![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here I am with a random, non-Kpop post...abt adaptations IHNI who else would be interested in. XD
Full disclosure: I have watched all three of the Kenneth Brannagh Poirot movies and have dislike all three for different reasons. He's miscast himself as Poirot for one, the direction is borderline mediocre, and the cinematography is unappealing.
MOVING ON
I've watched most of these movies on YT for free ninety-nine. The first one I rented from my local library via Hoopla (I do know that it's available on Amazon Prime Video as well.) Every review will be there with YT for YouTube, APV for Amazon Primer Video or H for Hoopla.
* The Mirror Crack'd (H, it's also on APV)
It's a 1981 adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side. Because this is a novel I've enjoyed before, I was most deffo looking forward to checking out this adaptation.
The basic plot goes like this: the small village of St. Mary Mead is losing its gorram head over the fact that a v. famous and troubled movie star called Marina Gregg plus her much younger film director husband have bought a property in the village. They've decided to throw a party meant to welcome everyone and it's also going to be a charity event. Unfortch for Miss Marple, she has to sit out the party after twisting her ankle.
It's a turn of bad luck both for her…and for the person who dies in the middle of the celebrations. And then, the bodies begin to pile up. There's a ton of drama both in front and behind the scenes. Miss Marple takes it upon herself to solve the mystery.
FWIW, I'd really liked the 1992 version of this story featuring Joan Hickson as Miss Marple as well as the 2012-ish version with Julia Mackenzie as Miss Marple.
Now, this specific version had a v. interesting cast including Elizabeth Taylor as Marina Gregg, Rock Hudson as Jason Rudd (her husband), Kim Novak as Lola Brewster (Marina's main frenemy)...and none other than Dame Angela Lansbury as Miss Marple.
My expectations were SUPER HIGH.
The best part of this movie gotta be the back and forth snarking between Elizabeth Taylor and Kim Novak. You can tell that they're having a good time throwing insults at each other and whatnot. Unfortch, those scenes aren't plentiful. :|
sighs
Although the casting is solid, the direction made everything feel really artificial. There's no momentum. It's v. stiff; sort of as if someone had filmed a play. Hell, I was even bored more often than not.
My other biggest complaint had to do with Angela Lansbury's casting.
IF YOU KNOW YOUR AGATHA CHRISTIE or have watched any adaptation of a Miss Marple story or novel, you'll already know that Marple's meant to be somewhere in her early to mid-70s for most of the stories. The passage of time does occur in the Marple 'verse so she's described as being in her late 80s/early 90s in Nemesis. HOWEVER, Dame Angela Lansbury is 51 y.o. at time of filming. The makeup department does the best they can to have her face appear older. She's also wearing a white-haired wig, and wears kinda dowdy clothing. All of this so that she can appear to be at least 15 yrs older than she actually is. Aaaand, it doesn't work.
It's the same effect as when you see a 16 y.o. trying to pass for someone who is in their 40s. So, that was a minus.
Doubly so because Rock Hudson IS also 51 at the same time. Thus, seeing Lansbury do the most with her considerable talent to address him (or anyone else, really) like she was an elderly lady was the bad kind of cringe.
Do I recommend this? I really don't know. Maybe if you're a completist OR a fan of anyone in the movie. FTR, now that I've watched it, I don't plan to ever watch it again. I'm giving it a 1.5 out of 5. :(
* And There Were None (YT)
This is the standard B&W 1945 movie based on the Agatha Christie standalone novel.
Full disclosure: the original title when the novel was first published in 1939 is an extremely racist one. It got a new, so-called softer new title that was just as offensive. A year later, the book was changed to And There Were None and, by 1985, all editions of the novel use that title.
This movie is abt 8 ppl who are invited by some person to spend a weekend on a remote location. They're greeted by the cook and the butler and are surprised that their invitation was a hoax. The REAL reason was that each of the ppl on the island have to 'answer for crimes that are beyond the justice system'. And then ppl begin to die based on a nursery rhyme…
FTR, this version is v. classic British mystery type of movie. Horrible things happen, but none of it is shown. The cast is a good one. Though the only actor I recognized was Judith Anderson. Anyways, if you like Alfred Hitchcock's films, it's likely that you'll enjoy this one too. It does follow the original novel for the most part.
