5 posts tagged “agatha christie”
It has been a long time since I've done one of these. Let's see if I remember how:
This isn't a BBC version of Agatha Christie's A Caribbean Mystery; oh no, it's an American version with everything that's good and bad that implies:
The good? The guy who played the blonde brother in Simon & Simon. I loved that show and I had the biggest crush on him. Then I moved on to Gerald McRaney who aged a lot better than he did, then moved on to have crushes on guys closer to my age. They also did a really good job in setting up the story and explaining who everyone is.
The bad? ::cough:: Well, that's the rest of the review.
I've always found that, for me, a lot of the Miss Marple adaptations really live and die by Miss Marple and the woman who plays her. I find Joan Hickson too dry with not enough twinkle (an opinion not shared by many) but then the newest Miss Marple, Geraldine McEwan, is a little too much twinkle and flutter but not enough of the razor sharp mind.
Yes, I'm quite picky.
But this Miss Marple? Wow... um, she's awful. She can't hold her English accent (she goes positively Southern US once in a while) but she's also so mincey and fluttery and woolly, you wonder how she's able to keep thoughts in her head. There's so much exclaiming and jumping up and running around, it's like watching a farce.
Then the story. I don't know who asked these (fairly) capable actors to act in the way they do but whoever it is needs a slap. Not only did I not sympathize with any of these characters (except for the Major who dies initially, which is not in the spirit of the book AT ALL) but I was actively hoping most of them would be killed off in a snuff adaptation. That would have made me feel better after watching them poop out their version of a fairly good mystery novel.
My biggest problem with the adaption? All the yelling. Why all the yelling? And when did the characters all become Americans? Nothing against Americans because I'm sure they holiday in the Caribbean but most of the book's characters (except for Lucky and Greg Dyson, I believe) are all British.
And when did Ruth Walter become a brassy woman on the prowl? No offense to Swoozie Kurtz (even though I kept wanting to call her Sissy Spacek) but your voice hurts my ears. The most defining description of Ruth (who I could almost swear was Esther in the book... but then sometimes my memory of names isn't the greatest) was her quiet disposition, her subdued nature, her ability to handle Mr. Rafael when others were defeated instead of yelling at him like a crazed fishwife.
Okay, so I'm not sure what a fishwife is but I've always loved that description. It makes me think of a a crazy woman wearing a bathrobe and rubber boots with crazy hair, yelling and wagging her finger at a giant fisherman, cowering in the face of her anger.
Is this the worst adapation ever? No, BBC's version of Body in the Library is. Seriously, how do you mess up that adaptation? They probably used all their inspiration in hiring Joanna Lumley as Dolly then their brains shorted out and they thought, "You know what's current and in fashion? Lesbians. Let's make the murderer a lesbian instead of the ACTUAL murderer from the book. We're clever." BAH.
Recommendation: You actually should watch this movie, if just to see the staging and the obvious, "I'm VERY EVIL!" glares given by the actors while they stand stock still as the camera pans past them. But go in to it expecting not a very good film.
I know I mention many times how NOT like the book this movie is; my problem isn't so much that the story isn't a mirror image of the book but that the changes aren't improvements. If you're going to change something, shouldn't you be changing something for the better?
In books, when they describe a character as having no discernible accent. What the hell does that mean?! It happens in Agatha Christie books, Nora Roberts book, all fucking books. Someone needs to explain to me what no discernible accent sounds like. Is it mine? Is it that hear everywhere accent? Because I could swear, if you drop me in London, they would probably say I HAVE a discernible accent, a weird cross of Canadian and American with odd British sounding words (I'm a little pretentious at times).
And with all the various accents throughout the UK, which one is not discernible?
Someone. Explain this to me.
Wow, this may recur as another post. I seem to hate a lot of things. Perhaps I'll do separate ones of things I love.
And yes, I'm bastardizing the Love/Hate posts most of you are doing.
Sorry, before I start, I feel it's necessary to tell budding film makers that, if you're going to do a scene where a little boy is petting a kitten in his mother's lap, you might want to choose an outfit that contrasts with the colour of the kitten. Otherwise, it looks like the little boy is stroking his mother's breasts and that's just creepy. Especially when her first lines of dialogue for this scene is, "Gently, pet it gently."
Seriously, I was kind of creeped out. I didn't remember incest in the story.
Now to the actual movie:
I think this movie probably shows best why I think David Suchet is the best Poirot ever. He's such a great mixture of fusspot, sly humour and power to be reckoned with that make Poirot such a wonderful character. I think he just shows best why Poirot is such a popular character.
So, no, I'm not the most unbiased critic of this series. Even if I do have problems with some of the changes they make.
The story's this: The Waverlys have received notes, threatening to kidnap their son, Johnny, if they don't pay varying amounts of money. At their wits' end, they bring these notes to Poirot in the hopes that he can intercept the kidnappers before the date without paying up.
Does that make sense?
