This one isn't terrible, but falls short the book, which is the best Marple book after Sleeping Murder and A Murder is Announced. Geraldine McEwan is good as Jane Marple, but I much preferred Joan Hickson, and I felt the actress gave her weakest performance of the character in this one. Here, her voice got a bit annoying. The casting isn't bad, but Joanna Lumley does overact. Simon Callow and Ian Richardson are fine though. The camera work is very nice, as are the costumes, though I wasn't a huge fan of the music. Nor with the weak script or direction or that the whole adaptation felt rushed. The adaptation stays fairly faithful to the book, but I hated it when they changed the murderers, and made up the story of a lesbian relationship...WHAT? Still, it is inferior to the much better 4.50 From Paddington. For a more faithful adaptation, see the Joan Hickson version instead.6.5/10 Bethany Cox
69 Reviews
Good, but don't mess with the stories
lisadesign3147 January 2012
The acting was very good and McEwan made a charming Miss. Marple. I admire Miss. Marple. She is always an engaging character that exemplifies genius and the importance of paying attention to the details. Miss. Marple solves crimes by tying together clues that no one else pays attention to. It is comical to watch her frustrate the inspectors in charge of the investigations by always outsmarting them, but in the end the inspectors are thoroughly impressed and befriend Miss. Marple. Seeing intelligent women in literature and film inspire me, and hopefully other women.
The scenery was lovely and the plot twist sensational. Overall, a good movie. My only problem is that the ending was changed from the book. Why a lesbian angle? If a lesbian relationship had been included in the book, fine, but it wasn't, so why change it? Don't change the murderer and then call it Agatha Christie. It just isn't right.
The scenery was lovely and the plot twist sensational. Overall, a good movie. My only problem is that the ending was changed from the book. Why a lesbian angle? If a lesbian relationship had been included in the book, fine, but it wasn't, so why change it? Don't change the murderer and then call it Agatha Christie. It just isn't right.
A clever re-working
Sleepin_Dragon8 August 2015
We all know the story, so I think it was bold of the writer to make a few edits and change things a bit, or there'd have been no need to make the series. Setting it in the 50's was a daring move, but I feel it paid off. She was a very different Jane Marple to Joan Hickson, scatty, clever and massively less shockable, she was a mature character that had a love interest and a modern outlook on life. I loved the cheeky glint in the eye she had. Fair to say I find almost all of Joan's productions superior I think this one stands up fairly well, it moves along at a nice pace. There are some great performances, Joanna Lumley, Simon Callow and Ben Miller are a great supporting cast. The music is splendid, Zadok the Priest, sets the tone. The scene where Geraldine says 'because when you're in love you think you're invincible, it blinds you,' is particularly moving. Who knows if the twist at the end was the right or wrong decision. I'm a huge Christie fan, and it didn't bother me, I was glad to see something different attempted.
A Bad Case Of Style Over Substance
robertconnor13 December 2004
In theory there is nothing wrong with revisiting classic Christie stories and characters - Poirot has been essayed a number of times (Finney, Ustinov, Suchet), and over the years we've had various spins on Miss Marple, ranging from Margaret Rutherford in the early 1960's to June Whitfield on BBC Radio.
However, after the BBC's quite brilliant series from the 1980's, in which Joan Hickson used economy and subtlety to create a brilliant Marple, what more could be added? This new interpretation, with McEwan taking up the baton, fails where Hickson's succeeded. One of the joys of the BBC series was the ensemble work within each show, the characterisations and restraint displayed by each cast member, and Hickson being well served by each script. 2004's The Body In The Library is alive with theatrical over-acting of the worst kind, and all the 'star' turns (Callow, Davenport, Walliams, sadly even Lumley) simply bury McEwan's plain Jane under a thick layer of over-playing. Too often British actors confuse the crafts of stage and film acting, so here we have moods, thoughts and reactions being telegraphed rather than suggested.
This latest version really offers nothing new, other than the 'twist' at the end... and let's just say that pedals a movie stereotype I thought we'd finally moved away from.
I suspect Hickson's Marple would have viewed this whole sorry enterprise and said 'yes, well... all rather tawdry, don't you think?'.
However, after the BBC's quite brilliant series from the 1980's, in which Joan Hickson used economy and subtlety to create a brilliant Marple, what more could be added? This new interpretation, with McEwan taking up the baton, fails where Hickson's succeeded. One of the joys of the BBC series was the ensemble work within each show, the characterisations and restraint displayed by each cast member, and Hickson being well served by each script. 2004's The Body In The Library is alive with theatrical over-acting of the worst kind, and all the 'star' turns (Callow, Davenport, Walliams, sadly even Lumley) simply bury McEwan's plain Jane under a thick layer of over-playing. Too often British actors confuse the crafts of stage and film acting, so here we have moods, thoughts and reactions being telegraphed rather than suggested.
This latest version really offers nothing new, other than the 'twist' at the end... and let's just say that pedals a movie stereotype I thought we'd finally moved away from.
I suspect Hickson's Marple would have viewed this whole sorry enterprise and said 'yes, well... all rather tawdry, don't you think?'.
Splendid production values, fine cast, but script shoots itself in the foot at the end
gridoon202419 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
For the most part, this is an auspicious start for the new Marple TV series: the production values are majestic and the cast is nearly excellent (though Simon Callow overacts a bit); Mary Stockley (especially in her "interrogation" scene), Jamie Treakston and Joanna Lumley are the standouts. Geraldine McEwan herself makes a likable and funny Miss Marple in her debut in the role. The script, going by comparison to the earlier (1984) Joan Hickson version (which, BTW, is possibly the best entry in that series), seems to be remarkably faithful to the original story (right down to Arthur's pig-watching as a calming influence!)....except, of course, one MAJOR deviation that has surely been discussed in many other reviews. Personally, I think that it adds nothing to the story, and that it does not grow organically out of the characters (especially one of them - can't say any more); therefore, it is pointless and seems to be done just for the hell of it. **1/2 out of 4.
I jolly well liked it!
patriciahammond5 May 2007
I can't believe how many negative comments I see here! I have read the books and am a fan of Agatha Christie. I also have seen Hickson, Lansbury and Rutherford embody the dotty old lady with the razor-sharp brain. But there is room for McEwan, and to my mind there is NEED for her. Miss Marple is a wonderful creation, but after a while the premise, and the endless little gossipy asides and prim teacosy-ness wear a bit on one. That is why this clever re-thinking is so very welcome. Not only the clever move to the fifties, with its very different, more edgy world, but the idea that Marple is not so shockable. Take the idea that this is an old lady who has more to her than meets the eye, and expand on it. Lesbians, extra-marital sex and so forth shouldn't shock her; she solves murders! Plenty have commented that there is too much over-acting. But it's just that wonderful high-camp quality, the lurid and fun technicolour element shown on the original paperback cover art that's being celebrated here. And for those who complain of Miss Marple's shabby cottage, the 1950s in Britain were lean years. This is Marple with a difference, and I think it's a very welcome difference, and something to be revelled in. Simon Callow's arch pompousness is delicious! Joanna Lumley's eyebrow-raising and hooty laugh is hilarious! And McEwan is subtle, detailed and above all, fun. And why not? And get those frocks!
entertaining, but the plot doesn't really work
ar-imdb2 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
WARNING - SPOILER ALERT! it's not till the end, and i have put a second warning down below so that if you want you may read my comments till that point.
i disagree with many reviewers here, so i figured my comments might be useful to some.
1 - i think geraldine mcewan makes a wonderful miss marple. joan hickson was good, yes, but i do enjoy the cheekiness and energy than mcewan adds in her portrayal. hickson always seemed like she was about to keel over at any minute.
2 - the production values on this episode - the sets and locations, costumes, the saturated colors of the film - are lovely and quite enjoyable in themselves.
3 - overall, i was amused/entertained by the slightly over-the-top acting in this episode (the other one i've seen is "a murder is announced". it was much more subtle, and very enjoyable in its own way). but, simon callow, who i generally love, completely got on my nerves. his was WAY over-the-top acting, and it was totally irritating. hamming rather than acting. for a talent like him to do that is unfortunate. oh well.
4 - but the clincher - the plot absolutely DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. the switch in plot from the book to the movie seems to have forgotten that murderers need to have a MOTIVE. argh! i haven't read the book, so i can't compare it (actually, i wish i did know what the actual plot was! i'm still trying to figure out how it actually would make SENSE...) so... to get into more detail....
**** SPOILER ****
what is the motivation for the lesbian lovers to kill ruby? i don't see any at all! if they want to run off together, they could just up and leave, no? how at *all* did ruby threaten that? i agree with another commenter that the little girl would not believe that a woman was a big deal movie director. also, all SORTS of other things are left hanging (perhaps in the book too, i dunno). how'd the murderer get into the film star's house? how'd she know nobody'd be there? the film star is totally drunk when he drags the body into the library... you even see him using the handrail in the library when leaving... hello, FINGERPRINTS? speaking of dragging bodies around, how does josie get the body out of the hotel without anyone noticing? staff etc? and how does she get the keys to that guy's car? there are just WAY, way too many things left unexplained/implausible for this to be a really satisfying murder mystery. i'm left frustrated.
oh and also, i find it unfortunate that this movie ends up showing lesbians as being crazy enough for murder. of course smart people won't draw that conclusion but the way it all works is - all of a sudden you find out they're lesbian and then - boom! that's why they killed ruby... uh, great. what a wonderful stereotype to promote.
i disagree with many reviewers here, so i figured my comments might be useful to some.
1 - i think geraldine mcewan makes a wonderful miss marple. joan hickson was good, yes, but i do enjoy the cheekiness and energy than mcewan adds in her portrayal. hickson always seemed like she was about to keel over at any minute.
