one of my absolute favorites!

A Disappointing Continuation

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

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

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.

"Sisters" follows news journalist Grace Collier (Chloe Sevigny), who has been watching over Doctor Lacan (Stephen Rea), a psychiatrist with a past for hurting patients, in an attempt to expose him. She comes across his assistant/former patient, Angelique (Lou Doillon), who allegedly lives with her twin sister in a city high rise. But after Grace witnesses a bizarre and brutal murder in Angelique's apartment, and the body seemingly disappears, she finds herself immersed in a mystery involving Dr. Lacan and his odd history with Angelique... as well as her mysterious, allegedly violent Siamese-twin sister, whom she was separated from through a surgical procedure.I had been waiting to see this movie and became unaware of its status after it seemed to be shelved from any release for over a year, and then 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 the same name, which starred Margot Kidder in the role of the twins. De Palma's film is a favorite of mine, and over the years has become something of a cult classic - and of course, many cult classics (especially of the horror genre) have been prime pickings for being remade. I was hesitant beginning the movie, but as it went I found myself very interested, even though I knew what was ultimately going to happen, having seen the original. I have to admit that this remake was pretty well-crafted.The screenplay here follows the 1973 film fairly closely, although does contain several nuances and some updates technology-wise (I found the entire spin with the camera surveillance to be quite clever). The recreations of some of the classic scenes from the original were also very well-done, and gave a bit of a different perspective while remaining respectful of the original material, which is always nice to see. For me, the recreation of the first murder scene was probably the most interesting to watch, and a bit more graphic. The cinematography is also professional-looking and there is a lot of stylish scenes and imagery to be found, mainly in the hallucinatory final ten minutes. There are a few silly moments that are kind of unnecessary, but besides that I felt that everything was there for a reason. One thing that is missed is Bernard Herrmann's score, we have a much darker, more menacing musical soundtrack here, but I suppose it fits this movie well. This remake does have an overall darker look to it, whilst the original bordered on quirky at moments.Performance-wise, we have a pretty good cast here as well, the two leads being Oscar nominees. I've always liked Chloe Sevigny, and while her performance her was slightly shaky in a few scenes, she does a solid job. She carries the movie well and is as likable as an undercover reporter can be. Stephen Rea, of "FearDotCom" and "V for Vendetta" is also solid as the mad doctor character. French actress Lou Doillon was a surprise too, and did a good job in the part of the dysfunctional twin role - Margot Kidder is irreplaceable, but that aside, she fits the shoe well. As for all the complaints here about this movie, the reviews give me the feeling that the authors of them never saw the original film, or let alone knew it was a remake - with complaints about the ending and the story itself in general, they seem to not be aware that this is a remake, and that it follows the original movie fairly closely. I've seen many embarrassing remakes, and this was a 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, because in my eyes, this was above-average. It stuck to its source material, but also incorporated some new ideas in an organized fashion. I will say it has its faults, as does any movie, but if you've seen the original 1973 film, I think this remake will more than likely be an entertaining and interesting watch. I personally always enjoy watching the recreations of certain things, and they did a good job here. In the end, De Palma's film is superior, but there are much, much worse remakes out there (anyone seen 2005's "The Fog"? ) Worth a rental at least, I don't think it's as bad as some are making it out to be. 7/10.