Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Leofwine_draca Brian de Palma's 1973 Siamese twin opus, SISTERS, is a film ripe for remaking; it has a low budget, rough-around-the-edges feel to it that would definitely benefit from some Hollywood gloss and an enhanced budget. Sadly, this 2006 remake is an equally cheap and inferior version of the same story that muddies its narrative from the outset.The film looks and feels like it was made by amateurs. The director is clearly way out of his comfort zone because he delivers a movie that looks cheap and like it's a movie, instead of natural feeling. Don't hope for pacing or tension or excitement because those qualities are out of action. The cast is also a disappointment and it feels like a lot of the performances are rushed, as if the actors were in a hurry to get on with it and then just go afterwards lest they become too associated with the production.Stephen Rea is a case in point; he barely registers in the pivotal surgeon role and THE X-FILES' William B. Davis is even less noticeable. Chloe Sevigny (AMERICAN PSYCHO) is horrible as the reporter lead, Lou Doillon inferior to Margot Kidder in the twin role and the only actor who makes an impact is THE WALKING DEAD's Dallas Roberts. Stick with the original and give this redundant outing a miss.

preppy-3 Redo of Brian DePalma's "Sisters". Reporter Grace Collier (Chloe Sevigny) witnesses a murder from a computer cam and a window (don't ask). She gets involved with a creepy doctor named Phillip Lacan (Stephen Rea), his ex-wife/patient named Angelique (Lou Doillon)...and the 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. It starts off OK but falls to pieces as it goes on. For starters the acting is terrible. Sevigny and Rea can be good--but not here. They seemed drugged and just walked through their roles. Doillon is OK but she can't carry the whole movie. There are two VERY bloody murders that liven things up briefly. I saw the original so I kept comparing them and this one kept coming up short. Everything seems to be just going through the motions--there's no action or urgency in this. They make a few changes in a nod to modern technology but it doesn't help. To make matters worse the ending is completely changed...and it makes next to no sense! Why follow the old movie so completely and then just veer off into a completely different resolution...and a bad one at that? I wasn't even aware that this even existed till it popped up on late night cable TV. Obviously it bombed badly. Avoid this train wreck and seek out the original.

cohuttablue-imdb I picked this up at a video-store closing, but wish I'd known something about it first ~ I would have looked for the original instead of the remake. Some graphic sex in the opening scenes made me look at the wrapper and realize there was a tiny "R" on the store label ~ so I guess I can't complain about sex and violence. I give it higher marks for psychological innuendo than for plot or character interest. This director watched too many Calvin Klein blue-jean commercials in the 80s. Lou Doillon as "Angelique" was a little too "French fashion model." The suspense held my attention, but the plot falls into the post-Silence-of-the-Lambs-that's-just-a-little-too-bizarre-to-believe category. Can't anybody make a plain old murder mystery anymore? The murder scenes were blood-soaked ~ they hauled out many crates of ketchup for this one; and never did explain how the good doctor got that mess cleaned up in five minutes. Perhaps we are to believe the police kept the reporter outside talking for, say, four or five hours while the murder scene was scrubbed? I must have had my head turned when they explained where the body was hidden ~ someone told me it was in the TV (cabinet, maybe?) The flashback scenes filled in some of the history of the twins, and were better than the surface plot ~ a few more of them might have made the film more satisfying. There was a puzzling 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 both girls died, or just walked off in a drug-induced haze; but I suppose, symbolically, we are to assume that Angelique is once more conjoined to a twin. I wouldn't be quite so critical if the expectation hadn't been so great. The film pretended to be arty. From the promising blurb on the back cover, I was expecting an interesting and satisfying psychological murder mystery, sans the Halloween hack-em-up gore. My mistake...

Jonny_Numb 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.