Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

MartinHafer This is the third of four Miss Marple films starring Margaret Rutherford. And, like the rest of the movies, it has the incredibly catchy harpsichord musical score that is a bit hip and mod. However, of the three I've so far seen, it's my least favorite.The story begins with a police constable noticing a dead woman hanging in a window! When he enters the place, he finds a man trying to save her...but the stupid officer thinks the man's just killed the lady. While it seems pretty obvious the man is NOT the murderer, soon he's on trial. And, it's an odd trial as the judge assumes the guy is guilty and tells the jury as much!! Fortunately, Miss Marple is on the jury and she is the lone holdout who refuses to vote guilty.After the case is complete, Miss Marple naturally decides to investigate the case. It takes her to an acting troop and she soon is convinced to join them. Soon other bodies start piling up...and so it's pretty obvious Marple is on the right trail! Can she solve the crimes before she's the next victim?While Rutherford is excellent as usual, the motivation for the murders seemed a bit limp...hence my scoring this one a 7 instead of 8 like the previous two.

Coventry I'm having a love/hate (mostly "love", though) relationship with these four Agatha Christie adaptations that George Pollock directed during the first half of the 1960s and starred Margaret Rutherford as the unsurpassable spinster-detective Miss Marple. Although Mrs. Rutherford was a great actress who put a lot of devotion into her role of Miss Marple, the character never should have been a headstrong, boisterous and intrusive woman. From the many books, I know Miss Marple as a timid and fragile little old lady who's always right and much more intelligent than everybody else, but she modestly remains at the sideline to solve the crimes. In the film series, she's more of an imposing hag and her intellect doesn't come so much from observation and deduction, but from nosing around and setting traps. Still, when I manage to ignore my own personal prejudices, these four whodunits (all starting with the word "murder") are admittedly very entertaining and well worth checking out. I even daresay that "Murder Most Foul" is the second best of the quartet. "Murder, She Said" is the cream of the crop, but this installment outshines "Murder at the Gallop" (originally a Hercule Poirot story, like this one) and "Murder Ahoy" (which wasn't even based on existing Agatha Christie material). The first 5-10 minutes of "Murder Most Foul" are downright brilliant and incredibly funny, with Miss Jane Marple stealing the show in court during a murder trial. First, because she's nonchalantly knitting on the jury's bench and thus irritating the honorable judge, and secondly because she, as only member of the twelve-headed jury, stubbornly refuses to find the accused guilty of murder. Of course we immediately know that Miss Marple is right and her "sabotaging" the trial provides her with the required extra time to investigate and solve the crime herself, much to the nuisance of the patient police inspector Craddock. She quickly deducts that the victim was a former stage actress and got killed because she tried to blackmail someone who wasn't too impressed. Miss Marple infiltrates into the stage actors' association of the eccentric Driffold Cosgood, as the murdered woman played with them during the early fifties. The killer helps her to reduce the list of potential suspects, however, because more members of the same association turn up dead. The mystery aspects are overall compelling and there are a few inventive red herrings. Like in the other installments, the middle-section somewhat drags and feels overlong. The comical chemistry between Rutherford and her real-life husband Stringer Davis has worn out since the first film, but luckily there's always a sublime supportive cast, this time including Ron Moody and Meg Jenkins.

JohnHowardReid A Lawrence P. Bachmann Production, for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Copyright 11 June 1964 by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. New York opening at Cinema I: 23 May 1965. U.S. release: 23 May 1965. U.K. release: 26 October 1964. Australian release: 15 April 1965. 8,141 feet. 90 minutes. SYNOPSIS: "Murder Most Foul" starts off with the murder of Mrs. McGinty, found strangled in her cottage. In the room, his hands on the rope around her neck, is the lodger. An open and shut case? Most certainly. The police have no doubts and, at the trial, eleven members of the jury are equally certain that the lodger is guilty, But the odd woman out with the jury is Miss Marple, who insists he is not guilty. With no verdict possible, there must be a retrial, which gives Miss Marple time to start her private sleuthing. COMMENT: Third of the four Miss Marple-Margaret Rutherford movies, this entry was allegedly based on "Mrs. McGinty's Dead". Actually, apart from Mrs. McGinty herself and the man accused of her murder (both of whom figure very briefly), the movie bears not the slightest resemblance to the book in either plot or characters. However, it is nonetheless entertaining for all that, being attractively photographed and staged and having a script that provides some wonderful opportunities for Miss Rutherford and her sterling supporting cast, led by the wonderful Ron Moody as a delightfully Dickensian, small-time actor/manager. Stringer Davis, Bud Tingwell, Terry Scott's smug policeman, Cruickshank's judge, Francesca Annis also have some fascinating characters/cameos to portray and they all make the most of them. The plot is virtually an original screenplay, but it remains true to the Christie flavor. Sets, photography, and atmosphere are remarkably lavish by British "B" standards and there's a zippy and most appropriate music score.In all, the movie ranks as a Rutherford delight. And even Pollock's direction is more stylish and assured than usual.

edwagreen A year after winning the best supporting actress Oscar for the memorable "The VIP's," Margaret Rutherford returned to portraying the memorable maiden sleuth, Jane Marple. Rutherford was an absolute joy to watch. Her facial expressions and sunken chin made her perfect to play this female crime investigator.The problem with the film is basically in its writing. Marple manages to get a hung jury with a mistrial declared in the mysterious death of a woman.She then joins the troupe of actors where the victim had been involved. Ron Moody, so memorable as Fagin, 4 years later in "Oliver!," plays the head of the group.Miss Marple leaves nothing unturned in her attempt to find the culprit of the crime. It just isn't a very interesting film.