Audience Member
It's definitly not good. Not even close to the other Agatha Christie Tv adaptations, like And Then There Were None. It is boring, the photography and the scenarios were not used properly and the cast isn't that charismatic. However, it has some unpredictable twists and turns that might delight some fans of this genre and some were quite surprising.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
02/04/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Remarkably surprising twists 25 mn. before end of the movie. Excellent !
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/13/23
Full Review
Audience Member
There are two ways to watch this terrible train wreck of a movie—either as an adaption of Agatha Christie's original short story (and later play), or as a totally new work that happens to portray events and characters that are sometimes a bit similar to Christie's work. Neither way is satisfying.
It's not the actors' fault. They all deliver very dramatic performances, even though none of them miss an opportunity to chew the scenery half the time and painfully drag out their lines to maximum duration the rest of the time. I tend to blame that sort of thing on direction and maybe scripting, rightly or wrongly.
The addition of not one but two dark subplots that have little to do with the main action of the film also detract from what could have been a first-rate adaption in other hands, given the collective talent of the cast. As it is, it's just another empty high-jacking of a famous Christie title that offers not even one truly sympathetic character, subplots that lead nowhere, a cop out ending, and no real entertainment.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
01/30/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Very, very dark. I greatly prefer the 1957 version with Marlene Dietrich, Charles Laughton, Elsa Lancaster, and Tyrone Power. Miss Dietrich alone makes that movie better. In this version, the cinematography, editing, acting are excellent, but the script changes from the earlier version are unpleasant.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/20/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE CRITICS CONSENSUS !
WHILE NOT A DIEHARD AGATHA CHRISTIE FAN (I HAVE NOT READ HER WORKS), I HAVE SEEN SEVERAL MOVIE ADAPTATIONS AND TV SHOWS OVER THE YEARS. I HAVE NOT (YET) SEEN THE 1957 MOVIE DIRECTED BY BILLY WILDER STARRING TYRONE POWERS AND MARLENE DIETRICH BUT RECENTLY VIEWED THE FOR TV MOVIE ADAPTATION WRITTEN BY SARAH PHELPS.
KUDOS SARAH -- THE ADAPTATIONS BLEND SEAMLESSLY AND ARE WELL INTEGRATED WITH THE ORIGINAL MURDER PLOT. I LIKE TO THINK THAT DAME AGATHA WOULD HAVE APPROVED! the most intriguing of her adaptations is her deVELOPment A SUBPLOT INVOLVING THE CHARACTER SOLICITOR JOHN MAYHEW (BRILLIANTLY PLAYED BY TOBY JONES). JOHN IS AN EARNEST, CONSCIENTIOUS, OLDER MAN, SOMEWHAT OF A ROMANTIC, WHOSE MARRIAGE HAS BEEN SEVERELY STRAINED BY THE DEATH OF THEIR SON IN WWI. AFTER THE TWISTS AND TURNS OF LEONARD VOLE'S MURDER TRial, JOHN FEELS THAT JUSTICE HAS BEEN SERVED, THAT THE GUILTY PARTY IS RIGHTFULLY PUNISHED FOR THE MURDER. HIS CAREER AND FORTUNES ASCEND TO NEW HEIGHTS, A WELCOME CHANGE TOWARD THE END OF A LONG CAREER.
EVERYTHING SEEMS QUITE SETTLED WHEN QUITE BY ACCIDENT, SEVERAL YEARS LATER, HE LEARNS THAT EVERYTHING ABOUT THE MURDER TRIAL AND ITS MAJOR PLAYERS IS TOTALLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE TRUE AND THAT AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY CONVICTED AND EXECUTED. DAZED AND DISORIENTED AT A VERY DEEP LEVEL, HE GOES TO THE HOTEL WHERE HIS WIFE IS WAITING FOR HIM AND HE FINDS OUT WHY SHE NO LONGER LOVES HIM. HIS SUCCESS AND FAME SINCE THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL NOW SEEMS DREADFULLY HOLLOW and meaningless AS THE BOTTOM DROPS OUT OF HIS WORLD. ALL OF THIS IS FAR TOO MUCH FOR HIM TO BEAR -- IT IS NOT A HAPPY ENDING.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/26/23
Full Review
Audience Member
You may be familiar with the story, but this adaptation is excellent. Great acting and direction. Studios who do mysteries should take note.
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
02/01/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
