Diabolique (1996)

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

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.

Mia Baran (Isabelle Adjani) suffers from a heart condition and from her abusive husband Guy (Chazz Palminteri). He's the dean of a private boys school. Mia befriends his mistress Nicole Horner (Sharon Stone). Mia sedates him. She and Nicole together drown him in the bathtub. They dump his body in the school's dirty outdoor pool. The plan is for the body to be found after the pool is drained but it isn't there. Mia goes to the police to check on a John Doe body. Former police detective Shirley Vogel (Kathy Bates) takes an interest. She helps Mia look for her presumed runaway husband without having to file a missing person report. She quickly suspects something is amiss.It is almost unfair to this movie. A remake of such a classic comes with an automatic first strike. This needs to bring something new to justify a remake. These are great actresses with terrific material. This should work but it has no tension. There is a paranoid aspect to this story which gets diffused. The director seems more interested in adding broad thriller visual moves and music cues. I don't want to be too harsh but this remake is completely unnecessary.

I've read through many perspectives on this film, and one that seems to crop up time and again is the word 'camp.' Unfortunately, the film never establishes itself as camp, or indeed anything. It's pointless. There being little to add to the dissection of this film's problems, let's concentrate for a second on how a script this revolting gets made into a film this unsatisfying.Firstly, you have to have a screenwriter who really wants to make a point about how he understands the original. But another trait he has to have is that he doesn't think many other people understand the original. Then, you have to have him working with a culture he doesn't understand. How Sharon Stone got a job in a Catholic boarding school is amazing! Let alone how Palmintieri could stand over his dying wife, or how a boy could break through into the headmaster's quarters, witness the entire scene, and not be sent away. I had nine years in boarding school, and not once, thankfully, did I get to see my headmaster bare-chested. I can understand the chap's fascination with his naked language teacher, and it's very plausible he might find his way to a window to watch from a distance, but he must be the most intuitive, caring boy in the world to have grasped that something was very wrong - and then, if he had done so, he would have gone straight for that adult that Palmintieri has to tell him to go and find. Perhaps he is desperately in love with Miss Adjani. Whatever.Then you have two other awful, awful pieces of writing/casting. (a) the video team - straight out of the 'Titanic' school of cheeky-chappy enthusiasts who say dude all the time and really don't give a fiddler's toss about anything other than the geeky enjoyment their jobs bring them. This kind of embarrasiing stereotyping wiped at least a star off my rating of 'Lock, Stock' (the scousers) and it's just insulting to camera technicians everywhere. Hollywood's presentation of enthusiasts has often been has often been unkind in a 'let's laugh at them' kind of way; here,it's unwatchable. And (b) the other members of staff. You kind of wish the two girls could have chosen their victims more wisely. That would have made the ending much more acceptable. While they were about it, they could also have knocked off that bug-eyed monster whom someone has come back later on in order to introduce a "mystery" element with the sunglasses.Then, you MUST have a director who wants to refer back to the original with as many 'atmosphere shots' as he can find. Probably in homage to it, but again, with no real point. In the original, the dripping tap serves a purpose of heightening the atmosphere of tension. In this film, there IS no tension until right near the end, when KB is wandering through the garage. But why is she wandering through the garage? So the director can 'explain' where Palmintieri has been hiding all this time.By trying to do the original film homage while making his own point about what a great scriptwriter he is (is he?) or what a great director he is (is he?), the person or persons most responsible for this film, clearly told to cut down on the length of the original, never pauses long enough to let anything sink in. Thus the rhythm of the piece goes sideways. And I found myself thinking there must have been a moment during production when some studio heads said, "But, you see, we MUST have some violence, and a chase, some nudity and a sex scene." What began life as a vicious rape of his wife in the 50s classic becomes a ludicrous idea in this, effortlessly summarised by another reviewer here (thank you sir) as words to the effect of, "He terrorises and humiliates her so much that she has to shag him." I must say, though, Stone and Bates give class performances where and when they can - it's just Stone belongs in another film entirely, and Bates is given some classic quips but becomes a pawn in the filmmakers' race for the perfect, satisfying ending. Indeed, as other commentators have noted, halfway through they decide she is Columbo. "Just one more thing," she says, and I kid you not. Anyway, dears, the perfect, satisfying ending would have been for Bates to have locked everyone else in the school, including the scriptwriter and the director, and set fire to it.This film does nothing that you can't find in the French and Saunders videos on Youtube (try the classic "House of Idiot" or "Whatever Happened to Baby Dawn". Except embarrass you, appal you, and make you sick. But you know, there is a plus-side. The film ended!

That stunning genetic lottery winner known as Isabelle Adjani (in one of her best contemporary roles) stars as the push over trophy wife of a posh private school headmaster (played by that ever perfectly sinister Chazz Palmintery) and Sharon Stone plays a vixen of a teacher (and perhaps one-time lover of the headmaster) within the school who inspires Adjani's character to conspire to have her husband bumped off. Kathy Bates in the detective hot on their tails ones the allegedly crime has been committed and from here on, it is a game of Whodunit and where-is-the-body?! Brilliant performances by all the afore mentioned actors, if only the script were as solid as they are and were in this film.