User Reviews

While on a train, a woman tells Miss Marple that two deaths that occurred in the town of Wynchwood and that everyone thought were accidents were in fact murders. After getting off the train the woman is pushed down an escalator and dies. Miss Marple is intrigued and visits Wynchwood. People continue to die in strange circumstances and the suspect list is long. Luckily she has the assistance of former policeman Luke Fitzwilliam, played by Benedict Cumberbatch.

One of the better Miss Marple episodes, and one of the bloodiest. The murder count ends well above the norm for the series. Quite intriguing, and the murderer is not obvious. A few good twists and red herrings along the way too.

Murder Is Easy isn't at all dire, and I think it is unfair to say it has no redeeming qualities. Flawed it is, and not quite as good as Pocket Full of Rye, it is well worth watching. One reason is the splendid photography, and the wonderful period detail. The scenes down by the river in particular were beautifully shot. Julia McKenzie, despite the fact that Miss Marple isn't in the book, is evidently making the most of her role and is settling in quite nicely. Of course I have always said that Joan Hickson is the best Miss Marple, but McKenzie brings a certain wisdom and sparkle to her interpretation, and it was lovely to see. The music score was beautiful, very haunting yet had a tragic undertone to it. However, as an adaptation it is disappointing, though I will say right now, I prefer this adaptation above almost all the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, save Murder is Announced and Murder At the Vicarage. The plot does suffer from a number of deviations from the text, and came across sometimes as a tad confusing, and there was about half an hour when I barely knew who the characters were. Another problem was some of the dialogue, including (forgive my vague recollection) the Major's conversation with the sergeant about golf, when he was asked to give his alibi. The sergeant's dim-witted responses came across as rather awkward. Though I will say the acting was fine, with good performances from Anna Chancellor, Sylvia Syms and Lyndsey Marshall. Shirley Henderson- I am still trying to get over the fact she played Moaning Myrtle in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets- overdoes it slightly in the role of Honoria Wainfleet though. Overall, disappointing but not all bad. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I truly for the life of me cannot understand how anybody in their right mind can find this anything less then wonderful!! I was slightly disappointed with A Pocketful of Rye, but this was superb, Julia McKenzie is more into her role and echos of Joan Hickson, a more tender character then Geraldine's (Who I adored) The Stella cast in this is wonderful, Shirley Henderson though steals it, giving a wonderful performance. I've read a few comments where people have said it hasn't been well adapted and that the film was better, come on give me a break, this was wonderful, Pocketful gets a 7, this gets a 10!!! Wonderful.

Taking a train journey to London, Miss Marple finds herself sitting opposite a woman (Lavinia Pinkerton) who appears to be babbling somewhat about a suspicious death and her fear that she will be next. When Pinkerton "falls" to her death at the train station, Miss Marple decides to take a closer look and travels to Wychwood to investigate further. What she finds are several "accidental" deaths, neither of which totally ring true with Miss Marple and, with her experience in village life, she knows there must be secrets below the idyllic surface of this leafy English village.

As is often the case the reviews of this film are mostly negative and almost all make the focus of their criticism the fact that the film is a hack job of the book. I can totally understand why those that love the books feel this way and, yes, as an adaptation then it is probably "bad" but most viewers will be coming to this Sunday night ITV stuff as a film in its own right so, again, I find it easier to judge it on its own merit. As such Murder is Easy is "OK" stuff. The numbers of deaths in the narrative mean that the viewer is never bored because the script never has to fill the time with substance when it has so many murders to deliver. This makes it feel engaging in a way that, to be honest, it really isn't. In terms of guessing the plot or picking up on things, forget it, this is one of those films where all is revealed at the end but it is helped by it being an engaging resolution when it comes. The script doesn't make the many characters particularly complex or layered but it does enough to make them interesting to the point where you pay attention to them.

The cast are not "starry" but there are plenty of faces that UK viewers will recognise (but may struggle to remember precisely why they do). In some of the previous Marple films this type of casting has meant camp performances and people hamming it up too much to try and meet some sort of "light entertainment fun" target that was being aimed for; with this film it works the way it should do, by avoiding the viewer being distracted by the presence of one clear "name" that is clearly going to be central in some way. Of course this ignores the central turn from McKenzie, who I continue to be distracted by because of how much Jim Broadbent and her appear to be one in the same. I found her better here than in Pocketful of Rye because she seemed to be a bit more involved in the mystery and be demonstrating a sharper mind in her own style. This makes her a better fit in the role but also has the downside for her of not making it a particularly memorable Marple because she is playing a pretty straight bat. The supporting cast are generally good with solid turns from Henderson, Lance, Cumberbatch, Speer, Haig and a few others. The only "camp" risk is avoided because Tim Brooke-Taylor is actually OK.

