Dead Ringers (2023) User Reviews

It looks awesome, and Rachel kills it- otherwise it's a little all over the place

[jm062696 · 6/10 · 23 April 2023]

I am a big Cronenberg fan, and I am very familiar with the original Dead Ringers. I will not compare them since this is a reimagining- but I will say they really are extremely dissimilar.

This show looks great, and Rachel plays the parts extremely well. The practical effects are SOLID- lot's of blood but I can imagine how it would be too much for some with all the graphic birth depiction. That being said- the show can be very hard to follow. It's all over the place, jumping from place to place sometimes from time to time with no indication. They are also introducing new characters all the way up to episode 5 (there are only 6). I think it could be a bit more cohesive. Yes, I do understand that is the point- it's supposed to be disorienting and the twins are supposed to sometimes be indistinguishable, so maybe you'll see it differently than I did.

Hard to follow but intriguing

[Adriaan61 · 7/10 · 5 May 2023]

Don't compare it with the original, just watch . I think it's quite fascinating. But it jumps to much from one scene to another. Rachel Weisz is stunning in her performance. She's making it easy to see two sisters. The story is acceptable and the way the portrait women as strong women is ok. What I don't understand is why they switch so much in between scenes. I lost the story more than once. What the hell is the role of the housekeeper and why are there so much dialogues that I don't follow or don't understand. But then again, the story is acceptabel and I keep on watching. Those of you who rate after one episode or even less. Get out!

The way I see it (an alternate interpretation)

[blueskyy_ng · 7/10 · 22 April 2023]

Because of how the story was told (it can be quite disjointing at times), it didn't feel to me like there were actually two persons -- namely, Beverly and Elliot.

It seems to me more like it's the story about this one person, Beverly, who suffers from split personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder). Beverly is withdrawn, and constantly struggles with her inner self, even when she was in her altered self of her sister, Elliot. Although Elliot died when she they were young, she continues to live on in Beverly's mind.

Subconsciously, Beverly wanted to move on with her life, but discovered in time that it was impossible. Her love and attachment to her sister was far too strong. She felt that Elliot deserved a chance at her happiness too, and so ultimately made the decision to make her altered self the dominant self.

Four episodes in and it's just as I thought when I saw the first episode...

[smoke0 · 22 April 2023]

...that this is an overly long and overly indulgent remake of a classic feature length film that did not need to be remade as a series.

I was excited about this when I read about Rachel starring in a remake, and then was immediately apprehensive when I read it was going to be a six episode series. Why? What is there to add? As it turns out, nothing.

I could have gotten all the plot points in the first four episodes in one hour, because there was no need to drag this out other than to showcase all the weirdness that we could easily see and pick up on with a better script in just five minute scenes, if that much. And the script - a mess at best - too much time spent on silly characters and situations we don't need to know about or care about, and too little time spent on the developing relationship of Beverly and Genevieve ( nice homage there ). There is also too much focus on Elliot going crazy for seemingly no reason about Beverly's relationship because there is no exposition prior to that other than that Elliot appears to be a sociopath.

I could pick this series apart all day and I haven't even seen all of it yet: I believe the twins' names were reversed for whatever silly reason; the game the twins play of swapping patients and lovers is brushed aside for no good reason since it was the catalyst for the deepening relationship and subsequent breakup and breakdown of the twins; the red operating gowns were a surreal and visual example of the decline of the twins' mindset, while here they appear with no good excuse to justify their existence other than to signal the start of the new center...

I'm sure I could go on once I have seen the remaining episodes but I have no desire to catch up right now. I would rather see the original film again just to see how a good film is written, and the original was not exactly a masterpiece to begin with, but it got from point a to point b without long, drawn out, self-indulgent, time-wasting scenes and extraneous characters doing weird things just to be weird and taking up time and space needed for the storyline.

None of this is Rachel Weisz's Fault

[Ofgumby · 6/10 · 4 May 2023]

My take is that this all works better as a book. The show feels like we viewers are missing something. Why are the twins the way they are? Their codependency on each other needs to be clarified. As viewers, we learn that the twins had a healthy childhood with devoted and involved parents - after a bout of severe postpartum depression. There appears to be nothing in the twins' life to warrant the kind of insecurity and lack of self-esteem that would lead to the toxic levels of codependency we see unless we're missing something.

That's one big problem. Another is that the story plays on all the worst stereotypes of twins, particularly female twins. The final problem is the ending plothole. It's a big one, and again, it feels off as if the writers needed an ending, and this was it.

