This one gets a lot of slamming for apparently changing a whole lot from the original novel (including the killer!), but personally, not having read it (in fact, not having even heard of that particular novel), I can't say I minded. Besides, you can look at it this way: the film being so different from the book gives an extra incentive to people who see the film before reading the book to go and get the book to enjoy a whole new story! Not that the film is flawless: the first half is hard to follow, and there are far too many tilted camera angles (with the action confined to a castle and an inn, both cut off by a snowstorm, the director didn't need to overreach for an effect of claustrophobia). But the mystery does become gripping in the second half, and the solution is unpredictable. Could you pass this off as a genuine Agatha Christie story to someone who hadn't read it? I actually think you could. Timothy Dalton (never one of my favorite Bonds) has a high old time playing a larger-than-life and complex character, while James Murray and Zoe Telford have a strong, almost sensual chemistry. **1/2 out of 4.
51 Reviews
Big Budget Miss Marple
roedyg29 January 2015
This is a big budget Miss Marple. Casting went for unusually handsome males like Timothy Dalton, Laurence Fox and James Murray. (Their unusual good looks turn out to be necessary for the plot.) The females are delightfully eccentric, including Rita Tushingham whom baby boomers will remember fondly. There are realistic looking Egyptian treasures, and two delightfully creaky English houses.
Miss Marple starts out a bit nuts. Then she disappears while others do the sleuthing. Then she comes in at the end to sort out who murdered who. That is not the usual formula. Everyone has motive to commit murder, or at least some crime. It all sorts out in the most implausibly complicated way. I think you would have to watch perhaps five times before you were sure you had all the motives and murders sorted out, including the raptor's. Can you spell coincidence?
The cinematography is done with just candles and firelight. It gives a very snowed in cosiness. The music is wonderfully spooky, not just the standard theme repeated.
This is probably my favourite Miss Marple episode.
Miss Marple starts out a bit nuts. Then she disappears while others do the sleuthing. Then she comes in at the end to sort out who murdered who. That is not the usual formula. Everyone has motive to commit murder, or at least some crime. It all sorts out in the most implausibly complicated way. I think you would have to watch perhaps five times before you were sure you had all the motives and murders sorted out, including the raptor's. Can you spell coincidence?
The cinematography is done with just candles and firelight. It gives a very snowed in cosiness. The music is wonderfully spooky, not just the standard theme repeated.
This is probably my favourite Miss Marple episode.
Enjoy it for what it is. Tongue in cheek fun.
Sleepin_Dragon5 October 2015
Having read the book several times, I know the story well, but knowing ITV, this is going to be a complete reworking, so my review is based purely on the drama.
Captain Clive Trevelyan war hero, top Sportsman and touted to be the successor to Winston Churchill as PM is murdered, all possible suspects and Jane Marple are trapped in a hotel, she has to work out whodunnit.
It's a very tongue in cheek production, it could almost have been written for Margaret Rutherford and filmed in black and white. It's one not to be taken too seriously. It looks really good, and I think the snow helps build up a degree of claustrophobia, the escaped prisoner also adds to the story.
Good turns from Patricia Hodge and Rita Tushingham, both are fun. The best performances come from Zoe Telford and Paul Kaye I thought. Laurence Fox looks like he had fun. I can't help feeling Geraldine looks like Andy Capp at times, all she needs is a leather jacket.
I don't think the part Timothy Dalton was given was big enough for him to get his teeth into, he felt a little clunky at times.
Hugely over the top in all ways, but if you take it for what it is it's an enjoyable if flawed 90 minutes. 7/10 (I'm a little biased I associate this story with an amazing day.)
Captain Clive Trevelyan war hero, top Sportsman and touted to be the successor to Winston Churchill as PM is murdered, all possible suspects and Jane Marple are trapped in a hotel, she has to work out whodunnit.
It's a very tongue in cheek production, it could almost have been written for Margaret Rutherford and filmed in black and white. It's one not to be taken too seriously. It looks really good, and I think the snow helps build up a degree of claustrophobia, the escaped prisoner also adds to the story.
Good turns from Patricia Hodge and Rita Tushingham, both are fun. The best performances come from Zoe Telford and Paul Kaye I thought. Laurence Fox looks like he had fun. I can't help feeling Geraldine looks like Andy Capp at times, all she needs is a leather jacket.
I don't think the part Timothy Dalton was given was big enough for him to get his teeth into, he felt a little clunky at times.
Hugely over the top in all ways, but if you take it for what it is it's an enjoyable if flawed 90 minutes. 7/10 (I'm a little biased I associate this story with an amazing day.)