2 - the production values on this episode - the sets and locations, costumes, the saturated colors of the film - are lovely and quite enjoyable in themselves.
3 - overall, i was amused/entertained by the slightly over-the-top acting in this episode (the other one i've seen is "a murder is announced". it was much more subtle, and very enjoyable in its own way). but, simon callow, who i generally love, completely got on my nerves. his was WAY over-the-top acting, and it was totally irritating. hamming rather than acting. for a talent like him to do that is unfortunate. oh well.
4 - but the clincher - the plot absolutely DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. the switch in plot from the book to the movie seems to have forgotten that murderers need to have a MOTIVE. argh! i haven't read the book, so i can't compare it (actually, i wish i did know what the actual plot was! i'm still trying to figure out how it actually would make SENSE...) so... to get into more detail....
**** SPOILER ****
what is the motivation for the lesbian lovers to kill ruby? i don't see any at all! if they want to run off together, they could just up and leave, no? how at *all* did ruby threaten that? i agree with another commenter that the little girl would not believe that a woman was a big deal movie director. also, all SORTS of other things are left hanging (perhaps in the book too, i dunno). how'd the murderer get into the film star's house? how'd she know nobody'd be there? the film star is totally drunk when he drags the body into the library... you even see him using the handrail in the library when leaving... hello, FINGERPRINTS? speaking of dragging bodies around, how does josie get the body out of the hotel without anyone noticing? staff etc? and how does she get the keys to that guy's car? there are just WAY, way too many things left unexplained/implausible for this to be a really satisfying murder mystery. i'm left frustrated.
oh and also, i find it unfortunate that this movie ends up showing lesbians as being crazy enough for murder. of course smart people won't draw that conclusion but the way it all works is - all of a sudden you find out they're lesbian and then - boom! that's why they killed ruby... uh, great. what a wonderful stereotype to promote.
Bright and breezy!
Iain-2154 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It is undeniably arguable that there was probably no real need to film the Miss Marple stories again so soon after the BBC versions with the 'definitive' Joan Hickson. However, given that ITV made that decision, there was equally no point at all in making carbon copies of the Hickson films. The new versions with Geraldine McEwen are bright, fun, Technicolour affairs taking their cue (as another reviewer has pointed out) from the sometimes gaudy dust-jackets of the original novels. McEwen's Marple is VERY different from Hicksons but I think there is room for both (and also, no doubt, others too). I love Christie's books but I am not so slavishly devoted as to insist that everything must be followed to the letter and in fact, now that I'm re-reading then, have been surprised at how faithful many of the McEwen versions are!
'Body In The Library' is extremely faithful on the whole until the much maligned 'changed ending'. There is some 'hammy' acting - personally I doubt if Simon Callow can be anything other than hammy - but humour is very much part of this Marple series and in that vein I loved Joanna Lumley as Dolly Bantry. I very much preferred the Jefferson family in this version (Richardson much more restrained as the patriarch and Tara Fitzgerald simply wonderful as Adelaide) and thought Mary Stockley was very fine as Josie. The controversial ending didn't actually bother me - motive and method remained the same and I actually found the final moments very touchingly done. Many thanks to the reviewer who pointed out the inaccuracy of 'women in film at the time' - that really hadn't occurred to me.
So, I really liked this version - my second favourite of the first season! I love the Hickson too but for different reasons and I really so think that both are worth a watch but keep an open mind for this one!
'Body In The Library' is extremely faithful on the whole until the much maligned 'changed ending'. There is some 'hammy' acting - personally I doubt if Simon Callow can be anything other than hammy - but humour is very much part of this Marple series and in that vein I loved Joanna Lumley as Dolly Bantry. I very much preferred the Jefferson family in this version (Richardson much more restrained as the patriarch and Tara Fitzgerald simply wonderful as Adelaide) and thought Mary Stockley was very fine as Josie. The controversial ending didn't actually bother me - motive and method remained the same and I actually found the final moments very touchingly done. Many thanks to the reviewer who pointed out the inaccuracy of 'women in film at the time' - that really hadn't occurred to me.
So, I really liked this version - my second favourite of the first season! I love the Hickson too but for different reasons and I really so think that both are worth a watch but keep an open mind for this one!
too changed from Christie
blanche-225 May 2013
It may have been some time since I've read "The Body in the Library," but I know Miss Marple didn't hang out on barstools in the original.
The writers of this series have set the plots in the '50s and the sensibility in the 21st century. Marple now has a past with a married man, we see sex, the murderer is not the same as in the book. This is a case of taking a familiar name that will draw viewers and then giving them something completely different. This isn't really the Miss Marple of the books. Though Geraldine McEwan is a wonderful actress, she can only deal with the script she's given and the direction she's given. Unfortunately both of those have little to do with Miss Marple. She's too sophisticated and too outwardly knowledgeable. The beauty of Miss Marple was that she was one thing on the outside -- a little old lady -- and quite another inside - a sharp thinker with a good knowledge of human nature who could solve crimes with the best of them. Two minutes with McEwan, and you know you're not dealing with some little old lady.