Still, I watched all of it. Having Rachel Weisz play two parts was weird and off-putting. She was terrific with the material she was given. None of the problems with this show were her fault.

Stop comparing genius

[bradbear-65903 · 8/10 · 25 April 2023]

After reading 90% of the reviews I wonder what the hell, everyone else is watching that I'm not. The biggest complaint on here, is it's not the same as Cronenberg's. I'll be the 1st to admit that Cronenberg is God and everything he makes is a masterpiece. This shouldn't be compared to that. It's a REMAKE. As in, similar story beats from a different perspective. This was wonderful and I DO agree that Rachel Weisz deserves every accolade for her performance. I gained a lot of respect for her after this series that I never had before. I mean, I knew she was good, but WOW! The little nuances in body language and facial contortions that define the twins is astonishing! Great series! Don't listen to the ghost of Ebert who trashes all genre films and series. 100% worth your time!

A Reimagining Delivering Deminishing Returns

[hedrummond · 7/10 · 3 May 2023]

First: Someone wrote that this is based on a true story about two New York doctors who killed themselves. It isn't. It's based on a very, very good novel dealing in the form of psychological fiction by Gari Wood which was made into a very, very good and thoughtful David Cronenberg film from 1988 or thereabouts. I just love it when someone goes to lengths to make a good movie and then no one ever thinks to show it anywhere, but instead, decides they can make good remake by changing the sex of the characters which literally throws the baby out with the dishwater and leaves you with not much to hang your conundrums on. Quite frankly, this is a disservice to the hard work of the actors in the first film because they don't get to shine which Jeremy Irons and Genevieve Bujold shone with there brilliantly portrayed characterizations. Yep. Jeremy Irons played the twins and Bujold played one of their patients. I only saw this film once. This new rendition with Rachel Weisz pales in comparison and lacks the substance to engage the viewer. Honestly, parts of the original story was very repellant, however, it was necessary to make the directors point and though you couldn't believe what was happening and how awful the denouement, you didn't feel as though you had been cheated as Cronenbeg promised a good telling and he delivered on it. This new telling is not the same story nor does it seem to have the guts to tell a good story no matter how awful the story is and that is why I have to give a nod to Rachel Weisz who always gives a better performance than the material she is given. In fact, she's the only reason to watch any of the films in which she appears. You can always count on her to deliver a good performance. Unfortunately, the makers if this shlock have failed to deliver on their promises to both the audience and Ms. Weisz, who still is a most magnificent actress.

You must be joking.

[jonathancanucklevine · 1/10 · 22 April 2023]

This is the fourth review. The first three were all ten out of ten, leading me to believe that they're less than legitimate. "Amazingly plays both sisters! I didn't see the original!" "Perfectly portrayed seamlessly! The Jeremy Irons film!" "A freaking genius... the writing is so awesome!"

Enough already.

The original was a David Cronenberg film, not a Jeremy Irons film. Yes, Irons did an excellent job in it, but make no mistake - Cronenberg wrote and directed it, and it's entirely his disturbing vision, so it's disgusting that these three gushers don't even mention his name.

What I've learned over the past few years is there is absolutely no depth to which the utterly-desperate-for-content modern streaming production houses (Netflix, Amazon, Apple, etc.) will not stoop to debase themselves and utterly violate the great (and let's face it, not so great - they don't care) movies of the last half century. Catch-22. Three Days of the Condor. True Lies. Westworld (alright, that was a lousy movie that was remade as a pretty good series). One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Dead Ringers. The list goes on and on. Sometimes it's so obvious that they've cast the entire show to as closely resemble the original actors as possible that it hurts. Other times they think they're doing a hip gender (or racial) updating, as with this one.

What's next? Citizen Karen?

Someone. Please. Stop. These. People.

Can you love Rachel Weisz twice?? YES

[suginer-922-918658 · 8/10 · 22 May 2023]

Crazy and disturbing it is...and yes there are moments of 'why?' (housekeeper and the dinner party weirdness) but it is also a clever script and impressive visuals with excellent issue based concepts from all angles.

I haven't watched the Cronenberg film, but the series at times gave me the same uncomfortable 'what is going on?' Cronenberg vibes.

I loved Rachel Weisz anyway, but I really thought she was brilliant and deliciously perfect.... twice.

I gave it an 8 because the only issue I had would be some of the plot was just too deliberately pretentious, but hey I definitely recommend it, especially if you are very very bored of the usual pasty bland stuff that has been coming out recently.

