original instead of theremake. Some graphic sex in the opening scenes made me look at thewrapper and realize there was a tiny "R" on the store label ~ so Iguess I can't complain about sex and violence. I give it higher marksfor psychological innuendo than for plot or character interest. Thisdirector watched too many Calvin Klein blue-jean commercials in the80s. Lou Doillon as "Angelique" was a little too "French fashionmodel." The suspense held my attention, but the plot falls into thepost-Silence-of-the-Lambs-that's-just-a-little-too-bizarre-to-believecategory. Can't anybody make a plain old murder mystery anymore? Themurder scenes were blood-soaked ~ they hauled out many crates ofketchup for this one; and never did explain how the good doctor gotthat mess cleaned up in five minutes. Perhaps we are to believe thepolice kept the reporter outside talking for, say, four or five hourswhile the murder scene was scrubbed? I must have had my head turnedwhen they explained where the body was hidden ~ someone told me it wasin the TV (cabinet, maybe?) The flashback scenes filled in some of thehistory of the twins, and were better than the surface plot ~ a fewmore of them might have made the film more satisfying. There was apuzzling little scene in which one twin wielded a knife at the reporter(who had morphed into dead-twin Annabelle). I'm not too sure if bothgirls died, or just walked off in a drug-induced haze; but I suppose,symbolically, we are to assume that Angelique is once more conjoined toa twin. I wouldn't be quite so critical if the expectation hadn't beenso great. The film pretended to be arty. From the promising blurb onthe back cover, I was expecting an interesting and satisfyingpsychological murder mystery, sans the Halloween hack-em-up gore. Mymistake...

2013-04-23 06:03:58

I wasted my $2.99

This review is from: Sisters (Amazon Instant Video) I Should have read the review before watching. As a fan of Brian DePalma, I was sure this would be worth watching. The ending is such a disappointment. This must have been a low budget firm.

Guy 2013-04-10 21:09:23

Missing Actor

I've yet to see the movie, but I know it's going to be great. Because a) it's a re-write of a classic, and b) it's a horror film, we all love to be scared!Oh yah, and I'm in it! And no not as an Extra, but as an actor. I'm crushed for not being in the Credits. Guy Jellis (Creepy Medical attendant)SCARY! (remember no part is a small part.)

Wild Smokey 2013-04-10 07:05:50

This would have been better if it never got released

The starting seemed like this will be a nice slow thriller flickthat'll be interesting to watch. Boy was I disappointed. Sometimes yousee such movies and realize that "not every time a director can carrythe beginning to the ending". This movie is a disappointment. Theacting - 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 wayand you would expect some nice ending to it to be a saving grace forthe flick. Nah!!! The ending was the worst I have seen in any movierecently. It was like the writer or the director had no clue what to doand how to end this. Leaving much to be desired, I should have realizedit midway that this was not what I was looking for, I have seen manystory lines like these, but certainly treated better and finishedbetter than this. One of those movies you would start scratching yourhead 20 minutes into it and barf at the sheer pathetic acting andstoryline rendering. No wonder it took ages to complete this film andsee the light of release. It was better left unreleased rather thanputting us through this torture of pathetic story, acting, directionand all.

dbdumonteil 2013-03-29 07:26:04

Birthday Bloody birthday

Brian De Palma 's movie was not a classic,but it was a goodthriller,with a good performance by Margot Kidder.The remake is acomplete disaster .The screenwriters have changed the names of the twinsisters ,the lover has become a white man,there's no TV show and theyhave tried some new tacks unsuccessfully.Particularly awful is StephenRea's portrayal of a wicked physician .The more he tries to bedisturbing,the more he makes himself ridiculous.Bad performances by thethree actresses too .The birthday cake episode has been kept but thepeople in the shop are rather unpleasant .One thing you learn from thismovie is that you must keep this kind of cake in a freezer.

2013-03-28 21:02:53

Falls a little short

I loved the original of this movie by Brian DePalma. I own it and have watched it a number of times and still enjoy it. It is very original, tense and macabre.This remake is lacking a bit. They took some liberties with the story, which didn't make a big difference until the ending. That's where everything took too big of a turn for my liking. They completely missed the point of the serum and left doors open for a follow up (which I hope they don't do). All acting was done well. Sets were very good and cameras where excellent. No fast forwarding or multiple images, they kept it clean, which I do appreciate.The music... that's another story. It didn't fit. It didn't help to build or keep tension as in the original. Another big piece of the puzzle missing. I would recommend this movie only if you've seen the original. Otherwise, wait until it comes to television, which shouldn't be long.