The screenwriters apparently can't be bothered to create something on their own so they tamper with Christie's stories. This is a very clever mystery and if you can let go of the fact that it's supposed to be an Agatha Christie story, has great production values, actors such as Ian Richardson and Joanna Lumley, and a good mystery. It's just a shame about the rest of it. Joanna Lumley is, by the way, a sheer delight.
The writers of this series have set the plots in the '50s and the sensibility in the 21st century. Marple now has a past with a married man, we see sex, the murderer is not the same as in the book. This is a case of taking a familiar name that will draw viewers and then giving them something completely different. This isn't really the Miss Marple of the books. Though Geraldine McEwan is a wonderful actress, she can only deal with the script she's given and the direction she's given. Unfortunately both of those have little to do with Miss Marple. She's too sophisticated and too outwardly knowledgeable. The beauty of Miss Marple was that she was one thing on the outside -- a little old lady -- and quite another inside - a sharp thinker with a good knowledge of human nature who could solve crimes with the best of them. Two minutes with McEwan, and you know you're not dealing with some little old lady.
The screenwriters apparently can't be bothered to create something on their own so they tamper with Christie's stories. This is a very clever mystery and if you can let go of the fact that it's supposed to be an Agatha Christie story, has great production values, actors such as Ian Richardson and Joanna Lumley, and a good mystery. It's just a shame about the rest of it. Joanna Lumley is, by the way, a sheer delight.
Wonderful remake of a classic Christie
Paularoc18 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Given the negative comments a number of reviewers made about this remake, I went back and re-watched the Hickson version. I very much prefer the McEwan version. The bright, crisp cinematography is more appealing to me than the dark, muted, overly soft cinematography in the Hickson version. Also, the supporting cast is so vivid and engaging in the remake; especially Simon Callow and Joanna Lumley - their performances were an absolute delight. This story was one of my favorite Christie stories and this rendition did it justice even though there was a significant change that understandably many found unnecessary. As often with Christie there is an overly elaborate murder plot but all the clues are there for the viewer. One thing that caught my eye was that there was a poster in Josie's room from the movie Gun Crazy. Although it now has somewhat of a following (and quite small, I'm sure) it was never an A picture and It seems unlikely that it was shown much, if at all, in Britain. This show was a winner.
Interesting but a bit dry
grantss4 June 2016
Miss Jane Marple is visiting her friend Dolly Bantry at Gossington Hall. One evening the dead body of a young woman is found inside the library of the house. Nobody in the house knows her. Police investigations ascertain that she is a dancer at the nearby hotel. Miss Marple investigates.
Having watched over 20 of the movies in the Agatha Christie's Poirot series, this seems a bit dry. The engagement is more limited than Poirot, and it's less colourful. Still reasonably interesting though.
Can't fault the casting though. Geraldine McEwan is solid as Miss Marple but the supporting cast is an all-star affair: Joanna Lumley, Tara Fitzgerald, Ian Richardson, James Fox, Simon Callow, Ben Miller (of Armstrong and Miller).
Having watched over 20 of the movies in the Agatha Christie's Poirot series, this seems a bit dry. The engagement is more limited than Poirot, and it's less colourful. Still reasonably interesting though.
Can't fault the casting though. Geraldine McEwan is solid as Miss Marple but the supporting cast is an all-star affair: Joanna Lumley, Tara Fitzgerald, Ian Richardson, James Fox, Simon Callow, Ben Miller (of Armstrong and Miller).
A darker version of the Miss Marple Stories
unimatrixzero25 December 2004
I like this new series that ITV are screening at the moment. I didn't know what to expect but having seen first couple of episodes, the first being "The Body in the Library" I am quite impressed.
Though there is a bit of poetic license in some of the plots I have to admit it gives the Miss Marple stories a lot more "OOMPH", I think Agatha Christie would have liked that, for she always hinted of a darker side to human nature in many of her books, and her creation Miss Marple was a ruthless woman in her own right, hiding behind cups of tea, inane chit-chat and lace gloves.
Geraldine McEwen is superb as the devilishly clever Miss Marple, and the sting in the tale in this episode is one that I think Agatha Christie would have loved but never have dared to put in her books when she wrote them all those years ago.
I am looking forward to this series and I hope more of Agatha Christies are given this dark but curiously addictive update by ITV in the future.
Though there is a bit of poetic license in some of the plots I have to admit it gives the Miss Marple stories a lot more "OOMPH", I think Agatha Christie would have liked that, for she always hinted of a darker side to human nature in many of her books, and her creation Miss Marple was a ruthless woman in her own right, hiding behind cups of tea, inane chit-chat and lace gloves.
