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.
Mr_Ectoplasma
"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.
