Once again, Sarah Phelps proves she hasn't understood a novel before destroying it for a generation. If she had, she would have seen intricate plotting and ingenious clues. Instead, we got this travesty.
Reviews
8 Reviews
What a waste
18 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
There's some very nice cinematography in this one. However, the actual story is largely absent. As Poirot episodes go, this one is probably second only to the murder of The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd in the liberties it takes with the novel. Characters are introduced and murdered for no reason, Mrs Boynton's husband is suddenly still alive, the archaeology plays only a minimal part in the actual story and, most heinously of all, there's been some fiddling about with the identity of the killer. If you want to appreciate this story properly, either read the novel or track down the BBC Radio version. Just give this awkward mess of a film a miss.
Why?
10 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is rightly regarded as one of the best crime novels of all time. Its initial publication caused controversy in some quarters because of a startling trick pulled by Agatha Christie. To bring this across properly in the form of a TV movie would take considerable skill, but with the right script-writer and director, it could make a fantastic film.
This certainly isn't it. The normally-reliable Clive Exton has seen fit to add another murder for no reason other than to provide a cliff-hanger for a commercial break, most of the characters have been destroyed, and what on Earth are factories and airports doing in there? The film only needs to feature three houses to work - it's a puzzle, not an action film.
It's such a pity that this should have been part of the regular Poirot series. For the rest of its run, the adaptations have been fairly faithful to the source material. This one's destruction of the structure of the plot is the sort of thing which we'll see more of in ITV's Marple travesties in a few years time. Unfortunately, I doubt that ITV will ever go back and do this one properly, because subjective camera-work could lead to a very atmospheric film version of this story.
This certainly isn't it. The normally-reliable Clive Exton has seen fit to add another murder for no reason other than to provide a cliff-hanger for a commercial break, most of the characters have been destroyed, and what on Earth are factories and airports doing in there? The film only needs to feature three houses to work - it's a puzzle, not an action film.
It's such a pity that this should have been part of the regular Poirot series. For the rest of its run, the adaptations have been fairly faithful to the source material. This one's destruction of the structure of the plot is the sort of thing which we'll see more of in ITV's Marple travesties in a few years time. Unfortunately, I doubt that ITV will ever go back and do this one properly, because subjective camera-work could lead to a very atmospheric film version of this story.
Has anyone involved in the ITV Marple series ever heard of Agatha Christie?
10 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For a series which is rivalling Jacques Cousteau's diving abilities, this one plumbs new depths. It's called Nemesis and it's got a coach in it. That's where the similarities with the novel end. As usual, characters are written in a completely unconvincing manner, nobody reacts naturally to any of the unfolding events and the entire cast seems to be treating the whole affair as if the characters know they are cartoon characters in a cardboard world. Agatha Christie tried to present intriguing puzzles with characters one could believe, and this series delivers on neither front. At least Miss Marple is actually present in the novel which the script-writer may have glimpsed in an airport somewhere - he certainly doesn't appear to have found time to read it.
What on Earth was that all about?
31 May 2006
The Sittaford Mystery is one of those classic mystery stories - isolated community, a hint of the paranormal, legacies, prodigal relatives, all given a strong sense of location by being tied in with the Dartmoor landscape.
Enough of the book though, what of the TV adaptation? Calling it utter crap is being needlessly unkind to the brown stuff. Changing the murderer is one thing which should never be done at all. The victim was completely rewritten, as was the motive. ITV also saw fit to fling in an extra murder (purely for effect - note how nobody bothered to comment on it later on). Presumably this was an attempt to wake up people being bored rigid by the nonsense. Two characters appeared to swap names during the course of the story, and the largest part of the mystery (how the seance ties in with the murder) was totally scuppered by the changes made to the murder itself. The cast tried their best, but they'd have been much better off just making it up as they went along.
The only positive thing that you can say about this woeful heap of nonsense is that, as it is so different, even down to the culprit, even if you have seen the film, it won't have spoilt the book for you. Go and read that instead - it's got a plot, and it even makes sense.
Enough of the book though, what of the TV adaptation? Calling it utter crap is being needlessly unkind to the brown stuff. Changing the murderer is one thing which should never be done at all. The victim was completely rewritten, as was the motive. ITV also saw fit to fling in an extra murder (purely for effect - note how nobody bothered to comment on it later on). Presumably this was an attempt to wake up people being bored rigid by the nonsense. Two characters appeared to swap names during the course of the story, and the largest part of the mystery (how the seance ties in with the murder) was totally scuppered by the changes made to the murder itself. The cast tried their best, but they'd have been much better off just making it up as they went along.
The only positive thing that you can say about this woeful heap of nonsense is that, as it is so different, even down to the culprit, even if you have seen the film, it won't have spoilt the book for you. Go and read that instead - it's got a plot, and it even makes sense.
Pleasantly stunned
13 February 2006
This is definitely a rarity in ITV1's Marple series - it appears to have been adapted by someone who has not only read the novel, but also understood it.
There were minor changes made to the story, but they were nowhere near the wholesale destruction of plot and character visited upon other entries in the series, notably Sleeping Murder (rendered thoroughly nonsensical by the addition of the end of the pier show).
Geraldine McEwan was as good as ever, and the cast for this one seemed to be treating it relatively seriously, with the exception of Ken Russell, whose turn as the vicar proved that he's even worse as an actor than he is as a director.
