Watch Sisters For Free

That was an excellent one.

Overrated

Admirable film.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

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 written/directed filmsMy Grade: D-Eye Candy: Lou Doillon shows T&A; Chloe Sevigny gets topless

This remake of the 70's Brian De Palma's classic (which I have yet to see) has got to be one of the best surprises I've seen in a while. I went into this film not really knowing what genre it fit into and assumed it was a drama mystery on the plot of a 'different' kind of twins. So if you go into this film knowing just this you may love this creepy and engaging experience. Everything works quite well here from the acting to the direction. Even the one character that plays 'twin' or character 'Angelique', (Lou Doillon) gives a haunting performance here that is likely to give anyone that watches it chills. The tone and mood of the film feels somewhat inspired by a David Lynch film. If anyone isn't familiar with his work, he did the films Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr.This is one of the better films from 2006. If you can seek out this film or catch it on one of the movie channels that's playing lately, do yourself a favour and sit down and enjoy this ride.

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...

"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.