Own the rights?
11 out of 16 people found the following review useful: Couldn't Keep My Interest, 10 October 2007 Author: doniejamesqm from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
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.
13 out of 20 people found the following review useful: The Most Unengaging, Unsympathetic Group of Trolls Ever!, 4 September 2007 Author: ALS1 from Chicago, Illinois
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.
4 out of 4 people found the following review useful: Strange changes to the original plot, 12 April 2009 Author: FanWanDango from England
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.
3 out of 3 people found the following review useful: Unappealing Version of Christie's Marple, 24 July 2009 Author: cloeso9 from Shreveport LA
I've seen this entire series and while some are quite good, some are not. "Ordeal by Innocence" falls into the badly done category. With so many talented actors, beginning with McEwan, this should have been a very watchable and enjoyable entry. But the script was dreadful. There was hardly any character development and a rush to close the unbelievable storyline. The powers behind this one strictly were focused on giving the actors more camera time, and there were a slew of them. But the ending just left me cold. All this silly family entwining. It was good to see Jane Seymour again, even if it was a short amount of time. Note: I LOVED the comment from one person here who said if we didn't like it, we could NOT watch. But he or she watched with a big "G & T" (GIN and tonic)....LOL!! I'd have to be smashed too.
6 out of 10 people found the following review useful: Ordeal for true Christie fans, 15 November 2008 Author: praed_street from United States
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.
15 out of 28 people found the following review useful: I agree, this series is sinking lower and lower, 25 September 2007 Author: dgillig from United States
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.
Decent adaptation, 30 August 2009 Author: OrWright
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.
22 out of 44 people found the following review useful: This Series Keeps Sinking Lower, If That's Possible, 27 August 2007 Author: sherryminou07 from United States
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.
7 out of 16 people found the following review useful: McEwan's Marple Mistakenly Malligned, 4 March 2008 Author: sarah_caroline from United States
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.
3 out of 9 people found the following review useful: Really rather good for a 'non Marple', 5 April 2008 Author: Iain-215 from United Kingdom
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.
Add another review
