Own the rights?
25 out of 26 people found the following review useful: The Start of Something Good, 23 December 2004 Author: Jack Giddings from Middlesex, England
A simple plot: a the body of a young woman is found in the library of a manor house in Kent. She can be traced to a sea-side hotel, and the list of suspects is endless. The police are baffled. So, who do you call in? Scotland Yard? The FBI? No. Just call Miss Marple, the elderly sleuth from St Mary Mead. She may look innocent, but her mind has plummeted the deaths of human inequity, and is as sharp as a meat cleaver. This is the first of the twelve adaptations made by the BBC between 1984 and 1992, all featuring the late, great Joan Hickosn, who is regarded as the definitive Miss Marple. Hickson truly shines as Miss Marple, able to convey a sense of depth in the character, and to really capture Miss Marple as Christie described her: on the outside, seemingly dotty - a fluffy, gentle old lady more concerned with knitting than murder; but on the inside, a detective genius, but very modest, also. The supporting cast are really quite good, too. Gwen Watford is delightful as Mrs Bantry, in whose library the body is found. Her dependence on Miss Marple, and the way that she acts as though Miss Marple were her nanny, always asking questions in a sweet, child-like way is quite charming. Moray Watson (whom you may recognise from the Darling Buds of May) is also very good as the proud, military man Colonel Bantry, who appears very strong, but, as Miss Marple says, like most military men, is unusually sensitive. The rest of the cast are good too, particularly, David Horovitch as Chief Inspector Slack, the zealous police officer who is always trying to outdo Miss Marple in detective skills, but rarely succeeds, much to his own chagrin!The period detail is also excellent, and really recreates a Britsoh sea-side resort in the years directly after WWII, with people gradually starting to enjoy themselves again, and really getting into the swing of leisure, dinner and dancing. The costumes are realistic, as are the characters. The eventual solution will surprise you! This adaptation far surpasses the new ITV series featuring Geraldine McEwan, who, in my opinion, is far too racy nd modern to play Miss Marple. If you want a more wholesome, realistic Miss Marple, who is more like the Miss Marple of the books, I highly recommend that you watch this.
12 out of 14 people found the following review useful: Agree with others.Far superior to Geraldene McEwan, 23 January 2005 Author: kennethkdj from north wales
This gem is indeed far superior to the Geraldine McEwan version. Although it is a very good attempt and the supporting cast are superb,the period detail very good and is faithful to the book, Miss McEwan just does not have the x factor for Miss Marple. In fact with the contrived voice and the gestures she tries just that bit too hard to achieve what Joan Hickson did with so much ease.I understand that so far only four of the series have been re-filmed out of a total of twelve, and I am sure that out of the available Miss Marple contenders. i.e. Angela Lansbury, Helen Hayes, Maragret Rutherford,Joan Hickson and Geraldene McEwan it will be found that Miss Hickson is the definitive.
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful: The usual BBC Marple weaknesses but generally an engaging mystery in a classy and slow delivery, 19 April 2006 Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK
The Bantry's wake up in their home one morning to find the body of a young woman they have never seen before, lying in their library. They duly call the police and the girl is identified as a dancer from the Majestic hotel (several towns away) and the time of death is established. However, with more of a link to the girl than he realised and no alibi for the time of the murder, Colonel Bantry finds himself a suspect at worst and a point of gossip at best. Mrs Bantry decides to get away for a bit and, hoping to clear her husband's name, asks her friend Miss Marple to accompany her to the seaside and the Majestic Hotel, to carry out their own investigation.Structuring the delivery of the story a bit differently from some of the other BBC Marple films I had seen, this film jumps right into the mystery and only really gives background in flashback scenes during interviews and the investigation generally. This approach works well early on because it sets out a solid pace and urgency early on. The BBC Marple films generally have a slow pace so, even though it did gradually settle down to what I expected, it gave it a nice boost early on. The story is the usual complex mix of mystery and characters delivered with a good sense of period; it won't win over those used to 45 minute chunks of CSI etc but it does have a certain style and charm of its own. I'm not being snobby when I say that about CSI because I must confess that at times I found it frustratingly slow and occasionally a bit too subtle for my tastes but generally