Nice to see this again. As was said with the 1980s version with Francesca Annis and James Warwick, Tommy and Tuppence do not show up a lot in Agatha Christie stories, but whenever they do, they are fun! And how these two were back then, around 1983 and 1984. It still ranks as one of my all time favorite series. But time moves on and it is a nice change to see these stories told again, this time from the perspective of the 1950s. With the Cold War going on there is indeed plenty of room for suspense, or, for these 'romantic detectives'. But I miss the aristocracy in knicker-boxers, and the evil butlers or housemaids, just to just give one cliché example. I just loved the 1980s version from the 1920s, so I could not help comparing this episode with the 'original version'. I know, the prudish kissing that was the norm back then, we no longer see, so Tommy & Tuppence have come of age. The same goes, it seems, for the Oxford English of the upper class, which is no longer stressed so much. And I know too, no one can beat the class of the Goldfinger Bond Girl in the 1983 version playing the opera singer for instance, so I should move on and give this 2015 version a change. Well, I loved it, but in general I would like to see more wit and more fun, I mean Francesca Annis' enthusiasm was just contagious back then, and her Tommy also laughed a lot more - this combined with the crimes to be solved in the background, it made a fun and sometimes even hilarious combination of a true amateur sleuth duo. The tone of this episode so far is a bit too serious. But, it is as always well acted and the BBC/ITV costume drama genre is something no other country can beat and it is always perfect entertainment. I guess I will have to watch Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries to satisfy my melancholy and get in the mood for Tommy & Tuppence going 'Foyle's War' style. I will watch all these episodes though.
Partners in Crime (TV Mini Series)
The Secret Adversary: Part 1 (2015)
User Reviews
Review this title7 Reviews
This was actually rather good.
Sleepin_Dragon14 August 2015
I've always loved the original 80's series, and I must confess i've never actually been the biggest fan of David Walliams's antics, so chances were I should have hated this, but, I actually really liked it, it had a freshness and an exuberance to it, as well as a darker more sinister side to it.
I'm a die hard Agatha Christie fan, but even I must admit Tommy and Tuppence weren't exactly her finest creation, nor were the few titles containing them particularly brilliant, so for that I applaud Mr Walliams and co for making some good material into a very good show.
James Warwick was good back in the day, but a teeny bit wooden on occasion, it was the stunning and Zest Francesca Annis I feel that made the series what it was. I feel Walliams had the slightly easier job of making Tommy work, more so then Jessica Raine did bringing Tuppence to life. After this first episode I have to admit i'm very much drawn to Tuppence, she's rather good.
At the end of the first episode we are left with a cracker of a cliffhanger, where both lead characters are in danger, can't wait for next week.
I'm a die hard Agatha Christie fan, but even I must admit Tommy and Tuppence weren't exactly her finest creation, nor were the few titles containing them particularly brilliant, so for that I applaud Mr Walliams and co for making some good material into a very good show.
James Warwick was good back in the day, but a teeny bit wooden on occasion, it was the stunning and Zest Francesca Annis I feel that made the series what it was. I feel Walliams had the slightly easier job of making Tommy work, more so then Jessica Raine did bringing Tuppence to life. After this first episode I have to admit i'm very much drawn to Tuppence, she's rather good.
At the end of the first episode we are left with a cracker of a cliffhanger, where both lead characters are in danger, can't wait for next week.
This is NOT Christie!
janetr662 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If you are an Agatha Christie fan, this version will break your heart. She is not even credited here as writer. Not surprising as, aside from the names of the characters, the story has been completely rewritten, abandoning the charm of Tommy & Tuppence's early romance (here they are already a married couple with a son), Tommy has lost his sweet, considerate nature and turned into a stodgy curmudgeon, and the entire premise of how they embark on the search for Jane Finn is all but lost. Watch, instead, the 1983 TV movie with James Warwick and Francesca Annis, who have wonderful chemistry and a screenplay which follows the original Christie novel quite faithfully.
The lady vanishes
TheLittleSongbird30 April 2018
Although Agatha Christie is one of my favourite authors, adaptations of her work have always personally been judged on how good they are on their own merits, regardless of how good or bad an adaptation it is.
The Tommy and Tuppence books/stories are entertaining reads, though none of them are among my favourites from Christie, and the 80s 'Partners in Crime' series is not only true in details and spirit to the stories but charming, suspenseful, light-hearted entertainment in its own right. But when advertised, surprisingly didn't find myself desperate in seeing this, which is highly unusual for an Agatha Christie adaptation. Despite looking good visually, the casting just seemed off and even when advertised the writing seemed clunky.