The production suffered from the series' standard malaise of treating the characters as if they were all cardboard stereotypes, thus making it difficult for the audience to care for them, but most of the time the cast managed to rise above this and seem reasonably believable. If ITV1 can produce more of this standard, then a third series could be watchable - particularly if they adapt stories which actually feature Miss Marple, as opposed to what we've got coming in the next couple of weeks...
There were minor changes made to the story, but they were nowhere near the wholesale destruction of plot and character visited upon other entries in the series, notably Sleeping Murder (rendered thoroughly nonsensical by the addition of the end of the pier show).
Geraldine McEwan was as good as ever, and the cast for this one seemed to be treating it relatively seriously, with the exception of Ken Russell, whose turn as the vicar proved that he's even worse as an actor than he is as a director.
The production suffered from the series' standard malaise of treating the characters as if they were all cardboard stereotypes, thus making it difficult for the audience to care for them, but most of the time the cast managed to rise above this and seem reasonably believable. If ITV1 can produce more of this standard, then a third series could be watchable - particularly if they adapt stories which actually feature Miss Marple, as opposed to what we've got coming in the next couple of weeks...
24 Hours in London
(2000)
Utter Rubbish
19 January 2006
I was forced to endure this film a while ago, and can honestly say that it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.
The plot (such as it was) was completely derivative, nicking ideas from just about every gangster film since "Brighton Rock."
The characters make cardboard seem fully rounded, mostly being off-cuts from the Quentin Tarantino "chirpy-arrogant-violent-criminal-with-no-regard-for-anyone-else" block, while the script was abysmal.
The lack of anything good about this film is particularly disappointing, as it was the last film Gary Olsen made. It's a great shame that his last appearance should be as a barely thought-out criminal weirdo with pseudo-mystical characteristics forced upon him in a vain attempt to make the character seem interesting.
This is a heap of rubbish with no redeeming features whatsoever, and should be avoided at all costs.
The plot (such as it was) was completely derivative, nicking ideas from just about every gangster film since "Brighton Rock."
The characters make cardboard seem fully rounded, mostly being off-cuts from the Quentin Tarantino "chirpy-arrogant-violent-criminal-with-no-regard-for-anyone-else" block, while the script was abysmal.
The lack of anything good about this film is particularly disappointing, as it was the last film Gary Olsen made. It's a great shame that his last appearance should be as a barely thought-out criminal weirdo with pseudo-mystical characteristics forced upon him in a vain attempt to make the character seem interesting.
This is a heap of rubbish with no redeeming features whatsoever, and should be avoided at all costs.
Wasted opportunity
14 November 2005
The radio series was stunning, the books were excellent, the TV series was pretty good, I've not experienced the towel, but the film was awful. The cast was almost uniformally dire, and while it's always nice to see Simon Jones, he was the best person in it and his inclusion served to show just how bad the re-casting was.
There were a few good things about this film - Alan Rickman was very good as the voice of Marvin, Stephen Fry excelled as the book (replacing Peter Jones was always going to be difficult, but Stephen Fry was an admirable choice) and the effects were a considerable improvement on the TV series. On the downside, Martin Freeman was the only one of the main cast who appeared to be even trying to play his character as written, and at times appeared to have given up in the face of the insurmountable task of trying to raise everyone else's performances.
Sam Rockwell tried desperately to be charismatic as Zaphod Beeblebrox. He didn't stand a chance. Watch the BBC TV version, and Mark Wing-Davey manages to be apparently effortlessly charming even though he has to cope with an animatronic second head. The film version neatly sidesteps this necessity, and even so Rockwell has all the charm of a heap of vomit on the carpet. Similarly, Ford Prefect is supposed to be an alien with a vast amount of experience of hitch-hiking. To say that Mos Def gives a one-note performance would be far too high praise for him. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag if someone else had torn it up for him first. Zooey Deschanel managed to be totally forgettable as Trillian - the only interesting thing about her being the total implausability of her name.
With all the effects thrown at it this could have been an astonishing film. To an extent it was, but for all the wrong reasons.
There were a few good things about this film - Alan Rickman was very good as the voice of Marvin, Stephen Fry excelled as the book (replacing Peter Jones was always going to be difficult, but Stephen Fry was an admirable choice) and the effects were a considerable improvement on the TV series. On the downside, Martin Freeman was the only one of the main cast who appeared to be even trying to play his character as written, and at times appeared to have given up in the face of the insurmountable task of trying to raise everyone else's performances.
Sam Rockwell tried desperately to be charismatic as Zaphod Beeblebrox. He didn't stand a chance. Watch the BBC TV version, and Mark Wing-Davey manages to be apparently effortlessly charming even though he has to cope with an animatronic second head. The film version neatly sidesteps this necessity, and even so Rockwell has all the charm of a heap of vomit on the carpet. Similarly, Ford Prefect is supposed to be an alien with a vast amount of experience of hitch-hiking. To say that Mos Def gives a one-note performance would be far too high praise for him. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag if someone else had torn it up for him first. Zooey Deschanel managed to be totally forgettable as Trillian - the only interesting thing about her being the total implausability of her name.
With all the effects thrown at it this could have been an astonishing film. To an extent it was, but for all the wrong reasons.
Tell Your Friends