An inconsistent mystery that failed to engage me at all
bob the moo1 May 2006
Heavy snow is falling in the Dartmoor area of England and the guests of a small hotel find themselves being snowed in. News of an escaped prisoner loose on the moors dampens their spirits but to fill the time they decide to have a séance even though one of their number, Clive Trevelyan, already has a connection with the other side. Meanwhile, at Sittaford House, Miss Marple discovers a death threat against Trevelyan and his loyal friend Enderby sets out to warn him despite the weather. When the séance predicts his death, things look bleak for Tevelyan, who finds himself surrounded by shadowy guests on all sides.
Several reviewers have already commented on the lack of respect shown to the source material but I would just say that those who have seen even one of ITV's "Marple" (not Miss Marple) series have no right to be surprised by this because it is a common factor across the whole lot of them. Accepting this, I wasn't looking for respect, just an entertaining mystery film albeit the desecration of Christie's grave is rather a high price to pay for a Sunday night in. An hour goes by before we get a murder, which wouldn't be a problem if it used this time to do anything useful but instead it fails to build up back-story or characters. The slightly comic tone is forced and false while the actual mystery aspect is surprising dull isn't the point of ITV revisionist approach to make it more energetic and accessible than the stiffer BBC version? As ever McEwan is all at sea with her character and does nothing interesting with Miss Marple. She is a dithery old thing but isn't able to bring out the sharp mind behind the physical appearance. The support cast ahs the usual famous names but, as usual, they aren't given much of value to do. Dalton is a strange find but he, Kaye and Smith are better than this. The performances are mostly a bit clunky even if everyone seems to be trying hard. The direction is colourful but the total delivery is badly inconsistent; comic music is played during unfunny moments and the visual trickery undermines the development of the story. To be honest I was bored and didn't ever really get into the story; I was hoping that the total rewrite of the original story would somehow produce something good but by the end of it I was left wondering what Churchett was thinking when he scrapped most of Christie's original novel.
Overall a bright and pointless mystery film that never decides what it wants to do and fails to do anything as a result. The presentation is bright but the mystery failed to engage me and I had lost interest long before it got anywhere near the solution. The cast can do nothing with the material and generally it just flops its way to the end without any great class or distinction. Others will say it is poor because of how it compares to the original material, personally I think it is poor even if you meet it on its own terms.
Several reviewers have already commented on the lack of respect shown to the source material but I would just say that those who have seen even one of ITV's "Marple" (not Miss Marple) series have no right to be surprised by this because it is a common factor across the whole lot of them. Accepting this, I wasn't looking for respect, just an entertaining mystery film albeit the desecration of Christie's grave is rather a high price to pay for a Sunday night in. An hour goes by before we get a murder, which wouldn't be a problem if it used this time to do anything useful but instead it fails to build up back-story or characters. The slightly comic tone is forced and false while the actual mystery aspect is surprising dull isn't the point of ITV revisionist approach to make it more energetic and accessible than the stiffer BBC version? As ever McEwan is all at sea with her character and does nothing interesting with Miss Marple. She is a dithery old thing but isn't able to bring out the sharp mind behind the physical appearance. The support cast ahs the usual famous names but, as usual, they aren't given much of value to do. Dalton is a strange find but he, Kaye and Smith are better than this. The performances are mostly a bit clunky even if everyone seems to be trying hard. The direction is colourful but the total delivery is badly inconsistent; comic music is played during unfunny moments and the visual trickery undermines the development of the story. To be honest I was bored and didn't ever really get into the story; I was hoping that the total rewrite of the original story would somehow produce something good but by the end of it I was left wondering what Churchett was thinking when he scrapped most of Christie's original novel.
Overall a bright and pointless mystery film that never decides what it wants to do and fails to do anything as a result. The presentation is bright but the mystery failed to engage me and I had lost interest long before it got anywhere near the solution. The cast can do nothing with the material and generally it just flops its way to the end without any great class or distinction. Others will say it is poor because of how it compares to the original material, personally I think it is poor even if you meet it on its own terms.
The name's Marple... Jane Marple
Coventry3 January 2021
It occurred to me that, when you rank all 23 episodes of "Agatha Christie's Marple" from highest to lowest IMDb-rating, "The Sittaford Mystery" is all the way at the bottom of the list. That being said, 6.8/10 is still a terrific rating many movies and TV-shows would be very happy with, but it's remarkably weaker than the average rating of the series. I can think of a few reasons to explain why the installment is slightly less popular.
First and foremost, the source novel is one of Agatha Christie's most known stories, but it doesn't feature Miss Marple anywhere. It's not the only episode based on a non-Marple novel, but the lead character is usually ingeniously processed into the other stories, whereas she's pretty much the third wheel on the wagon in "The Sittaford Mystery". Moreover, Miss Marple solves the murder without even coming near the scene of the crime. She bases her theories on what others tell her, whilst she's stuck in a mansion during heavy snowfall. I know she's good, but she cannot be that good. Secondly, it takes an awful long time before the murder is committed. The film is over halfway already when the killer strikes, which leaves very little time to guess along for the culprit's identity and motives.
And yet, don't be too alarmed, as "The Sittaford Mystery" is nonetheless a compelling TV-movie with a very intelligent finale. Great performances, as usual, and the most momentous appearance here is definitely Timothy Dalton. His biggest role will always remain that of James Bond, of course, but personally I prefer to see him as a sneaky and callous figure, like he did in "The Doctor and the Devils", "Hot Fuzz" or here in "The Sittaford Mystery".
First and foremost, the source novel is one of Agatha Christie's most known stories, but it doesn't feature Miss Marple anywhere. It's not the only episode based on a non-Marple novel, but the lead character is usually ingeniously processed into the other stories, whereas she's pretty much the third wheel on the wagon in "The Sittaford Mystery". Moreover, Miss Marple solves the murder without even coming near the scene of the crime. She bases her theories on what others tell her, whilst she's stuck in a mansion during heavy snowfall. I know she's good, but she cannot be that good. Secondly, it takes an awful long time before the murder is committed. The film is over halfway already when the killer strikes, which leaves very little time to guess along for the culprit's identity and motives.
And yet, don't be too alarmed, as "The Sittaford Mystery" is nonetheless a compelling TV-movie with a very intelligent finale. Great performances, as usual, and the most momentous appearance here is definitely Timothy Dalton. His biggest role will always remain that of James Bond, of course, but personally I prefer to see him as a sneaky and callous figure, like he did in "The Doctor and the Devils", "Hot Fuzz" or here in "The Sittaford Mystery".
Not overly engaging but still reasonably good
grantss8 July 2016
With Sir Winston Churchill ailing and set to step down as English Prime Minister, Clive Trevalyn looks set to become the next PM. A popular war hero who made his initial fame and fortune as an explorer and archaeologist in Egypt, he seems to have the world at his feet. While staying at his residence in the village of Sittaford he is murdered in his bedroom. There are several guests at his house, so the suspect list is long. Luckily Miss Marple is on hand to solve the mystery.
Fairly interesting mystery. A bit dry though - the engagement level is quite limited and Miss Marple is quite a bland character. The formula in this series has been to give much screen time to a non- Marple character, making them the central character, allowing them to carry the episode and thus take the attention away from Marple. This also makes for interesting sub-plots. In this case, no non- Marple central character emerges, so it is a bit duller than usual.
Can't fault the cast though: Timothy Dalton is charming as Clive Trevalyn. We also have Carey Mulligan, Zoe Telford and Mel Smith. Smith is the pick of the bunch, bringing some humour, resourcefulness and tough-mindedness Trevalyn's loyal assistant John Enderby.
Fairly interesting mystery. A bit dry though - the engagement level is quite limited and Miss Marple is quite a bland character. The formula in this series has been to give much screen time to a non- Marple character, making them the central character, allowing them to carry the episode and thus take the attention away from Marple. This also makes for interesting sub-plots. In this case, no non- Marple central character emerges, so it is a bit duller than usual.
Can't fault the cast though: Timothy Dalton is charming as Clive Trevalyn. We also have Carey Mulligan, Zoe Telford and Mel Smith. Smith is the pick of the bunch, bringing some humour, resourcefulness and tough-mindedness Trevalyn's loyal assistant John Enderby.
great viewing
clairelouise-ridgway1 May 2006
I have watched so many miss marple stories and the sittaford mystery was great for me. several characters get together for a Ouija board séance and one murder is predicted. Miss marple is invited to spend a night or two with Clive Trevelyan at his house but he decides to go to the hotel instead and register under another name. and one of characters gives a lift to an journalist. Mel Smith was great as Clive's friend who took it upon himself to investigate the murder with the help of the journalist and Emily.. I don't want to give much away, in case I spoil things but I think other comments from other viewers have their own views it is up to the viewer what they think.. but for me this was great iam a great fan of Timothy Dalton and I thought it was nice to see him on British TV again after so many years..
It's different
Sulla-225 March 2015
OK it's not a Miss Marple book and the murderer is changed. Does this really matter Personally I want to see something different to the book. What's the point of seeing a film of a book that you have read when you know exactly what will happen. The acting was good especially Timothy Dalton, Zoe Telford and Mel Smith. It's all very atmospheric and I enjoyed it. The Plot? A middle aged MP/Government minister/War hero is on the verge of replacing Winston Churchill as Prime Minister. Before he can accept he has something to do. It appears that he needed to get married. Following a Ouija Board session in a small hotel cut off by snow, the MP is murdered in his bedroom. The actual murderer is the least likely suspect till the end reveal.
The Series Gets Better and Better
raymundohpl24 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In the second Dame Agatha Christie MISS MARPLE Series, THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY has got to be the best of the bunch. In addition to the splendid guest cast, the trappings of ancient Egyptian curses and supernaturalism abound in the atmosphere of this teleplay. An added bonus is a music score that at times resembles the music scores of the MGM-British film adaptations of the Miss Marple series that featured Dame Margaret Rutherford as the bull-dogged armchair detectress. Some familiar and not-so-familiar but skillful faces strut their stuff for the cameras, starting with Timothy Dalton, who looks GREAT a decade and a half and nearly two decades after he played James Bond 007, as Clive Trevelyan. Rita Tushingham as Elizabeth Percehouse, looks positively GHASTLY, hollow-eyed and like death warmed over, not at all like the pert pretties she played more than four decades ago in A TASTE OF HONEY, THE LEATHER BOYS, GIRL WITH GREEN EYES, and THE KNACK! Patricia Hodge as Evadne Willett doesn't fare much better, with a pasty-faced complexion reminiscent of the dead Debbie Reynold's face in WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH HELEN? Patricia was seen previously in the late Jeremy Brett's SHERLOCK HOLMES series, the late John Thaw's INSPECTOR MORSE series, and the late Leo McKern's RUMPOLE series--maybe she's arisen from the grave as well! Robert Hardy has a GREAT cameo at the very beginning, as whom? You'll know right away! Michael Brandon, once winsome American actor in Dario Argento's 4 MOSCHE DI VELLUTO GRIGIO(FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET) shows what 35 years does to one as he growls through his portrayal of Martin Zimmerman. SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI! Laurence Fox, son of James Fox and nephew of Edward Fox, plays a nasty little sod, James Pearson, very well, and will be joining Kevin Whatley in LEWIS, a carry-over/homage/unofficial sequel to the INSPECTOR MORSE series. Zoe Telford and James Murray play Emily Trefusis and Charles Burnaby, the charismatic young leads, both of whom will spring surprises upon the watching audience towards the end. Great characterizations by Mel Smith as John Enderby, Jeffery Kissoon as Ahmed Ghai, James Wilby as Stanley Kirkwood, Paul Kaye as Dr. Ambrose Burt, Carey Mulligan as Violet Willett, Robert Hickson as Arthur Hopkins, Matthew Kelly as Donald Jones and Michael Attwell as Archie Stone round out the cast, but the biggest surprise is Geraldine McEwan's Miss Jane Marple; she seems to have resisted the urge to mug for the cameras and keeps her smiles and activity to a minimum--probably because the snow kept her indoors most of the time. But the long scene when she unmasks the murderer is excellently acted by her, though the pace at which she explains the details might be a little fast to follow by the audience in general. Kudoes to Geraldine for becoming closer to the Jane Marple character as envisioned by Dame Agatha! There's one more surprise at the end, but I'll leave that as a treat for the audience! Director Paul Unwin is to be commended for his good job in pulling the threads of this complex story together.
Entertaining....but why change the entire story?
nixworld681 May 2006
Despite how annoyed I was at the multitude of changes in this adaption, I have to admit to rather liking it in a way. Kitsch, camp and ridiculous. But it genuinely held no resemblance to the book- the settings, characters and murder were all tinkered with, and the murderer and back story utterly changed! The inclusion of Miss Marple was just not necessary, considering this book stands up very well on its own without the inclusion of either of Chrsities famous sleuths. Whilst I praise the effort, and inclusion of good guest stars etc, I just didn't see why they had to change it so much. Stick with the book, I say....!
What on Earth was that all about?
petehazell31 May 2006
The Sittaford Mystery is one of those classic mystery stories - isolated community, a hint of the paranormal, legacies, prodigal relatives, all given a strong sense of location by being tied in with the Dartmoor landscape.
Enough of the book though, what of the TV adaptation? Calling it utter crap is being needlessly unkind to the brown stuff. Changing the murderer is one thing which should never be done at all. The victim was completely rewritten, as was the motive. ITV also saw fit to fling in an extra murder (purely for effect - note how nobody bothered to comment on it later on). Presumably this was an attempt to wake up people being bored rigid by the nonsense. Two characters appeared to swap names during the course of the story, and the largest part of the mystery (how the seance ties in with the murder) was totally scuppered by the changes made to the murder itself. The cast tried their best, but they'd have been much better off just making it up as they went along.
The only positive thing that you can say about this woeful heap of nonsense is that, as it is so different, even down to the culprit, even if you have seen the film, it won't have spoilt the book for you. Go and read that instead - it's got a plot, and it even makes sense.