Murder is Easy isn't brilliant in any aspect but the film does enough to be considered a solid "Marple" film. Please note I'm not saying it is a good film if you floated it out to the general market, or that it is a good adaptation but just that, as an ITV Marple film on a darkening Sunday night, it worked reasonably well. Know what you're coming into and you'll be OK, expect anything more and you'll be disappointed.

When you watch a 'Marple' you just have to treat it as something totally new. In this case, it certainly was.

The writer ommitted two of the most interesting characters from the book, Lord Whitfiled and Giles Ellsworthy.

As something new, I guess that it was OK. It was very well acted.

This is my fourth Julia McKenzie Marple after Pocket Full of Rye, They do it with Mirrors and Pale Horse. She is getting really warm on me. I'm a big fan of Geraldine McEwan, who used to play Marple, so I was cautious with the new Marple. Well, Julia McKenzie is a very different Marple. I wanna congratulate her for not copying Geraldine. Her approach to the character is more active (since she's 10 years younger) and seams more worried. I like her, it still is Marple, but she's certainly different.

As for the story, I was shocked. If anyone saw butchery that is Poirot: Halloween Party (very good film, butchery as in many dead, not as in destroying the story), then you'd have an idea of what I wanna say. Usually there are 1-3 dead bodies per episode, and usually we wait for one third of the episode to pass before the murder is committed. Not here! So, in the opening sequence a murder victim has been buried, at her funeral another person is killed and by the ten minutes of the film we have four deaths. And lets say that's not all. Plus some cold cases that are connected.

It really adds suspense. Just like Hallowe'en Party, I have a feeling that if a director wanted to make a horror film, it could have been done with some very slight changes of perspective. You always have the feeling someone's gonna die. And usually they do. And the person or persons who did it all is completely different personality than you're used to as well.

Cast is excellent (like in all Marple/Poirot movies). I knew many of them: Benedict Cumberbatch from The Atonement, Sylvia Syms from The Queen, Lyndsey Marshal from Poirot: Cards on the Table, Shirley Henderson from Harry Potter and Anna Chancellor from Hitchhiker's Guide Through the Galaxy. Also, my new discovery was Margo Stilley, who is just too beautiful. Everyone did their best, so it was very nice seeing them in different roles.

As for those who say the movie has to be identical to the book, and that therefor this isn't Agatha Christie, I say: It says: BASED UPON, not literally copied. I loved all the books, but I also loved all the changes so far. Some of them are also modernizing it a bit, like opening some subjects that exist (and existed back then too), but were too much of a taboo for that time. I'm sure Agatha wouldn't mind people changing it a bit from time to time. This one is not an exception, it turned out just great.

If you love mysteries and/or horror, recommendation to see.

Margot Stilley kinds of steams up the screen here as an American tourist, five years after she had one of the steamiest roles in movie history, playing an American tourist with no inhibitions in 9 Songs. Also this episode of Marple features Steve Pemberton, who five years later would debut in Inside No. 9.

I kind of got lost a bit with all the character references. I would have preferred that the characters wear name tags like they do in Walmart so I could easily identify them really.

Also Benedict Cumberbatch plays Benedict Cumberbatch two years before he hit it big with Sherlock.

Still the ending was a twist. I thought it was someone else but not to be.

I love the original book, and I love this adaptation. All star cast (best hits of the actors of Britain). Naturally it's very different to the original, but I enjoyed how it had been adapted, beautiful location as well!

Let me start by saying that I certainly don't have anything against Julia McKenzie, who took over the title role from McEwan since the start of the fourth season of "Agatha Christie's Marple". Quite the contrary, I find it praiseworthy that she has her own style and interpretation of the character. It's just that McEwan depicted the perceptive old spinster from St. Mary Mead exactly how I always imagined her ever since I read my first Marple novel (which was "The Body in the Library") by Agatha Christie. I even prefer McEwan's portrayal over those of acclaimed and truly terrific actresses like Margaret Rutherford and Angela Lansbury.

The biggest difference between McEwan and McKenzie is that the latter is more pushy, intrusive even, and her facial expressions reveal that even Miss Marple can doubt, feel uncertain and be worried. McEwan was a master in staying motionless the background, without showing emotions or obvious judgement, whilst knitting.