Finally giving it the benefit of the doubt, and without comparison to the source material and the previous 'Partners in Crime' series, as someone who loves Agatha Christie and who has enjoyed a large amount of adaptations of her work there was an air of bitter disappointment present in "The Secret Adversary: Part 1". A bitter disappointment that never goes away.
It has a few plus points, with the best thing about it being the production values.
The 1950s setting is evoked beautifully, the scenery is positively sumptuous and at times effectively mysterious and a lot of work clearly went into evoking the period, because the attention to detail is great. It is also very stylishly filmed and atmospherically lit.
While the acting is a vast majority really not very good, a couple of performances are decent.
Particular mention going to an effectively menacing Jonny Phillips, who shows that you don't have to do an awful lot to make one feel uneasy. Alice Krige also tries her best and adopts a dignified grace.
However, that is pretty much it for the good things. One of the main things that ruins "The Secret Adversary: Part 1" (and this would continue to be one of the series' biggest problems) is the woeful miscasting of David Walliams as Tommy, have nothing personal against Walliams but there was the fear that he would be out of place and stick out like a sore thumb and that fear was proved correct. Walliams even when playing straight often looks vacant and doesn't seem to have a clue as to whether to camp it up as Tommy or underplay, his performance here is a mess of both and he never looks comfortable doing either, he acts jarringly buffoonish when camping it up, the dramatic scenes being very overwroughtly played, and when underplaying he is incredibly wooden.
While Jessica Raine is not as badly affected, this viewer is in the camp of not finding her that much better, she doesn't look very engaged as Tuppence (as if she didn't want to be there), a very charming and authoritative role, and comes over as rather too forceful in the more dramatic scenes. Although this is more to do with how the character is written here Raine seems and acts too modern for the 50s, at least here and throughout 'Partners in Crime'.
The two have no obvious chemistry together, while it may not have been the case at all it was like they didn't get along, or maybe it was how the roles were written because Tuppence looked more annoyed with rather in love with Tommy. Both manage to do something seemingly impossible and make Tommy and Tuppence annoying. The rest of the acting is not good either, the lack of chemistry also applies to the supporting cast which severely undermines the tension and pacing of the story and few seem sure of how to play their roles.
As good as the production values are, the effort put into them doesn't translate in the music, script and storytelling. The music is too loud, too much, too constant and too intrusive, not to mention very one-note mood-wise, even in scenes that would have benefited from more understated scoring or none at all.
Script-writing is clunky and instead of being suspenseful and light-hearted it's like trudging and struggling through very thick mud, and it never feels like it belongs in the 1950s, constantly the viewer feels like they are yanked back to 21st century. The dialogue, complete with comic elements in serious need of a toning down, dramatic elements that are talky and overwrought and mystery elements that feel under-explained and as long a way from tense as one can get, is rather stilted and lacks pulse and urgency, especially in the talkier scenes.
Sadly, the storytelling in "The Secret Adversary: Part 1" is not good. On the page, 'The Secret Adversary' seems slow going but it was really quite diverting. Here the storytelling rambles on ponderously as a result of far too much padding (throughout all three parts of "The Secret Adversary" but to particularly sluggish effect here in the first part) with a lot of the 'tense' or 'suspenseful' scenes instead bordering on the laboured. And there are additions that are either silly, pointless or confuse the story, sometimes even all three, plus occasionally confused and ridiculous.
Regarding the direction, while it fares well visually and does a good job bringing a sense of period it does poorly in the direction of the actors, most of whom look lost at sea with what to do, and with the storytelling.
Overall, a pretty poor start. 3/10 Bethany Cox
The Tommy and Tuppence books/stories are entertaining reads, though none of them are among my favourites from Christie, and the 80s 'Partners in Crime' series is not only true in details and spirit to the stories but charming, suspenseful, light-hearted entertainment in its own right. But when advertised, surprisingly didn't find myself desperate in seeing this, which is highly unusual for an Agatha Christie adaptation. Despite looking good visually, the casting just seemed off and even when advertised the writing seemed clunky.
Finally giving it the benefit of the doubt, and without comparison to the source material and the previous 'Partners in Crime' series, as someone who loves Agatha Christie and who has enjoyed a large amount of adaptations of her work there was an air of bitter disappointment present in "The Secret Adversary: Part 1". A bitter disappointment that never goes away.
It has a few plus points, with the best thing about it being the production values.
The 1950s setting is evoked beautifully, the scenery is positively sumptuous and at times effectively mysterious and a lot of work clearly went into evoking the period, because the attention to detail is great. It is also very stylishly filmed and atmospherically lit.