Too pretentious with nothing behind that

[Almost_Soldout · 2/10 · 22 April 2023]

The whole series attitude is trying too hard to be conceptual and look like a masterpiece. In fact, we have pseudo intellectual hopeless and meaningful project that will be forgotten by viewers in 15 minutes after watching this.

Getting viewers attention by showing so many birth acts is a cheap tool when it has nothing to surprise besides that.

You can be pretentious when you have something to say to the world and when it really worths it but in this case the whole projects looks like Paris Hilton trying to be Stephen Hawking.

I guess the main issue here is weak plot which was shrinking all over the place.

A deliciously twisted re-telling of a Cronenberg classic

[Avwillfan89 · 9/10 · 23 April 2023]

Gender swapping reboots and remakes happen all time now, often just for the sake of nostalgia while trying to make it relevant. And they don't always work.

In this case, however, they've actually done something interesting with the original premise. In the Jeremy Irons version, it was about two damaged men trying to play God. By making them women and played by the ever-brilliant Rachel Weisz, it adds another layer of intrigue and complexity to the story.

While Beverly is introverted, gay, compassionate and always has her hair tied back, Elliot is assertive, straight, ruthless and addicted to sex, drugs and alcohol. They need the help of a Pharma "gangster" (Jennifer Ehle) to fund their birthing centre, and while Beverly wants to do things by the book and truly cares for the women who come to them, Elliot is willing to push the boundaries of medical ethics to achieve goals, and shares the beliefs of her investors that profit is all that counts.

Like in the film, their co-dependant relationship is put to the test when Beverly falls in love with an actress (even though Elliot pimps out Beverly to several women) The relationships around them unravel, which leads to devastating consequences.

What sets this apart from other R-rated shows, is that we see graphic depictions of vaginal and c-section births, which is very rare. And yet it's the most common and natural thing in the world. We're so desensitised to violent deaths, tortures and shootings on screen, and yet, as one of the twins mentions: pregnancy and birth should not be something to be ashamed of.

Do not miss this!

Poor Rachel

[sareed1971 · 1/10 · 28 April 2023]

You'd think with the skill set of Rachel Weisz who's playing dual lead roles (twin sisters who are doctors) at least portions of this miniseries could be redeemed by her talent. You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. Ms. Weisz is given wide range to do as she pleases but in the end, it's all just too much. The show is beyond over the top, it's beyond too long, it's beyond pretentious.

This is a remake of the movie of the same name with Jeremy Irons playing the lead roles. The movie was based on real life events of twins who were doctors and were found dead in their shared apartment under bizarre circumstances. Apparently, it was almost impossible to tell if it was a murder/suicide, an overdose, or a suicide pact.

I can respect the fact that this is an adaptation a film that's over 40 years old. However, this is a hodgepodge of confusion with rambling plot lines and disorienting time lines. Adding characters that are so beyond normal they become caricatures doesn't add to the story telling, it detracts from it. Weisz is a fine actress and she deserves better.

Hard to watch, but very good

[arawakt · 24 April 2023]

This show had me hooked from the first episode. If you can stomach the multiple themes of miscarriage, birth, suicide, drugs, alcoholism and murder; then it's a brilliant story. But it's certainly not easy to watch. What I liked the most was the way it accurately portrays modern capitalism and the lack of humanity that billionaires have towards women's health and healthcare.

It also touches on the very sad but real subject of motherhood, wether is chosen or not. It also shows a very real picture of pre/postpartum depression, miscarriage, death at childbirth and family trauma from all these subjects.

The cast is perfect and each character is played flawlessly. As others said before me, Rachel Weisz certainly deserves an award for her amazing performance.

Splendid psychological horror drama

[martinpersson97 · 10/10 · 10 December 2023]

This incredible and well written series is definitely a highlight of the year, and a great, very unconventional and very well paced, frightening psychological drama.

The actors all do an incredible job, conveying the script and all its absurdities and metaphorical, allegorical works splendidly. All of this accompined by a stellar script, and one that probably fits very much in line with the original (which I have been meaning to see, but not yet gotten around to). Very unconventional, very well written and paced.

The cinematography, cutting and editing is very unique, and all around very beautifully put together.

Overall, definitely a recommended series, and one I would proclaim one of the best of the year for sure!

Illogical plot, random dialogues and pointless characters.