the quality of the material works.The material is also structured well to, as normal, use the police almost as much as it uses Miss Marple. Looking back it seems risky (can you imagine a Columbo where he is sidelined for big sections?) but it works well and compliments the feel of the film. Hickson is, as many have said, the definitive Marple and only looks better and better the more ITV insist on wheeling out McEwan in their versions. She is classy and thoughtful and she very much fills the idea of the elderly spinster that I have in my head (and it seems Christie had in hers). She benefits from having Watford as a companion for much of the film and she is quite fun as a contrast. Horovitch gives his usual good turn; he is not as good as Marple of course but unlike some other "bumbling cop" performances he is given a good cop and he always plays it as such. Support from the rest of the cast is roundly good without anyone dominating the rest of them.Overall then this has the usual "faults" of the BBC Marple series in that it is quite complex (and doesn't really help you out along the way) and it can be frustratingly slow at times. However for fans of the series these may not be faults; either way the film is an engaging mystery that is well written and well delivered by the cast. I could have happily had it 30 minutes shorter and tighter/slicker as a result but as it was it still worked well enough and certainly fans will enjoy it.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Hands-Down Winner, 28 December 2007 Author: luxetveritas3 from United States
For a Christie near-addict, I find it difficult to even watch the Geraldine McEwan versions...esp. since Hickson was so flawless! I gather Christie herself had chosen her originally. Geraldine: way to ditsy. Rutherford: trying too hard to be comical and the novels are not comedies ! Hickson is scarily CONVINCING as the amazingly shrewd, analytical "old maid" who can still flutter and cluck on occasion...but the intelligence she brings to the role should discourage others. It's like Olivier in Richard III...and possibly Henry V. Case closed; find something else to play. Also: why fiddle with the setting? Christie set it in prewar England. And the supporting cast: most of whom I gather have sadly passed on--just show how deep the "bench" was in the matter of character actors of a certain generation. I doubt you could rustle up the same caliber today.
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful: Excellent Christie adaptation, 4 May 2007 Author: lucy-19 from London
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I haven't seen the McEwan version but can't believe it comes anywhere near this one. This cast definitely do not ham up the story, which is a good one. Christie was parodying the kind of cliché'd tale that starts off with a body in the library of the manor house - she takes us right out of that static, country-house setting (which ignorant critics often accuse her of being stuck in) to the rather louche setting of an expensive seaside hotel. The hotel is full of people who aren't quite ladies or gentlemen (which makes them all the more amusing). And film man Basil Blake is actually living in St. Mary Mead with a blonde, without benefit of clergy (or so he'd have everybody think). This adaptation sticks pretty faithfully to the book and the cast are good, especially Styler, Horovich, Watford and of course Joan Hickson. I only have a few minor nitpicks. I miss the exit line of the tennis-playing gigolo, his upper class background exposed as a sham and his rich widow an item with an old admirer: "Dance, dance, little gentleman!" He was quoting a popular tune "Dance, Dance, Little Lady" but audiences couldn't be expected to know that. The dignity of the missing Girl Guide's parents is not as vivid as in the book. And Ruby's hair and makeup are all wrong: she wouldn't have had long fluffy hair in the 30s, and her rouge makes her look feverish. In the book, Basil turns out to have a heroic civilian WW I record, too. Christie reflected her times, and had a great sense of humour she's not always given credit for. The Body in the Library is the title of a book by her fictional avatar, Ariadne Oliver. Perhaps she thought she might as well write it herself. Someone should give us The Clue of the Crimson Goldfish...
4 out of 6 people found the following review useful: Agreed. The definitive Miss Marple., 12 February 2008 Author: papillonsoosoo from Ireland
Joan Hickson played the role as if she was born to do it, same as David Suchet for Poirot. Both are definitive performances and that's all there is to say.Geraldine McEwan is a fine actress. Sadly, she follows in Hayes' and Rutherford's footsteps in completely failing to capture Miss Marple such as Christie wrote her, a frail old lady with wise eyes and a mind beyond sharp. I even caught a glimpse of McEwan with a positive SPRING in her step in one of her scenes, for Goodness' sake!! Way too youthful, way too OTT.Joan Hickson, RIP.
