Director Fred Eger Sister This remake of the 1973 Brian DePalma horror classic is far less interesting than the original. Festival co-director Julien Fonfrede promoted the screening as the film's North American premiere while, in fact, it was previously shown at the Sitges Film Festival. Despite the marketing faux pas, the film caught this reviewer's interest as a remake of a DePalma film.The story centers around Siamese twins who, as adults, must face surgery to live in health. Physiological disorders place their health in jeopardy and a severe psychological disorder of one results in an evil act. DePalma's film focuses on Danielle (Margot Kidder), a young woman who apparently murders her date, and Grace (Jennifer Salt), a nosy reporter who sees the whole thing. Things get strange when it is revealed that Danielle is a Siamese twin, and her nasty twin sister may have something to do with the murder.This remake lacks engaging characters, which is not to blame the acting but the directing. Stephen Rea as the psychiatrist Dr. Lacan and Lou Doillon as the "slave" Angelique give themselves completely to the performances and keep you connected, but that's about it. Character arcs are weakly resolved and therefore so is the drama of being a Siamese twin. The plot's dramatic story is not explored in depth and is unfortunately not saved by the murder subplot.Lou Doillon's acting is perfect�she handles the schizophrenic role of Angelique/Annabelle with a perfect blend of charm, vulnerability and complete wackiness. She took over from Asia Argento who was initially cast as Angelique/Annabelle but dropped out at the last minute. Shooting took place in North Carolina and Vancouver, British Columbia and explains the Canadian money used in the birthday cake purchase scene.The bloody stabbing and the scalpel absurdity at the end creates a superficial yet childish gore without showing what is at stake for these characters. When the last shot which is the same as the opening sequence fades to black, moviegoers leave without an emotional connection to what just happened. The entire film seems to be a pretext to practice directing skills for director Douglas Buck. Apparently the director, impatient to launch his film career, settled for redoing a classic horror film.While the film is good enough for general distribution, one would think that with the amount of dollars committed to the project, the final product would have had more depth of character.Sister Directed by Douglas BuckLou Doillon, Stephen Rea, Chloe Sevigny, William B. Davis, Gabrielle Rose, Talia Williams, Erica Van Briel, Dallas Roberts, Michael Curluck and Dylan Basu

Caleb Chadwick 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.

dbdumonteil 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.

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.