chow913 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.

Adam Foidart Dark comedies are a tricky thing. I'm used to seeing films where you're supposed to laugh as people get murdered or a comedic moment will suddenly lead into something really twisted. I'm never quite sure how to introduce people that aren't used to that brand of humor to the genre, and if you suffer from the same predicament, maybe "Siblings" is the answer. It's a dark comedy that doesn't go too far into the twisted type of humor that you may be used to so it's a decent introduction into the genre. I wouldn't say the movie is great, but it's not terrible either (what a glowing recommendation!) Considering it's a story about four children that want to murder their parents it's never very violent or gruesome. The film offers some interesting characters and it's too bad that it never really feels like they all get fleshed out as much as they should because I think that most people will be left wanting more. The film has its share of laughs, not many but if you're looking for something funny and twisted at the same time, it's worth taking a look into It if you're paying a dollar to rent it, or it happens to be playing on TV kind of thing. (Dvd, November 6, 2012)

tedg The filmmakers here tried something and failed. It was a noble attempt at something very delicate and I suspect that they will eventually succeed at capturing this balance somehow. Commentors here call it black humor, but there is something more dear here in the children's reach. It isn't Lemony Snicket. Its "The Ice Storm."Failure or not, they did something well. Sarah Polley is an amazing young actress who can do what I call folded acting: where she observes her character and conveys the observation. This allows her to play special roles. Here she is in the story as our surrogate who watches. She can't save the story, but she does her job.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Pepper Anne 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.