Steineded How sad is this?

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Moviemanic22 Diabolique is the the third remake of the infamous 1955 classic French film 'Diabolique'. That itself was an adaptation by author Pierre Boileau. The previous 1993 TV movie is better off forgotten, due to it's shallow atmosphere. Comparisons with the original is not something somebody would want to dwell too much on. But the question that does arise is 'Does it remain faithful to the original?. To a large extent yes this movie is much closer to the original source, but there are slight differences. Them being the ending and little detail to a few minor sub plots. The ending in the 1955 film was quiet ambiguous. And it was not certain as to whether the protagonist survived or not. So the makers decided to change it a little and make it seem like a grand finale. I feel viewers and critics were unhappy with this because it defied logic.The film has decent pacing and there is never a dull moment. However I would not deny that there is a lot that could have been changed and improved on. The editing is poor and I wonder if the screen play writer had even revised the scenes after production for errors. I could not recall when Mia had even discovered that her husband was cheating on her. And it was not revealed who had taken those photos. Sharon Stone gets under the skin of the role as usual is very convincing as the femme fatale. Kathy Bates is funny in the serious manner. Unfortunately Isabelle Adjani doesn't manage to seem much interested in her role. Perhaps this could be because she is not used to acting in English. Her anxiety moments do provoke some laughter. The films scores well as a genuine remake. Despite the flaws, it is worth a watch. But there are far worse ones out there. Need I mention 'Psycho'?

cstotlar-1 Someone recently said "Hollywood hates originality". This is the unfortunate evidence. I can only guess that the few favorable reviews came from people who never experienced the original film or were just too lazy to watch a film in a foreign language. Clouzot's effort was magnificent way back in the '50's. This was just a sad attempt at some fast bucks with no talent in front of or behind the camera. In the original film, the background of the school was seedy and cheap, the characters were unattractive in general and the surroundings were oppressive. This "sanitized" version misses the original point entirely. There was little or no suspense and no "atmosphere" at all. What a stupid waste. Ditto the remake of "Rear Window" but that's another review again...Curtis Stotlar

elshikh4 Character uses another to kill third one. Then the used character (always the less vicious and the more emotional) discovered the ugly truth of being used to serve hidden purposes for the first character and its hidden associate. Sometimes that associate could be the murdered party, sometimes the deceived could be a man or a woman, and many times it's from that deceived one's point of view.Since (Double Indemnity - 1944) this very formula in the Noir or the crime movies is so popular. Although there are endless ways to recycle and create through this old story, but most of the products along the years aren't excellent or even unpredictable.Based on a French movie or not, (Diabolique) isn't original or that good. It's even not convincing at places and rather idiot at others !Since the whole thing is about killing the sick kind wife then why not to use less complicated ways? And if the husband is that sadistic deceitful why not to divorce him easily? And how oh how this husband brooked this amount of water for all of this time ? He must be Aquaman for god's sake !Just like the gratuitous nudity here, the need for a lesbian relationship between the 2 women seemed for pure commercial purposes more than a dramatic motive (as a sexual tension between the 2 leads to make the audience hungry for love scene !). Yet, it's more powerful to watch (Stone) rescues (Adjani) at the end because she lastly felt the bound between them as 2 aggrieved women, not a "loving couple" where in this case the rescue becomes ordinary deed ?!Some of the situations looked so forced; such as the compulsory bad launch. Some of characters' reactions were so horribly bad; (Adjani) outrageously smiling among the professors at the lunch's table while she's supposed to be so sad and confused because of her husband's disappearance ! The intentions of (Kathy Bates)'s character were vague. There was no need for the character of the boy who peeks at his teacher nude ! Plus I didn't hear about a commercial that took this long to be filmed (clearly the 2 camera guys were living in the school for more than a week !??).The performance was truly laughable from (Isabelle Adjani)'s side. Along with being strangely not pretty sight this time, she dumbly was astounded, absentminded, sad, or scared all by the same goggled eyes ! Though she gave me so-provocative-it's-attractive acting to an extent that made the movie worth watching for a second time just for that ! I can't blame (Palmentieri) since the script dealt with him as a prototype scumbag. (Sharon Stone) did some fair acting; I think she was the only winner here. With a sluggish pace, and a story got no depth (for instance why it's a school, not a hotel ? a hospital ? or a company ??) you've got to ask yourself eventually why they didn't call it (scare your wife to death)?!, but Ah.. that could've ruined it. However with that ending it deserves a title like (treat women well otherwise they'll kill you) although it fits this story right but that could've ruined it too !In fact the movie's finale makes it an explicit manifesto about how women, all the different kinds of women, CAN unite to kill one vile man and get away with it. So be aware of their anger because It's Woman Power baby ! A very sly notice : this movie came out one year after TV shows like Xena Warrior Princess (1995), and one year before another one : Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997).. I'll leave it to your intelligence to figure out the connections and what it could say about America of the mid-90s. However, in its core, all what the movie wanted is being a thriller with a different frame this time, to end up as one which's between average and poor despite the glow of it, especially with grand music, well cinematography, and interesting direction. To sum it all up I must tell : while it's a thrilling mystery this movie made me fall asleep in front of it. Sorry… not that diabolic !

Brigid O Sullivan (wisewebwoman) Occasionally only, I should make clear. So bloody awful that not for the first time do I wish there was a minus rating on IMDb. Picked this up in a remainder bin for a couple of dollars and figured I had loved the French original from the fifties so how bad could the remake be? Might be a curiosity item and the cast was pretty stellar - for one the magnificent and rarely misplaced Kathy Bates was in it.Was I in for a shock. Nothing, absolutely nothing, worked in this movie. The plot, the minescule amount that was there of it, was drivel. There was no character development AT ALL.Some awful special effects (get those white eyes on the corpse, folks)and a supposedly creepy atmosphere that makes one chortle every time the usually lovely Isabelle gapes in a mirror at herself. Doesn't everyone look in a mirror when they're frightened? I know it's the first thing I think of, as I climb out of bed after a nightmare - I look in a mirror to make myself feel better.More threads going nowhere than you could count in a ragged old sweater. The lesbian sub-plot that never quite makes it. And it should. It is a key element in this woeful adaptation. Sharon Stone mincing around in an oddly wired looking walk with trampy tight clothes and really high heels and the strangest lipstick that doesn't leave a mark on her frequently lit cigarettes (she's a school teacher in a private school, Catholic, yeah that's believable). And on and on. How does one get funding for such a travesty, thirty million dollars, I believe??? And the overacting of Chazz and Isabelle... I could write a book on that alone. There should be a law against this kind of thing. 1 out of 10 for what I don't know, only that there isn't a zero rating on IMDb. And as I said, we need these movies, just to make us appreciate even the mediocre ones.