Fair enough it was no Shawshank Redemption or Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit, but it was enjoyable and kept me interested.
I have not seen the play, the Charles Laughton film or read the book, so I can not comment upon the what, ifs, and whens of it all, but found the two one hour adaption enjoyable.
The little fat bloke with the mustard gas cough is a quality actor.
No, you're not. It may not be perfect, but it's certainly not as horrible as some review indicated.
shareI have already said how much I liked this on here.
I am not a Christie expert,but I like to see her stories on tv,
I have seen some awful Christie adaptions over the years,especially on ITV,I can't see this was anything other than a quality production.
I liked it. The BBC did And Then There Were None last Christmas/New Year and that was good too.
"There is no future in England's dreaming": The Sex Pistols
I have no idea what other people are watching but this was shoot superbly well and I watch a film every night.
Guessing it's the MTV generation as they say.
Only those with no valid argument pick holes in people's spelling and grammar.
'Guessing it's the MTV generation as they say.'
I must be one of them. Then again MTV has been going since 1981. 36 years in old money.
It's that man again!!
Well it's horses for courses. I agree that there was some technically good photography but I found the yellow murk overplayed, the directorial style mannered, the pace funereal, and the script repetitive, overemphatic and frankly pretentious.
But it would be a dull world if we all agreed about everything.
Call me Ishmael...
I enjoyed it very much, and I've read the short story and have seen the old film a few times. I think the new version is so much more entertaining than the film.
shareYes, this.
The story is still good and comes through, but the experiment in smoke and pace just didn't work.
of course.
Well it seems that you are in not very exalted company. I have just watched it over the last two days.
Although I have had for my wife a complete well presented Agatha Christie collection I have not read any. Spoiled no doubt by the wonderful David Suchet and various other offerings over time by Marple. Yes I also know that scripts are not stuck to this not being Shakespearean plays.
I have never seen the Christie story and if only a short story a fair bit of padding must have been necessary. I know I must have [surely] at 69 years old seen the 1957 version but it is not remembered.
That being so, towards the end when Toby had his vision nightmare of the informant who had facial disfigurement my thoughts were that he had indeed not followed up as promised and wondered when it was going to bite him. Yes I was surprised at the end but when the 'Devils Whore' came into view full realisation was sudden. In all for its time I thought that Agatha displayed how devious we humans can be.
Now having suggested my memory of the tale and other versions did not appear this tale was told well for me. Toby was seen as somewhat pathetic but did wish to do right. His marriage unreal due to his survival but the beloved son dying in WW1. This may have been quite commonplace in so many families.
My only fault and this is overthinking. How could the plotters know and risk all with what ever solicitor came their way. It woudl have been hard to try an introduce the letter if it had been dismissed out of hand. After all our expert plod had the case all sewn up [rightly as well]. The Barrister could hardly have been allowed to surprise the proceedings as happened. But that is the magic of the story telling circumventing trial etiquette. As Perry Mason was to do weekly for so long.
All in all for me the story unfolded not too slowly and gave us some depth to a few characters with Toby Jones taking the main and central role.
I do not see what the objections are. But we do have that group which likes to suggest that 'they do not make them like they used to'. Well in the case of chocolate bars including Toblerone that might be true.
I enjoyed the tale as told.
If the solicitor had not behaved as they wanted, they would have had various options, either to prod him or find another solicitor.
shareNot the only one.
I liked it. It's a tragedy, in every sense. And so very different from the 1957 Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, Charles Laughton film directed by Billy Wilder. Until I came to this board, I was unaware that WFTP was originally a short story, and that Christie later revised that story into the play, adding the character that Laughton played in the film, a lord and a barrister who could argue in court. This is, reportedly, the first production of the original story. I found it layered and deep and, as I said, classically tragic.
This production, with the solicitor, John Mayhew, played brilliantly by Toby Jones (the fat little bloke), is just an entirely different story from the film (and perhaps the play, which I don't know) because he is the tragic center of it -- desperate and driven by need, ready to be beguiled by this case, his client, and most of all by his client's wife/lover, who reads him so perfectly: "your guilt makes you easy to hurt" (paraphrased).
I'm curious as to your perception of the crime but I can't ask my question here without spoilers.....well, maybe I can, obliquely: do you consider the whole thing planned? Or was it a merely a crime of opportunity, once certain paths had crossed?
Edited to correct the date of the film with Dietrich, Power, Laughton.