Marple (TV Series) Ordeal by Innocence (2007) User Reviews

Really rather good for a 'non Marple'

[Iain-215 · 8/10 · 5 April 2008]

Having been scandalised by the McEwen 'Bertrams' I was pleasantly surprised by this adaptation of a non Marple book. We are now into Season 3 of this series and any Christie purists still watching at this stage should know exactly what to expect - Christie 'spinning in her grave' is a very over used phrase! There will be changes, not all of them good - there have been some real stinkers in the series but this is not one of them. I am not outraged by the insertion of Miss Marple so long as the overall result is still satisfactory and this time it is. Darker than some of its predecessors, this is a very good version with some fine performances. Its true that not many of the characters are very likable but actually the Argyle family were a rather tortured bunch in the novel too becoming more so after the revelation that it was not Jacko after all who killed the mother figure.

Juliet Stevenson is very fine as a hugely sympathetic Gwenda as is Alison Steadman as the perfect Kirsten (shame she didn't get her creepy lullaby to sing). The Argyle children are more of a mixed bag; the boys are ciphers, Tina and Hester are a bit dull but Lisa Stansfield is surprisingly good as Mary and Jane Seymour has fun with the stiff, unyielding Rachel at the beginning. I also thought Julian Rhind-Tutt captured the awkward academic Calgary very well.

There are some awkward changes to the plot and I agree with the earlier reviewer who points out the impossible time differences that ensue - not well thought out. The second murder is truly unexpected and shocking however and despite the changes I was happily engrossed throughout. If you can't take changes to the source material, do not watch - otherwise this is pretty good.

McEwan's Marple Mistakenly Malligned

[sarah_caroline · 8/10 · 4 March 2008]

I am sorry that some people cannot find the new artistic interpretations of the Miss Marple series refreshing. I have always enjoyed the novels of Agatha Christie as well as most of the movies/television productions based on her work. But I especially enjoy the new Miss Marple portrayed by Geraldine McEwan. I find them new and fresh and proof that these stories, though based in a bygone era, can be reinterpreted in a newer age and with a bit more color. I find Ms. McEwan's portrayal of the aging sleuth to be above reproach and I give her top marks. How boring life would be if we didn't have the freedom to re-interpret or re-invent. But I suppose those that oppose this new series also didn't appreciate "Kiss Me Kate" as it wasn't the original Shakespeare, or the miniseries "Pride and Prejudice" because new aspects to old stories had been added.

Shockingly, a non-appalling episode of 'Marple'

[SpiceTea · 7/10 · 12 March 2019]

To the reviewer who berates the legions of us appalled by most scripts in this mid-2000s reboot of Agatha Christie's detective novels and stories: 'new' is not synonymous with 'refreshing ' as you put it. To be 'refreshing,' a change has to be, you know, good. In the 5-6 Marple episodes I've seen before this one, the changes are largely absurdist or tacky or both. Color me 'non-refreshed.'

Until this episode, 'Ordeal By Innocence.' Now, I'll grant you that I've not read Christie's source material for this episode, however given the telewriters' butchering of Christie's work in several other episodes, I can well believe complaints of a hatchet job here, too. But 'Ordeal' is actually cohesive and entertaining in its own right.

Much of that is down to the cast, which is anchored by two big stars--Jane Seymour and Juliet Stevenson--and bolstered by a stable of talented, well-known actors including Denis Lawson, Alison Steadman and Richard Armitage. Weirdly, the 90s pop singer Lisa Stansfield has a supporting role and is actually pretty good at it.

Let me say right now: Juliet Stevenson improves everything she's in. I don't say that because of her credentials (she was part of the illustrious "new wave" coming out of RADA in the 1970s); truth is, I only found out about that recently, after 25+ years of watching her shine in film, TV, radio, even audiobooks. She is a seriously good actress and if her performance here in 'Ordeal' doesn't move you in some way, you're not paying attention!

And it's relatively easy to pay attention to this 'Marple' episode. It's a classic closed-circle/locked room mystery, with a large family all at home the night one among them is murdered. No outlandish plot points; perhaps the usual 'Marple' scriptwriters were on holiday for this entry.

To my surprise, one of the murders packs a genuine emotional punch, which I attribute to the all-around good acting of the episode as well as to the specific emotional position this character occupies relative to the people around him/her.

Unlike the 5 or 6 other Marple episodes I've seen, 'Ordeal' didn't trigger an eye roll, not even one!

If you're going to invest feature-length viewing time in one of the 'Marple' TV series, begin here. It might well be all downhill from this one!

P.s. Miss Marple is given almost nothing to do, apparently as per usual for the 'Marple' series. But given it's Juliet Stevenson doing a lot of the other stuff, all is forgiven here.

Decent adaptation

[OrWright · 7/10 · 30 August 2009]

This movie is mostly engaging, and I think they do a good job of including Miss Marple into a non-Marple story. Unlike some other movies in the series, the plot remains mostly logical without any unnecessary weird twists.

There are good performances by both the actress who played Gwenda and the actor who played Dr. Calgary. I found their sleuthing together under Miss Marple's guidance enjoyable to watch. They also did a good job of inventing the linking of Gwenda with Miss Marple. I was disappointed the writers felt the need to have that second murder, with excessive gore to a sympathetic character. I still don't see why the murderer felt the need to kill her. It turned the movie into a real downer for me. It would have worked better if Gwenda was thrown in jail and Miss Marple and Dr. Calgary became determined to prove her innocence.

But overall, I did enjoy the movie for Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple, and the more fun and light-hearted first half.

A fine installment in the series.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 5 October 2007]

This is one of the better pieces of TV drama I've seen, this I have to say is better then many of the previous Marple or recent Agatha Christie dramatisations. Almost on a par with the Joan Hickson productions. I really did enjoy this one, so I'd say sit back and enjoy, for all those who keep comparing Geraldine to Joan Don't watch them, leave the fans of the new versions to watch and enjoy without criticisms, they're great viewing. It's great that they're doing new things with the plots, we all know the books inside out, so something different is great! The book was of course adapted to accommodate Miss Marple and the writer did a great job, Miss Marple is given enough of a character and personality and role for it to have been written as a Miss Marple book. The performances of Jane Seymour and Dennis Lawson were fantastic in particular, cameos from Pippa Heywood and Camille Coduri were of course welcomed. All but cynical Chrsitie purists couldn't help but enjoy this whodunit meant as Christie's characters should have been bold and larger then life. Pour a large G and T sit back and enjoy..... I did :-) 9/10

A slightly better ITV 'Marple'

[pawebster · 6/10 · 20 October 2007]

By the amazingly low standards of the ITV 'Marple' series, this one is not bad. On the message board, the contributor 'Last picture show' points out, quite correctly, that the plot does not in fact make sense. However, I failed to notice this when watching and found the ending satisfying at the time.

Despite disfiguring the original book for insufficient reasons, this version did hold my interest. One factor was Juliet Stevenson and Denis Lawson's performances. The tragedy of Gwenda's life comes over very well. Another plus point is Julian Rhind-Tutt as Dr Calgary. He makes the part amusing without descending to silliness. In fact, everyone in the production seems to take it fairly seriously. This is a relief after the facetiousness of other episodes in this series.

As ever, there are anachronisms. We appear, as usual, to be in the early 1950s and the series designer takes great pains over this. However, it is all thrown away when the script includes phrases such as 'leg-over merchant', 'move on' (in the sense of getting over a tragedy) and - most glaringly of all - 'scam' (this last one from the mouth of Miss Marple). 'Scam' is first recorded in America in the 1960s. I doubt that it reached England before the 70s, and even then, elderly ladies like Miss Marple would hardly be likely to use it. (On the other hand, we also never thought that Miss Marple was a safe-breaker until this film!) There are more anachronisms with some of the hair and costumes.

