Why so low?
Would someone explain why this movie is only a 6.0, not enough people seeing it or what?
Some of the most realistic characters I've ever seen in a movie, and captures the family dinamic perfectly without taking sides.
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Sisters (2008) Discussion > Why so low?
It's probably rated so low, because it is not some horribly-acted, second-rate B-movie with a terrible script. Most of those get 6 or 7. What's up with that? It appears quality films without a trailer shown on TV every day never get high ratings. This is a good film with good actors and a good script. It's a minimum 7 and more likely an 8. Don't rate a movie a 6, 'cause others rate it a 6. Grow a pair and rate the movie what you think it should be rated.
If it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then it's a friggin' duck!
Why so low?
Because main majority of imdb users can't understand a heavy movie like this. Inteligent dialogues, very well defined characters, exceptional acting, no action .. it's too much for the average imdb user. I think 85% would need to consult a dictionary at every sentence from this movie.
If you look at imdb's "Top 250 movies as voted by our users" you will understand.
One of the best movies i've seen.
If anyone could recomand me a movie like this one, i would greatly apreciate. Especially with such well writen dialogues.
Movies like this: House of Yes
share[deleted]
It's rated so low because it's not a good movie. I'm surprised it actually managed 6.2 stars.
One of things that you find so great about the movie, the realistic characters, I believe the exact opposite. These characters aren't realistic, they're all caricatures of the most annoying and despicable people that you'll ever meet. Some of the characters (actually, make that most of the characters) were such exaggerations that they were distracting. In fact, half the time the characters were battling over who should derail the scene.
In addition to the depthless characters, the plot was practically non-existent. About 75% of the dialog, perhaps even more, is nothing but self satisfying one liners that are cheap or false attempts at being witty, intellectual, rude, or downright wicked. And because of the preponderance of one-liners, no scene is capable of having any sort of flow to it whatsoever.
I'm not sure which is worse, the fact that the characters were loud cardboard cutouts or that the plot had no substance whatsoever.
[deleted]
Well, I think you have to take this movie for what it is, an adaptation of a 100 year old existential Russian play "Three Sisters". Being able to bring to the 21st century this play without making it a period piece is quite the accomplishment. The reason the characters might feel a bit exagerated could be because the movie was meant to feel like the play where actors have to overplay their emotions because they don't have any editing (music, camera angles, etc...) to add ambiance.
I personally think that a movie doesn't necesarily need a straightforward plot to be a good thought-provoking piece. I felt this was more of a look into human behavior, the ugly part of families that one doesn't want to show the rest of the world. I know I could relate to at least a small part of each of the sisters, if not each of the characters.
One thing I'll say for him, Jesus is Cool!
I totally agree with you!! This movie was poorly written, poorly cast and poorly acted.
The dialogue was absurd from the very first word ("I did not want to upset you."). Who talks that way? I spent most of my life with college professors and literary types, and I promise you that they use contractions.
And what's up with the casting? Chris O'Donnell and Mary Stuart Masterson as college professors???? Good grief.
And then there's the plot (or lack thereof). Woman walks into her birthday party and immediately blows out the candles on her cake. They eat cake. Everyone stands around in a semi-circle watching one person at a time talk, as if they were all on a theater stage. Birthday girl is relaxed and sentimental even though she is high on crystal meth. Um, OK.
But the worst part of the movie was the backwards approach to character development. This story should have started out depicting a seemingly perfect family with witty, intelligent friends. The underlying issues then become exposed over time, as the characters develop. Instead, everything is revealed in the very first scene and the rest of the movie is spent trying to explain/justify it all.
I'm angry at the screenwriter for not having more faith in my ability to understand the complexities of the story on my own and for not giving me a chance to care about the characters.
What a waste of potential. I have to go back and read the Chekov play now.
Yes, most Russian writers make horrible novels with unbelievable plots, unnatural people and most of all completely unbelievable dialog. The scriptwriters here did a lousy job transcribing this to modern language/behavior. I just can't understand why some people do get lyrical about this unnatural -so called- literature and always seem to defend this like they want to show to be one of the happy few with insight about this kind of 'intelligent' writings. There's nothing not understandable about this and I call it disproportional to glorify this cramped way of writing.
That said I have to add that Maria Bello did a wonderful job with this crappy material. Without her this would have been mere unwatchable.