The Spiral Staircase

Builds up slowly. And then it adds up to good entertainment. I cannot understand why reviewers compare with previous works. Each is an independent presentation and to most viewers it is not an academic effort of comparison, one sits on an afternoon or night to be entertained in this make believe celluloid world. In that aspect this movie delivers as a most satisfying experience.

This is easily the most boring and predictable movie I have ever seen. The plot is extremely thin and the direction does little to put any feeling of fear or suspense into the mind of the viewer. The acting also is mediocre. All in all, a waste of time, money and effort.

I agree with DrSatan that this update of the 1946 classic is not well done. Above all, it lacks style and ambience. Beyond that, the plot is seriously weakened by the omission of the doctor's character; the new twist at the end (with its trite motivation sans the Freudian psychological flair of the original); and the hokey camera angles which make the house appear to be listing in a stormy sea. The childish secret passageways and cobweb-covered staircase are out-of-place in a film which otherwise tries too hard to be adult.

Even the pale 1970's remake with gorgeous Jacqueline Bisset is better than this truly missable, misguided project.

Nicolette Sherdian is breathtakingly gorgeous in this taut thriller based on the classic film. This movie has more twists and turns than the roads in Monte Carlo. The constant state of tension is at times almost unbearable. Judd nelson gives the performance of his career, surpassing even his work in St. Elmo's Fire. I anxiously anticipate this superb work of art's release on DVD, hopefully a collector's edition.

Why remake "The Spiral Staircase", which is no classic but a good little thriller for TV? Why change around the story in ways which only hurt the production? I'm refering to the move of the events of the story to an island, the subtraction of one pivotal character and the addition of a second, the move of time period from the Victorian era to the modern day (as the original was a period piece you could have just left it there). Having Helen arrive during the story, rather than having her be a well established and beloved member of the household really hurts the story. Taking out her love interest, the doctor, from the original story also muddles up things considerably. Adding on the ridiculous "secret passage through the house" only hurts the film, as does changing the killer's motive from psychosis to money. The original film also had a much better cast, all around. Finally, why is it that so many writers feel that to update a movie, you need to make all of the characters more vulgar and unlikable? Sure, we might swear a bit more now, but I wouldn't say that the porportion of jerks is quite as high as it is in this film.

My advice to anyone contemplating seeing this film is to skip it and seek out the original. You'll get a better acted, directed, lit, scored, and written film.