UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Horror >

Sisters

Sisters (2006)

November. 10,2006
|
3.9
| Horror Thriller Mystery

A reporter witnesses a brutal murder, and becomes entangled in a mystery involving a pair of Siamese twins who were separated at birth, one of them forced to live under the eye of a watchful, controlling psychiatrist.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Leofwine_draca
2006/11/10

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.

More
preppy-3
2006/11/11

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.

More
dbdumonteil
2006/11/12

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

More
sgcim
2006/11/13

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.

More