Coincidentally, I've watched the 1965 version (in which everyone's trapped at ski lodge, iirc) that was TERRIBS. I know there's a 1974 version that looks tacky AF, but I have only been able to find the trailer for it.
That said, I did watch and really liked the 2015 3-episode miniseries featuring Aidan Turner, Charles Dance, Miranda Richardson, etc. It's a bit gorier than expected and doesn't have as much dark humor as the 1945 version.
Do I recommend this? Yes, I do. It was a satisfying watch. I give it 3 out of 5.
Ten Little Indians* (APV)
*Yeah, this is one of the two terrible titles.
So I watched this 1959, 52-minute adaptation of the same story as above. It was something that aired on TV.
I kinda want to give it half points for keeping the main plot mostly together despite condensing it in such a limited way. Didn't recognize any of the actors; the majority were okay-ish. I do think that having a bare bones version of the story ended up lessening the impact. There was less time to get to know anyone's backstory, for one thing. Instead, everyone infodumped who they were and their motives rather fast.
Kudos to whoever played the Big Bad. Their monologue at the end was a little scary. That said, the ending was so abrupt in both how fast it happened AND how it shifted in mood to the point that I was kinda Muppet Facing at the screen, LOL.
Do I recommend it? Ehhh, it's pretty short? But the video quality is rather poor and I ultimately found it to be a weaker version of a really good story. So I'm not quite up for telling anyone they should watch it. I give it a 2.3 out of 5.
* Murder is Easy (YT)
This is the 1982 version of the movie based on the Agatha Christie novel of the same name.
It stars Bill Bixby as Luke Williams, an MIT professor who works with computers and probability math. He's currently on holiday while trying to make a decision abt his career. While in the English countryside, he meets an old lady named Lavinia while on the train to London. She's worried cuz there seems to be someone murdering ppl in her village of Wychwood. The local constable doesn't take her seriously because the deaths have all been ruled as "accidental." Lavinia feels something's fishy so she's on her way to Scotland Yard.
Luke is a bit more interested in the possibilities of the number of ppl dying within a short period of time and things of that nature.
Once they get to London, they part ways. However, less than 10 minutes later, Lavinia is run down by a car and dies. Feeling shaken up by this, Luke decides to travel to Wychwood in order to suss out whether or not Lavinia's suspicions were true or not. Once he gets to the small village, the deaths continue…
FTR, I've read the book this movie is based on twice. The first time was around the early 1990s and I reread it earlier this year. It's a standalone Christie that's v. much of its time. It's not one my fave Christies, so there's that.
I know there's a 2023 adaptation set in the mid-50s with a Black actor as Luke, but I haven't had the chance to watch it yet. However, I've watched (and enjoyed) the 2009 adaptation for the ITV Agatha Christie's Marple series. That one is, top to bottom, v., v. good.
On the positives, there are some well-known actors in the cast such as Helen Hayes as the ill-fated Lavinia, a v. young Jonathan Price as Mr. Ellsworthy (one of the suspects), and Dame Olivia de Havilland as Honoria. The rest of the cast was "okay" if a little stiffer than they should've been. Especially in the case of Lesley-ann Down (who plays Bridget.)
Unfortunately, the pacing was mega slow and it made for a dull watching experience. When it came to Luke and Bridget's relationship, it felt like something that happened out of convenience rather than real attraction. Halfway thru the film, there's a supposed curveball that sparks up a conflict between them that never felt believable. At best, they should've been a one night stand and leave it at that.
The other problem I had with the story was that a big reason why the Miss Marple adaptation (which is already wild to think cuz she's not even in the original novel) works was because there's enough space made in the script so that viewers could get to know all of the village characters. Not, like, their entire backstory. However, there was a sufficient amount of info shown that helped make some kind of emotional connection between the viewer and the characters. IIRC, it's a total of 13 ppl plus Miss Marple. It's a large cast but at no point is anyone a stranger.
Meanwhile, in the 1982 version, for reasons that I'll never understand, the focus of the story is solely on Luke, Bridget, her fiance Lord Easterwhite, and Honoria. The rest of the cast (7 or so other ppl) would pop in a couple of scenes and then, they died or were never seen again, LOL.