Despite the defects, this one is worth watching.

watched it last week twice actually & really enjoyed it , very good acting to miss Geraldine & all the family members & the scientist doctor

[honic · 8/10 · 11 October 2008]

most replies r negative to my surprise ,i waned to read them to know if other viewers enjoyed it as i did , i think it was good i will report a quick summery to any of u who is about to watch

ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE

of coarse everyone knows its written by Agatha Cristie the great novelist, the plot starts by an old friend of miss marple writing her a letter asking her to come pay a visit coz she's to be married to a gentleman who have 5 kids

after miss marple arrives & is introduced to the 5 young people she learns they are all came from foster homes , & that their belated mother was a very rich lady killed 2 yrs ago

on a quick flash backs the director shows us one where the mother had a big fight concerning money borrowing from her eldest adopted son jacko that she turns down & he end up telling her that he wish her dead & he leaves the house. 2 hours later the mother is brutally dead & of coarse the young man is convicted & sent to prison for trial

all along he keeps sayin he had an alibi by a scientist doctor who gave him a lift by his car that particular night

but that witness was no where to be found & after a while the son was hanged the flash backs are over

back to reality where miss marple & the family of 5 children , their father & his fiancée ( miss marple's friend ) are happily spending the evening doing sharades & hanging around so Merrily

when a scientist doctor spots an old newspaper & reads that a young man was hanged due to killing his mom 2 years ago he comes in a rainy night to this family's night to reveal a dark secret

appearing like a ghost out of the windows where they all gathered & telling them that their long dead brother was with him around 8,30 which is the same time of the murder of their dead mother taking place , so there is no way he was the murderer & they all discover that if their dead brother isn't the one , so it's one of them

& the mystery goes on & on & gets more thrilling & full of surprises i love reading , i would support novels brought to movies , novels are harder than a 90 minutes screen adapted novel to some people ,though novels are more deep full of details & depth that no way a movie can deliver

but on the other hand a movie is easier to understand for young people, easier to watch especially for a whole new generation of Agatha Cristie's young fans

back to the movie ... i think it's done very well , miss Geraldine's acting is always awesome i love the way she does it .. the acting , her custom's ,the way she always repeat the word '' dear'' in many lines in the script makes u feel like she 's ur own granny lol

the casting of the family was wonderful & very suitable , the 2 sisters Kirsten & Hester are wonderful actors especially the younger one kirsten , she is a very sensible actress , the brothers jacko ( the thought to be murderer of his mother is wonderful ), the other brothers were so right in their own places , the lake where a suicide takes place was original ,the house & the stormy weather helped much in the belief of the realism

i don't think the movie is crap on the contrary i think if u r free for the weekend & it's on TV try catchin it or rent it if available , u'll enjoy

more holes than a swiss cheese

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 7 January 2014]

These so-called Miss Marple mysteries are entertaining to a point, but when the writing is even sloppier than usual, it's a problem.

When the matriarch (Jane Seymour) of a large family is killed, suspicion falls on one of her children, Jacko, who a short time before was demanding money from her to pay his gambling debts and was turned down. He is arrested and executed for the crime. He claimed all along to have an alibi, a man with whom he hitched a ride at the time of the murder, but the driver was never found.

The scene switches to Miss Marple receiving a wedding invitation from Gwenda (Juliet Stephenson) who worked for Marple once and is marrying the widower -- she was originally his secretary. Marple goes to the wedding location and finds a happy family and a very happy Gwenda.

Suddenly, the scene is invaded by a scientist (Julian Rhind-Hutt) who has returned to the country, learned of the execution of Jacko two years earlier and is most distressed. He is Jacko's alibi but never knew what happened because he was working away from England.

Now the investigation is reopened, and everyone suspects everybody else. The wedding is postponed; Gwenda's fiancé is suspicious of her and asks her to move out. Another murder and another death follow. Miss Marple to the rescue.

