A slightly earlier analogue of "Razor" in the filmography of De Palma. This is talking about his "hitchkomania", the desire of the director to be, if not similar, then equally passionate filmdeed.
In general, a low-budget, but absolutely amazing picture. Such a beha (film category B) with a claim, with artistic taste. Outdated, with gouache blood. But done with passion. The film has two great actresses: Margot Kidder (Superman girl) and Jennifer Salt (Midnight Cowboy dream girl). Also in stock black and white hallucination in the style of Guy Maddin and a couple of schizophrenic plot moves.
In general, of course, it will be easier than Hitchcock, but more vulgar. Well, Hitchcock, for example, in a conversation with Truffaut said that you should never take off “from the refrigerator”, because the viewer in the fridge can not sit. Hitchcock paid much attention to his point of view - the viewer in the hall. What's De Palma doing? And De Palma sticks the viewer in the refrigerator and there is a spectacular scene inside it, where the ill-fated cake lies. And then as in some cheap (quoting the heroine of the film: police) series - the cake is on the floor.
The film tries to be more plot-concerned than the same DePalmo “Razor”. There is already some special desire not only to aesthetically and play, but also something intensely “introduce”.
Herrmann’s music here seemed interesting to me, except that he wrote Hitchcock more accurately and sophisticatedly, such as in the “Sisters” soundtrack – he could rather appear in Hitchcock’s film at the level of “Topase”. If we consider in isolation from Hitchcock, without trying to associate him with Herrmann - the musical accompaniment of "Sisters" is more than successful for the film studio "American International Pictures".
Good.
The two-faced Batman comics would have liked an early De Palma movie. It's very ambivalent. With Margot Kidder, in principle, from the very beginning everything is clear - initially intoxicated, simple lady (this image, by the way, with some sarcasticness a year later, she will present in "Black Christmas") will be burdened with her dark alter ego in the form of a sister, who if I explain, I will spoil everything, and DePalma would hardly like it, so I will not rant.
So, if Kidder immediately reveals his dark chip, then the rest will turn their coins gradually, closer to the end, leaving no stone unturned from the images that were in the beginning. What do you think, Kidder's ex-husband seems like a skinny neurotic who will make it to the middle of the movie, and then the good thing is if he just disappears, even though everything goes to the fact that he, as the most annoying, will be allowed to spend? Think, think. Would an overly feminist journalist be angry with her grotesque meticulousness? Then you'll forget all the anger. Because it won't be before that. For the film will also pick up, rise - let it turn over accidentally to the other side.
You come for a detective? Yes, we remember - now, we will bring you... Thriller with a good share of psychedelic (I said with “good” and not with “fair” – do not blame everything here on those seventies and accompanying, children of flowers you are mine). Damn, that's a good reverse. I remembered what the picture opened with – a typically American entertainment show like Naked and Funny, but, of course, in an ennobled, seven-decades-television version. How did it end? It’s like watching one movie and finishing another.
No, I would exaggerate, calling the plot inventive and the moves ingenious - everything, let's say, moderately competent, nothing more. But I really liked it. I don’t know DePalma’s original intentions, but if he wanted to play with duality as such, he did it brilliantly in my eyes. And it doesn’t matter that the blood here – as already managed to notice the damn cloud once before me – looks unnecessarily sham – I personally forgot about it when the trump card DePalmovsky appeared (well, maybe not so trump card – all of Brian’s films have not yet seen, but the amazing Carrie watched, and he was there) divided (and, as we understand, relevant here more than ever) screen.
That's it, so amused the good old Raptor, pleased - seriously, I really liked it. Again – not that the Sisters are turning any cinematic foundations upside down, trumpeting really stunning plot twists – but what I saw, I was more than enough for one of my long and meaningless evenings was really not wasted.
8 out of 10
The desire to see the film was simply unconditional, and the reason for this desire is the only one, and without options: the name of the director who gave the world (and me in particular) the opportunity to enjoy such masterpieces as Scarface (1983), The Untouchables (1987), Carlito’s Way (1993), Mission: Impossible (1996). This list can go on for a long time.
I knew, from the biography of Brian De Palma, that he was a student of Alfred Hitchcock, and that it was the work of the maestro that once motivated young Brian to seriously engage in film. But I did not think that the influence was so strong: when I watched The Sisters, I could not leave the strong feeling that Hitchcock himself sat in the director’s chair, but not De Palma!
The film is interesting: the theme addressed (but not disclosed) in this film, somehow raised in the TV series “X-Files” (1993-2002, USA-Canada). The topic is touchy, exciting consciousness, and so beckoning to its secret corners... But the theme is the theme, and the film is the film. And the film very much loses the theme - it is only a pale shadow of it.
I'm sure back in 1973, the movie was sharper and scarier and more shocking. It is difficult to surprise the modern viewer with the set of “tools” that the Sisters have at their disposal. I believe that a greater proportion of psychologism and mystical intrigue would still be relevant to this day: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) is a prime example! But, unfortunately, the picture of Brian De Palma looks like a pure suspense, which is somewhat “rusty”, and all the mysticism and psychologicalism that are so necessary – remained only an easy hint, and even then – only at the end of the film.
