The only good thing I can say about this production is that it had a sterling cast, all my favorites. But no sterling cast could rescue this. It is not really an adaptation of Agatha Christie since it has almost no resemblance to the original Agatha Christie plot. As I was watching, questions and comments were popping into my head.
1. Exactly how easy would it have been, in the early to mid 20th century class-conscious England, for an unemployed scullery maid to reinvent herself as a famous Dame of the British Empire?
2. I realize love is blind,but a word of explanation as to why or how Lord Boynton managed to fall in love with his monster of a wife (also vice versa) would have been appreciated. Especially given that they were both middle-age adults with grown children by the time they met. What? In a good story character combinations are believable.
3. In what way does torturing someone to death constitute rescue of a long-abandoned child? If the child was rediscovered after many years, why not simply take him or her away from the life of misery and live happily ever after? What exactly did this elaborately planned nastiness achieve except for more misery for the child in question? Oh, and why exactly did it take 18 years to get around to doing anything about this? It's not like the child was kidnapped and hidden.
4. Guess what: torture-murderers are not sympathetic characters! Their motives are irrelevant. Agatha Christie knew that, it's too bad that the writers at BBC haven't figured it out and presented them as noble protagonists. Yuck. That touching scene at the end was a lot less touching than one might think.
5. What was that absurd tale of a nun all about? It never fit into the story, having absolutely no connection to anything at all.
6. Wouldn't it have been better to stick with the original plot?
In summary: amazingly terrible. Too bad about the misuse of an excellent cast. My recommendation for the viewer: read the book or see the 1988 movie with Peter Ustinov. Don't waste time on this. But if you did, don't worry: the original will still surprise you.
1. Exactly how easy would it have been, in the early to mid 20th century class-conscious England, for an unemployed scullery maid to reinvent herself as a famous Dame of the British Empire?
2. I realize love is blind,but a word of explanation as to why or how Lord Boynton managed to fall in love with his monster of a wife (also vice versa) would have been appreciated. Especially given that they were both middle-age adults with grown children by the time they met. What? In a good story character combinations are believable.
3. In what way does torturing someone to death constitute rescue of a long-abandoned child? If the child was rediscovered after many years, why not simply take him or her away from the life of misery and live happily ever after? What exactly did this elaborately planned nastiness achieve except for more misery for the child in question? Oh, and why exactly did it take 18 years to get around to doing anything about this? It's not like the child was kidnapped and hidden.
4. Guess what: torture-murderers are not sympathetic characters! Their motives are irrelevant. Agatha Christie knew that, it's too bad that the writers at BBC haven't figured it out and presented them as noble protagonists. Yuck. That touching scene at the end was a lot less touching than one might think.
5. What was that absurd tale of a nun all about? It never fit into the story, having absolutely no connection to anything at all.
6. Wouldn't it have been better to stick with the original plot?
In summary: amazingly terrible. Too bad about the misuse of an excellent cast. My recommendation for the viewer: read the book or see the 1988 movie with Peter Ustinov. Don't waste time on this. But if you did, don't worry: the original will still surprise you.