TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

BaronBl00d There really is not anything wrong with this adaptation. Good acting. More than competent direction. Clever scripting. Nice settings. Joan Hickson. I love Margaret Rutherford and love her Miss Marple movies. I say that unequivocally and unabashedly, BUT Joan Hickson is the embodiment of what Agatha Christie wrote in her Miss Marple novels. Hickson is that good. She is barely in the first hour and a half, here and there - but comes on strong for the final act. Lucky for us most of the detecting is being done by Inspector Craddock played very capably - and nicely - by John Castle. The suspects are all played with unusual skill. Ursala Howells plays a woman who has her house overrun when the local newspaper announces a murder will take place at her home at 7:00. Things go as the newspaper plans - two more people additionally die in the course of the investigation - and red herrings litter the sidewalks where the characters walk in this film. Howells is very good in her role, as is Renee Asheron as her live-in companion. The young leads are all good and easy on the eyes(especially Nicola King). What I really was impressed with was that though this was made for TV, it in no way seems to compromise anything that would stand in its way of putting a cheaper product out there. Much of that credit should go to director David Giles - he has a very professional background preceding this vehicle. At the heart of all this is a quaint village, a cast of victims and suspects, a ripping mystery, and one Joan Hickson as Miss Jane Marple. I love her line to the inspector qualifying why she might be a good person to go nosing about - "An old lady asking questions is just an old lady asking questions. The music is also wonderful.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU Never believe an old lady who seems inoffensive and brittle if not endangered. The nicest and fairest mug can hide the worst and sneakiest criminal. But not in the eyes of Miss Marple because she sees with her brain and not with her sole eyes or sole heart. The story is fairly crooked enough to hold you till the end and all along it points at some possible culprits, some of them being pure liars, and yet it is not what you may think. The best liars are always those who do not tell lies, aren't they? But Miss Marple will use her ocular scalpel and dissect these true lies to reveal the lie in the truth like the worm in the fruit. She is a darling old lady but do not try to fool her and in this case one tried and too many others did not realize they were trying. A few rulers will fall on a few knuckles. Fascinatingly thrilling, though charmingly slow except at the speedy Gonzalez end.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

petsteph1 It's a great mystery, good characters and a pretty good script. Joan Hickson is definitely the most credible of all the Miss Marples and she really brings the character to life. I liked most of the three episodes and the only question I have is this: Couldn't the BBC find any heterosexual actors to play the heterosexual roles??? Watching most of the male supporting cast lisp and wriggle their way thru the scenes was at times excruciating. Given society's current infatuation with those of us who just have to be our mothers or fathers regardless of physical gender, I could understand a casting slip here or there, but for every male romantic lead to be wildly and clumsily gay was just too much. I needed to sit thru every scene to enjoy the wonderful plotting but my respect for the production dropped with every arched eyebrow and unconvincing smile. Would the BBC cast a drag queen as Mike Hammer or an albino as Mahatma Gandhi? Probably. Otherwise a great mystery well adapted for TV and well produced.

tedg Spoilers herein.Christie is all about the game, the game for control over an abstract field where the narrator lives, the person that creates the world. Within this, she often places people who are doing the same. These are people who are bending the world around them, wresting with truth as it turns out.The BBC is about something altogether. No challenge, just simple, digestible pleasures in the form of interesting faces and places. They have a habit of swapping the creative team so that so that none of these Marple mysteries has the same director or adapter. The result is that though apparently similar, they are in fact amazingly diverse, almost a lesson in elementary filmmaking.Christie's device here is also her clue. That's the way she often worked. Here, it is a matter of the definition of sisterhood. We have the two rough lesbians, and (apparently) the two subliminal ones. We have the twin sisters separated at birth and the sisters whose revelation is the crux. We even have twin lamps and twin romances.(As with most of her books, we have a writer in the action.)Christie plus BBC in this case means exaggeration of the characters so that they are no longer possible schemers, instead obvious fictions. Quite apart from Christie's carefully woven plot, we know who the villain is because she is the only one not portrayed ridiculously.These should never have been made. The intent of the BBC is just too far from Christie's.But. But, dear reader, there is a performance so charming it rivets. Samantha Bond isn't a great actress, but she does understand what is going on in this BBC/Christie clash. She places herself where Christie would be: both participant and commenting observer at the same time. For some interesting reason, hidden in film history, redheads can do this with more ease on the screen. I'm digging into this.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.