In any case, there's a distance between the viewer and the characters to the point that it's near impossible to feel any shock, sadness, anger, etc whenever a bad thing happened.
Plus, because this is a 'modern' version, there's a whole thing abt Luke using (now extremely old) computers to enhance his investigation. It looks even sillier than you might think.
Do I recommend it? Maybe it you want to have something in the background or you're doing a chore and don't need to be watching the screen all the time. I'm giving it a 2.4 out of 5.
* Murder is Easy (YT)
After some searching, I finally managed to watch the 2023 version. IIRC, it aired late last year as a 2-part miniseries with each episode running for an hour each.
It follows the same premise as the novel: a guy named Luke strikes up a conversation with an older lady named Lavinia while they're both on a London-bound train. She mentions the murders that keep getting dismissed in her village of Wynchwood-Under-Ashe. Shortly after parting ways, she dies from a hit-and-run. After a day or two, Luke decides to go to Lavinia's village and find out what's going on.
This adaptation does vary a little from the original story. It's now 1954 and also, Luke Fitzwilliam is not a white man. Instead, he's Luke Obiako Fitzwilliam, a Nigerian man, played by Black British actor David Jonsson. And so, there are cultural instances that give the story a bit of a twist.
Back in the 1982 version (with Bill Bixby as Luke) and the 2009 adaptation that featured Miss Marple (with Benedict Cumberbatch as Luke), the character had a wayyyy easier time inserting himself in situations that proved to be a lot more difficult for the Luke version that Jonsson portrayed. It's now post-WWII, ppl are trying to move on, etc, but there's an undercurrent of tension between Luke and some of the white folks he meets/interacts with. Luke had left Nigeria to work with some dude in Whitehall. However, things get delayed and so he now has some time to go investigate.
Jonsson's version of Luke is just as clueless and noisy as in the other versions. That said, he has to navigate white folks' wariness, i.e. racism, toward someone who is 'not like them'.
Racism is something that does occur onscreen. Two instances of microaggression involve white policemen being jackasses to Luke. And, one of the main (white) characters makes a few thinly-veiled racist remarks toward him. The one moment that caught me by surprise was during a scene in which Luke is having a conversation with another white character. It turns out that character is not only v. much into eugenics (grossssssssss), but he also goes on for a bit abt some "amazing books" (that center white supremacy.)
At the same time, there are other white characters who I initially assumed were going to be bigots and they turned out to not be racists. Small mercies and all that.
Adding to that, there are 4 other characters who aren't white. Jimmy who is his cousin in this miniseries (instead of his friend like in the novel) is played by Demmy Ladipo (a Black British actor); Ngozi Ude--an original character--is a Nigerian university student played by Gloria Obianyo (a Black British actor); Mrs. Humbleby is an Indian-born woman (played by Pakistani actor Nimra Bucha); Rose Humbleby is a mixed-race woman (played by Black British actor Phoebe Licorish).
Colonialism is another thing that's brought up in what IMO are somewhat clever ways. These are mostly voiced by characters of color. Especially Ngozi Ude in one good scene.
Also, the vicar is a combination of Mr. Humbleby and the vicar from the novel.
I feel that this version (just like in the Marple one) much more is presented and explained abt what the murderer's motivations were. The reasons made a lot of sense. It wasn't enough to excuse the multiple homicides that happen, but there we are.
As for the connection between Luke and Bridget..IDK. It's all v. low-simmering kind of attraction between. To me, however, it never bloomed into a full romance (I'm unsure if the adaptation wanted to go for that route.) Morfydd Clark (who plays Bridget) is okay…but I wasn't 100% convinced by her. So that affected my bias abt Luke/Bridget.
In terms of gore, this movie has a handful of close-ups shots (featuring bullet wounds and some blood.) However, it's nothing that would be out of place in a regular TV show.
As for actual criticisms, the cinematography (especially in the first episode) has a dark red and orange filter. It made it v. clear that I was watching a movie (if that makes sense.) Also, there are some pacing issues. Although I was never bored, the 2nd half of the first episode dragged a little. Thankfully, the entirety of the second episode had a steadier rhythm.
Do I recommend it? Yes with the caveat that the story takes a bit to really get going. I'm giving it a solid 3 out of 5.