Wayne Malin 2013-03-27 20:43:40

Yet another pointless horror remake

Redo of Brian DePalma's "Sisters". Reporter Grace Collier (ChloeSevigny) witnesses a murder from a computer cam and a window (don'task). She gets involved with a creepy doctor named Phillip Lacan(Stephen Rea), his ex-wife/patient named Angelique (Lou Doillon)...andthe 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. Itstarts off OK but falls to pieces as it goes on. For starters theacting is terrible. Sevigny and Rea can be good--but not here. Theyseemed drugged and just walked through their roles. Doillon is OK butshe can't carry the whole movie. There are two VERY bloody murders thatliven things up briefly. I saw the original so I kept comparing themand this one kept coming up short. Everything seems to be just goingthrough the motions--there's no action or urgency in this. They make afew changes in a nod to modern technology but it doesn't help. To makematters worse the ending is completely changed...and it makes next tono sense! Why follow the old movie so completely and then just veer offinto a completely different resolution...and a bad one at that? Iwasn't even aware that this even existed till it popped up on latenight cable TV. Obviously it bombed badly. Avoid this train wreck andseek out the original.

youshotandywarhol 2013-03-27 10:10:21

Despite Some Imperfections, Really Not That Bad Of A Remake.

"Sisters" follows news journalist Grace Collier (Chloe Sevigny), whohas been watching over Doctor Lacan (Stephen Rea), a psychiatrist witha past for hurting patients, in an attempt to expose him. She comesacross his assistant/former patient, Angelique (Lou Doillon), whoallegedly lives with her twin sister in a city high rise. But afterGrace witnesses a bizarre and brutal murder in Angelique's apartment,and the body seemingly disappears, she finds herself immersed in amystery involving Dr. Lacan and his odd history with Angelique... aswell as her mysterious, allegedly violent Siamese-twin sister, whom shewas separated from through a surgical procedure.I had been waiting to see this movie and became unaware of its statusafter it seemed to be shelved from any release for over a year, andthen happened to see it at the video store and quickly rented it."Sisters" is a remake of Brian De Palma's 1973 psycho-thriller of thesame name, which starred Margot Kidder in the role of the twins. DePalma's film is a favorite of mine, and over the years has becomesomething of a cult classic - and of course, many cult classics(especially of the horror genre) have been prime pickings for beingremade. I was hesitant beginning the movie, but as it went I foundmyself very interested, even though I knew what was ultimately going tohappen, having seen the original. I have to admit that this remake waspretty well-crafted.The screenplay here follows the 1973 film fairly closely, although doescontain several nuances and some updates technology-wise (I found theentire spin with the camera surveillance to be quite clever). Therecreations of some of the classic scenes from the original were alsovery well-done, and gave a bit of a different perspective whileremaining respectful of the original material, which is always nice tosee. For me, the recreation of the first murder scene was probably themost interesting to watch, and a bit more graphic. The cinematographyis also professional-looking and there is a lot of stylish scenes andimagery to be found, mainly in the hallucinatory final ten minutes.There are a few silly moments that are kind of unnecessary, but besidesthat I felt that everything was there for a reason. One thing that ismissed is Bernard Herrmann's score, we have a much darker, moremenacing musical soundtrack here, but I suppose it fits this moviewell. This remake does have an overall darker look to it, whilst theoriginal bordered on quirky at moments.Performance-wise, we have a pretty good cast here as well, the twoleads being Oscar nominees. I've always liked Chloe Sevigny, and whileher performance her was slightly shaky in a few scenes, she does asolid job. She carries the movie well and is as likable as anundercover reporter can be. Stephen Rea, of "FearDotCom" and "V forVendetta" is also solid as the mad doctor character. French actress LouDoillon was a surprise too, and did a good job in the part of thedysfunctional twin role - Margot Kidder is irreplaceable, but thataside, she fits the shoe well. As for all the complaints here aboutthis movie, the reviews give me the feeling that the authors of themnever saw the original film, or let alone knew it was a remake - withcomplaints about the ending and the story itself in general, they seemto not be aware that this is a remake, and that it follows the originalmovie fairly closely. I've seen many embarrassing remakes, and this wasa pretty solid one if you ask me.Overall, "Sisters" is not at all a bad horror movie, or a bad remake.I'm a little surprised at the negative reaction to this movie, becausein my eyes, this was above-average. It stuck to its source material,but also incorporated some new ideas in an organized fashion. I willsay it has its faults, as does any movie, but if you've seen theoriginal 1973 film, I think this remake will more than likely be anentertaining and interesting watch. I personally always enjoy watchingthe recreations of certain things, and they did a good job here. In theend, De Palma's film is superior, but there are much, much worseremakes out there (anyone seen 2005's "The Fog"? ) Worth a rental atleast, I don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be. 7/10.

