![]() So here we are with the third ITV production of Agatha Christie’s Marple. Agatha doesn’t give an explanation for Miss Marple’s leap of deduction either. This is one case where adapting the novel would have been an improvement. The complete lack of a reason killed the movie for me. I would have given this adaptation a higher rating except for the criminal lack of subtitles and the fact that I could not figure out how Miss Marple made that deductive leap to unearth the murderer in the last fifteen minutes. I didn’t remember the novel well, so I wasn’t looking for mistakes or adaptation errors. Quality of film on its own: 3 1/2 garottes. If you’re familiar with the novel, you’ll recognize plenty of other discrepancies, both large and small. ![]() He wasn’t in the novel either, but there he is, entertaining Lord Mountbatten with Lucy Eyelesbarrow. Miss Marple wouldn’t use this phrase but I will because she’d agree: as if!Īnother major change was adding a completely new character to investigate. He also murders one less person than in the novel, because hey, he’s doing it all for love and not for love of money. The largest, without a doubt, is reworking the murderer’s motivation to make us ooze with sympathy for the trap in which he finds himself. McGillicuddy Saw! That’s the title used in the American market since the British publishers believed that Americans wouldn’t recognize the railway reference in the title.) ![]() (Note: You may also see this titled What Mrs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |