ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

pwme I do love Agatha Christie and read her often. There are times in her stories where great cruelty toward the most vulnerable take place. This is one of those stories. I don't care for the plot at all, though it was very clever and very well done.So if you want a story line where only the monsters and creeps reap what they have sown, this is not that kind of story.

papillonsoosoo Joan Hickson played the role as if she was born to do it, same as David Suchet for Poirot. Both are definitive performances and that's all there is to say.Geraldine McEwan is a fine actress. Sadly, she follows in Hayes' and Rutherford's footsteps in completely failing to capture Miss Marple such as Christie wrote her, a frail old lady with wise eyes and a mind beyond sharp. I even caught a glimpse of McEwan with a positive SPRING in her step in one of her scenes, for Goodness' sake!! Way too youthful, way too OTT.Joan Hickson, RIP.

luxetveritas3 For a Christie near-addict, I find it difficult to even watch the Geraldine McEwan versions...esp. since Hickson was so flawless! I gather Christie herself had chosen her originally. Geraldine: way to ditsy. Rutherford: trying too hard to be comical and the novels are not comedies ! Hickson is scarily CONVINCING as the amazingly shrewd, analytical "old maid" who can still flutter and cluck on occasion...but the intelligence she brings to the role should discourage others. It's like Olivier in Richard III...and possibly Henry V. Case closed; find something else to play. Also: why fiddle with the setting? Christie set it in prewar England. And the supporting cast: most of whom I gather have sadly passed on--just show how deep the "bench" was in the matter of character actors of a certain generation. I doubt you could rustle up the same caliber today.

lucy-19 I haven't seen the McEwan version but can't believe it comes anywhere near this one. This cast definitely do not ham up the story, which is a good one. Christie was parodying the kind of cliché'd tale that starts off with a body in the library of the manor house - she takes us right out of that static, country-house setting (which ignorant critics often accuse her of being stuck in) to the rather louche setting of an expensive seaside hotel. The hotel is full of people who aren't quite ladies or gentlemen (which makes them all the more amusing). And film man Basil Blake is actually living in St. Mary Mead with a blonde, without benefit of clergy (or so he'd have everybody think). This adaptation sticks pretty faithfully to the book and the cast are good, especially Styler, Horovich, Watford and of course Joan Hickson. I only have a few minor nitpicks. I miss the exit line of the tennis-playing gigolo, his upper class background exposed as a sham and his rich widow an item with an old admirer: "Dance, dance, little gentleman!" He was quoting a popular tune "Dance, Dance, Little Lady" but audiences couldn't be expected to know that. The dignity of the missing Girl Guide's parents is not as vivid as in the book. And Ruby's hair and makeup are all wrong: she wouldn't have had long fluffy hair in the 30s, and her rouge makes her look feverish. In the book, Basil turns out to have a heroic civilian WW I record, too. Christie reflected her times, and had a great sense of humour she's not always given credit for. The Body in the Library is the title of a book by her fictional avatar, Ariadne Oliver. Perhaps she thought she might as well write it herself. Someone should give us The Clue of the Crimson Goldfish...