But if you want the story, you should just read the book. What's interesting about this movie is... well, nothing really. It's a straightforward rendition of the story, except that we get to see the kidnapping take place instead of hearing about it in flashbacks. Sorry, did I spoil that for you? Yes, Johnny is kidnapped.
I think my problem with it is this: Mrs. Waverly isn't portrayed very well. I don't know if it's the actress or if it's just how the character was written but she's not ANYTHING like the Mrs. Waverly in my head and that one? Is awesome. She's not the voluable "But Mr. Poirot, the MOTHER LOVE!" (which, after that scene I talk about in the beginning, starts to take on a different meaning) or the strictly penny-pinching rich woman either.
Yes, she is portrayed as cheap but to an extreme that doesn't seem real. I mean, if you have guests, no matter how much you like to save money, would you just serve them RICE for breakfast? Really? And you're looking for a good detective, you're going to ask his fees AFTER you've hired him?
I don't know, she just never seemed neither here nor there with the character. Mr. Waverly, however, is very well done. He looks eminently respectable and he reacts in exactly the way an overly anxious father would when his son is threatened.
My only excuse for this movie is I think it was one of the earlier ones, when they're feeling out the stories. But it's a serviceable story even if it's not the best Poirot I've ever seen.
Yes, I'm completely obsessive. I skipped through the book last night, after I posted my review. Now I can go more into why I was kind of disappointed.
I think the biggest reason is that the whole dynamic between Dolly and Colonal Bantry is ignored. I always thought, when reading the book, that it was a great glimpse of a stable relationship. I know, I know, that's not the sexiest description of a relationship but their relationship is so loving and Dolly knows him so well. And two of my favourite scenes are because of them.
- Dolly Bantry sits with Miss Marple, tries to convince Miss Marple to tell her who she believes killed Ruby. The questioning ends with Miss Marple saying that she never believes what people tell her. The tone changes and Dolly says (basically), "But you believed me when I said that I wanted to come here for fun, right?" And it devolves into Dolly telling Miss Marple how much the whole situation will hurt the Colonal, how he'll shut down because he'll feel shunned by his neighbours and not understand why. Okay, I'm probably not describing it that well. But, in my head, at the end of the scene when Dolly pours everything out and Miss Marple says, "I know, dear. That's why I'm here too", I imagined that Miss Marple would give Dolly a very British pat on the hand to console her.
- Dolly returns from the hotel and talks to the Colonal. She sees that he's already starting to seem beaten down and in her Dolly way, bullies him into sitting in the library, dispelling all the ghosts.
Does that make sense? Can you imagine how amazing Joanna Lumley would have been in either of those scenes? How she would have ROCKED those scenes?
I'm disappointed she didn't get the chance.
Whoever wrote the screenplay did a fairly good job... except they changed the killer to be ::sigh:: trendy. God, how I hate trendiness.
But at the same time, my feeling that the casting agent did a strange job in casting is justified.
Yes, there are spoilers but if you're looking to read the book, these spoilers won't matter.
Ready? All righty. This may be a bit weird and disjointed. I still haven't decided if I like this adaptation or not with the weird change. It's more... I'm not sure why they made the change. It was unnecessary to tell the story, I'm not sure how well it fits in with the spirit of the story or even the psychology of the characters.
I will say, the new Miss Marple fits my image of Miss Marple more than Joan Hickson did even though they seem determined to mess with her motivations. I know, I know, it's blasphemy if you really love Agatha Christie.
Eh.
So, the story starts out like in the book, blah blah blah, dead body in the library, Miss Marple arrives, body is a dancer at a local hotel, identified by her cousin who also works at the hotel blah blah blah. The most remarkable part of the beginning? Joanna Lumley as Dolly Bantry.
I love Joanna Lumley.
LOVE HER. She was the perfect Patsy on AbFab but as Dolly? GENIUS. She's probably the only actress who could say "this woman has plumbed the depths of human iniquity" without sounding like a git.
Yes, I'm adopting some British slang. I'm a poseur, what can I say?
The story in itself isn't remarkable, except it's interesting the different things they changed. Raymond Starr IS a gigolo, an obvious one, where in the book he was more of a... hmmm, how do you say this when it comes to men? Golddigger? Potential kept man? What's the term for this? Mark Gaskell isn't as charmingly slimy, Conway Jefferson is so much more whiny and needs to be smacked a little, Adelaide Jefferson isn't the charming mother from the book, poor Colonal Bantry is barely seen and Peter is kind of annoying.
Wait, do you want to hear who the killer is in the movie? Really, you only have 2 choices: Mark or Adelaide. Decided yet?
Yeah, it's Adelaide. Lesbian affair with Josie, wanted Ruby out of the way for the money. You know, that eternal love story.
There are MANY reasons why this movie was well-done and many more reasons why it's as insubstantial as cotton candy. So, will you like it? Depends if you're in a candy mood. If you're not, pick up the book instead. Has the sense of humour of the movie and the actual sense of psychology of a good Agatha Christie book.