This is apparently nothing like the book and this thing has a ton of plot holes in it. The second murder makes no sense, there was no reason for it as the murderer had already accomplished the goal of the person being vilified.

Going back to Jacko feeling that he was a dead man whether or not he was executed is ridiculous. He needed money from his mother. In the original theory of the crime, he killed his mother for money. Would he then not have paid off his creditors and would they therefore not have killed him? So how was he a dead man either way, if he actually killed her? Also the timing of Jacko's alibi doesn't make sense; he can't be in the car at 8 and then allegedly waiting for money at 8:15 near the house - how is that establishing an alibi? That means at 8 o'clock he wasn't far away enough to clear him of the murder anyway.

I could go on, but I won't bother. And let me for the record state that Leo, the groom, is a jerk for not standing behind his fiancé when the family thinks she did it.

I always had the picture of Miss Marple as a very sweet, nonthreatening old lady with a keen mind honed on observing people in St. Mary Mead. Geraldine McEwan comes off as a very smart, knowing woman. There's nothing sweet and innocuous about her. There was, however, something very innocuous about this film.

Brilliant episode

[eoin42 · 9/10 · 1 November 2007]

This is ( as many people have pointed out ) not an actual Miss Marple book, instead they have taken another book and included Miss Marple in the story. I personally think, who cares? This is the third series of Miss Marple and if you have watched the previous seasons of Miss Marple, you have probably realized they're not that faithful, I don't mind that at all, because they ( and this one is no exception ) are great entertainment.

Leo Argyle was hanged for the murder of his unpleasant mother. Two years later his ex- husband decides to marry another woman, this woman happens to know Miss Marple and invites her over for the wedding. However, this takes a terrible turn when a man comes to their house and gives them evidence that Leo Argyle couldn't commit his mother's murder. This upsets the family and causes rifts between the surviving members, and before Miss Marple can solve the mystery, another murder occurs.

This is a great episode, fine the conclusion is nothing too amazing, even though I didn't guess it. The only other episode of Miss Marple that I have seen so far is Towards Zero, and I personally preferred this one, because every moment was so enjoyable.

Solid drama, but a little flat

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 13 July 2011]

The basic message of this Agatha Christie story seems to be "Ignorance is Bliss". Sure, if Dr. Calgary hadn't appeared out of nowhere to confirm Jacko's alibi a murderer would remain hidden in the Argyle family's midst, but it would still be a happier family and some innocent lives would be spared; and did Jacko even deserve to have his name cleared? It's probably one of Christie's most dramatic and downbeat stories, but not one of her best mysteries - or maybe it only seemed obvious to me because I remembered the plot from the 1980's film version of the same book with Donald Sutherland, Faye Dunaway, etc (on a sidenote, I consider myself lucky for not having read / watched or not remembering most of these Christie tales; I find it more rewarding to watch a mystery movie and be surprised by it than to know what's going to happen and having to compare it to another version of the story). The acting is fine all around, especially by Lisa Stansfield as the level-headed Mary, but the film is a little too flatly shot and visually gloomy for this series. To put it in another way, "Ordeal By Innocence" may be one of the series' best, but it's not one of my favorites. **1/2 out of 4.

I loved it!!

[calummccorquodale · 9/10 · 5 September 2014]

One of the best episodes in my opinion and what's all this nonsense about the outcome not making sense? Made perfect sense to me....

7:50pm to 8:15pm - Jacko Argyle is hitching a lift 8:00 - Young boy sees Tina Argyle's bike outside Sunny Point She must have arrived just before 8 In the house, Kirsten kills Rachel at 8 Tina sticks around until 8:05 considering whether to cross At this time she sees a boat advancing but decides to leave (It must be her we see as the boat nears land in first scene 2 years previously) Kirsten leaves boat at 8:06 approx. and waits for Jacko to arrive At 8:15, Jacko is dropped off at pub and therefore provides himself with an alliby. He catches a lift back to Sunny Point. For this to work he must ensure he keeps his face hidden and is dropped off just a few minutes walk away He arrives at Sunny Point at 8:30 Money is exchanged before Jacko leaves and Kirsten returns to house Kirsten arrives back at 8:35 to change and return to find the body at 8:40. If this isn't the case and Jacko had somehow arrived earlier then Kirsten would have arrived back at the house much earlier than 8:40 (this is definitely the time she arrives) as she wanted to get back as soon as possible. Therefore these times must be correct.

