Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Jackson Booth-Millard I had only seen a few Agatha Christie based film and TV adaptations before this one, including And Then There Were None and Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express, I was initially not sure whether to watch this film at all, directed by Guy Hamilton (The Colditz Story, Goldfinger, Live and Let Die). Basically in the small English village of St. Mary Mead, home of Miss Jane Marple (Angela Lansbury), a big Hollywood movie company have arrived to make a movie about Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I. The movie stars famous stars Marina Rudd (Dame Elizabeth Taylor) and Lola Brewster (Kim Novak), Marina arrives with her husband, the movie's director Jason (Rock Hudson), Lola arrives with her husband Marty Fenn (Tony Curtis), Maria is angry that Brewster is going to be in the movie with her, they loathe each other. Marina has been getting death threats, she attends a party at the manor house Gossington Hall, with a number of celebrity and the locals invited, her devoted fan Heather Babcock (Maureen Bennett) corners her with a long and boring story, when she does eventually walk away she drinks a cocktail that has been poisoned and dies. Scotland Yard Inspector Dermot Craddock (Edward Fox) is assigned to investigate the murder, his aunt Miss Marple helps him, it is assumed that the poisoned drink was meant for Marina, but they are determined to reveal the real murderer. A number of other hidden facts are uncovered along the way, including Rudd having an affair with production assistant Ella Zielinski (Geraldine Chaplin), but in the end Miss Marple reveals that Maria murdered Babcock, for giving her German measles while she was pregnant, causing her child to be born with mental retardation, Maria is found dead from supposedly poisoning herself. Also starring Anthony Steel as Sir Derek Ridgeley, Dinah Sheridan as Lady Amanda Ridgeley, Oriane Grieve as Kate Ridgely, Thick Wilson as The Mayor, Richard Pearson as Doctor Haydock, Charles Lloyd Pack as Vicar, Eric Dodson as The Major, Carolyn Pickles as Miss Giles, Charles Gray as Bates the Butler, Margaret Courtenay as Mrs. Bantry, Wendy Morgan as Cherry and Pierce Brosnan as Actor playing 'Jamie'. This was four years before Lansbury started playing Jessica Fletcher in Murder, She Wrote, she is alright as the cuddly old sleuth, many of the all-star cast members play their parts fine, but it is all to no avail as the script is lacklustre, to be honest I drifted off a quarter of the way through, a fairly boring mystery. Adequate!

lasttimeisaw At the heels of two massively successful adaptations of Agatha Christie's detective novels - Sidney Lumet's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (1974) and John Guillermin DEATH ON THE NILE (1978), Guy Hamilton (GOLDFINGER 1964) is in the driving seat of the third one, and he would follow up with a fourth venture EVIL UNDER THE SUN (1982).Like the said three, THE MIRROR CRACK'D has a star-stud ensemble including Taylor, Hudson, Novak, Curtis, Lansbury and Chaplin (also features the movie debut of Brosnan, snuggling over Taylor's bosoms), imagine what a sensation it would be, if it were to be made 15 years earlier when their star power was in its heyday. Yet, unlike the other three adaptations, here, the gumshoe is a woman, Miss Jane Marple (played by Lansbury con brio, who would soon star in the long-running TV series MURDER, SHE WROTE 1984-1996, as the mystery writer-cum-sleuth Jessica Fletcher).The prologue is the screening of a black-and-white whodunit MURDER AT MIDNIGHT, for the audience in the fictional English village St. Mary Mead, and a glitch occurs right before the inspector (Stock) is about to disclose the murder, and Miss Marple quips with her verdict "the one who seems to be the most innocent, often, is the murderer", which can be exactly borrowed to the following murder case of Heather Babcock (Maureen Bennett). Babcock is a simple-minded village girl, a big fan of the two-times Oscar-winning Hollywood movie star Marina Rudd (Taylor), who comes across the ocean to shooting her comeback movie about Mary, Queen of Scots, which is directed by her husband Jason Rudd (Hudson), but the producer Marty Fenn (Curtis) wants his wife Lola Brewster (Novak) to play Elizabeth I, Lola and Marina are sworn enemies with some old scores to settle, so can two divas co-exist in the same set? Meanwhile Jason is having an affair with his stolid assistant Ella (Chaplin), thus, when Ms. Babcock drops dead after imbibing a poisoned drink which is supposedly made for Marina, who is the one behind this heinous crime? - yes, it is the one you least suspect.Frustratingly, the movie is not on a par with aforementioned three mysteries, as Hamilton half- heartedly throws all the red-herrings under a rather blasé condition, arbitrarily dampens the critical scenes which contain significant