Full disclosure: I have watched all three of the Kenneth Brannagh Poirot movies and have dislike all three for different reasons. He's miscast himself as Poirot for one, the direction is borderline mediocre, and the cinematography is unappealing.
MOVING ON
I've watched most of these movies on YT for free ninety-nine. The first one I rented from my local library via Hoopla (I do know that it's available on Amazon Prime Video as well.) Every review will be there with YT for YouTube, APV for Amazon Primer Video or H for Hoopla.
* The Mirror Crack'd (H, it's also on APV)
It's a 1981 adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel The Mirror Crack'd from Side to Side. Because this is a novel I've enjoyed before, I was most deffo looking forward to checking out this adaptation.
The basic plot goes like this: the small village of St. Mary Mead is losing its gorram head over the fact that a v. famous and troubled movie star called Marina Gregg plus her much younger film director husband have bought a property in the village. They've decided to throw a party meant to welcome everyone and it's also going to be a charity event. Unfortch for Miss Marple, she has to sit out the party after twisting her ankle.
It's a turn of bad luck both for her…and for the person who dies in the middle of the celebrations. And then, the bodies begin to pile up. There's a ton of drama both in front and behind the scenes. Miss Marple takes it upon herself to solve the mystery.
FWIW, I'd really liked the 1992 version of this story featuring Joan Hickson as Miss Marple as well as the 2012-ish version with Julia Mackenzie as Miss Marple.
Now, this specific version had a v. interesting cast including Elizabeth Taylor as Marina Gregg, Rock Hudson as Jason Rudd (her husband), Kim Novak as Lola Brewster (Marina's main frenemy)...and none other than Dame Angela Lansbury as Miss Marple.
My expectations were SUPER HIGH.
The best part of this movie gotta be the back and forth snarking between Elizabeth Taylor and Kim Novak. You can tell that they're having a good time throwing insults at each other and whatnot. Unfortch, those scenes aren't plentiful. :|
sighs
Although the casting is solid, the direction made everything feel really artificial. There's no momentum. It's v. stiff; sort of as if someone had filmed a play. Hell, I was even bored more often than not.
My other biggest complaint had to do with Angela Lansbury's casting.
IF YOU KNOW YOUR AGATHA CHRISTIE or have watched any adaptation of a Miss Marple story or novel, you'll already know that Marple's meant to be somewhere in her early to mid-70s for most of the stories. The passage of time does occur in the Marple 'verse so she's described as being in her late 80s/early 90s in Nemesis. HOWEVER, Dame Angela Lansbury is 51 y.o. at time of filming. The makeup department does the best they can to have her face appear older. She's also wearing a white-haired wig, and wears kinda dowdy clothing. All of this so that she can appear to be at least 15 yrs older than she actually is. Aaaand, it doesn't work.
It's the same effect as when you see a 16 y.o. trying to pass for someone who is in their 40s. So, that was a minus.
Doubly so because Rock Hudson IS also 51 at the same time. Thus, seeing Lansbury do the most with her considerable talent to address him (or anyone else, really) like she was an elderly lady was the bad kind of cringe.
Do I recommend this? I really don't know. Maybe if you're a completist OR a fan of anyone in the movie. FTR, now that I've watched it, I don't plan to ever watch it again. I'm giving it a 1.5 out of 5. :(
* And There Were None (YT)
This is the standard B&W 1945 movie based on the Agatha Christie standalone novel.
Full disclosure: the original title when the novel was first published in 1939 is an extremely racist one. It got a new, so-called softer new title that was just as offensive. A year later, the book was changed to And There Were None and, by 1985, all editions of the novel use that title.
This movie is abt 8 ppl who are invited by some person to spend a weekend on a remote location. They're greeted by the cook and the butler and are surprised that their invitation was a hoax. The REAL reason was that each of the ppl on the island have to 'answer for crimes that are beyond the justice system'. And then ppl begin to die based on a nursery rhyme…
FTR, this version is v. classic British mystery type of movie. Horrible things happen, but none of it is shown. The cast is a good one. Though the only actor I recognized was Judith Anderson. Anyways, if you like Alfred Hitchcock's films, it's likely that you'll enjoy this one too. It does follow the original novel for the most part.