Loving the New Marple Series

[djosephh · 15 January 2008]

I can't believe that there are quite a lot of people out there that don't like the New Marple. I have been a fan of Agatha Christie from a very young age (10). I've read most of the books, seen all the movie and TV adaptations. While in my opinion Joan Hickson was Miss Marple down to a tee. I thoroughly believe that Agatha Christie would have approved of the New Marple series, if she were alive today. People seem to forget that Agatha Christie was an author who was ahead of her time, and there are many themes running through her books, that when they were first published readers did not think twice about. Now however readers are a lot sharper, about reading between the lines. Some people out there who blast this series seem to forget that scripts for the new Marple have to be approved by the Agatha Christie estate before they are made, and if her own relatives approve of the series. Who are we to say otherwise?

Interesting mystery from Christie with Miss Marple added to the story...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 21 August 2007]

Another interesting entry in the Miss Marple series, taken from an Agatha Christie novel that did not include the elderly sleuth as part of the plot. Nevertheless, the ORDEAL BY INNOCENCE screenwriter has done an admirable job of making it appear like the old lady was indeed a part of the original plot.

Most of the fascination herein lies in the family history, the past being examined to tell a tale of a household ruled by a cruel matriarch (JANE SEYMOUR) who has taken in a brood of orphans, including a couple of twin brothers who are obviously up to no good. When one of them is accused of murdering her for the money she refused to give him to cover a gambling debt, the young man is found guilty of the crime and executed. Later, a man turns up at the household to reveal that the young man had a perfect alibi and was innocently executed--thus forcing the family members to discover who the real murderer was.

It's well acted by a uniformly fine cast and GERALDINE McEWAN is effective enough as Miss Marple, invited to the house for a wedding that never takes place when the bride herself is a murder victim.

It's more character driven than most of the Christie mysteries with the plot never becoming too intricate to follow. As a piece of entertainment, it's a satisfying addition to this new mystery series.

Strange changes to the original plot

[FanWanDango · 4/10 · 12 April 2009]

I don't mind the McKewan Marple stories - they don't try to emulate the almost perfect Joan Hickson ones (which are very true to the books). I don't even mind messing with the plot as long as it is done well, this story was not written as a Marple mystery but they managed to insert her quite well, *spoiler warning* the one thing that I can't understand is why was Gwenda killed? This plot twist just doesn't make sense, Kirsten had managed to get the whole household suspicious of her, so much so that her fiancé had asked her to leave the house, so why kill her? That makes the suspicion fall back on someone else in the house whereas if she had left they could have all blamed her. I think it was this that ruined it most for me. I don't mind making changes if they make sense but this one didn't. The original book gives much more build up to the character of Rachel and the resentment felt toward her by her adopted children but it is not unusual for film versions to fail in this. All in all this is probably the worst of the new Marples that I have seen which is a shame as I like a lot of the actors in it. I would recommend The moving finger or The body in the library over this one.

Ambivalent

[hzzjjg · 6/10 · 17 August 2022]

I am quite ambivalent about this episode . Characters come across as caricatures except for Miss Marple . McEwan as always is marvellous . She given Miss Marple as always a wide range of emotions and makes her a 3 dimensional character , no caricature there . The simpering brain addled Hester got on my nerves , an emotionally damaged young woman which was over acted.