Michael_Elliott 2013-03-18 00:05:26

Decent Remake Until the Final Thirty Minutes

Sisters (2006) ** (out of 4) Remake of the Brian DePalma thriller didn't cause that much bickeringamong fans when it was released because most people still don't know itexists. The film has a reporter (Chloe Sevigny) witnessing a murder bya mysterious twin (Lou Doillon) but when the police arrive on the scenethere's no blood and no body. The reporter then starts to investigatethe woman's doctor (Stephen Rea) and soon begins to unravel thesecrets. This remake of SISTERS certainly isn't as good as the originalbut the nice cast and a good start are quickly ruined in a needlesslyinsane second half where everything just unravels. The first hour ispretty much exactly like the previous movie so if you've seen it thenit's doubtful any of the plot points here are going to throw you. Ifound the opening hour to be a fairly well-made thriller because thedirector at least kept everything moving at a nice pace and the threelead actors were doing so well that it helped keep your attention.Then, the final thirty minutes just go crazy in terms of wanting toshock you and come up with bizarre story lines that just never makemuch sense. It should go without saying but any movie made after THESIXTH SENSE needs that "shock" ending. I'm guessing the filmmakersdidn't think the DePalma version had a big enough of a shock (I'ddisagree) so they decided to take the story into new directions. Theonly problem is that the twists here aren't shocking and what they'veadded to the story just doesn't work. I won't spoil anything but we getall sorts of scenes where characters just sit down with the reporterand begin telling her about what really happened. I always find sceneswhere we have characters sitting down to explain things bad writingbecause it's obvious the film is lost and they just need to keep movingalong so they try to fill us in on everything we've missed. Whatdirection they take the doctor just doesn't work, comes off forced andat times it's almost laughable. Outside of that this is a pretty solidlittle thriller that cranks up the violence, sex and nudity. That's theone big adjustment over the DePalma version as this one here features alittle more dirty moments and the reporter has an added backstory thatactually works well with the twin's story. Sevigny can always becounted on for a good performance and she manages to bring a lot to therole of the reporter. I thought she was believable in the role andcertainly helped keep the movie going at a good pace. Doillon is alsoextremely good in her part as the twins. I was a little shocked to seeRea in a movie like this but it was still nice to see him after allthese years. Fans of the DePalma movie really don't have much of areason to watch this unless they simply want to compare the twoversions. I'm sure if you're unfamiliar with the original version thenmany of the story lines here will throw you for a loop but if youhaven't seen either one then it's still best to go with the originalfirst.

Claudio Carvalho 2013-03-17 16:23:48

What a Mess!

While participating in a party for children in a clinic administratedby Dr. Philip Lacan (Stephen Rea), Dr. Dylan Wallace (Dallas Roberts)witnesses an incident between the host and the Spectator reporter GraceCollier (Chloë Sevigny) and he has a conversation with Dr. Lacan'sassistant and former wife Angelique Tristiana (Lou Doillon). Her offersa ride to her to downtown and they have one night stand in theapartment of her twin sister Annabel. On the next morning, Dr. Wallacebuys an ice-cream cake to celebrate the birthday of the sisters andreturns to the apartment. Meanwhile the snoopy Grace that wants toexpose the experiments of Dr. Lacan breaks in his office and finds thatAngelique's apartment is monitored by many surveillance cameras. Shewitnesses Angelique stabbing Dr. Wallace to death and she calls thepolice. However the detectives do not find any evidence indicating amurder in the flat. Grace goes further in her investigation anddiscovers the hidden secret about Dr. Lacan, Angelique and herself."Sisters" is a messy story after a promising beginning. The screenplayis absolutely confused and the weird plot is unrealistic. Theattractive cover of the Brazilian DVD with a picture of the sisterswalking together is extremely beautiful and the best that I saw in thisawful flick. My vote is three.Title (Brazil): "Almas Gêmeas" ("Twin Souls")