The TV-film itself, "Murder is Easy", I found sorely disappointing. The hopes were set quite high, since this story features a lot more murders than in your average Marple tale. Miss Marple decides to travel to the little village of Wychwood after a woman she randomly met on a train dies in mysterious circumstances. The woman told her she suspected that two accidental deaths in Wychwood were, in fact, murder, and her own death seems to confirm this. When Miss Marple arrives in town, the murders cheerfully continue, and she teams up with a former police officer (Benedict Cumberbatch before his big breakthrough).

Can't fully explain why, but this installment isn't half as absorbing or entertaining as the previous 13. More than halfway through the film, I still couldn't tell the characters apart from each other, and especially struggled with their names ("Wait, ... who's Amy again? "Is that Honoria or Lydia?"). The changes to the script are unsatisfying, and even lead to some unanswered questions.

I guess the Christie estate doesn't care what anyone does to Agatha Christie books, as long as they get their money.

I like very much what one reviewer on this site said, "good on its own merits." Alas, when watching the Julia MacKenzie and Geraldine McEwan Marples, you have to forget about Agatha Christie entirely and just focus on what's in front of you. And most of the time, that has nothing to do with the original story.

I saw a version of this in the '80s with Helen Hayes, whom I always thought was the best Marple. She's the one I pictured when reading the books, a woman with a sparkle in her eye and loads of charm. McKenzie has this; Hickson for me was too dry and serious; and McEwan is too knowing for a small town lady.

I watched this version because of my adoration of Benedict Cumberbatch, who was gorgeous in his way in this, playing the role of Luke.

Miss Marple (MacKenzie) meets a lady on a train who talks about murder being easy and is en route to Scotland Yard. She's nervous for her own life. Minutes later, when off the train, she falls down some escalator steps. Or was she pushed? Reading about her death, Miss Marple becomes instantly suspicious and travels to the town, which has had a few accidental deaths. They have still more once she gets there. Slowly but surely she uncovers a web of blackmail, illegitimacy, suspected abortion and more, all stemming from a situation that took place years earlier.

Beautifully photographed with lovely performances, this is a good TV movie -- on its own merits -- with very good acting all around. I will say pay attention - there are lots of murders and lots of characters.

truly dire adaption of Agatha Christie. not only was the plot changed dramatically (different motive for killing etc) but also the dialogue creaked and was totally anachronistic. None of the characters spoke or treated each other like people from the 1940's - as though the writers were either completely ignorant, too lazy to read the original or watch contemporary drama, or desperately trying to make it more 'accessible' to a 21st century audience. But Agatha Christie is not The Tudors. Her characters and the language they spoke are still recognisable to people living today. The pace also sagged like a pair of ancient granny's tights. The only realistic thing in the entire episode was Gemma Redgrave's performance as the doctor's new widow going mad with grief - but perhaps she was desperately trying to escape the reality of the direness of the drama she found herself in. ITV seems to have completely lost confidence in Agatha Christie's power over her readers, which is strange considering the David Suchet Poirot series is meticulous and gripping and still making money for ITV today.

This one was an interesting one from Mrs. Marple and an ensemble cast that includes Benedict Cumberbatch was an absolute delight to watch. This is a perfectly crafted episode and don't expect a super perfect adaptation here. Many changes to the story when it comes to the episode. Moreover, as you know this episode needs careful watching because there are lots of characters involved and their conversations play an important role, so better be ready to listen to everything.

Coming to the technical side, the cinematography was stunning, a very beautiful picturization of the English countryside. The production design was superb as usual.

Do give it a watch.

Though others have already said it, and with much more detail, this is nothing like the book. Besides the character names pretty much everything is changed, and not for the better. For one thing, Miss Marple isn't in the book at all; Luke Fitzwilliam does the detecting, and it's a refreshing change. The cast does a good job and the story they come up with is fairly interesting, but Agatha could have done better. And...oh right...she did. This is one of my favorite Christie novels ever, and this adaptation could have been so great if they had just stuck to it!

And Benedict Cumberbatch would have been in it more. Sigh.

Just read the book so I can't be all mistaken; there are no bees, no vicars, no bomber jacket clad sleuths on motorcycles chasing any long legged blonds, no election campaign going on – and certainly no left leaning young country doctor, in Agatha Christie's original with this title. Not even miss Marple is present in this odd little village with all its funerals, simply because it is not written as such! It is in fact no Agatha Christie story at all, except names and characters are used most hap hazardous. The only mystery is why this baffling yarn bears her (brand) name. If modern screenwriters are so ingenious, why not use their own names?