Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Wordiezett So much average

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Vincent Rapide Much pain and anguish by reviewers here piqued my interest in the 1996 Diabolique. Did they all expect similar to the original version(?), hard to imagine this. I had not seen the 1955 release for decades and decided this would grant me a better expectation. Thus I jumped in and found Stone, Adjani and Palmentieri in a most intriguing Noir Film with all the plot suspense and ending resolution that one could hope for. Where were all the issues that so vexed the reviewers? Then I realized that I'd seen the Alt Version that is 23 minutes shorter as a result of skillful editing by a third party. I felt sorry for the reviewers having to endure those 23 minutes - good thing I sidestepped that! It may take some doing to find this particular version but you will be nicely rewarded. Full 10 stars for sheer genius.

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'?

Python Hyena Diabolique (1996): Dir: Jeremiah Chechik / Cast: Sharon Stone, Isabelle Adjani, Chazz Palminteri, Kathy Bates, Spalding Gray: Remake of 1955 French classic about limitations of mind and body before madness sets in. Reduced to dull slasher clichés and slow pacing. Chazz Palminteri stars as a school headmaster who is involved with two women. He abuses them until they sum up the urge to kill him. They dump the body in the pool outside but he survives and seeks revenge. Story relies on formula but director Jeremiah Chechik uses style to execute it. This is an odd choice of material for a director who made National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation and Benny and June. Sharon Stone is reciting her Basic Instinct territory as a teacher with an icy personality, while Isabelle Adjani plays a fragile mistress whom Stone will become involved with. Palminteri's role is that of questionable fate when his body goes missing. Kathy Bates appears as an inspector in a role that is both standard and corrupt. The original is thrilling entertainment at its best and scary at that. It was haunting and suspenseful while this remake is well crafted yet reduced to a sexed up slasher film with a climax bent on violence. It sucks that modern audiences cannot view a film like this without manipulative crap thrown in. This version is stylish but an outright peep show with its grim images but the original is still head of the class. Score: 2 / 10

tedg 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.