Geraldine McEwen is superb as the devilishly clever Miss Marple, and the sting in the tale in this episode is one that I think Agatha Christie would have loved but never have dared to put in her books when she wrote them all those years ago.
I am looking forward to this series and I hope more of Agatha Christies are given this dark but curiously addictive update by ITV in the future.
Intriguing, handsomely produced, but too many alterations...
Doylenf19 February 2008
If the alterations to Agatha Christie's novel were only minor in nature, much of the criticism leveled at THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY would vanish, for it's a handsomely produced version of the story starring GERALDINE McEWAN as the inquisitive Miss Jane Marple.
At least for most of the running time, this sticks pretty closely to the Christie tale about the body of a young girl being found in Colonel Bantry's (JAMES FOX) library, a woman who turns out to be a dancer from a high class hotel but with no obvious attachment to the Bantry household. Dolly Bantry (JOANNA LUMLEY), the colonel's daughter, invites Jane to play sleuth and investigate the case with her.
It's another case where nothing is what it seems when the convoluted plot is finally unraveled and this is where the scriptwriters got into trouble by applying a twist to the identity of a murderous couple that was not present in the book. However, even with this flaw, the story makes a diverting viewing experience.
Not that there aren't other flaws. The acting is all a little over the top, including such seasoned performers as SIMON CALLOW and JAMES FOX, while JACK DAVENPORT does an interesting job as Superintendent Harper. Davenport is an actor who was so brilliant in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY.
No expense has been spared to give the production the look of an expensive movie and updating the story to the '50s does no real harm (the novel was written in the early '40s).
I'm not a fan of GERALDINE McEWAN's interpretation of Miss Marple, too light-headed and never giving the appearance of the deep thinking that supposedly goes on below the surface.
Summing up: Not as bad as some of the comments insist, and certainly worth watching for the cast alone.
At least for most of the running time, this sticks pretty closely to the Christie tale about the body of a young girl being found in Colonel Bantry's (JAMES FOX) library, a woman who turns out to be a dancer from a high class hotel but with no obvious attachment to the Bantry household. Dolly Bantry (JOANNA LUMLEY), the colonel's daughter, invites Jane to play sleuth and investigate the case with her.
It's another case where nothing is what it seems when the convoluted plot is finally unraveled and this is where the scriptwriters got into trouble by applying a twist to the identity of a murderous couple that was not present in the book. However, even with this flaw, the story makes a diverting viewing experience.
Not that there aren't other flaws. The acting is all a little over the top, including such seasoned performers as SIMON CALLOW and JAMES FOX, while JACK DAVENPORT does an interesting job as Superintendent Harper. Davenport is an actor who was so brilliant in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY.
No expense has been spared to give the production the look of an expensive movie and updating the story to the '50s does no real harm (the novel was written in the early '40s).
I'm not a fan of GERALDINE McEWAN's interpretation of Miss Marple, too light-headed and never giving the appearance of the deep thinking that supposedly goes on below the surface.
Summing up: Not as bad as some of the comments insist, and certainly worth watching for the cast alone.
Too much free-style
SunnyDaise4 June 2021
I really dislike this particular episode. They paid so much attention to visual detail yet felt it was perfectly acceptable to re-write Agatha Christie. This is sometimes done elsewhere in the series, but the ones that stick to Christie's plots are great.
"All-Star cast, Major Disappointment."
giddj00223 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
When I heard that ITV were playing the re-make the Miss Marple series, I feared that the new episodes would be too modern, and not at all credible; and after watching this story, my fears were confirmed.
I was firstly disgusted when I saw that the 'Miss' had been removed from the title - why? Part of the charm of the Miss Marple stories are the wonderful period details and the 'old-fashioned-ness' of it all, and by dropping the 'Miss', to me it feels as though some of that charm has gone - it seems too modern.
The time limit is also too short for the story to develop in any way - the original, made by the BBC and featuring the great Joan Hickson, was at least 155 minutes long, but split into two parts, so that it was easily digestible for the viewer. The characters in this adaptation are not given enough time to develop, and such great actors as Edward Fox are practically completely cut out.
Geraldine McEwan is also clearly not made for the part of 'Marple', as I presume that she must now be known, as 'Miss' is too fusty and old-fashioned, apparently. Her portrayal is too outwardly proud and smug; in the books and in the brilliant original adaptations with Joan Hickson, Miss Marple was very scatty on the outside, but inside the viewer could tell that she had a mind as sharp as a meat cleaver. This is what made Joan Hickson's performance so convincing, and faithful to the original descriptions of Miss Marple in the books. McEwan is also too racy as Miss Marple - can one really imagine the Miss Marple of the books, and Joan Hickson's excellent Miss Marple, sitting at a bar stool, and talking about such things as sex and lesbianism? Also, the writers tamper with Christie's original intricate plot to include a modern and completely unnecessary lesbian denouement, which seems quite ridiculous and not in context with when the story is set (1950's England). They even go so far as to change the identity of the murderer from the one in the book to authenticate this absurd and unwelcome 'plot-twist'. Also, the inclusion of a totally pointless back-in-time story to Miss Marple having an affair with a married man back in 1915 is a total waste of time, and uses up time that could actually be used to develop the important plot. I fear that we are to be subjected to more of this 'affair' story in the remaining three episodes.