[fciocca · 3/10 · 9 July 2023]

This show seems to be written by an artificial intelligence: it is very difficult to follow what is happening, because the interactions are so random and illogical. It focuses too much on characters that do not have any relevance to the story and never gets to the point. The two Mantle sisters are so annoying: Elliot does not have any kind of compassion and humanity, while Beverly is just too insecure and scared to do anything that is slightly out of her comfort zone. The show displays pretty well the unhealthy codependency of the two sisters that is put at risk by Genevieve. However, there are some other plot points that are potentially interesting, but that they were never properly developed: in the first two episodes there are highlighted a few of the weaknesses of the American healthcare system when it comes to young pregnant women, or the several risks for ladies that would like to have a baby at an older age, but these does not go anywhere. Most of the time there are just overly long and boring sequences that are not even aesthetically pleasing; the images are just too dark and sometimes it is difficult to understand what is happening.

I did not watch the original Cronenberg film, therefore I cannot compare the two projects. The only thing that I could save about this show is the acting by Rachel Weisz that played the two twins, giving them a different personality, and this is why my final mark for this show is 3.5 stars out of 10.

Amazing

[OliSomenzi · 9/10 · 30 April 2023]

It is so nice to feel challenged and stimulated by such a thought-provoking series. This is not your middle-of-the-road usual fare: it is smart, it's profound and multi-layered and it's beautifully put together. Rachel Weisz is (not surprisingly) amazing and manages to portray convincingly two very distinct characters. You just completely forget it's one actress doing both roles. The rest of the cast is strong and the photography and music are excellent too. I would really encourage anybody who likes to watch artistically original content to give it a go! Bravo. Ps. Although I saw the original movie when it was first released, I have very little so cannot compare but I think the series completely stand on its own anyway.

Dreamlike mystery of a twin sister

[ernesti · 5/10 · 25 April 2023]

I've never seen the original movie and but I quicly got the idea of the show and it felt a little prolonged. Same story could have been told in just three episodes or in one full length film.

Storytelling was so dreamlike and not in this reality, so much so that it gave me clue that it's just the main character talking to herself. She had maintained the memory of her sister and that had developed into a split personality. Lots of clues are given, the Elliot's drug addiction would prohibit her practicing medical profession and the success.

So if one feels that the show is a little silly, then the truth can be found by not trusting your eyes and looking a little deeper. As a shorter feature film, this would have been a lot better and it has magnificent main actress that lifts the show to another level. As a long tv show I didn't find it enjoyable.

Episode 5, The dinner scene

[micbrw · 8/10 · 22 April 2023]

The series gained good traction after the first half. Production quality was top notch, though was shot a bit dark for my tastes. I think it was a challenge to take the original material and work it into a less Cronenberg and more 21st century theme. I believe it was a success and was just as interesting as the earlier film. I've long been an admirer of Rachel Weisz and was really impressed with her in the dinner scene in episode four at about the 39 minute mark. That's the one that rings award nominations for me. She has had many risky diverse roles in her career and this performance ranks among her best. Dark themes for sure, but executed really well.

Just Blahhhhhhhh

[kerry_kirby09 · 3/10 · 10 May 2023]

What an incredible waste of time this was.

I had such a big expectation that this would be great especially because of Rachel Weis but no not even her impeccable acting could save it.

Predictable from the opening scene. Lots of wasted time no real story to follow. I think in my opinion it was just made to shock at the lengths some will go to.

The housekeeper 🤔🤔no real answers except that's she was just as fu&$;d up as Beverly and Elliot.

It definitely had potential but to me it just seemed like a jumbled mess of fill-in scenes and story lines to keep it going.

Definitely not a series I would recommend.

I deserve an award

[Posterboy1 · 12 May 2023]

Upon conclusion of watching all six episodes I read a number of the reviews and felt like I wished that I had seen the original. Perhaps there is some redeeming value in it. I found nothing in this awful story that was edifying.

To be fair the first two episodes were somewhat interesting. Kind of provocative, made me a little patient to see what might unfold. But, by half way through the fourth I had to force myself to continue.

You certainly have every right to question my state of mind that I continued to punish myself and watch the whole twisted meaningless confusing and wasted effort!

Many other reviews pointed to some of the specific failings of this gross production. They were correct. I'll finish by saying you're better off just watching the news.

BRILLIANT - Ignore the low user rating!

[danj-m · 10/10 · 9 May 2023]

Beautifully acted, beautifully written, visually and audibly beautiful, beautifully experimental and innovative. This series was obviously a labour of love for everyone involved.

