Watch it ONLY if you haven't read the book or if you hate Agatha Christie.
Reviews
14 Reviews
A radically changed adaptation that works
21 March 2015
The Big Four is a collection of short stories, some of which are closer to Edgar Wallace than to Agatha Christie. Master criminals trying for world domination etc etc. All in all, a very minor Christie. The movie is nothing like the original book, apart from the title, the names of the protagonists and some other odds and ends. The basic idea of the movie is completely different.Is that bad? Well.in this particular case, I would say no. It would probably be impossible to make a good film of the original short stories, so this end result is more or less fine. So long as you realize and accept the fact that we are talking of a completely different concept than the original. As usual the production is excellent and it is great to see some of the old favorites resurfacing.
Good if you have not read the book.
16 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"Gaudy Night" is different from the other Dorothy Sayers mysteries in that Lord Peter Wimsey is much less in evidence -he actually appears mostly in the third part of the book , as a deus ex machina. It is a long novel,in which the "mystery" part is secondary to other elements.
The adaptation has taken a hatchet to the novel and chopped off large and significant parts of it. The deletion of characters like Lord Peter's nephew and of Mr. Jones" and -inexcusably- of the element of the ivory chessmen diminishes -for me at least- a lot of the charm of the original. What remains is a mystery story, nothing special, with lots of atmosphere. Very little remains of the original, extremely well-done development of the characters, nothing which explains why at the end Harriet decides to marry Peter. If you have read the book, don't see the movie.
If, however, you have not read the book, the movie is worth seeing.Edward Petherbridge is excellent as Wimsey, better than Ian Carmichael. Harriet Walter is also first-rate as Harriet Vane. Richard Morant does not quite fit the role of Bunter. The film is made with the usual BBC care for detail and you will pass some enjoyable hours. THEN read the book and think what this film could have been.
The adaptation has taken a hatchet to the novel and chopped off large and significant parts of it. The deletion of characters like Lord Peter's nephew and of Mr. Jones" and -inexcusably- of the element of the ivory chessmen diminishes -for me at least- a lot of the charm of the original. What remains is a mystery story, nothing special, with lots of atmosphere. Very little remains of the original, extremely well-done development of the characters, nothing which explains why at the end Harriet decides to marry Peter. If you have read the book, don't see the movie.
If, however, you have not read the book, the movie is worth seeing.Edward Petherbridge is excellent as Wimsey, better than Ian Carmichael. Harriet Walter is also first-rate as Harriet Vane. Richard Morant does not quite fit the role of Bunter. The film is made with the usual BBC care for detail and you will pass some enjoyable hours. THEN read the book and think what this film could have been.
A great disappointment
4 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
MAY INCLUDE SPOILERS Another disappointment! Why, oh why do the re-writers think that they can create a better mystery than Agatha Christie? Is it some complex or is it just the urge to destroy? "Murder is easy" is a very pleasant second-tier Christie that stands very well on its own. Of course, when the rewriters start their work, they make nonsense of the whole plot. For example, in the original, Miss Pinkerton is killed by being shoved onto the oncoming traffic. Fair enough. Here she is pushed down an escalator. Odds are that is such a case she would be bruised,perhaps have a number of broken limbs BUT SHE WOULDN'T HAVE DIED. Then we get a radical change of the motive of the crimes, to which for titillation(?) purposes we add an incestuous rape!!! Motivations are changed, Mr Abbot, a secondary character in the book develops into a blackmailer who has fathered an illegitimate child. I hope that the producers will come to their senses and offer us Agatha Christies which really represent the authors intentions. "A Pocketful of Rye" was very good. Why did they change the formula?
Regretable "improvements"
7 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING : contains spoilers As usual with the Poirot series, "Taken at the flood" has excellent production values and the period -a vaguely post-WW II one- is very well recreated. Unfortunately the film suffers, as many recent adaptations of Agatha Christie do, from the efforts of its creators to "modernize", to "improve" the original text. Folks, you just can't do it . You can't improve on Agatha Christie. Some obvious examples: -Major Porter is shown committing suicide in his club, sitting next to another member. He never would do something like that. Not done. -Having David Hunter responsible for the explosion that killed his sister makes nonsense of the title of the book.I don't need to elaborate, others have done so. -Why Rosalyne should be a drug addict, is a mystery to me and has no relation to the original story. Is it just to give Dr.Cloade the opportunity to steal her morphine and thus, unwittingly, save her life. Rosalyn's murder in the book, is the central point of the mystery. In the film the attempted -and failed- murder is just one incident among many. Please, stick to the original story line. You can't improve it.