Kept me guessing until the end

[safenoe · 8/10 · 23 August 2021]

I must admit, I haven't read the book, so I went into Ordeal by Innocent quite innocently without any preconceptions. I was very impressed for sure, and had no idea who the murderer was until the very end. A stellar cast comprise this episode of Miss Marple. In particular there's Jane Seymour, along with Alison Steadman (who co-starred with Patrick Malahide in The Singing Detective). Reece Shearsmith also appears, and seven years later he would be a megastar in Inside No. 9.

Fairly intriguing though engagement is limited

[grantss · 7/10 · 10 July 2016]

Miss Marple is visiting her friend Vera for her wedding. Gwenda is marrying Leo Argyle, whose wife Rachel was murdered two years previously. Their son Jacko was found guilty of her murder and executed. On the first night there, a stranger, Dr Arthur Calgary, arrives and informs everyone that Jacko was clearly innocent as he was giving him a lift in his car at the exact time of the murder. This news is not received well by the Argyle family.

Fairly intriguing though engagement is limited. Miss Marple is her usual bland self and there is nobody interesting to add colour. Dr Calgary was supposed to be the void-filler but he is too stammering and nerdy to be interesting. So don't expect any interesting side-plots (unlike many of the Miss Marple) episodes - just watch for the mystery.

Shame and scandal in the Family

[Coventry · 7/10 · 7 January 2021]

"Ordeal by Innocence", originally published in 1958, is one of Dame Agatha Christie's more famous sleuth novels, and already underwent a few screen adaptations. There was a 1984 feature film (starring Donald Sutherland and Christopher Plummer), and the recent BBC mini-series (starring Bill Nighy and Matthew Goode). Very much against the will of the many cynics, the fabulous story also got reworked to fit into Granada's "Marple" series. This series receives quite a lot of hatred because the writers took the liberty to often drastically alter plot aspects and vital story twists compared to the original source novels. Many people don't appreciate this, but I'm an avid Agatha Christie fan, and must state it never bothered me. The changes brought to "Ordeal by Innocence" are quite obvious. As it originally wasn't a Miss Marple novel, our beloved noisy spinster had to dragged in, and it's done by making her the friend/former caretaker of a pivot character.

The protagonist who was the detective in the original novel, Dr. Arthur Calgary, also appears in this version, but his role and he depicts a clumsy, asocial and unworldly "apprentice" of Miss Marple. Of course, there can only be one all-knowing super detective!

I realize I say this about every Christie story, but the plot is brilliant! "Ordeal by Innocence" is a compelling and twisted tale full of loathsome suspects, great settings and very intelligent red herrings. There are great performances all around, including a short but delightful appearance by Jane Seymore, and slightly more blood/violence than in the previous installments.

A disappointment

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 4 June 2010]

I liked the book, didn't love it, but it was interesting. But I was disappointed after seeing this adaptation of Ordeal by Innocence-I do think that Sittaford Mystery, By the Pricking of My Thumbs and Nemesis were worse out of this set of Marple adaptations, but this is a long way from being the best. It is lovingly filmed, with nice scenery, photography and costumes, and I liked the music. Also helping elevate are a stellar cast, Geraldine McEwan is above decent as Miss Marple, and Jane Seymour is suitably nasty as the victim, while Juliet Stevenson, Denis Lawson, Burn Gorman and especially Alison Steadman turn in great work. Lisa Stansfield is also surprisingly good. Plus the direction was okay. The rest of the acting is dull however, Tom Riley is one-note and Richard Armitage, normally good at being brooding, has little to do. Hester got on my nerves and Julian Rhind Tutt comes across as too awkward and heavy on nervous mannerisms, even for Calgary Also on the other hand, the adaptation is spoilt by poor pacing(the final solution is much too rushed and the middle really does plod), a weak script and a lack of coherence in the storytelling or suspense. Plus I was indifferent to the characters as some of them are so badly written, especially Bobby's and Hester's, in fact only Mary has any real sparkle. The build-up to Rachael's character was unconvincing, we know she is resented but it could have been much more strongly depicted with more focused writing. And people are right, it does deviate from the book, and I was expecting that, but Gwenda's murder especially I felt was unnecessary. Overall, disappointing but not absolutely unwatchable, thanks to the production values and the cast. 4/10 Bethany Cox

The Most Unengaging, Unsympathetic Group of Trolls Ever!