One final thing - why does McEwan carry around that huge monstrosity of a bag? In the books it does state that Miss Marple is often seen with a "big handbag." However, McEwan appears to be carrying a picnic hamper with her! It is quite ridiculous.
It was not necessary to re-make the Miss Marple (sorry - 'Marple') stories after Joan Hickson so magnificently played them during the 1980's. I know that I am repeating myself, but her performance really was the definitive. McEwan seems uncomfortable in the role, the plots have been tampered with too much, and the period detail is in some places inaccurate. Bad show, ITV, bad show.
I was firstly disgusted when I saw that the 'Miss' had been removed from the title - why? Part of the charm of the Miss Marple stories are the wonderful period details and the 'old-fashioned-ness' of it all, and by dropping the 'Miss', to me it feels as though some of that charm has gone - it seems too modern.
The time limit is also too short for the story to develop in any way - the original, made by the BBC and featuring the great Joan Hickson, was at least 155 minutes long, but split into two parts, so that it was easily digestible for the viewer. The characters in this adaptation are not given enough time to develop, and such great actors as Edward Fox are practically completely cut out.
Geraldine McEwan is also clearly not made for the part of 'Marple', as I presume that she must now be known, as 'Miss' is too fusty and old-fashioned, apparently. Her portrayal is too outwardly proud and smug; in the books and in the brilliant original adaptations with Joan Hickson, Miss Marple was very scatty on the outside, but inside the viewer could tell that she had a mind as sharp as a meat cleaver. This is what made Joan Hickson's performance so convincing, and faithful to the original descriptions of Miss Marple in the books. McEwan is also too racy as Miss Marple - can one really imagine the Miss Marple of the books, and Joan Hickson's excellent Miss Marple, sitting at a bar stool, and talking about such things as sex and lesbianism? Also, the writers tamper with Christie's original intricate plot to include a modern and completely unnecessary lesbian denouement, which seems quite ridiculous and not in context with when the story is set (1950's England). They even go so far as to change the identity of the murderer from the one in the book to authenticate this absurd and unwelcome 'plot-twist'. Also, the inclusion of a totally pointless back-in-time story to Miss Marple having an affair with a married man back in 1915 is a total waste of time, and uses up time that could actually be used to develop the important plot. I fear that we are to be subjected to more of this 'affair' story in the remaining three episodes.
One final thing - why does McEwan carry around that huge monstrosity of a bag? In the books it does state that Miss Marple is often seen with a "big handbag." However, McEwan appears to be carrying a picnic hamper with her! It is quite ridiculous.
It was not necessary to re-make the Miss Marple (sorry - 'Marple') stories after Joan Hickson so magnificently played them during the 1980's. I know that I am repeating myself, but her performance really was the definitive. McEwan seems uncomfortable in the role, the plots have been tampered with too much, and the period detail is in some places inaccurate. Bad show, ITV, bad show.
Twisty, bitter tale
safenoe23 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Even The Body in the Library was the first one of the Marple series, I've only able to watch it now, after watching the rest of seasons 1, 2 and 3. Anyway, I haven't read the book, but still the twist in the tale at the very end was rather modern and controversial to the woke and politically incorrect with the LGBTI bitter twist. I sort of wonder if the producers wanted a bitter twist to the LGBTI tale I guess.
Still, the acting was solid and Joanna Lumley was having lots of fun in her role.
Still, the acting was solid and Joanna Lumley was having lots of fun in her role.
Great story, wonderful twist, why so many harsh reviews?
calummccorquodale30 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I thought that this was one of the better episodes as it has a much deeper and complex plot than some of the others. The characters are strong, particularly Dolly, Arthur, Adelaide and Josie and the plot keeps you guessing right until the end. I actually prefer the new Marples to the older ones because I find that Geraldine McEwan is so much more of a warm, likable character in the way she portrays Miss Marple.Why so many criticisms? I understand that if you read the book first then the movie may fall short to your standards, especially with the added twist, however it is still an extremely good thing to watch with just enough humour and a great array of stars including Joanna Lumley, David Walliams and James Fox.
Obviously there are some details of the killers plot that you have to work out for yourself. For example, how the body left the hotel avoiding detection. Some gaps you will have to fill for yourself however I like that about an episode. It makes you think more about the actual scheme and not rely on Miss Marple to give you all of the answers.
I really enjoyed it and is definitely a good one. 9/10
Obviously there are some details of the killers plot that you have to work out for yourself. For example, how the body left the hotel avoiding detection. Some gaps you will have to fill for yourself however I like that about an episode. It makes you think more about the actual scheme and not rely on Miss Marple to give you all of the answers.
