Diabólicas

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 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."

A tyrannical school principal terrorizes his fragile wife with heart disease and his cynical mistress as well (both are teachers in the couple's private school). The two women plot to kill him, but after the murder their plan starts to fall through. The body disappears, then more and more signs become apparent to prove: he is alive.

The real mystery is why anyone had to remake a classic French thriller that was imitated so many times before, why it had to be done so terribly, cast so wrongly and acted in such unsubtle way - and why anyone on earth should care the whole stuff.

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

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.