Enough of the book though, what of the TV adaptation? Calling it utter crap is being needlessly unkind to the brown stuff. Changing the murderer is one thing which should never be done at all. The victim was completely rewritten, as was the motive. ITV also saw fit to fling in an extra murder (purely for effect - note how nobody bothered to comment on it later on). Presumably this was an attempt to wake up people being bored rigid by the nonsense. Two characters appeared to swap names during the course of the story, and the largest part of the mystery (how the seance ties in with the murder) was totally scuppered by the changes made to the murder itself. The cast tried their best, but they'd have been much better off just making it up as they went along.
The only positive thing that you can say about this woeful heap of nonsense is that, as it is so different, even down to the culprit, even if you have seen the film, it won't have spoilt the book for you. Go and read that instead - it's got a plot, and it even makes sense.
A murder mystery that goes into a lot of detail
vhs19992 April 2008
Having not seen a miss marple murder mystery all the way through before, I was surprised with how decent it was. The story is very in-depth with the way they told us the story of the murder of timothy Dalton's character and the twist that know one could ever guess. There detail to vintage was very good also to the costumes used for the characters was very well laid out as well. They film's actors was a mix of rising stars with been and gone actors. I think mixing of different generations of actors did the film good than bad. Thought i will point out that the lines in which the actors spoke of in which i don't think they would have spoken quiet like they did back in those days, and that there lines were a bit too modern for the setting. This film was fun to watch, but i would not confuse miss marple to reality as they are both some what different to each other.
All the ingredients for a good mystery during the first hour...
Doylenf17 February 2009
This is a review of the first installment in a two-part version of THE SITTAFORD MYSTERY on TV. Once again, although there is no Miss Marple in the original story, the writers have planted her in the midst of all the characters staying at an old inn. That's not the objection most of the comments here have to make. What IS resented is the fact that story elements have been drastically changed by the writers of the teleplay, even changing the identify of the murderer in the original story.
This is the kind of thing bound to upset purists who want their Agatha Christie stories told without all the unnecessary changes. What upsets me is that, first of all, GERALDINE McEWAN does not make a plausible Miss Marple. She's much too mild-mannered and lacks the intelligent inquisitiveness that Joan Hickson displayed so well in her interpretation of the role on the former British series.
But secondly, not having read the original recently, I was totally unaware of all the changes when viewing the first hour and I found it an engrossing kind of story, if a bit confusing in the way the narrative unfolded, especially with regard to the opening scenes at the Egyptian tomb. But TIMOTHY DALTON gave a compelling performance, using his personality to put some life into the role of Captain Trevelyan (whom I later found out dies in the first chapter of the Christie story). It took a whole hour for his death to take place here.
But that was a minor change, according to all these other comments, and at this point I have no idea what awaits in the second installment.
I can only say that despite all these "flaws" in the presentation, I thoroughly enjoyed the story with its ingredients of a fierce blizzard, an old country inn, a seance where a death is predicted, an assortment of strange guests, and a bevy of competent British players, some of whom (Rita Tushingham in particular) I never would have recognized without reading the cast list. It was nice to recognize JAMES WILBY as Mr. Kirkwood, proprietor of the hotel.
So, while I confess I did enjoy the first segment, I can understand why many were disappointed in the drastic changes to the story. The writers did the same thing with several other Christie "adaptations," including one of my favorites, EASY TO KILL (even the title was changed to "Murder Is Easy" and it ruined a perfectly good Christie story by changing the emphasis to the romantic leads and practically leaving the murderer out of the story).
Personally, I enjoy all of these Christie stories but do not think Miss Marple or Poirot should be injected for the sake of whatever following these kind of things have on TV.
This is the kind of thing bound to upset purists who want their Agatha Christie stories told without all the unnecessary changes. What upsets me is that, first of all, GERALDINE McEWAN does not make a plausible Miss Marple. She's much too mild-mannered and lacks the intelligent inquisitiveness that Joan Hickson displayed so well in her interpretation of the role on the former British series.
But secondly, not having read the original recently, I was totally unaware of all the changes when viewing the first hour and I found it an engrossing kind of story, if a bit confusing in the way the narrative unfolded, especially with regard to the opening scenes at the Egyptian tomb. But TIMOTHY DALTON gave a compelling performance, using his personality to put some life into the role of Captain Trevelyan (whom I later found out dies in the first chapter of the Christie story). It took a whole hour for his death to take place here.
But that was a minor change, according to all these other comments, and at this point I have no idea what awaits in the second installment.
I can only say that despite all these "flaws" in the presentation, I thoroughly enjoyed the story with its ingredients of a fierce blizzard, an old country inn, a seance where a death is predicted, an assortment of strange guests, and a bevy of competent British players, some of whom (Rita Tushingham in particular) I never would have recognized without reading the cast list. It was nice to recognize JAMES WILBY as Mr. Kirkwood, proprietor of the hotel.