I really enjoyed it and is definitely a good one. 9/10
Episode One
carkicos25 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"The Body in the Library" was the first book i ever read by Agatha and i can say this version is very untrue to the novel but i don't care i enjoyed it anyway.
Geraldine McEwans's performance still ain't as great as it will be but she was OK. Joanna Lumley and Simon Callow are the best here lighting up the screen and making you laugh every time they appear on-screen.
But this "sort to say pilot episode" has ITV written all over it. It has the similar sets as any other ITV show, same costumes and directing.
Anyway i enjoyed it and i think a lot of people will too. Not a must-see from the show but if you like the rest definitely see this one.
Geraldine McEwans's performance still ain't as great as it will be but she was OK. Joanna Lumley and Simon Callow are the best here lighting up the screen and making you laugh every time they appear on-screen.
But this "sort to say pilot episode" has ITV written all over it. It has the similar sets as any other ITV show, same costumes and directing.
Anyway i enjoyed it and i think a lot of people will too. Not a must-see from the show but if you like the rest definitely see this one.
Almost Perfect.
Sebastian_Crawford12 December 2004
Fast moving, well acted and brilliantly scripted adaption of a Christie classic.
Geraldine McEwan is exactly as I imagined Miss Marple should be - subtle with a cheeky glint in her eyes and a permanent look of mischief.
Joanna Lumley shines and rather steals the show is Miss Marple's close friend and neighbour who becomes something of a sidekick in this episode.
The direction is beautiful from start to finish and the costumes are flawless.
There are a few double entendres in the script which I'm not sure were intended (very funny though!) and a few scenes boarder on pastiche but overall this was a successful start to the new series.
Geraldine McEwan is exactly as I imagined Miss Marple should be - subtle with a cheeky glint in her eyes and a permanent look of mischief.
Joanna Lumley shines and rather steals the show is Miss Marple's close friend and neighbour who becomes something of a sidekick in this episode.
The direction is beautiful from start to finish and the costumes are flawless.
There are a few double entendres in the script which I'm not sure were intended (very funny though!) and a few scenes boarder on pastiche but overall this was a successful start to the new series.
A good version, not the same as the earlier, but still good
billpollock18319 January 2015
I enjoyed it. A different murderer but still a good yarn. Joan Hickson has been the best Marple but her "Body" was only a few years old when this film was done. Changes needed to be made so as to differentiate between the two versions. I do have to say that Hickson's were generally better except for "A Pocketful of Rye" where Geraldine's was far superior. Changes needed to be made because who would watch the same story, same dialogue only with different actors. It must have set the tongues a wagging with the book in killing off a schoolgirl. Such things just weren't done. A lady before her time in many ways, our Agatha. I think she would have liked the murderers in this presentation. Like Hickson, Geraldine looks the part. They both have the set to the eyes when solving the problem.
Dolly is great and is just as good as in the earlier film. I felt all the supporting actors worked well with the script.
Dolly is great and is just as good as in the earlier film. I felt all the supporting actors worked well with the script.
much better than version with Joan Hickson
colinafobe25 June 2020
One of my fave adaptation of Miss Marple. lovely settings, beautiful Tarra Fitzgerald, welcomed plot twist, brilliant Lumley. To me this one is by far better than slow pale Body in the library with Joan Hickson. Not the most faithful version by any means but it is extremely enjoyable
Auntie Agatha herself would have loved the new twists, and the controversy!
Coventry28 December 2020
It's impossible for me to pick a "favorite" book out of the oeuvre of Agatha Christie, but I definitely will always have a special fondness for "The Body in the Library". It was one of the first stories I ever read of hers, even before the obvious classics like "Ten Little Indians" (it's forbidden nowadays to use the original title), "Witness for the Prosecution" or any of the major Hercule Poirot sleuths. It was "The Body in the Library" that introduced me to Agatha's wondrous world of convoluted murder mysteries, imaginative red herrings and practically unsolvable denouements. Needless to say, I got hooked ever since.
For their respectable series "Agatha Christie's Marple", the makers oddly chose this tale as the first episode, even though the legendary Miss Marple character first appeared in the book "Murder at the Vicarage". No worries, though, as that one became the second installment. When the lifeless body of a young dancer is inexplicably found in the mansion of Jane Marple's close friends Dolly and Arthur Bantry, on a rug in the library, Jane promises Dolly to help investigate. The two ladies book a vacation in the prestigious Hotel Majestic, where the murdered girl temporarily worked as a substitute. Numerous suspects reside in the hotel, and it also turns out the victim was about to be adopted by the wealthy and disabled Conway Jefferson.
The script is great, the performances are superb, and the levels of suspense/mystery are kept continuously high throughout the movie. What's most remarkable about the adaptation, though, is that there are two vital changes compared to the book's ending. Normally, I don't like it when the source material is messed with, but in this case, I am genuinely convinced that Agatha Christie herself would have appreciated the changes. The "new" denouement raised some complaints and controversy, but I like to believe that Mrs. Christie would approve. Heck, she probably considered using twists like these herself, but they were unacceptable in her days.