While the acting is a vast majority really not very good, a couple of performances are decent.
Particular mention going to an effectively menacing Jonny Phillips, who shows that you don't have to do an awful lot to make one feel uneasy. Alice Krige also tries her best and adopts a dignified grace.
However, that is pretty much it for the good things. One of the main things that ruins "The Secret Adversary: Part 1" (and this would continue to be one of the series' biggest problems) is the woeful miscasting of David Walliams as Tommy, have nothing personal against Walliams but there was the fear that he would be out of place and stick out like a sore thumb and that fear was proved correct. Walliams even when playing straight often looks vacant and doesn't seem to have a clue as to whether to camp it up as Tommy or underplay, his performance here is a mess of both and he never looks comfortable doing either, he acts jarringly buffoonish when camping it up, the dramatic scenes being very overwroughtly played, and when underplaying he is incredibly wooden.
While Jessica Raine is not as badly affected, this viewer is in the camp of not finding her that much better, she doesn't look very engaged as Tuppence (as if she didn't want to be there), a very charming and authoritative role, and comes over as rather too forceful in the more dramatic scenes. Although this is more to do with how the character is written here Raine seems and acts too modern for the 50s, at least here and throughout 'Partners in Crime'.
The two have no obvious chemistry together, while it may not have been the case at all it was like they didn't get along, or maybe it was how the roles were written because Tuppence looked more annoyed with rather in love with Tommy. Both manage to do something seemingly impossible and make Tommy and Tuppence annoying. The rest of the acting is not good either, the lack of chemistry also applies to the supporting cast which severely undermines the tension and pacing of the story and few seem sure of how to play their roles.
As good as the production values are, the effort put into them doesn't translate in the music, script and storytelling. The music is too loud, too much, too constant and too intrusive, not to mention very one-note mood-wise, even in scenes that would have benefited from more understated scoring or none at all.
Script-writing is clunky and instead of being suspenseful and light-hearted it's like trudging and struggling through very thick mud, and it never feels like it belongs in the 1950s, constantly the viewer feels like they are yanked back to 21st century. The dialogue, complete with comic elements in serious need of a toning down, dramatic elements that are talky and overwrought and mystery elements that feel under-explained and as long a way from tense as one can get, is rather stilted and lacks pulse and urgency, especially in the talkier scenes.
Sadly, the storytelling in "The Secret Adversary: Part 1" is not good. On the page, 'The Secret Adversary' seems slow going but it was really quite diverting. Here the storytelling rambles on ponderously as a result of far too much padding (throughout all three parts of "The Secret Adversary" but to particularly sluggish effect here in the first part) with a lot of the 'tense' or 'suspenseful' scenes instead bordering on the laboured. And there are additions that are either silly, pointless or confuse the story, sometimes even all three, plus occasionally confused and ridiculous.
Regarding the direction, while it fares well visually and does a good job bringing a sense of period it does poorly in the direction of the actors, most of whom look lost at sea with what to do, and with the storytelling.
Overall, a pretty poor start. 3/10 Bethany Cox
Tiresome, Boring and Disappointing.
zombiemockingbird18 June 2019
I really wanted to like this, but it got worse as it went along. I couldn't decide if the acting was bad or the writing was so bad no one could have portrayed it any better. Tommy and Tuppence both seemed miscast, and didn't portray the characters the way I remember them from the book. Again, not sure if it's bad acting or bad writing. The adaptation of the original story was disappointing and the story was ponderous and tiresome and boring. It just kept dragging on and on and on and seemed like there was a lot of filler to make it longer than it needed to be. Overall a big disappointment.
Very little in common with Christie's story.
pranderson06309511 May 2023
This is a good series which misrepresents its origins. Episode 1 part 2&2 is represented as an Agatha Christie story but only has taken bits and pieces. The title is the same. The names of the main characters are the same, but only the names and not the characters really. Yes, it happens all the time when an author loses the rights by selling them they also lose any say in how the story might be reproduced in film, television, or other means. In this rendition of "A Secret Adversary" so much has been rewritten it is no longer a story by Agatha Christie but only a story claiming to be "based on". "A Secret Adversary" is Christie's debut Tommy and Tuppance who are friends, not married, and decide to join forces as crime solvers. It's a complex story set between WWI and WWII. A pre-Nazi force threatened England with a revolution. In this version Tommy is not the suave smart and funny man who works with Tuppance but a whimpy milquetoast.
A question.
mcgeragle6 July 2018
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