2013-03-17 15:19:13

Not bad

I could write paragraphs raving about Brian De Palma's original film, but since there are already several well-written reviews that express exactly how I feel about it, I decided I would write a little about this remake, which so far has only one customer review. When I first heard that there was going to be a remake, I was prepared for the worst, but I was pleasantly surprised. It was released rather quietly on video, but it is far better than most of the popular remakes that have come out lately. The new ending is weak, but other than that, Douglas Buck did a decent job of retelling this story in a way that doesn't deviate far from the original, but has enough surprises to please fans (which is something this film has in common with the 1990 redo of Night of the Living Dead). Chloë Sevigny and Lou Doillon were very good in their roles, and are probably the next best thing to Jennifer Salt and Margot Kidder. Doillon in particular has a strange aura about her that makes her fascinating to watch. One yearns for the odd William Finley as the evil doctor instead of Stephen Rea, but that's a quibble. Don't expect anything close to the masterpiece of Brian De Palma, and you will likely enjoy this well-made film that deserves to rise from its obscurity.

2013-03-17 05:15:57

Sisters comes apart at the end

I'm not much of a fan of medical doctors. Their priorities in life are the following: 1. Don't get sued. 2. Pay off student loans. 3. Family - their families, not yours. 4. God - if they believe in a higher power, which most of them don't, so for most, five becomes four. 5. Help their patients, as long as this does not intrude on any of the previous priorities.So for me, when the main character -- Lou Doillon, who is actually really good here -- says to the Chloe Sevigny character -- who is also really good -- "I'm sick of doctors," Ms. Doillon's ironic statement rang true for me. Now, she mostly was a patient of psychologists and psychiatrists, but I believe the same rules as above apply to those doctors as well, even though most of them seem to be no better than psychics. (Answer me this: if psychiatrists actually knew what they were doing, do you believe that modern-day mass murders would occur so much?)"Sisters," which seems to deal with the yin and yang of peoples' psyches, is actually fairly strong once you get past the beginning. I thought that the opening scene was somewhat confusing; I didn't know who the main characters were, and they were just thrown in as if we were supposed to know them. But the remainder of the first act was good, and it got really good in the second act. But then, it seems that, as life imitates art, "Sisters" just came apart in the third.I was as confused by parts of the David-Lynchian-style ending just as much as the Sevigny character, not necessarily knowing what was real and what was imagined. That might have been the point I suppose, but the film just left me feeling a little groggy. But what I did understand I just didn't really buy here; I think that the ending could have been better, more believable perhaps. However, overall, I really liked the European mood of the film and the soundtrack. Those really worked for me.It's too bad, as Ms. Sevigny gives another very nice performance here. But she wasn't quite enough to save "Sisters." Still, I'll go with a mild recommendation on this sibling of a film. Now, instead of a clone, I want to see the original.

sgcim 2013-03-16 11:30:26

Unbelievably poor remake

I can't believe that this piece of garbage was released. Thankfully, Igot the DVD from the library, so I didn't waste a cent on this poorexcuse for a re-make.How low do standards have to go before they just stop doing all thesepointless re-makes and sequels and actually come out with somethingcreative?That there were people stupid enough to put millions of dollars intosomething like this says volumes on the general level of intelligenceof the film business mindset.The film opens on what feels like the middle of the film, ignoringDePalma's great TV game show opening and thrusting us right into thereporter'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, andit just shows the poverty of the filmmakers' imagination.I never thought DePalma was a genius before, but now that I've seen howthis film could have been made, I even like the original's stupidending!If there hadn't been some good reviews here, I wouldn't have botheredwriting this. I can't think of one thing good about this film.

2013-03-15 23:11:05

Go Watch the Orignial

I actually the remake first and then the original. The remake show up on showtime. I know its was basic off a Brian De Palma movie. I hope it was good. The only reason I gave this two start because of Chloe Sevigny & Stephen Rea. I like both actors. This script was horror and the ending was even worse. It made no since. I some movies try to have a weird ending or open ended. This movie should be watch at it. Its not the worse movie I've seen. I recommend in this case stick with the original. I got the original on Netflix instant. If you must see this film use ur netflix or rent it from redbox.

Termi21 2013-03-14 20:23:34

What an awful movie!