For their respectable series "Agatha Christie's Marple", the makers oddly chose this tale as the first episode, even though the legendary Miss Marple character first appeared in the book "Murder at the Vicarage". No worries, though, as that one became the second installment. When the lifeless body of a young dancer is inexplicably found in the mansion of Jane Marple's close friends Dolly and Arthur Bantry, on a rug in the library, Jane promises Dolly to help investigate. The two ladies book a vacation in the prestigious Hotel Majestic, where the murdered girl temporarily worked as a substitute. Numerous suspects reside in the hotel, and it also turns out the victim was about to be adopted by the wealthy and disabled Conway Jefferson.
The script is great, the performances are superb, and the levels of suspense/mystery are kept continuously high throughout the movie. What's most remarkable about the adaptation, though, is that there are two vital changes compared to the book's ending. Normally, I don't like it when the source material is messed with, but in this case, I am genuinely convinced that Agatha Christie herself would have appreciated the changes. The "new" denouement raised some complaints and controversy, but I like to believe that Mrs. Christie would approve. Heck, she probably considered using twists like these herself, but they were unacceptable in her days.
Loved the series, especially "Body"
feussamy25 October 2015
I cannot say a single negative thing about The Body in the Library. What a dream cast! Geraldine McEwan is my favorite Miss Marple thus far. Joanna Lumley is a riot as is Simon Callow. David Walliams cast as the stuttering bachelor was a delightful surprise. And the rest of the cast was just as good, really they were. What I love about this genre and this episode in particular is how the adapter and director can take the horrific facts of the story (It's awful, isn't it?) and make such light-hearted but suspenseful fun of it all. One could make a "TV Movie" of it easily with plenty of outrage and sentimentalism and have us all angry and weeping at the same time but it takes genius to turn it all into a riveting but comic drama.
"Isn't she marvellous?"
bensonmum225 February 2017
The residents of Gossington Hall wake one morning to find the body of a young woman in their library. Who is she? How'd she get there? Who strangled her? It's a mystery. While the police begin their official investigation, Miss Marple is called in to provide her unique look at things.
For 15+ year, I have avoided these Marple stories because I had read mostly bad things about them. I haven't seen the Joan Hickson version of The Body in the Library in what seems like a hundred years and I haven't read Agatha Christie's book in what seems like a million years. But I remember enough to know that this version of the story strays considerably from both. Does it bother me? Not as much as I thought it would. Even the twist at the end that would have never made it in Christie's work is okay with me. I'm not doing cart wheels of joy over the changes to the story, but they don't bother me that much. Geraldine McEwan's take on Miss Marple is different, but not unenjoyable. The sets, costuming, and locations are as good as you'll find in a television production. It's really quite beautiful to look at. And I can even forgive a few of the gigantic plot holes because I was having such a good time with the rest of the movie. I suppose my biggest complaint is with some of the acting. As much as I enjoy Simon Callow and Joanna Lumley, their constant overacting gets tiresome. Still, it's a decent enough cast with Mary Stockley being the standout.
If you don't go into this with preconceived notions, you might just find The Body in the Library enjoyable. I'll give it a solid 7/10.
For 15+ year, I have avoided these Marple stories because I had read mostly bad things about them. I haven't seen the Joan Hickson version of The Body in the Library in what seems like a hundred years and I haven't read Agatha Christie's book in what seems like a million years. But I remember enough to know that this version of the story strays considerably from both. Does it bother me? Not as much as I thought it would. Even the twist at the end that would have never made it in Christie's work is okay with me. I'm not doing cart wheels of joy over the changes to the story, but they don't bother me that much. Geraldine McEwan's take on Miss Marple is different, but not unenjoyable. The sets, costuming, and locations are as good as you'll find in a television production. It's really quite beautiful to look at. And I can even forgive a few of the gigantic plot holes because I was having such a good time with the rest of the movie. I suppose my biggest complaint is with some of the acting. As much as I enjoy Simon Callow and Joanna Lumley, their constant overacting gets tiresome. Still, it's a decent enough cast with Mary Stockley being the standout.
If you don't go into this with preconceived notions, you might just find The Body in the Library enjoyable. I'll give it a solid 7/10.
How dare you alter an Agatha Christie story?
theonejackdry13 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Another case of scenarists who think they can "improve" upon an Agatha Christie story. Just like the stupid modifications in Poirot's Christmas.
It changes the whole story for the worse and adds nothing.
The whole thing is slobbering in overbearing music.
It's annoying because the cast is great although I agree with the other comments who point out the over abundance of smirking.
Less is more.
It changes the whole story for the worse and adds nothing.
The whole thing is slobbering in overbearing music.
It's annoying because the cast is great although I agree with the other comments who point out the over abundance of smirking.
Less is more.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
