Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Biljana M If I should described this movie in one sentence - Watchable, but completely unnecessary. I decided to watch this remake, because original movie is one of my favorites. I expected a lot more. Let's concentrate on acting - in original movie Vera Clouzot was the one that bought me, her terrified look on face and tension through whole movie. In the other hand - Isabelle Adjani - very, very bad acting, not convincing at all. Sharon Stone - very good copy of Simone Signoret, but that's it - just a copy. When you are making a remake of a great movie I think you should make a few changes, to add some special touch to whole movie, but changes in this movie were complete fail. Especially the ending (someone was obviously disappointed that in original movie two women weren't such good friends after all), which became ridiculous farce.

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 !

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.

Mr_Ectoplasma "Diabolique", a remake of the 1955 French horror/thriller "Les Diaboliques", centers on Mia Baran (Isabelle Adjani), a devout Catholic woman who is married to an abusive headmaster, Guy (Chazz Palminteri), with whom she runs an all boy's school. She is fairly close to his mistress, Nicole Horner (Sharon Stone), who is a teacher at the school, and the two conspire a plot to murder him. After the deed is done, they dispose of his body in the school's filthy swimming pool... but when the pool is drained, his body is gone, and strange things begin to haunt them, while a nosy detective (Kathy Bates) begins to catch onto the elaborate plot.To start off with, I consider the original "Les Diaboliques" one of the best horror movies of all time - it's painfully suspenseful, genuinely creepy, and has one of the best twist-endings I've ever seen. So, I went into this remake with fairly low expectations, and that may have been why I didn't mind it so much. I knew there was no possible way this re-imagining could out- do the original. So, with that said, I found this film to be a fairly entertaining thriller, even though I knew all the twists and turns of the plot ahead of time. The film takes place in modern day, but maintains a very 1950s feel, with the wardrobe and the old-fashioned architecture of the school. It's surprisingly pretty faithful to the original movie, too, with a few changes scattered about, some for the better and some for the worst. I thought the update of the murder scene was well executed, as was the climax of the film (again, even though I was aware of what to expect). However, as expected, we do have a very "Hollywood" ending - the movie follows the original closely until the last ten minutes, where the conclusion becomes what most American movie-goers would expect. I can't say it's necessarily that awful, and I wasn't expecting the writers to follow the cold, ambiguous conclusion the original had. I suppose I was a tad bit disappointed they didn't stick with the original ending, but what they did do with the new ending was clever.I'd say my biggest complaint here was the absence of ambiguity and suspense the original film upheld. The suspense was fairly secondhand in comparison, and I'd like to have seen improvement there. Acting-wise, I have mixed feelings. Sharon Stone, I felt, was fairly poor at times in her delivery and overall performance, while at other times she did quite well. Her performance was a bit topsy-turvy, but she was good enough, and does have the right 'look' for the part. Isabelle Adjani was great, she made her character very lovable, and her melancholy facial expressions were priceless. Chazz Palminteri was also good in the abusive, jerk-of-a-husband role. I also enjoyed Kathy Bates in the role of the detective, which was played by a male in the original. She's a great actress and played her quirky, offbeat role excellently. Overall, "Diabolique" is a bit of a mixed bag. I enjoyed it mainly because I found the re- imagining of the story an interesting idea, and the re-construction of some of those classic scenes was neat to watch. The problem with this film is if you see it before you see the 1955 version, you probably will enjoy it because the story and plot twists are really clever. However, if you've already seen the original, the story is essentially spoiled. I personally enjoyed watching the re-construction of it though, even with it's faults. I'd say this 1996 version of the story is a decent companion piece to the original - it's fairly entertaining, but can't hold a candle to the film it was based upon. 6/10.