[ALS1 · 1/10 · 4 September 2007]

Not only was this NOT originally a Miss Marple novel, it's populated with the most unsympathetic bunch of characters in the history of miscasting. There are scarcely any characters here that we can bring ourselves to care one whit about, and the only ones that elicit any sympathy are soon eliminated or defiled, in the new tradition of the current Christie "adaptors." There were some inspired bits of casting: Jane Seymour as the ill-fated, hard-as-nails matriarch; Alison Steadman as Kirsten, the faithful maid (Yes, Shirley Valentine's gal-pal is now playing a middle-aged Swedish maid!), and pop star Lisa Stansfield as Mary, the ONLY sympathetic offspring. She alone gives her role any gravitas at all; the other characters (particularly the female offspring) have clearly trained for their roles by watching crappy American reality TV shows. I particularly disliked Hester, a whiny daddy's girl who's revealed to have had a fling with sister Mary's husband--and still manages to treat HIM like the bad guy, as if it didn't take TWO to dance that tango. Father Leo is a fumbly, mumbly, mamby-pamby idiot with no spine who can't even bring himself to stand by his fiancé and show faith when doubt is cast on her. (Whoops, that was a spoiler. Oh well, there ain't much to spoil.) All in all, only Steadman and Stansfield (and, initially, Seymour) are worth watching. The rest fail miserably, and unfortunately, cause the story to collapse. Don't bother with this--read the book instead.

This Series Keeps Sinking Lower, If That's Possible

[sherryminou07 · 1/10 · 27 August 2007]

I watched "Ordeal by Innocence" for the first time last night on PBS. Again, a group of scriptwriters, who think they can do better than Agatha Christie, have slaughtered another one of her books. Again, the "mystery" does not engage the watcher because the characters are not developed enough to show any remotely interesting drama. Again, the title is misleading from the start because this is not Agatha Christie's mystery as she wrote it and it's unrecognizable to the book. While I wouldn't have a problem with some changes and even looked forward to this series in the beginning, it's just a dreadful mess.

As I've watched this Miss Marple series unfold, I've notice that they've made Miss Marple more frail, more feeble, more twittering and twinkling as time goes by. This is both a physical and intellectual transformation. In Bertram's Hotel (shown just before this one), she looked very poor indeed. In "Ordeal" (appropriately named), she's dressed like a homeless waif and acts like she's suffering from early onset Alzheimer's. This crew does not allow Geralding McEwan to show the intelligence and cunning that Miss Marple had, even as an elderly spinster. The degradation of her character as time goes by is shocking. Her makeup is dreadful and makes her look even more like a simpleton. One of my favorite mystery characters and few Females in the mystery genre, is disappearing. If you watched "Bertram's Hotel," you'll know this is a truism, because they actually pushed Miss Marple aside to let the young maid do the detection and summation of the crime.

A new group bought controlling interest in Agatha Christie Ltd, so that explains the difference between previous and current productions. Obviously the group owning rights to Christie's books are mindless, unimaginable twits.

Nicely done but the ending just doesn't add up

[last-picture-show · 5/10 · 10 October 2007]

This is an interesting, well made film, with a great cast, but spoiled by an ending which just doesn't add up: When Miss Marple reveals that it is Kirsten Lindstrom behind the murder of Rachel she says that Kirsten was in love with Jacko and under his instruction killed Rachel at 8pm (to give him an alibi) and stole the money. He told her to bring the money to him and we see her in the rowing boat coming back from taking the money to him.

This doesn't make sense for two reasons. If Kirsten killed Rachel at just after 8pm but was back by 8.40 (we see the clock just before she finds the body) this doesn't really allow enough time for her to creep out of the house unseen, row over to the other side of the river, give the money to Jacko somehow, row back to the island and get back in the house. And what was to stop someone else walking in to the study to find the body before she got back and thus finding that she (Kirsten) was absent. She was also rather lucky that although Tina did see her in the boat she didn't talk to her but rode off thinking she was Micky.

