De Palma's Sisters

I need some advice. I'm interested in checking out SISTERS but it isn't available to rent so I may just have to buy it. However, I'm not sure if it's something I'd like. I recently rewatched DRESSED TO KILL and found if very average, and then saw BODY DOUBLE which was pretty lame as well. From this I'm guessing that I won't enjoy any of De Palma's "erotic thrillers." In fact, the only movie I have really enjoyed from him is BLOW OUT, which I thought was excellent. Now I've heard SISTERS is a more serious film, without the cheese and melodrama present in some of his other movies. So basically, I'm wondering where this film fits into De Palma's ouevre. Any help would be appreciated.

Sisters is a masterpiece. I would compare it to Psycho, even if it is a cliche thing to do. It is serious, although a few chuckles can be derived from Margot Kidder's irritating accent, but the film is well made and often frightening (particularly the hallucination sequence). I'd recommend a purchase; didn't this go down in price recently or something?

I've never seen it, but, I've seen some of Depalma's other movies. He's a pretty good filmmaker. But why does everybody say his movies are like Psycho?, from Sisters, to Dressed To Kill, Blowout, Body Double, let me guess, his newer one, Femme Fetale is like Psycho as well?!

Originally Posted by Big Bobby D

I've never seen it, but, I've seen some of Depalma's other movies. He's a pretty good filmmaker. But why does everybody say his movies are like Psycho?, from Sisters, to Dressed To Kill, Blowout, Body Double, let me guess, his newer one, Femme Fetale is like Psycho as well?!

Yes. Every single one of his films are exact duplicates of Psycho!

A little bit of sarcasm there. It's not that his films are just like Psycho, but rather imitations of many Hitchcock films (Body Double is like Rear Window, Obsession is like Vertigo, Dressed to Kill is a mixture of many). Not that I mind, since I happen to think De Palma's films are a bit more entertaining than Hitchcock's. Actually, I happen to think Femme Fatale is one of his only thrillers that doesn't really reference Hitchcock in some way.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I just hate the way everybody wants to say his movies are like Psycho. I mean, was Phantom Of The Paradise?
I'm sure some would say yes, since it has a shower scene!

[MaxRenn]

I'm not a huge DePalma fan but "Sisters" is one of his best movies and is definitely worth seeing. First it is one of DePalma's earliest thrillers and is consequently fresher and lacks the self-parody I find in his more recent efforts. Second it has more depth than normal and the dream/hallucination sequence towards the end is actually quite impressive.

I would say that it is not as stylish or flamboyant as "Dressed to Kill" but feels more realistic.

[Grim]

Sisters is very different from De Palma's later work. It still contains his two trademarks, voyeurism and split screens. (a lot of the split screen stuff will remind you of the hospital scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1) The only thing I really found in common with other Hitchcock films was maybe one moment in Rear Window (take a wild guess) and Bernard Hermann doing the score. I enjoyed it, but then again, I love Body Double. I'd say buy it, most seem to like it.

Sisters is without a doubt DePalma's best film as far as I'm concerned. It contains some of the most brilliant psychological horror I've come across, and the performances are all quite remarkable. Kidder and Salt are definitely the standouts, and their performances help the film to excel even further into greatness. Their is also some disturbing imagery throughout, most prominent in a hallucination towards the end of the film, but not limited to just that segment. There's also some nice underlying themes in the film that I'll let you discover for yourself, and I must say that I find this film's score to be the best to grace a DePalma film. How fitting that its also in his best film to date.

Anyways, there's no way I'd be without the Criterion disc. Your mileage may vary.

IMO most of Depalma's films are average at best, and I hated Dressed to Kill. I don't remember liking Sisters any more than his other work so personally I wouldn't recommend it unless you could get it cheap.

[mutleyhyde]

I bought Sisters on an impusle whim, and I don't regret it one bit, but then, I like vintage movies.

If you're either into classic 70's cinema or De Palma, this is one of the shining examples. A fine film that I would definitely recommend.

Alright, I guess I may pick it up. Since it's a Criterion I could probably get rid of it (and get most of my money back) without too much of a problem. Thanks for all the responses.

After the positive comments I decided to revisit Sisters today (first time since the Criterion DVD was released). The first half was great but I can't say it's anything more than just average overall.
Andrew, if you want to buy my Criterion DVD, just let me know.

I actually have to say that I like De Palma's films and think that Sisters is a must if you are interested in his movies. It is well done even if the story is a little straight forward in comparison to other De Palma films. Margot Kidder as usual turns in a very good performance and the actor who plays her ex husband/doctor is very creepy and does a good job.

depalma is one of the few film-makers that can do the same style as hitchcock, but put his own spin on it.

Some claim his films a rip-offs, but I think he never intends for them to be anything more than homages, and variates on the same type of formula.

He's very talented. Even his later effort "Femme Fatale" was amazing.

Blow Out, Sisters, Dressed to Kill, Body Double. All are pretty good. Sisters is easily the best of the bunch.

Ryan, it's not directly referencing a hitchcock film, but Rebecca is clearly channeling a hitchcock leading lady type of character in Femme Fatale. The style of storytelling is very similar to something hitchcock would have done.