The Magic Flute
(1975)
The ideal presentation of The Magic Flute
21 November 2007
Opera is hard to present as a movie, particularly an opera like The Magic Flute where the mixture of fairy-tale fantasy, serious concept risk at lesser hands to present a hodgepodge with no real idea what the director has in mind. Alternatively, others may strive to stress the imagery to the detriment of the substance. Losey's Don Giovanni is a case in point, where the sheer beauty of the surroundings averted attention from the music. There can be no better Magic Flute than Bergman's. The gradual movement of the story from the initial sight of the obviously fake scenery to the sublime ending where we are really transposed in the realm of Sarastro is incredible. The occasional pictures of members of the audience listening raptly is a marvelous touch. No words can do justice to this masterpiece. Watch it .
Debacle!
22 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
ATTENTION! CONTAINS SPOILERS! This film is a major disappointment. It remains very faithful to the original novel and then at the end, at the moment of the solution introduces a so-called twist (to make it more modern?)by changing the sex of one of the murderers. Instead of secretly married couple, the murderers are now a lesbian couple, a development that is completely alien to the entire novel and, also, to the movie up to that last moment. The change in sex is forced in the screenplay, with absolutely no rhyme or reason and makes nonsense of the motive and the entire plot. Pity! Miss Marple was hardly convincing. Again in an effort to"modernize" the plot we see her drinking spirits and behaving in a way completely alien to the character.
Target for Killing
(1966)
What a pity!
4 July 2005
I have always been since my teens an avid fan of Stewart Granger, eagerly waiting for his next film to hit the screen. And I have been on the alert for films of his post-Hollywood period, to complete my collection. When this film came my way, I snapped it up eagerly. My disappointment was all the greater. What a waste of talent. Stewart Granger, Curt Jurgens, Adolfo Celli, Klaus Kinski in a minimal role, Karin Dor, all of them mixed up in a nonsensical and incomprehensible story, with any connection to reality being by pure chance. An awful soundtrack completed the disaster. I gave the film 3, not that it was worth it but for purely sentimental reasons. What a pity! I am sure that with better direction and a straightening up of the story, the film would have been quite a good one.
A wonderful film for everybody
7 June 2002
I've seen this film and seen it again and again and every time I've enjoyed it tremendously. I really can' t start elaborating on all the reasons for which this film is one of my all-time favorites: the plot, the acting the wonderful surprise ending. If you haven't seen it, don't waste a minute. Rush out and buy it. You won't regret it.
Footsteps in the Fog
(1955)
A wonderful Victorian thriller
30 May 2002
This movie is certainly one of the best victorian-era thriller melodramas ever made. The atmosphere is perfect (at least according to what we expect victorian atmosphere to be). Both Stewart Granger and Jean Simmons give wonderful performances, each being ideally cast in his/her role. The suspense builds up perfectly, answering the viewers question as to how the katharsis will come at the end. And it is a very satisfying solution - with the exception perhaps of the last words said by Jean Simmons. All in all an excellent movie that deserves much wider recognition than it actually enjoys.
Drowning Mona
(2000)
Waste of talent
21 May 2002
A very poor effort to duplicate the success of "Ruthless People" but the two leads -and the entire supporting cast- can't carry it out by themselves. No good script, no jokes - nothing doing. I watched this film on video and smiled just once -perhaps in anticipation of a joke that didn't quite work out. Then I watched it again, in case I had missed something. No, both times it was equally unfunny and strained.
Nothing But Trouble
(1991)
What a waste of talent
21 May 2002
Well, the least said about this film the better. I really couldn't imagine that this group of highly talented actors could come together and result in that bad a film. Painful efforts at humour, incredibly bad dialogue etc. etc. What a pity!
The Last Hunt
(1956)
A grim story, with very little sunshine in it,but a great one
22 March 2002
Robert Taylor and Stewart Granger switch the goodie-baddie roles they held in "All the brothers were valiant". Taylor seems a bit uncomfortable in his bad-guy role but Granger plays his part perfectly. However the real hero in the story are the bison and the northwest. The film is perfectly made, with the atmosphere of the times wonderfully given. The direction is taut and although the film is no light-hearted entertainment it is, to my way of thinking a major film, unjustly ignored by the cognoscenti.
Scaramouche
(1952)
A great film, they dont make them like that anymore
22 March 2002
Scaramouche was and remains one of my all-time favorite films. It may not qualify as a deeply thought-out criticism of the social situation in France at the time preceding the revolution, but it does not intend to. It gives us a perfectly presented adventure with all the trimmings -revenge, disguises, hidden identities- plus the wonderful duel at the end. Stewart Granger and Mel Ferrer are both excellent. The entire cast presents the film while avoiding any slip into comedy and parody. The highly improbable story is presented seriously and here lies the beauty of this film. I have to admit being biased: I have always been a Stewart Granger fan and there is very little of the work of his "good years" that I do not like.
Tell Your Friends