Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Absolutely the worst movie.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

An outstanding film from Arthur Allan Seidelman, based upon a play by Richard Alfieri (Puerto Vallarta Squeeze).Maria Bello just dripped sensuality in every word and movement throughout, except when she was spitting venom like "This party isn't for you anyway. It's for our little unborn nephew... God save him from your genes." Or, "Harry... Harry, if you want to withhold approval, intimidate and give rewards or punishments... buy a dog." She was the child of incest by her father and that rape caused her immense pain that permeated every relationship. It is a fact of life, and I have never seen it more brilliantly displayed. Alfieri captured the lifelong torture in his word, and Bello displayed it with emotion that made this film.That is not to say that Bello was it entirely. Eric McCormack ("Will and Grace") had a pain of his own and he was absolutely dripping with venom in his snide remarks and eventual explosion of the bottles up anger. A man afraid to revel his feeling for fear of rejection, he got to the point where he could no longer contain.Elizabeth Banks was the perfect "white trash" that felt out of place in this family - and she was, marrying the out of place brother Alessandro Nivola. Mary Stuart Masterson was also extremely good as the sister who could not reveal her pains either due to her position at the school. Rip Torn added perspective as the professor who read headlines out loud.Great performances from all and a film worth your time.

I just watched the DVD of this movie tonight. As far as I'm concerned, it earned a place on my All Time Worst Movies. This was really not a movie... it was more like a filmed play (most of the film takes place in a single room). I thought the acting (or perhaps it was just the script) was generally terrible. I was ready to turn it off after less than 30 minutes but did watch it to completion to see if it got any worse (and I think it did). I was just informed my comment is too short, but there really isn't much more I care to say about this "film." I am well educated with two advanced degrees and found this story to be not very interesting at all. I didn't identify with a single character in the film. I can't imagine spending time, or carrying on an intelligent and satisfying conversation with any of them with the possible exception of the English Dept. head. I thought all of them were overly melodramatic. I wasn't interested in a single character or the scripted relationships between them. Truly a dysfunctional family with only a few redeeming traits (about the same redemption value as the old 2 cent coke bottle). I should add that while I am not a student of the cinema, I do make documentary films that air on television.

I went to the video store last weekend not really knowing which horrible studio film I wanted to fall asleep to - the weekend prior I watched Hillary Swank's awful film THE REAPING... good premise, poorly executed. And why an Oscar winner starred, I have no idea?? Which brought me to THE SISTERS, and also probably answers my last question - Swank never could of wrapped her head around the dialogue with the same wit and sarcasm Maria Bello is able to execute. Why Bello hasn't won an Oscar, I have no idea -- she most definitely should of won a few awards for her star turn in THE SISTERS -- if not an Oscar, at least an Independent Spirit. This film gives it's viewers something magical to hold onto - rich dialogue that speaks to the soul and the mind (words with more than 1 or 2 syllables, oh my!!); actors who act with passion for a project and a screenplay they must of really believed in - because you know they didn't get paid for this film and you can't pull the wool over this many stars eyes!! Director Arthur Allan Seidelman has been around for a while and brings his A-game to adapting Chekov's masterpiece. The writer is a wizard of vocabulary who obviously understood the essence of what old Anton was trying to teach us all. Kudos to the writer, director, actors and crew - your efforts to bring quality American cinema to the screen is much appreciated!

The cast seemed promising, as did the weak reference to Chekhov, but wow is this movie bad. The writing is shamefully bad, swinging like a pendulum from bathos to banal pop psychology. It's clear that the actors gave up. Nobody's any good in it. My wife and I watched for ~ten minutes, stared at each other in amazement, and then somehow managed to endure the rest—we've given up on far better movies—out of some macabre fascination. What kept us watching was probably the question: How does somebody make a movie this bad with so many creditable actors? Apparently I'm supposed to write at least ten lines, but that seems a shame for such an awful movie. I can say, though, that my strongest impression about the movie is that both the writer and director seem to have never experienced an honest emotion in their lives to have collaborated to create something like this.