clues and withholds important information so it is impossible to divine the motivation from an audience's standpoint (we do want to play detective!), the manipulation is atrociously tactless when you think back about it after the finale and the loose end (about the reasons to dispatch a second victim, just to name one).But, the cast, a batch of has-beens, duke out as if it were their last chance to be glamorous and taken seriously in front of the screen (which is dolefully true for Taylor, Novak and Hudson in this case), unwittingly casts a pall of melancholy into the act. Taylor's soul-pulverising "frozen" look, Hudson's jaded desperation, Novak's campy showboating, both embarrassing and affectionate in the same time, that's something eventually salvages the unwieldy vehicle from being an abysmal pablum, so in a way, this time, it is time itself who comes to the rescue.

michaeljayallen Enjoyable as a period piece, but more like the period it was set in - a title card says 1953 - than 1980, when it was made. With some really uneven or just plain consistently bad or mediocre performances, plus some baffling directorial choices and a clichéd script. Kim Novak doesn't just show up in a car from 6 years later, but the most recognizably 1959 car possible, a white Cadillac convertible with the top down making the famous garish fins look even bigger. The only thing campier than the Cadillac is Kim Novak's performance. Her portrayal of a preening bitchy Hollywood star isn't remotely believable. Liz Taylor's version is less bad, being not very believable (but not was wildly ridiculous as Novak) when the character is in public and at least sometimes not bad when the character is in private. Angela Lansbury is sort of passable, but plays the character in as broad and clichéd a way as the nearly identical lady detective (except of course a Maine rather than British accent) she later did on TV. British actor Edward Fox is fine of course. The real surprise is Tony Curtis. He's the only American actor in the film who is natural and relaxed and motivated. He plays the producer as a somewhat comic character, as obviously they were all directed to do, but he's the only one who really seems otherwise like a real guy, Bronx accent included. And as others have mentioned....whose idea was it for Miss Marple to light up? Not even a line justifying it, like maybe "Nothing like sucking on a fag after a hard day sleuthing and deducing, I always say." Followed by blowing a couple of nice smoke rings.But its an interesting film. Probably the script writer(s) is way better than the truly terrible director. First, it's Agatha Christie and even better, a Miss Marple mystery. Second, there's this whole meta thing going on on several levels. It opens with (spoiler alert, sort of) a black and white 50's style British mystery film which we find out is being shown to the village by the vicar when the film breaks. Then the color "real" stuff starts. But it's about a film being shot in the same illage - an American film featuring American actors but about British historical monarchy subjects. The American stars of the film portrayed by Liz Taylor and Kim Novak are supposed to be sort of has-been American film stars, who of course are more known for star quality than acting chops, kind of like the actual actors cast in the roles. The very British inspector is such a fan of the films starring the character portrayed by Liz Taylor he has seen them multiple times and thinks she is a great actress. The local girl, grown up, is star struck and had an encounter back in the 40's with the character portrayed by Liz Taylor which was the greatest thing that ever happened to her in her whole life and her story of the encounter is pivotal to the plot. It's the director who screwed all this very promising stuff up. The fake black and white film at the opening seems really fake. A real period British film would feature non-method but in its own way very intelligent acting, which this does not. Liz Taylor and Kim Novak, as I mentioned above, are not very believable (Liz) or absurdly unbelievable (Kim) as stars out in public. Kim Novak is also quite unbelievably bad when shown being shot in scenes for the film they are shooting. Oh,also any film using a built set for some scenes would have been shot on a British or American sound stage anyway, not at a nonexistent sound stage in the village. Like in some earlier American films, reality is sacrificed for some idea of reality. A good director would have not violated reality for hackneyed ideas of what the script is about. Here's how to direct famous American actors portraying famous American actors: get them to act as well as they can in any scenario, not portray the meaning of the scene or how they think the character should act. Being there and listening and allowing and being vulnerable and are the only things that ever work, in something semi-satirical or whatever.

