Diabólicas

Diabolique not only lacks substance, it lacks any real effort on the part of the main players. Sharon Stone's character is completely banal. Kathy Bates pops out of nowhere to accomplish nothing except adding 30 more minutes onto this pseudo-thriller bore-fest. As the movie went on, I found myself concerned less and less with the gratuitous sex and not-so-intricate plot twists that I seriously considered going out to the lobby to play "Space Invaders."

The original here is one of the best thrillers, energetic in a way that distracts us from the revelation of the con.

This is a lesser movie, but adds at least three clever ideas. If you are interested in narrative structure, you'll be interested in remakes of films and how they change. (I think these are changes to the original.)

First, in true folding style, they added a film within the film. The film within is a recruiting film, but that hardly matters.

Second, they changed the dynamic of the detective by making him a her. This allows for the third change but along the way the possibilities exist for the three types of women: the virgin, the whore and the shrew. It isn't played up well enough to matter, but its clear that someone's intuition was tuned.

Third, there is a final twist that I think is quite different than the original's. It bonds the three women, already hinted in a lesbian tendency between the first two.

But amazingly, the film didn't work well for me, probably because of pacing problems at various levels. Not that any level was off by the interplay of levels wasn't syncopated according to what engages. Its an intuitive process, I think, but quite rigid in its rules.

Isabelle Adjani was cast perfectly, and introduced very skillfully. Beginnings are hard.

This in its original incarnation was the first double con movie, I think. Adding a third was inevitable, I suppose.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I heard some really bad things about this remake of the classic French film 'Les Diaboliques', and I would never have expected it to be a patch on the brilliant original anyway; the only reason I even bothered to watch it is because it happened to be on TV, and there happened to be nothing else on. However, after the first half hour or so; while the film indeed is nothing on the original, it seemed like it was going to end up being a decent thriller. But then the problems start; the parts where the original's character reflected on what they'd done were the best parts of the film; here they're extremely boring, and that's where the film falls down. The plot is basically the same as the original and focuses on a school which is ran by a man with a wife and a mistress; neither of which like him. They decide that killing him would be a great idea, and promptly do it. However, after disposing of the body in the school swimming pool and later having it emptied; the body isn't there! And what's worse is that the women start to find clues that he may still be alive...

It's a real shame that this film wasn't better as the two female leads are excellent. I'm not sure that I would have made it all the way to the end if it wasn't for the fact that I had the beautiful Isabelle Adjani to admire. It's not her greatest performance and she seems to be on autopilot, but she fits into the scared mousy role well. She is joined by Sharon Stone, who is brilliantly cast as Adjani's colder and more collected opposite number. Stone also looks good, which is certainly a bonus considering the shortcomings of the rest of the film. The problem with the second half of the film is really that it's not interesting, and there aren't enough other things going on to make up for it. There's a hint of a lesbian relationship between the two leads, though nothing really comes of it; definitely a big mistake considering how great they both look! Having already seen the original, the ending came as no surprise; but I'm certain that I could have guessed anyway as there soon becomes only one way that it can go. Overall, I could probably watch Isabelle Adjani all day long; but not when the film in question is this one. There's not much point bothering with this...see the original instead.

This movie is worse than bad. The credits do not include the fact that it is based on the wonderful earlier version, from 1954, or the book it was based on- and maybe it's just for the best. A terrible movie; the most unsubtle movie I ever saw. And somehow, the beautiful Isabel Adjani doesn't look so good in English. The plot in this version isn't realistic, the ending is pathetic, the twists are shallow. This movie deserves all the bad words in the English language. I gave it a 1, which it deserves only for Adjani's clothes. One of the worst movies of 1996, perhaps of all time.

Diabolique (1996) Sharon Stone, Isabelle Adjani, Chazz Palminteri, Kathy Bates, Spalding Gray, Shirley Knight, D: Jeremiah S. Chechik. Revamped version of the 1955 French thriller, with Palimenteri as a tyrannical boys-school headmaster done in by the joined forces of his mousy wife (Adjani) and icy blonde mistress (Stone) in a murder plot they wrongfully assume is foolproof. First-rate performers can't serve justice to this diabolical debacle, which doesn't start off too bad, then goes astray. This unspeakably bad rip-off trashes the classic original with too many `oh, come on' moments, ridiculous red herrings and twists of its own, and a finale right out of a slasher flick. Bates is even gone to waste as a retired detective who's investigating the case `for something to do'. Running Time: 107 minutes and rated R for nudity and sexual content, violence, and some language. * ½