Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

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.

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 !

I heard some really bad things about this remake of the classic French film 'Les Diaboliques', and I would never have expected it to be a patch on the brilliant original anyway; the only reason I even bothered to watch it is because it happened to be on TV, and there happened to be nothing else on. However, after the first half hour or so; while the film indeed is nothing on the original, it seemed like it was going to end up being a decent thriller. But then the problems start; the parts where the original's character reflected on what they'd done were the best parts of the film; here they're extremely boring, and that's where the film falls down. The plot is basically the same as the original and focuses on a school which is ran by a man with a wife and a mistress; neither of which like him. They decide that killing him would be a great idea, and promptly do it. However, after disposing of the body in the school swimming pool and later having it emptied; the body isn't there! And what's worse is that the women start to find clues that he may still be alive...It's a real shame that this film wasn't better as the two female leads are excellent. I'm not sure that I would have made it all the way to the end if it wasn't for the fact that I had the beautiful Isabelle Adjani to admire. It's not her greatest performance and she seems to be on autopilot, but she fits into the scared mousy role well. She is joined by Sharon Stone, who is brilliantly cast as Adjani's colder and more collected opposite number. Stone also looks good, which is certainly a bonus considering the shortcomings of the rest of the film. The problem with the second half of the film is really that it's not interesting, and there aren't enough other things going on to make up for it. There's a hint of a lesbian relationship between the two leads, though nothing really comes of it; definitely a big mistake considering how great they both look! Having already seen the original, the ending came as no surprise; but I'm certain that I could have guessed anyway as there soon becomes only one way that it can go. Overall, I could probably watch Isabelle Adjani all day long; but not when the film in question is this one. There's not much point bothering with this...see the original instead.

Diabolique is set in Pennsylvania at the St. Anselm's boarding school for boys which is owned by Mia Baran (Isabelle Adjani), however her husband Guy (Chazz Palminteri) who runs the school treats her like dirt & cheats on her. Mia & a teacher named Nicole Horner (Sharon Stone) whom is one of Guy's many lovers devise a plan to kill him & make it look like an accident, the plan is to drown him & then throw him in the school pool where he will be found & to the police his death will seem like a simple drowning. However after a few days the body isn't found so Mia orders the dirty pool drained when Nicole 'accidently' drops her keys into it, once drained Guy's body is not there. Was Guy dead? Did someone find out there plan? Who knows...Directed by Jeremiah Chechik this is a remake of the black and white French film Les Diaboliques (1955) which itself was based on the novel 'Celle Qui N'Etait Plus' by Pierre Boileau & Thomas Narcejac & I thought was a fairly lazy & plodding mystery thriller with truly one of the worst twist endings ever. The humourless & slow moving script by Don Ross takes ages to do what the average episode of Columbo took about 10 minutes to, to show someone committing the so-called perfect murder. Then it switches to creepy thriller mode as the body vanishes from where the murderers left it & seemingly has come back to life before it all falls apart with one of the worst, most predictable & frankly unlikable twist endings ever. I can't continue my review any further without massive spoilers which will give away the ending so beware, anyway I hate the fact that Mia & Nicole suddenly turn into the heroes of the piece when they were just as bad as Guy since in the case of Mia she planned to kill him in cold blood & Nicole was prepared to trick Mia & ultimately kill her if the plan had succeeded. They were really unlikable character's to begin with so this horrible ending where they become the heroes by killing Guy which is basically exactly the same thing which they set out to do in the first place just grated my nerves. Also, if Mia was feeling so guilty why did she seem almost redeemed at the end? She still ended up killing Guy anyway so why the miraculous change of heart? Also, what about Nicole? She still was part of some scheme where someone was always going to die, be it either Mia or Guy. The ending is just so misjudged, it makes no sense with the rest of the context of the film, it's horribly acted & it's utterly predictable. In fact I guessed how this would end within 30 minutes & I was absolutely right in just about every detail. A really horrible film with an even worse ending, one to avoid.Director Chechik has made some really, really awful films & after this mess & his subsequent big screen adaptation of The Avengers (1998) which is considered one of the worst films ever made Hollywood thankfully hasn't let him anywhere near a film camera since. This guy should be directing traffic rather than films. This is blandly shot in dull autumnal colours which give it forgettable look. I also have to mention the acting, especially by the two female leads Stone & Adjani who are simply terrible. I hated their character's, I hated their acting & thought they were two of the worst performances by leading actors in a Hollywood flick I've ever seen. In the UK this is rated '18' meaning no-one under that age can watch it, I have no idea why as there's no violence worth mentioning, no nudity or sex & it's devoid of any action or excitement.Technically the film is alright but it's flat, dull & blandly filmed. There's no real style here & it's not a film I will remember in any way apart from that terrible ending. As I've said I think the acting by the two leads is simply awful.Diaboliques is a slow moving, utterly predictable thriller with a horrible ending that didn't do anything for me. One to avoid. This probably would have worked better as a 30 minute Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode or maybe even as an obscure black and white French film from the 50's...