So, while I confess I did enjoy the first segment, I can understand why many were disappointed in the drastic changes to the story. The writers did the same thing with several other Christie "adaptations," including one of my favorites, EASY TO KILL (even the title was changed to "Murder Is Easy" and it ruined a perfectly good Christie story by changing the emphasis to the romantic leads and practically leaving the murderer out of the story).
Personally, I enjoy all of these Christie stories but do not think Miss Marple or Poirot should be injected for the sake of whatever following these kind of things have on TV.
Did anyone in the production team read the book?
benbrae7628 August 2006
Just who was it who dreamt up this dire drivel, and then had to gall to say it was based on Agatha Christie's novel "The Sittaford Mystery"? Someone should sit down and have serious rethink.
Notwithstanding the silly and superfluous inclusion of Jane Marple, this "adaptation" had no resemblance at all to Dame Agatha's mystery. The characters were mostly different, the plot was different, the motive was different, the murder was different, and the culprit was different. In fact virtually the only non-differences in it, were the blizzard and the seance. It took about 50 minutes of tedious atmospheric build-up before the opening scene of the original story was unveiled, and even that was different. I had to look at the TV magazine to assure myself it was "The Sittaford Mystery" I was actually watching. Did anybody in the production team bother to read the book? Long may this series of "Marple" be eventually buried and forgotten, and this particular episode must be buried deepest of all. Leaving aside for a moment that it was supposed to be an Agatha Christie mystery, the production was boringly slow, had a terrible and garbled script, which was indifferently, and in parts even badly acted. In short it was just an awful jumbled mess. I really can't find the words to express how bad it was.
I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the appalling butchery of Dame Agatha's plots. It's unbelievable! "Sleeping Murder" was carnage, but this was complete annihilation. There are many novelists of the genre whose works are yet untouched by TV, film or radio, and if new mysteries are needed, there are also many new writers out there to satisfy requirements, rather than completely destroying the works of the best in the art.
I'd like to know the answer to one question...what was the necessity of including Robert Hardy's cameo of Churchill? I just saw no point to it. But then for that matter, I saw no point to the whole programme! I can imagine Dame Agatha waiting at the Pearly Gates with law-suits in hand, for this was an insult, not only to her name, but to her genius.
I can only conclude by saying, that as a murder mystery in it's own right, it was murder to watch, and a mystery why it was made. One wonders what other "gems" of horrendous nonsense are yet to appear in this series. If you've any sense you'll give this particular offering of "The Sittaford Mystery" a very wide berth.
Notwithstanding the silly and superfluous inclusion of Jane Marple, this "adaptation" had no resemblance at all to Dame Agatha's mystery. The characters were mostly different, the plot was different, the motive was different, the murder was different, and the culprit was different. In fact virtually the only non-differences in it, were the blizzard and the seance. It took about 50 minutes of tedious atmospheric build-up before the opening scene of the original story was unveiled, and even that was different. I had to look at the TV magazine to assure myself it was "The Sittaford Mystery" I was actually watching. Did anybody in the production team bother to read the book? Long may this series of "Marple" be eventually buried and forgotten, and this particular episode must be buried deepest of all. Leaving aside for a moment that it was supposed to be an Agatha Christie mystery, the production was boringly slow, had a terrible and garbled script, which was indifferently, and in parts even badly acted. In short it was just an awful jumbled mess. I really can't find the words to express how bad it was.
I just cannot understand the reasoning behind the appalling butchery of Dame Agatha's plots. It's unbelievable! "Sleeping Murder" was carnage, but this was complete annihilation. There are many novelists of the genre whose works are yet untouched by TV, film or radio, and if new mysteries are needed, there are also many new writers out there to satisfy requirements, rather than completely destroying the works of the best in the art.
I'd like to know the answer to one question...what was the necessity of including Robert Hardy's cameo of Churchill? I just saw no point to it. But then for that matter, I saw no point to the whole programme! I can imagine Dame Agatha waiting at the Pearly Gates with law-suits in hand, for this was an insult, not only to her name, but to her genius.
I can only conclude by saying, that as a murder mystery in it's own right, it was murder to watch, and a mystery why it was made. One wonders what other "gems" of horrendous nonsense are yet to appear in this series. If you've any sense you'll give this particular offering of "The Sittaford Mystery" a very wide berth.
If you want to completely disregard Christie's story...
psuedoK13 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
At least do a decent job. The trouble with bastardizing someone else's work is that you are asking for your skills to be measured against the original's. The reason people are mad is because these TV writers co-opted the title and cache of one of the best stories of a legendary mystery writer and preceded to entertain that they can be just as clever. Unfortunately they only revealed themselves as clumsy posers to those who have read the book and mislead those who haven't into attributing the incoherent and wandering plotting to Christie herself.