misctidsandbits I always want to see any production of Agatha Christie, and usually enjoy it overall. Her stories are that good. To me, the classic interpretation so far is the BBC television series with Joan Hickson as Ms. Marple and David Suchet as Poirot. They were so authentic and true to the books, while being very well done. The 80's and 90's seemed to yield the best of the crop. But, I even enjoy Margaret Rutherford's series, though they are so loosely adapted. This decade's offerings give the heartburn, even the newer ones with Suchet. They have taken the stories much farther afield than I can swallow, stellar production and casting notwithstanding.But here's Rock and Liz together again - in Agatha Christie. This is one of the more glamorous of the Marple stories, and there is plenty of glamor here. My goodness, the superbly correct butler was the wonderful Charles Gray. All these people together - Kim Novak, in an over-the-top Lola Brewster. Everyone loves the vitriolic exchanges between the two actresses in the story, which they knew would be the case. That's why they indulged in much license with that aspect. Edward Fox is interesting in his reaction to Marina (Lizzie) in the interview, calling her on her pulling out a scene from one of her movies when his questioning got too close. Then, she immediately switches back to near serendipity. Side note - realized how small a figure Fox is, while next to the very full sized Rock Hudson. And with Angela Lansbury, again appearing quite diminutive in contrast. Tony Curtis as the producer follows the more outrageous type. This really was quite a mix of British and American actors. It was interesting seeing a number of the local characters showing up later in the BBC series in different roles.Of course, Miss Marple with the Lansbury talent brought to it. Miss Marple seems to be the hardest to define. She is varied from the first book treatment, and some in the BBC series as well. It seems hard to land on a persona for her. Personally, I prefer what Joan Hickson did with her, overall presenting a balance of the proper old lady of older times who has developed a depth of understanding of human nature and genuine caring for people. She is an atypical old lady, with her perky persistence when she's really onto something. Unfortunately, most have taken that aspect and run with it, ignoring her foundational substance. The newer ones especially seem to make her out to be a liberated know-it-all. With that, she has become a very vapid, shallow character. The treatment here has her starting out as the know-it-all at the local movie night, but she becomes more biddable as it goes along. She demonstrates the life experience correlations, which are so pivotal in her sound assessments. Geraldine Chaplin is the secretary, holding herself very tightly, with all sorts of complications going on beneath her surface. The Heather Babcock character was effective, that being an important one. They really had the vicar fuddled up in this. And the location and sets – quite wonderful, but other versions are too. There's a lot of the old world charm still intact in the British isles. They cleverly carried out the story with overall accuracy, adding and subtracting with an eye to please modern viewers and the run time of the film. It seemed to work. Everyone, including myself, note the variances, but forgive them. You usually find that British productions of Christie and anything really, have a way of stereotyping Americans rather unflatteringly. It's funny that in this American production, they made it even worse. But, it's about film personalities, and I guess they are fair game. A line from another Christie movie comes to mind. Ms. Marple is having tea with a crony, who mentions a recent trip to America where she asked for muffins and got tea cakes with raisins. Ms. Marple responds, "Americans have a lot to answer for." That one's funny; some others, not so much. If this film has piqued your interest, you might find the book enjoyable. You'll not be disappointed, I think, with its wider scope and development. Also, if you have opportunity and are enough of a fan of Christie, you probably have seen the BBC Marple series. If not, I think you would really love it. Personally, I consider the BBC Marple/Poirot stories to be the defining version, just as the 1995 Pride and Prejudice film version is to all the others. Hey, this film has the usual Hollywood treatment, but it's actually a jolly good show and all that.