People like what they like; but it is sad to see such an accomplished piece of work so under-appreciated. It currently has a user rating of 6.4. Many lesser, run-of-the-mill, formulaic, unambitious, lazy productions earn higher user ratings than this. I see some reviewers rating this show with 1 and 2 stars. Not only is this ridiculously unjustifiable; but in today's climate (with production companies/streamers struggling financially), these kind of ratings will probably be interpreted as reasons to not take a chance on funding more ambitious, artistic projects such as this one.

I remember The White Lotus having similarly ridiculously low ratings after the first few episodes. Gladly, the critic's enthusiasm filtered through and the show became successful; resulting in further wonderful season(s)!

I just wish people would rate sensibly. It's fine if you don't like something, but it doesn't mean it deserves 1 star because it didn't hook you after 15 minutes. Either give productions a considered rating or don't rate at all!

I'm ranted out now!

Dead Ringers is a riveting, weird, shocking and delightful series. Beautiful TV. If you appreciate an artistic approach to TV production, you will love this.

Thank you to the writers, actors, production team and Amazon Prime.

Sort of a Waste of time I can never get back...

[artcoo-23524 · 3/10 · 24 April 2023]

I really like Rachel Weisz, and I wanted to like this thing. It is like a train wreck where you feel so bad for all the humanity but you continue to watch the train crash and burn. WHY they thought this was worthy of a series is beyond me. Listen, I love Cronenberg's movies, but that 1988 version of this story was terrible in my humble opinion. I didn't think Jeremy Irons was right for the role he played, and the continuity of the movie was a bit jumpy and aloof. However, compared to this dumpster fire, Cronenberg's movie was a masterpiece!! I didn't want to give it a 1, so I guess I gave it a 3 for effort maybe? All I know is I kept waiting for something worthwhile to happen. What you get in this series is shocking attitudes, language, and inappropriate weirdness. I'm not a prude guys, but GEESH..

A Unique Take on a Classic

[tiaraelyse · 9/10 · 26 April 2023]

After seeing the reviews, I had low hopes. A few minutes in to the first episode, I was hooked. I love a show that pushed boundaries. I watched the entire series in a couple of hours. Yes, the show is sophisticated ( it doesn't dumb down the dialogue like most shows) and yes, it explores the different avenues of birth and life.

I would suggest people are hesitant to give the series a change because it is a 'remake.' Though, this version is very different due to the gender swap and the heavy focus on complex female relationships.

Beyond the themes of the show, the relationship that Rachel Weisz portrayed as both Beverly and Elliot are the reason the show stands out. I would argue the portrayal of Elliot is the most exciting thing about this show. Having a female character who is chaotic, assertive, and ravenous is refreshing to see on television, especially juxtaposed with the more introverted, Beverly.

This show is more of a slow build, but episodes 3 and 4 have some of my person favorite scenes that explore the twin's relations slowly dwindle.

The ending (well the entire show) has stuck in my mind for days. Themes of individuality, dependency, life & death, science & faith are constantly explored to investigate what curiosity is healthy and what's not.

This is a show that requires some work on the views part, so if you are someone who enjoys analyzing characters and their complex relationships, this is for you.

Unnecessary Remake

[nightringer-76840 · 2/10 · 3 May 2023]

The original was always an intriguing movie for me. I watch the serialized version becaise the intriguing promises, including the gender bender role.

Bu the first episode, I was disappointed by how the storyline unfolded. Bu third episode, I gave up. My expectations were never met.

That's the problem with remakes. There are a measure of expectations that must be met. Such expectations will be the death or life of a remake. This one, like most of remakes, never met my expectations.

Rachel Weisz is an excellent actor, but for this story she failed to carry the story, despite her acting experience and prowess.

Wow! Disturbing, Abusive, Inappropriate, Sharp, Orginal

[jeanvieve7 · 8/10 · 22 April 2023]

Anything I could do to describe this series would not do it justice, or convey the experience of the tone. It is deeply disturbing, shocking, inappropriate, sharp, and witty. What I can say is that Rachel Weisz is astonishing. If she does not get the Golden Globe for this performance, it would be an injustice.

Rachel Weisz plays two completely different characters with brilliance. Both twins are doctors in a hospital birthing center who are trying to get funding to open a birthing center of their own. That is just a very basic plot. Elliot is wild, and a thrill seeker who seems to think that no rules apply to her and she can do whatever she wants. Beverly, her twin cares more for humanity and playing by the rules. They are in their way, utterly codependent, but when Beverly Finds love and starts to have a life of her own Elliot becomes completely unhinged.