Fans of the work of Hitchcock, and the classic suspense, in principle - must watch! Those who just want to get acquainted with the early work of De Palma – no less a must! The rest, at their own discretion... At the very least, I think it’s worth making your own opinion.
Television show "Peeping Tom" (a reference to the Michael Powell film of the same name). Actress and model Danielle plays a blind girl who mistakenly entered the men's locker room, where a black man Phillip is located. The audience will have to guess how Phillip will behave in this situation. After the performance, Daniella and Phillip get to know each other and find themselves at her home. After a while, Phillip hears a verbal quarrel between Daniella and a girl. It turns out that Danielle has a twin sister. Phillip would later be brutally murdered, and the murder was seen out the window by journalist Grace. Grace calls the police, but the cops don't believe her because she's in bad faith. Then Grace takes the initiative and begins her own investigation into the murder in the apartment opposite.
American director Brian De Palma is rightfully considered a faithful successor to the traditions of Alfred Hitchcock, whose dizzying career in the 70s met its sunset. The first film in De Palma’s career, “Sisters”, which was shot completely in the Hitchcockian spirit, laid the foundations of an artfully imitative style (but not plagiaristic in any way!), making some other “brand” techniques into it, for example, dividing the screen in two in some scenes, which, firstly, makes the viewer additionally strain, and secondly, it looks stylish and inventive in itself. In a similar vein, he will shoot a number of successful and memorable works, including Carrie (1972), Puncture (1981), and many others. The most interesting thing is that the film was inspired by an article about the successful separation of the Siamese sisters Krivoshlyapov in the USSR, where in the photo for the article one of the sisters looked joyful, and the second one looked gloomy, and the article itself also talked about the difficulties with the psyche that the twins experienced after the separation. The film keeps the viewer in constant tension due to cleverly shuffled script cards, where deception will follow after deception with an unexpected layout, and the most important element is the injection of the famous Hitchcock suspense musical accompaniment by composer Bernard Herrmann, who worked with Maestro Hitchcock himself. Of course, in the main scene of the murder can not help but catch the eye obviously fake blood, like the one used by Dario Argento in his theatrical jallos, this is more than compensated for by the overall tense and intriguing atmosphere of the remaining one and a half hours of the tape. Also a big plus is a subtle sense of humor of the director, as an integral ingredient, sometimes diluting the abundance of tension. The fact that Brian De Palma quotes, and sometimes even makes fun of Hitchcock, does not mean that his work will be incomprehensible without watching the most frequently cited hits “Rear Window” (1954), “Vertigo” (1958), and “Psycho” (1960). "Sisters", for example, are able to give the viewer pleasure and without reference to the above-mentioned classics. Although, in the presence of such baggage, such works by Brian De Palma, as, for example, the same Sisters (1973), The Obsession (1976), Dressed for Murder (1980) and The Fake Body (1984) reveal their bouquet to the viewer in full.
8.5 out of 10
Brian de Palma has never been shy about being like Alfred Hitchcock. He just added it to the themes of modernity. For example, in “Sisters” the heroine of the film may well give a very predictable for the early 70s in the United States phrase – “While it is not yet a police state.”
Or, for example, de Palma can openly provoke the audience, implying flirtation and sexual intercourse between an African-American and a white girl. It's life, and I don't see anything wrong. But we're talking about American cinema in the early '70s.
I will not say much about the plot of the picture. Suffice it to mention that this is a very juicy interpretation of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window”, seasoned with the theme of separated Siamese twins. One day, a young journalist with an active civic position saw a man being killed in a window. The police did not help her and she decided to conduct her own investigation.
It is known that the plot of the picture Brian de Palma was inspired by a small article about the sisters Krivoshlyapov. But the story of the Krivoslyapovs seems to me much more interesting. Suffice it to mention that they were born in the family of the driver Beria. This is a very different topic.
De Palma's film is good because the director combined three fashionable at the time trends - Hitchcock's suspense, "free" films about New York and giallo. This is where Bryan de Palma’s style comes in.
It’s nice that the director did not invite the stars of the 60s to the picture. This is a "new" American movie, which was played by young actors: Margot Kidder and Jennifer Salt. Margot was very accurate as an emotionally unstable woman. Ironically, she later suffered from mental disorders.
Jennifer Salt was essentially a soloist. She played the role of a sane and reasonable woman. I think it was amazing. It is a pity that the actress later lost.
However, William Finlay, who played ex-husband and Dr. Margot Kidder, deserved the highest marks. The brutal coldness and cynicism he put into the role were very natural and realistic. A real villain.
In the end: Now in the cinema the topic of Siamese twins is more than revealed. In 1973, Brian de Palma was one of the first to raise the issue. By the way, I really liked the ending - bright, ironic and unconventional. However, despite all the advantages, to the successful giallo, which enjoyed success in those years on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean - in Europe, the picture "Sisters" does not reach.
7 out of 10