The final indignity was that their oh-so-imaginative twist on the new murder was actually patched together from other Christie books. The revenge from long-lost offspring and the long-buried crime in exotic locale are standard tropes in Christie's repertoire. The sad part was that the identity of the murder in the original Sittaford was a genuine shock in the manner of Roger Ackroyd and Ten Little Indians.
So in summary this is a "re-imagining" of an originally twisty story that consists of very little imagination and even less justification for its own existence.
The final indignity was that their oh-so-imaginative twist on the new murder was actually patched together from other Christie books. The revenge from long-lost offspring and the long-buried crime in exotic locale are standard tropes in Christie's repertoire. The sad part was that the identity of the murder in the original Sittaford was a genuine shock in the manner of Roger Ackroyd and Ten Little Indians.
So in summary this is a "re-imagining" of an originally twisty story that consists of very little imagination and even less justification for its own existence.
Is it Christie? Who Cares!?
scout-151 May 2006
Let's get one thing straight: I couldn't possibly care less that these ITV mysteries don't bear any resemblance to the Christie novel. I've never read more than a couple of chapters of an Agatha Christie mystery, and I never intend to. I don't read *any* mysteries, for that matter, and so the reviewers' constant harping that these adaptations aren't true to the writer's "vision" carries little weight.
What I *do* enjoy are these English murder mysteries adapted for the stage and screen, and I think these ITV mysteries are good fun. Geraldine McEwen is a delight. I have never liked previous interpretations of Miss Marple, where she has come off as nothing but a dried-up, prunish, humourless busybody, but McEwen plays her with an amused twinkle in her eye.
That could characterize the entire production. They're witty and tongue-in-cheek, complete with bad "special effects" and cheesy music and title credits. The actors appear to be having the time of their lives, and it makes for a fun and fizzy mystery. There are worse ways to spend two hours on a Sunday night.
Faithful Shmaithful. Who cares? If you want Christie, read the book. If you want a fun evening, you could do far worse than these Marple mysteries.
What I *do* enjoy are these English murder mysteries adapted for the stage and screen, and I think these ITV mysteries are good fun. Geraldine McEwen is a delight. I have never liked previous interpretations of Miss Marple, where she has come off as nothing but a dried-up, prunish, humourless busybody, but McEwen plays her with an amused twinkle in her eye.
That could characterize the entire production. They're witty and tongue-in-cheek, complete with bad "special effects" and cheesy music and title credits. The actors appear to be having the time of their lives, and it makes for a fun and fizzy mystery. There are worse ways to spend two hours on a Sunday night.
Faithful Shmaithful. Who cares? If you want Christie, read the book. If you want a fun evening, you could do far worse than these Marple mysteries.
Worth Watching if nothing else to see Dalton
elizabeth-schrader26 July 2006
This newer (to me) Miss Marple does a great job. I enjoy this series and it holds my attention when a lot of the mysteries I catch on PBS aren't grabbing me lately. Timothy Dalton is a great actor and it's hard to watch him on the small screen but he makes this piece, playing a politician with a shady past that one almost ended up pitying. If you can catch this in the fall or winter it will more suit the mood. It's lightweight but completely enjoyable. You'll recognize some faces from other BBC productions. I can't imagine the credits rolling on this one twenty years ago. The other actors turn in fine performances, particularly the mystery journalist that appears to do the investigating. That guy has quite a future ahead of him!
One of the better ones
hzzjjg17 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
With Timothy Dalton , James Murray and one of the delectable Foxes this time Laurence Fox there was a leading man for all ages ! Carey Mulligan as always was wonderful and subtle . I quite enjoyed this one , with even a falcon , seances , ancient Egyptian collection and mayhem happening in a snowed in chalet and manor house .
Appalling rubbish
dd19641 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Having watched ITV presentation of the Sittaford Mystery, I am at a loss to know how they had nerve to associate Agatha Christies name with this utter tripe.
Apart from the fact Miss Marple never appeared in the Sittaford Mystery, the original story had been compeletey destroyed beyond recognition, even to the extent of changing the murderer, creating a fictitious eygptian connection, in all the biggest load of rubbish I have ever seen.
Not one of Itv productions of Miss Marple books (why must they insist on calling her Marple!!!) has remained true to the book, compared to Joan Hickson and the BBC version these are poor and appalling immititations.
Apart from the fact Miss Marple never appeared in the Sittaford Mystery, the original story had been compeletey destroyed beyond recognition, even to the extent of changing the murderer, creating a fictitious eygptian connection, in all the biggest load of rubbish I have ever seen.
Not one of Itv productions of Miss Marple books (why must they insist on calling her Marple!!!) has remained true to the book, compared to Joan Hickson and the BBC version these are poor and appalling immititations.
