|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||13 reviews in total|
14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
What an awful movie!, 13 June 2007
Author: Termi21 from Athens, Greece
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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 am sure 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, and the story is lame. But the worst thing about this film is the acting. All actors seemed bored, there was no chemistry between them and their acting was much worse than a bad soap opera! Even the "random false-alarm scares" are the most ridiculous i have ever seen. There is actually one scene where the camera zooms at the main actress'es face and a loud, scary sound is heard and...well THAT'S IT! It happened for no reason. They didn't show anything after that! Half the theater was laughing all the time. Usually my ratings are between 5 and 9, because i can always see the "effort" even in bad movies. But this one gets a straight "3".
12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Just seen it. Not impressed, 11 March 2008
I just saw this yesterday on DVD. Being familiar with the original, I couldn't help but draw comparisons. I thought it was only OK. They've altered a few things here. It's all stylishly done, with many references 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. In fact, they all looked bored. Newcomer Lou Dillion looks great and she's quite intriguing in this. There were many opportunities here to be very interesting but they settle for obvious things and fright scenes that were just silly. I think back to the original - the great Margot Kidder, De Palma's great style and Herrman's eerie score. It's all missing here. And that's a sad thing.
5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Yet another pointless horror remake, 26 December 2010
Author: Wayne Malin (firstname.lastname@example.org) from United States
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 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.
7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
What a Mess!, 28 October 2009
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
While participating in a party for children in a clinic administrated
by Dr. Philip Lacan (Stephen Rea), Dr. Dylan Wallace (Dallas Roberts)
witnesses an incident between the host and the Spectator reporter Grace
Collier (Chloë Sevigny) and he has a conversation with Dr. Lacan's
assistant and former wife Angelique Tristiana (Lou Doillon). Her offers
a ride to her to downtown and they have one night stand in the
apartment of her twin sister Annabel. On the next morning, Dr. Wallace
buys an ice-cream cake to celebrate the birthday of the sisters and
returns to the apartment. Meanwhile the snoopy Grace that wants to
expose the experiments of Dr. Lacan breaks in his office and finds that
Angelique's apartment is monitored by many surveillance cameras. She
witnesses Angelique stabbing Dr. Wallace to death and she calls the
police. However the detectives do not find any evidence indicating a
murder in the flat. Grace goes further in her investigation and
discovers the hidden secret about Dr. Lacan, Angelique and herself.
"Sisters" is a messy story after a promising beginning. The screenplay is absolutely confused and the weird plot is unrealistic. The attractive cover of the Brazilian DVD with a picture of the sisters walking together is extremely beautiful and the best that I saw in this awful flick. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Almas Gêmeas" ("Twin Souls")
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
A lot of ketchup died to make this movie..., 24 June 2010
Author: cohuttablue-imdb from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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...
15 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
This would have been better if it never got released, 14 November 2007
Author: Wild Smokey from India
The starting seemed like this will be a nice slow thriller flick that'll be interesting to watch. Boy was I disappointed. Sometimes you see such movies and realize that "not every time a director can carry the beginning to the ending". This movie is a disappointment. The acting - 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 way and you would expect some nice ending to it to be a saving grace for the flick. Nah!!! The ending was the worst I have seen in any movie recently. It was like the writer or the director had no clue what to do and how to end this. Leaving much to be desired, I should have realized it midway that this was not what I was looking for, I have seen many story lines like these, but certainly treated better and finished better than this. One of those movies you would start scratching your head 20 minutes into it and barf at the sheer pathetic acting and storyline rendering. No wonder it took ages to complete this film and see the light of release. It was better left unreleased rather than putting us through this torture of pathetic story, acting, direction and all.
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Birthday Bloody birthday, 4 April 2009
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.
8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Despite Some Imperfections, Really Not That Bad Of A Remake., 27 March 2008
Author: youshotandywarhol from Oregon
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"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.
How not to do a remake, 26 May 2012
Author: movieman_kev from United States
Separated conjoined twins are investigated by a diligent reporter in
this pointless and plodding remake of a mediocre yet vastly superior
Brian DePalma film. Horridly acted with characters that one simply can
not care about. The more well-known actors that appear in this mess
should feel ashamed. I'm more than a tad angered that I waisted my time
on this one. I guess I was sucked in by the usually dependable Stephen
Rea. Consider this a lesson learned to steer clear of Douglas Buck
My Grade: D-
Eye Candy: Lou Doillon shows T&A; Chloe Sevigny gets topless
4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Unbelievably poor remake, 23 April 2008
Author: sgcim from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Official site|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|