Coincidentally, I've watched the 1965 version (in which everyone's trapped at ski lodge, iirc) that was TERRIBS. I know there's a 1974 version that looks tacky AF, but I have only been able to find the trailer for it.
That said, I did watch and really liked the 2015 3-episode miniseries featuring Aidan Turner, Charles Dance, Miranda Richardson, etc. It's a bit gorier than expected and doesn't have as much dark humor as the 1945 version.
Do I recommend this? Yes, I do. It was a satisfying watch. I give it 3 out of 5.
Ten Little Indians* (APV)
*Yeah, this is one of the two terrible titles.
So I watched this 1959, 52-minute adaptation of the same story as above. It was something that aired on TV.
I kinda want to give it half points for keeping the main plot mostly together despite condensing it in such a limited way. Didn't recognize any of the actors; the majority were okay-ish. I do think that having a bare bones version of the story ended up lessening the impact. There was less time to get to know anyone's backstory, for one thing. Instead, everyone infodumped who they were and their motives rather fast.
Kudos to whoever played the Big Bad. Their monologue at the end was a little scary. That said, the ending was so abrupt in both how fast it happened AND how it shifted in mood to the point that I was kinda Muppet Facing at the screen, LOL.
Do I recommend it? Ehhh, it's pretty short? But the video quality is rather poor and I ultimately found it to be a weaker version of a really good story. So I'm not quite up for telling anyone they should watch it. I give it a 2.3 out of 5.
* Murder is Easy (YT)
This is the 1982 version of the movie based on the Agatha Christie novel of the same name.
It stars Bill Bixby as Luke Williams, an MIT professor who works with computers and probability math. He's currently on holiday while trying to make a decision abt his career. While in the English countryside, he meets an old lady named Lavinia while on the train to London. She's worried cuz there seems to be someone murdering ppl in her village of Wychwood. The local constable doesn't take her seriously because the deaths have all been ruled as "accidental." Lavinia feels something's fishy so she's on her way to Scotland Yard.
Luke is a bit more interested in the possibilities of the number of ppl dying within a short period of time and things of that nature.
Once they get to London, they part ways. However, less than 10 minutes later, Lavinia is run down by a car and dies. Feeling shaken up by this, Luke decides to travel to Wychwood in order to suss out whether or not Lavinia's suspicions were true or not. Once he gets to the small village, the deaths continue…
FTR, I've read the book this movie is based on twice. The first time was around the early 1990s and I reread it earlier this year. It's a standalone Christie that's v. much of its time. It's not one my fave Christies, so there's that.
I know there's a 2023 adaptation set in the mid-50s with a Black actor as Luke, but I haven't had the chance to watch it yet. However, I've watched (and enjoyed) the 2009 adaptation for the ITV Agatha Christie's Marple series. That one is, top to bottom, v., v. good.
On the positives, there are some well-known actors in the cast such as Helen Hayes as the ill-fated Lavinia, a v. young Jonathan Price as Mr. Ellsworthy (one of the suspects), and Dame Olivia de Havilland as Honoria. The rest of the cast was "okay" if a little stiffer than they should've been. Especially in the case of Lesley-ann Down (who plays Bridget.)
Unfortunately, the pacing was mega slow and it made for a dull watching experience. When it came to Luke and Bridget's relationship, it felt like something that happened out of convenience rather than real attraction. Halfway thru the film, there's a supposed curveball that sparks up a conflict between them that never felt believable. At best, they should've been a one night stand and leave it at that.
The other problem I had with the story was that a big reason why the Miss Marple adaptation (which is already wild to think cuz she's not even in the original novel) works was because there's enough space made in the script so that viewers could get to know all of the village characters. Not, like, their entire backstory. However, there was a sufficient amount of info shown that helped make some kind of emotional connection between the viewer and the characters. IIRC, it's a total of 13 ppl plus Miss Marple. It's a large cast but at no point is anyone a stranger.
Meanwhile, in the 1982 version, for reasons that I'll never understand, the focus of the story is solely on Luke, Bridget, her fiance Lord Easterwhite, and Honoria. The rest of the cast (7 or so other ppl) would pop in a couple of scenes and then, they died or were never seen again, LOL.
