MovieChat Forums > Partners in Crime (1984) Discussion > Walliams to play Tommy in re-make

Walliams to play Tommy in re-make

posted 11 years ago by randommovies2002
8 replies | jump to latest

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-26366447

I'm not keen in this casting choice, what do others think? Who would make a good Prudence?

[–] dblackman70 10 years ago

I was very much looking forward to this, but, the casting choices have totally ruined it as they're totally wrong for the parts

[–] simonpcpearson 10 years ago

good grief, it gets worse

[–] hamlet-16 10 years ago

I am willing to wait and see ..but I do hope the BBC does not destroy Partners in Crime in the way ITV completely mishandled Miss Marple.

The only photos I have seen look discouraging ...they seem to have set it in the 1950s!! WRONG!!!

[–] louiseculmer 10 years ago

i watched the firat episode and thought it was absolutely ghastly. i can't believe what they have done to it. the leads are quite hopeless and nothing at all like they are in the original stories. i found it painful to watch.

[–] caviar1234 10 years ago

The first story is very disapponinting.

[–] Tim-Buktu 9 years ago

Wait! What? This is a remake?

I read the book and HUGELY enjoyed the stories. Then I watched the first hour of the TV series. Is there a better version?

I periodically misspell words just to annoy the word police.

[–] louiseculmer 8 years ago

The original version was made in 1983 and sticks much more closely to the original characters and stories. the first episode is based on the first tommy and Tuppence novel 'the Secret Adversary' and the other episodes are based on the short stories from Partners in Crime.

[–] whoanelly (1592) 4 years ago

It was just awful! I suffered through 1.5 eps but couldn’t muster the strength to endure anymore. Not even the hopes of seeing Tuppence’s fashion choices could convince me to see it through. (Compared to the earlier version, changing the era to the 1950s was such a boring choice, fashions wise. the costuming was utterly lackluster!)