But even if you concede that all this was possible, if Jacko is one the other side of the river waiting for the money at approx 8.15pm then he can't be in the car with Dr. Calgary at 8pm, miles away, to establish his alibi (we see Jackso asking Calgary the time, he answers '8pm'). He should be miles away from the house, travelling away from it, not near by. In other words there was no point in asking Kirsten to kill his mother he might as well have done it himself.

Added to this Miss Marple's assumption that Jacko didn't reveal who killed Rachel because if he had then he would have been set free but would have been killed anyway (presumably by those he owed money to) also doesn't make sense. The whole point of killing Rachel was to get the money. He got the money and so presumably paid off his creditors so he wouldn't have been killed by them. She seems to be crediting his character with a higher moral value than that of Kirsten but for what reason? It just doesn't make sense.

This has all the hallmarks of Christie thinking up a complex plot with the character you least suspect turning out to be responsible, and for a reason you would never think of, but in order to make such a thing possible all logic goes awry. But I suspect that it is not Christie to blame but the producers. Is the original Christie story the same as this?

Ordeal for true Christie fans

[praed_street · 1/10 · 15 November 2008]

Whether readers today are "sharper" or not, with these new Marples it's not a matter of reading "between the lines," because in all too many cases the lines have been totally rewritten! Dame Agatha would not have approved of having her work trashed by modern-day scriptwriters. Rewriting her stories (and solutions!), changing the characters, etc.: it's abomination. This new Miss Marple was in her own way as absurd a creation as Margaret Rutherford's version (which at least was not meant to be taken seriously). No one who respects Christie's work would approve of these films. I won't comment on her grandson, except to say that unfortunately not all descendants live up to their forebears.

I agree, this series is sinking lower and lower

[dgillig · 1/10 · 25 September 2007]

While the lead actress is fine, the rewrites are terrible. Terrible. The story line changes. Political preferences or social concepts are introduced because, I GUESS, they can. Agatha Christie's writing apparently isn't good enough! Most of these stories can be dramatized very close to the original and still be very, very good for today. It simply has gone downhill fast in this iteration of the Miss Marple series.

I have written PBS and explained my disapproval and they simply tell me that new ideas are refreshing. Makes me think PBS needs new people.

Since so many people on this site and others have voiced how bad it is you would think it would be heard by PBS and others. Of course, in a world where you live or die by the number of viewers, such as in commercial TV, it would be heard. Not necessarily taken off the air because i don't know its ratings. But, to say it again, the rewrites of the stories a done with a chain saw and without regard for the original. They are instead written, it appears, to satisfy some political/social concepts of the owners of the stories.

Couldn't Keep My Interest

[doniejamesqm · 1/10 · 10 October 2007]

This new Miss Marple series had me excited. But soon after watching the first episode, excitement turned quickly to disappointment and boredom.

I tried so hard to like this series because Miss Marple had always interested me. Whether they played her for laughs or dead serious, the Brits usually did a good job. Not now.

The problem is that this series tries to be both cute and serious. Too many known older (and probably out of work) actors try to elbow each other out of scenes by overacting. Hey....that's not a problem because the plot does not exist. It just seems to me that this is a showcase for the parade of actors doing their skits.

Jane Seymour, looking garish, is bumped off quicker than you can say "DUD." Everyone parades through with characters that aren't developed enough for you to know where they truly fit in this so-called mystery. They throw in comical sub-plots of family interactions and at one time I didn't know who was part of the family and who was the hired help. The ending is laughable. But I wasn't laughing....I was asleep.

One person who gave this high marks and criticized those of us who don't, said get out a "G AND T" (gin and tonic) and watch this show. Obviously he needed to get soused to find this series appealing.

I agree. Only booze can help.