TaryBiggBall
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
Senteur
As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
Lollivan
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
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.
Lechuguilla
The ending was a total surprise. My guess as to the killer's identity was flat wrong. But, of course, once the explanation is given, the events make perfect sense. There are clues all over the place, but they're very subtle. Some are in the dialogue. If spoken words were taken at face value, we would know instantly who the villain is. Instead, we take these words only in the context of the discussion. Thus, we overlook their significance. This film is probably one of the better TV murder mysteries derived from an Agatha Christie novel.Casting and acting are fine. As Miss Marple, Joan Hickson plays it low-key and deferential. Other actors are also a delight. Andrew Cruickshank as Conway Jefferson, Raymond Francis as Sir Henry Clithering, and Frederick Jaeger as Chief Constable Melchett enhance the overall quality of acting.The plot does seem a tad strung out. The story doesn't really justify a two and a half-hour plot. Several sequences, especially in the first half, could have been shortened or deleted. I'm assuming the story takes place in the early 1950s, but the script doesn't really specify.I like the spine-tingling suspense near the end. All we see of the killer is a shadowy figure and a pair of black-gloved hands. Marvelous! And Miss Marple sums up the entire story: "It's a mystery. But then we all are, aren't we? Even to ourselves, especially to ourselves".
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.
bob the moo
The Bantry's wake up in their home one morning to find the body of a young woman they have never seen before, lying in their library. They duly call the police and the girl is identified as a dancer from the Majestic hotel (several towns away) and the time of death is established. However, with more of a link to the girl than he realised and no alibi for the time of the murder, Colonel Bantry finds himself a suspect at worst and a point of gossip at best. Mrs Bantry decides to get away for a bit and, hoping to clear her husband's name, asks her friend Miss Marple to accompany her to the seaside and the Majestic Hotel, to carry out their own investigation.Structuring the delivery of the story a bit differently from some of the other BBC Marple films I had seen, this film jumps right into the mystery and only really gives background in flashback scenes during interviews and the investigation generally. This approach works well early on because it sets out a solid pace and urgency early on. The BBC Marple films generally have a slow pace so, even though it did gradually settle down to what I expected, it gave it a nice boost early on. The story is the usual complex mix of mystery and characters delivered with a good sense of period; it won't win over those used to 45 minute chunks of CSI etc but it does have a certain style and charm of its own. I'm not being snobby when I say that about CSI because I must confess that at times I found it frustratingly slow and occasionally a bit too subtle for my tastes but generally the quality of the material works.The material is also structured well to, as normal, use the police almost as much as it uses Miss Marple. Looking back it seems risky (can you imagine a Columbo where he is sidelined for big sections?) but it works well and compliments the feel of the film. Hickson is, as many have said, the definitive Marple and only looks better and better the more ITV insist on wheeling out McEwan in their versions. She is classy and thoughtful and she very much fills the idea of the elderly spinster that I have in my head (and it seems Christie had in hers). She benefits from having Watford as a companion for much of the film and she is quite fun as a contrast. Horovitch gives his usual good turn; he is not as good as Marple of course but unlike some other "bumbling cop" performances he is given a good cop and he always plays it as such. Support from the rest of the cast is roundly good without anyone dominating the rest of them.Overall then this has the usual "faults" of the BBC Marple series in that it is quite complex (and doesn't really help you out along the way) and it can be frustratingly slow at times. However for fans of the series these may not be faults; either way the film is an engaging mystery that is well written and well delivered by the cast. I could have happily had it 30 minutes shorter and tighter/slicker as a result but as it was it still worked well enough and certainly fans will enjoy it.
