La diabla

Meryl Streep sparkles in this critically-drubbed adaptation of Fay Weldon's book (previously filmed as a mini-series for British television). Streep plays a Barbara Cartland-like romance novelist who steals the accountant-husband of put-upon housewife Roseanne Barr, who methodically extracts revenge on her spouse and the coolly conniving authoress. Shapeless, rather bedraggled comedy, but Roseanne (to her credit) performs in a lower key here than on television and has a few affecting moments. Streep is a colorful villainess (no surprise), while Sylvia Miles and Linda Hunt do lively work in supporting roles before vanishing once the script no longer has use for them. The one casting mistake is Ed Begley Jr. As Roseanne's cheating husband; Begley gives a good performance, but he and Streep look too much alike (they could be siblings). The movie is episodic and tiresome, but is nearly worth-seeing for Streep's Golden Globe-nominated work; she's deliciously devilish. ** from ****

My goodness, all the negativity about this fun and strangely satisfying flick. Everyone I know really likes this movie and has seen it several times. If we can define how good a film is by how many times we're capable of seeing it, then this movie certainly is praise worthy. I also enjoyed Roseanne's performance every bit as Meryl Streep. And why can't people believe that an actress of Ms. Streep's caliber took on this role? She was wonderful and got to demonstrate a great comedic performance. This movie is just plain fun. If you watch it once, I guarantee you'll watch it again and again.

...a campy, soapy, over-the-top black comedy. This movie wasn't intended to win any awards, so I don't understand all the hate. It isn't a movie I seek out to watch, but if it happens to be on I don't change the channel, and always have a good time. I saw it when it first came out (as a young teenager) and have seen it several times over the years.

It was perfectly cast with one exception: Ed Begley, Jr as the desirable ladies' man/philandering husband. It's not that he is a *bad* looking guy, but the film may have been a bit more believable if there was someone with more sex appeal in the role. The movie explains the reason he married Ruth (Roseanne Barr) - he got her pregnant, and his parents insisted he marry her. I know plenty of very attractive guys who have hooked up with women far less attractive than they (the term "beer goggles" exists for a reason), so they could have made his character more physically attractive and maintained believability. No actors specifically come to mind, and I will say that Begley, Jr played his role very well in terms of his acting. He also has a decent bod, so there's that.

It was entertaining to see the metamorphisis of Ruth - the dowdy and frumpy housewife (with a horrific facial mole) becomes a well put together and successful business woman. While her agenda was clearly self-serving, she did improve the lives of a lot of women along the way (including her nemesis). I thought Barr played her role very well, and actually looked attractive and stylish after she changed her image (and lost the dreadful mole).

Now let's talk about the highlight of the movie (to me): MERYL STREEP! For those criticizing her acting - did we watch the same film? She was brilliant as the pompous, tacky, selfish, yet glamorous romance novelist. When you think about the lines her character was given in the script, it is dumbfounding what she did with that role. She can take the most basic line of dialogue and somehow turn it into something magical. She says it all without even having to speak. She was hilarious and perfect in this movie, and I think it's safe to say that it wouldn't be nearly as good without her.

So, if you are looking for same campy and over-the-top 80s fun, give it a try.

7.5/10.

Reading the comments for this film, two aspects appear as the concentration to the films perceived flaws. The one is a lack of sympathy for Roseanne's character, Ruth. The other is a lack of appreciation for Meryl Streep's performance. Having watched this film many times since it's release, I think I can safely dispute this argument.

This film certainly I feel has all the markings of a cult favorite. It's dark humor, over charged performances as well as the overall look and feel wedges it someplace between "Heathers" and "Ruthless People". More on the nuances that I feel set this film apart from others later, but lets first deal with the Roseann/Streep problem.

Quite frankly, I see no problem. Meryl Streep's Mary Fisher is one of the screens funniest inventions. It seems quite clear to me that she enjoyed playing this role because there is no other way such a wonderful performance could have been created. On a number of occasions, there are lengthy shots with no change of camera where she drives through a range of hilarious emotions. How she handles a scene involving a dog licking her feet while she awakes is tremendous. I feel it is one of her strongest performances; she never turns it off, and always delivers it in the correct dosage.

The issue with Roseanne's character, Ruth, is she is seen as manipulative, uncaring, a monster hell bent on revenge. Ruth, like everything else in this picture is a caricature. This is very much the sort of role we would expect from Roseanne, the domestic goddess taking it all a step further. True, she does wallow in a mean spirited negativity, but it results in a positive outcome for nearly all involved. She takes control of her life and liberates Linda Hunts Nurse Hopper as well as countless women through her Vespa Rose Employment Agency. She returns life to the geriatrics in her care at a nursing home. As a result of Ruth's revenge, Mary Fisher at last becomes recognized as the serious writer she wished to from the start. We even know that Begley's Bob Patchett gets his comeuppance, and accepts it with grace and humility.

There are dozens of touches brought here which make this a movie so enjoyable to watch. Firstly, there is the remarkable physical change in many of the characters as the story progresses. Roseanne goes from looking like a reject from a freak show to a rather zaftig Joan Collins. Linda Hunt and Sylvia Miles likewise transform, and Streep goes from a pink, frosted confection of a romance novelist, to a black turtle necked, bespectacled writer with a gift for the "post modern metaphor". A certain tone is set when the establishing shot of Mary Fisher "pink palace by the sea" reveals her initials, M F, emblazoned on the massive gate. Streep is given countless occasions to do great business for the camera, as in a scene where her complete lack of comprehension in doing laundry leads her to put half a gallon of bleach and several dryer sheets in a washing machine. Best of all, she manages to give the finger to the "serious critics" while on the Sally Jesse Raphale Show. I honestly don't feel this film is as bad as many would like one to think. If you sit back, and let it unfold as I believe it was intended to, you will find a clever picture that has just the correct amount of overarched villainy and cynicism as many of our favorite black comedies.

I liked this film. It's a dark comedy about revenge. Apparently it was a star vehicle for Roseanne, and I thought she performed well enough. Meryl Streep really sank her teeth into this role, probably a lot of fun for her, after so many tragic, accented heroines. True, the special(??!!) effects shot of Roseanne walking away from the exploding house was awful, but it was so bad that I wonder if it might have been intentional. If so, I can't understand why, though. One gaping plot hole. Ed Begley, Jr. As an average-looking guy (OK, below average-looking) I can tell you that Begley is not the sort of man that the Meryl Streeps/Mary Fishers of the world fall for on first meeting. Anyway the film is cute. Not great by any means, but worth a viewing.