In any case, there's a distance between the viewer and the characters to the point that it's near impossible to feel any shock, sadness, anger, etc whenever a bad thing happened.
Plus, because this is a 'modern' version, there's a whole thing abt Luke using (now extremely old) computers to enhance his investigation. It looks even sillier than you might think.
Do I recommend it? Maybe it you want to have something in the background or you're doing a chore and don't need to be watching the screen all the time. I'm giving it a 2.4 out of 5.
* Murder is Easy (YT)
After some searching, I finally managed to watch the 2023 version. IIRC, it aired late last year as a 2-part miniseries with each episode running for an hour each.
It follows the same premise as the novel: a guy named Luke strikes up a conversation with an older lady named Lavinia while they're both on a London-bound train. She mentions the murders that keep getting dismissed in her village of Wynchwood-Under-Ashe. Shortly after parting ways, she dies from a hit-and-run. After a day or two, Luke decides to go to Lavinia's village and find out what's going on.
This adaptation does vary a little from the original story. It's now 1954 and also, Luke Fitzwilliam is not a white man. Instead, he's Luke Obiako Fitzwilliam, a Nigerian man, played by Black British actor David Jonsson. And so, there are cultural instances that give the story a bit of a twist.
Back in the 1982 version (with Bill Bixby as Luke) and the 2009 adaptation that featured Miss Marple (with Benedict Cumberbatch as Luke), the character had a wayyyy easier time inserting himself in situations that proved to be a lot more difficult for the Luke version that Jonsson portrayed. It's now post-WWII, ppl are trying to move on, etc, but there's an undercurrent of tension between Luke and some of the white folks he meets/interacts with. Luke had left Nigeria to work with some dude in Whitehall. However, things get delayed and so he now has some time to go investigate.
Jonsson's version of Luke is just as clueless and noisy as in the other versions. That said, he has to navigate white folks' wariness, i.e. racism, toward someone who is 'not like them'.
Racism is something that does occur onscreen. Two instances of microaggression involve white policemen being jackasses to Luke. And, one of the main (white) characters makes a few thinly-veiled racist remarks toward him. The one moment that caught me by surprise was during a scene in which Luke is having a conversation with another white character. It turns out that character is not only v. much into eugenics (grossssssssss), but he also goes on for a bit abt some "amazing books" (that center white supremacy.)
At the same time, there are other white characters who I initially assumed were going to be bigots and they turned out to not be racists. Small mercies and all that.
Adding to that, there are 4 other characters who aren't white. Jimmy who is his cousin in this miniseries (instead of his friend like in the novel) is played by Demmy Ladipo (a Black British actor); Ngozi Ude--an original character--is a Nigerian university student played by Gloria Obianyo (a Black British actor); Mrs. Humbleby is an Indian-born woman (played by Pakistani actor Nimra Bucha); Rose Humbleby is a mixed-race woman (played by Black British actor Phoebe Licorish).
Colonialism is another thing that's brought up in what IMO are somewhat clever ways. These are mostly voiced by characters of color. Especially Ngozi Ude in one good scene.
Also, the vicar is a combination of Mr. Humbleby and the vicar from the novel.
I feel that this version (just like in the Marple one) much more is presented and explained abt what the murderer's motivations were. The reasons made a lot of sense. It wasn't enough to excuse the multiple homicides that happen, but there we are.
As for the connection between Luke and Bridget..IDK. It's all v. low-simmering kind of attraction between. To me, however, it never bloomed into a full romance (I'm unsure if the adaptation wanted to go for that route.) Morfydd Clark (who plays Bridget) is okay…but I wasn't 100% convinced by her. So that affected my bias abt Luke/Bridget.
In terms of gore, this movie has a handful of close-ups shots (featuring bullet wounds and some blood.) However, it's nothing that would be out of place in a regular TV show.
As for actual criticisms, the cinematography (especially in the first episode) has a dark red and orange filter. It made it v. clear that I was watching a movie (if that makes sense.) Also, there are some pacing issues. Although I was never bored, the 2nd half of the first episode dragged a little. Thankfully, the entirety of the second episode had a steadier rhythm.
Do I recommend it? Yes with the caveat that the story takes a bit to really get going. I'm giving it a solid 3 out of 5.
