Just what I expected

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

There's a lot to love about 'Siblings' great cast, great production quality, and great premise. Just like 'Flowers In The Attic' the forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. But somehow the whole thing just never comes together. It we're teased with a recipe for a great story but never get to taste a satisfying dish.The plot: I've read many different synopsizes online and most of them are only half right. First off, I wouldn't describe this as a "dark comedy" at all. The movie never attempts to be comically. Also I wouldn't describe the parents' deaths as "murder." What is accurate about the plot is that this revolves around four children in a Jerry Springer style family with so many marriages, stepparents, and half blood relatives that even the kids can't figure it out. This dysfunctional family just happens to be rich living in upper class Canada.The film opens with the with their grandfather's funeral whom had been the head of the household and the only thing keeping their drunk, snobby, and nasty stepparents in check. The kids even say, "Things are going to suck from now on." It's obvious that this draws heavily from 'Flowers In The Attic.' Four kids trapped in a big house by their abusive family, who end up forming their own family unit with the two teens as husband and wife playing parents to the two younger kids.The stepparents end up accidentally driving off a cliff while taking the family dog to be abandoned because they're too cheap to actually put it down.The kids obviously attempt to cover up their deaths so they can continue living together as a family.The setting is very interesting. It all takes place around Christmas time, smart, since Christmas and snow go so well together. The lesson here is if you are going to make a movie in Canada in July have it take place on Christmas so the snow will seem more fitting. And take down all French language product placement. (hint hint 'Dawn of the Dead' 2004.) The musical score is a real mixed bag. 50% of the score are rock or Danny Elfman style renditions of public domain Christmas songs which add a lot the to atmosphere. However the other 50% sounds like the annoying rock scores played during Lifetime movies. As I said, a mix bag.So there's a lot to like about this movie, such as the growing sexual tension between teens Joe and Margaret. FACE IT that's the only reason anyone even saw this movie, the false promise of forbidden romance in the trailer. Unfortunately as I said before, much of this film is just as tease. Their relationship doesn't even evolve romantically.We're also teased about Margaret being abused by her stepfather Nicholas Campbell ('DiVinci's Inquest.') She's afraid of being molested as only her grandfather could protect her. However, DiVinci doesn't actually do anything. Hence, there's no drama and no real hatred of DiVinci. All we needed was just one scene of him coming on to her.The plot could be interesting in dealing with the practicalities of the kids continuing their lives without anyone in the community knowing about their parents' deaths. However... most of the time is wasted on boring movie tropes about how they must go back to the crash scene and do the typical stupid things characters in movies do.The children are all straight out of a modeling agency but that doesn't make them likable characters. The two youngest kids seem like robots. When the little girl asks Joe to take her to her Christmas pageant he responds, "What? Forget it, we're not fxxxing going!" and she doesn't even act upset.Likewise Joe and Margaret bicker more than they have any kind of sexual tension.So this begs the question, why are the kids doing this? If they don't get along what's the point of fighting to stay together? There's no crime to be covered up and it's already established they're going to receive their grandfather's inheritance. So just tell the police their parents are missing. The police will eventually find the accident scene and the kids can go live with other relatives, or foster homes and still cash in on their grandfather's money.This is the type of film which had so much promise but ends up falling into all the classic movie tropes of dumb characters.Still, it's worth a watch. There are positive elements of good film making.

A movie that I picked up out of desperation ended up being one of the best I've seen in a while. Mind you, the movie's pretty screwed. Then again, so am I, and my guess is that most of the people reading this are as well. The acting was pretty top notch, and this movie has something that's no longer common place...character development. You see the growth and maturity of the characters by the end...for better or for worse. All in all, this is a great movie, if just a tad awkward at times. Be sure to check it out.Just a tip, be sure to catch the little clip at the end of the credits (thank you fast forward). It brings the movie to a nice and proper close.

If you're tired of all the dime-a-dozen American and Canadian dramas recently produced about shattering the false image of the "normal," happy suburban family like 'Imaginary Heroes,' 'The Ice Storm,' or 'American Beauty,' you might switch to a dark comedy perspective. Canadian production, 'Siblings' is a drastically bitter, cynical look at the "perfect" family.Four step-siblings (perhaps not coincidentally modeling the cast of 'Flowers in the Attic,' minus the blonde mops) are left in the care of their vicious step-parents following the death of their grandfather. Joe (Alex Campbell) is the optimistic, hopeful that the children would rid themselves of these unusually abusive guardians once they all turn eighteen (the two youngest have a long way to go). His step-sister, Margaret (Sarah Gadon), a promiscuous realist, on the other hand, suggests they had just better kill their parents. Luckily, it all happens somewhat accidentally, although the four step-siblings, even in their small town with relatively few people poking into their business on such constant occasion (except for the neighborhood snoop, a mousy character played by Sarah Polley), it might seem easy to do.Unfortunately, a series of mistakes just brings more trouble. But not in really any particularly amusing way. And unfortunately, the progression of the movie, while it has some particularly interesting character studies, offers few real laughs (except from big-eye step-sibling, Danielle) and tends to take longer than necessary to reach its conclusions. I did like, however, that once the parents were out of the picture, the older siblings began to take on their characteristics (although only temporarily, later made poignantly conscious of this by Margaret). For a movie like this, however, I would have to agree with another viewer who wrote that, it would've helped to have offered a lot more humor, especially where offering lots of sardonic sarcasm and irony later in the film.

Dark and brooding locations contrast nicely with the gallows humor and dread of the plucky (sort of) heroes and heroines of this Canadian twist on Very Bad Things vs John Hughes. The parents, not biological to half of the children, are evil. Yet the portrayal and dialogue is less funny and more harrowing than feels just right in a dark comedy like this. There is a level of menace, anger, and retribution that is just TOO palpably real to be slightly amusing. There is a character who pops in, without introduction and continues to show up, unannounced, uninvited and perplexingly devoid of plot motion. This lovely woman is a neighbor that the male hero obsesses over. Why? He needs a woman love interest? Maybe. She develops into a character with a nice dark streak that fits right into the menagerie well. The plot involves murder and the 'oh so comic misadventures that dead bodies can create' or something like that. Something about dead bodies and what to do with them is such a reliable plot device. Here it is handled pretty well. The characters are not made to be idiots (as would be typical in American cinema) but rather smart enough to have seen this sort of dilemma on a multitude of TV shows and now, faced with it in real life, have the added dimensions of fear and anxiety that make their decisions impulsive, ineffective and, subsequently need to be changed. I have always liked the old Hitchcock film, The Trouble With Harry, about the dead body and the number of people in the quaint village who are certain that they are responsible for the body becoming non-living. In some ways SIBLINGS is like that. WHY a 7? Totally sweet rental. For $2 and about 90 minutes of entertainment you could do much worse (Jim Carrey for example). It is offbeat, fresh, has some unexpected twists and dialogue. Wht the hell...Plus, it takes place over Christmas so it is a good antidote to all that saccharine craptacular product that is spewed out annually. That's my opinion.