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful: The Switch, 2 September 2003 Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach
Spoilers herein.Detective mysteries are one of the most lavishly adventuresome experiences in literature, if one is interested in how narratives are constructed. The contract between reader and writer is rather complex, often involving virtual contracts with some of the characters as well. Christie is a master of these tricks.Christie and Sayers usually put a character in the story to denote this ambiguity of realities: either a writer or a moviemaker. Here it is a movie fellow. (In "Death in the Clouds" it was a detective writer with a multiple personality disorder, and one of the persons was the fictional detective!)The BBC takes all these intellectual adventures, all these notions of multiple parallel realities and flattens them to productions of lush setting and colorful characters. A real shame and we shouldn't put up with it.But in this case at least, we have two redeeming qualities: the first is the way the director has chosen to handle the staging. It is remarkably intelligent: many of the perspectives use very creative camera perspectives. Lots of the talky recounting sessions are very cleverly presented, most notably that of the dance partners, which we see over and over. Each time is slightly but significantly different.Which brings us to the other asset. Trudie Styler, whose assertive, confident presence is a perfect counterpoint to Hickson's practiced withdrawal.The technical aspects of the story are interesting as well. Old detective stories were of the form: a body is discovered in a manor and the inhabitants are the suspects. The impossibility of who did it and how is the game. Here, the rules of the game are all adjusted. Many people do not know the others. The place and body are usually the anchor of such stories. Everything must tie to that navel. Here that anchor is cleverly fooled with.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Reading the novel first or seeing the film first?, 11 December 2009 Author: Mr Dark Pink from United States
There are two sorts of viewers of this film. Those who see it having first read the novel, and those who see it not having read it.Those who have read it first recognize a superlative job done by the scriptwriter and director, getting all the essentials of the story included within three fifty minute episodes. Those who have not read it first find the film filled with matters that only seem to dither along as Miss Marple herself and merely obstruct the eventual conclusion.Agatha's novels are very difficult to condense into 90 to 120 minutes. There are always delicious elements left out or plot lines that are not developed or explanations not made.In this adaptation, SPOILERS COMING!!, the conclusion wraps up the sleuth's thinking, but leaves out the novel's attention to what happens to Conway Jefferson's daughter in law and her son Peter, resolving the question of the final distribution of the old man's wealth. Maybe the director and scriptwriter decided that the woman was not sympathetic enough to talk about. Indeed, they did present her as something of a cold fish who flirted with two men without any resolution of their fates in the film. It's all explained in the book where she comes across much more sympathetically.But this may be a minor quibble. Many commentators have rightly given this film very high marks. I agree with those who accord this movie top rank or near top rank for its kind.
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful: What A Great Whodunit Puzzle, 10 May 2009 Author: Lechuguilla from Dallas, Texas
The ending was a total surprise. My guess as to the killer's identity was flat wrong. But, of course, once the explanation is given, the events make perfect sense. There are clues all over the place, but they're very subtle. Some are in the dialogue. If spoken words were taken at face value, we would know instantly who the villain is. Instead, we take these words only in the context of the discussion. Thus, we overlook their significance. This film is probably one of the better TV murder mysteries derived from an Agatha Christie novel.Casting and acting are fine. As Miss Marple, Joan Hickson plays it low-key and deferential. Other actors are also a delight. Andrew Cruickshank as Conway Jefferson, Raymond Francis as Sir Henry Clithering, and Frederick Jaeger as Chief Constable Melchett enhance the overall quality of acting.The plot does seem a tad strung out. The story doesn't really justify a two and a half-hour plot. Several sequences, especially in the first half, could have been shortened or deleted. I'm assuming the story takes place in the early 1950s, but the script doesn't really specify.I like the spine-tingling suspense near the end. All we see of the killer is a shadowy figure and a pair of black-gloved hands. Marvelous! And Miss Marple sums up the entire story: "It's a mystery. But then we all are, aren't we? Even to ourselves, especially to ourselves".
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful: Murder in the shadows, 16 December 2008 Author: rbolt2008 from United Kingdom
Joan Hickson's first appearance in her outstanding portrayal of Miss Marple - and the first BBC adaptation written by Trevor Bowen. It was first broadcast in three 50-minute episodes.Suspense: For me, the structure of the adaptation is one of its qualities: each episode ends with a cliffhanger, while parts two and three begin with a shot of the body in the darkness of the Library at Gossington Hall. Watch out for the macabre ending to episode two involving a bonfire, a laugh and a native mask. The use of shadows and closeup shots to create sinister effects are a feature of the BBC adaptations and the first film contains some good examples of this. In my opinion, the closing ten minutes are worthy of a Hitchcock thriller or an expressionist film of the 1920s or 30s.Characterisation: Each member of the cast is suited to their respective roles. Moray Watson's staccato accent makes him an ideal Colonel Bantry; Jess Conrad's appearance is perfect for the role of Raymond Starr; Gwen Watford is brilliant as Dolly Bantry - she is what I would expect a wife of a retired colonel in the 1950s to look like. Members of the cast interact well together: I am thinking here of the opening scene in bed where Dolly browbeats her husband into viewing the dead body in the library. There's also the bond between two elderly friends in the form of Sir Henry Clithering and Miss Marple when the retired professional detective and the amateur sleuth are reunited.Comparison with ITV version: I do not mind the ITV version, but there's no where near as much thought given to casting and scripting as there was in the BBC version. There is too much overacting, particularly with Simon Callow as Inspector Melchett and Joanna Lumley as Dolly Bantry. There are also some comical elements which seem a bit cheap and contrived.Overall, the BBC's adaptation of the Body in the Library is highly recommended and is something I will never tire of watching.
Add another review