I saw this film yesterday in a special screening. At least it was free!Oh my god what a terrible movie. The script sounded promising and i amsure they could come up with great ideas based on the central story.But No! This is just an awful mess. The directing is just average, andthe story is lame. But the worst thing about this film is the acting.All actors seemed bored, there was no chemistry between them and theiracting was much worse than a bad soap opera! Even the "randomfalse-alarm scares" are the most ridiculous i have ever seen. There isactually one scene where the camera zooms at the main actress'es faceand a loud, scary sound is heard and...well THAT'S IT! It happened forno reason. They didn't show anything after that! Half the theater waslaughing all the time. Usually my ratings are between 5 and 9, becausei can always see the "effort" even in bad movies. But this one gets astraight "3".

Jonny_Numb 2013-03-14 06:11:52

A Surprisingly Worthy Remake

The original "Sisters" could very well be Brian De Palma's best film,showing an efficiency in screen writing and a surplus of style thatearmarked him as the closest American filmgoers would come to an heirto Hitchcock (even if his string of '80s imitations and '90s sludgeeffectively silenced the initial hype). In a lot of ways, DouglasBuck's remake seems as pointlessly unnecessary as any other that hascome down the pipeline in the past decade, but his "Sisters" quicklysubverts our expectations--where De Palma's slick stylistic efficiencystood now gives way to an impressive character study (even those whofavor De Palma's film--myself included--will find much to like here)that peels back psychosis like the layers of a particularly rancidonion. While Buck may lack the visual finesse that made De Palma's filmso aesthetically compelling, he makes a virtue of his low budget: theperformances are subtly convincing (Chloe Sevigny nails the deadpandrive of journalist Grace Collier; Stephen Rea boldly manifests thesinister shrink Dr. Lacan; and newcomer Lou Doillon possesses a foreignexoticism (think Isabella Rossellini in "Blue Velvet") as AngeliqueTristiana, who is experiencing a peculiar 'separation anxiety' from hermurderous twin, Annabel), the story surprisingly rich with detail, andsome of De Palma's classic scenes (the black-and-white hospitalhallucination in particular) are given an overhaul that invokes theunease of Polanski and Argento while putting the emphasis on arepulsion that stems more from the damaged psyches of the charactersthan any splattery gore effect. And it is especially during the climaxin which Buck makes "Sisters" his own, leaving us with a twist moreemotionally endearing and disturbing than De Palma's gimmicky,tongue-in-cheek denouement--the subtle image of two characters walkingaway from their past to begin anew carries a chill more effective thanany overblown, blood-soaked redux from Platinum Dunes. This "Sisters"attests to the fact that a low budget, when wielded properly, can yieldbig rewards.

Wayne Malin 2013-01-20 13:38:10

Yet another pointless horror remake

Redo of Brian DePalma's "Sisters". Reporter Grace Collier (ChloeSevigny) witnesses a murder from a computer cam and a window (don'task). She gets involved a creepy doctor named Phillip Lacan (StephenRea), his ex-wife/patient named Angelique (Lou Doillon)...and themurderer.The original was no masterpiece but it was a quick strong thriller.There was no reason to remake it but that never stopped Hollywood. Itstarts off OK but falls to pieces as it goes on. For starters theacting is terrible. Sevigny and Rea can be good--but not here. Theyseemed drugged and just walked through their roles. Doillon is OK butshe can't carry the whole movie. There are two VERY bloody murders thatliven things up briefly. I saw the original so I kept comparing themand this one kept coming up short. Everything seems to be just goingthrough the motions--there's no action or urgency in this. They make afew changes in a nod to modern technology but it doesn't help. To makematters worse the ending is completely changed...and it makes next tono sense! Why follow the old movie so completely and then just veer offinto a completely different resolution...and a bad one at that? Iwasn't even aware that this even existed till it popped up on latenight cable TV. Obviously it bombed badly. Avoid this train wreck andseek out the original.

Caleb Chadwick 2013-01-19 22:36:26

One of the best remakes I've seen

This remake of the 70's Brian De Palma's classic (which I have yet tosee) has got to be one of the best surprises I've seen in a while. Iwent into this film not really knowing what genre it fit into andassumed it was a drama mystery on the plot of a 'different' kind oftwins. So if you go into this film knowing just this you may love thiscreepy and engaging experience. Everything works quite well here fromthe acting to the direction. Even the one character that plays 'twin'or character 'Angelique', (Lou Doillon) gives a haunting performancehere that is likely to give anyone that watches it chills. The tone and mood of the film feels somewhat inspired by a David Lynchfilm. If anyone isn't familiar with his work, he did the films BlueVelvet and Mulholland Dr.This is one of the better films from 2006. If you can seek out thisfilm or catch it on one of the movie channels that's playing lately, doyourself a favour and sit down and enjoy this ride.