Terrible - A bad adaptation of a great story
lynn-s-watts6 May 2006
I agree with all the other comments from Christie fans. It was terrible and especially disappointing for me as "The Sittaford Mystery" is one of my favourites. I was looking forward to a TV adaptation, even if they added Miss Marple to it.
There is not much I can add to the other comments - They changed the murderer for goodness sake, how much worse can it get!!. I especially disliked the weird camera angles as it made it even harder to watch.
I don't think it is the inclusion of Miss Marple that makes this adaptation so bad. She could have fitted quite well in the Sittaford Mystery if they hadn't so radically changed the plot. In the book the murder happens within the first few pages so to let it build up for an hour without much happening was a real drag.
Considering how well ITV adapt the Poirot novels it is a shame they've done so badly with Marple.
There is not much I can add to the other comments - They changed the murderer for goodness sake, how much worse can it get!!. I especially disliked the weird camera angles as it made it even harder to watch.
I don't think it is the inclusion of Miss Marple that makes this adaptation so bad. She could have fitted quite well in the Sittaford Mystery if they hadn't so radically changed the plot. In the book the murder happens within the first few pages so to let it build up for an hour without much happening was a real drag.
Considering how well ITV adapt the Poirot novels it is a shame they've done so badly with Marple.
Christie fans should skip it
WylieJJordan25 August 2006
Agatha Christie published Murder at Hazelmoor in 1931. In the novel, Captain Trevelyan, owner of Sittaford House, is murdered (elsewhere) and his nephew, James Pearson is arrested on suspicion. Pearson's fiancée, Emily Trefussis and Inspector Narracott believe Pearson to be innocent and eventually unravel the mystery of who killed him. One of Christie's better, but not her best, plot.
In this television adaptation, Miss Marple, a Christie character from several other stories, is grafted into the story and Inspector Narracott is deleted, along with a significant sub-plot involving the reason for the Willett's presence at Sittaford House. In addition, the adapters tossed in a homosexual note and, to make this even remotely believable, decided to shift the guilt onto a character that is, in the novel, entirely innocent. The result is a muddled, confusing mess, which would be better overlooked.
Furthermore, Geraldine McEwan entirely lacks the good humor and charm of Joan Hickson, who played Miss Marple in another, far superior series of Christie adaptations.
In this television adaptation, Miss Marple, a Christie character from several other stories, is grafted into the story and Inspector Narracott is deleted, along with a significant sub-plot involving the reason for the Willett's presence at Sittaford House. In addition, the adapters tossed in a homosexual note and, to make this even remotely believable, decided to shift the guilt onto a character that is, in the novel, entirely innocent. The result is a muddled, confusing mess, which would be better overlooked.
Furthermore, Geraldine McEwan entirely lacks the good humor and charm of Joan Hickson, who played Miss Marple in another, far superior series of Christie adaptations.
Easily the worst so far
Iain-2155 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
On the whole I've been a fan of the new ITV Marple series and have tried to take them on their own merits. The adaptations frequently change quite a lot from the source material and this is the second one to inject Miss Marple into a story where she doesn't belong. I don't really mind that if it works but in 'Sittaford' it doesn't. There are far too many changes here - other reviewers have listed them and I'm not going to repeat them. The problem for me is that changes made to all the other episodes in the series have nevertheless left the impression that the production team have an underlying affection for Christie and her work. Here however there is no affection; the impression left is that the production team actually thought that Sittaford was quite a poor story and needed re-writing. It's hard to see why this episode was made at all. If they thought the story needed so much work done to it then they should have left it alone and adapted one of the other non-series books instead.
As others have said, this piece bears very little resemblance to the book and even taken on its own terms it's quite poor. The writers have not succeeded on improving upon Christie - the original was much simpler and more satisfying. The only performance to really stand out, in my opinion, was Zoe Telford as Emily - as spunky and self confident as she is in the book. There were many other good names in the cast but all rather wasted. On the whole, very disappointing and rather annoying.
As others have said, this piece bears very little resemblance to the book and even taken on its own terms it's quite poor. The writers have not succeeded on improving upon Christie - the original was much simpler and more satisfying. The only performance to really stand out, in my opinion, was Zoe Telford as Emily - as spunky and self confident as she is in the book. There were many other good names in the cast but all rather wasted. On the whole, very disappointing and rather annoying.
Couldn't get past the first hour
merlin-10529 July 2006
It is one thing to take a classic and rather clever Agatha Christie mystery and completely gut it, leaving really just the name of the characters intact. That could be an interesting experience in deconstruction for, let's say, a film student thesis.
But, even assuming there is some merit to doing this and forgetting for a moment that this is supposed to be an adaptation (?) but instead just judging it on its own, this production is simply god-awful. Is it supposed to be a farce? It's not funny. The plot makes no sense whatsoever, the camera work is based on the conceit that each scene should be shot at a diagonal angle, which gets old after about 3 minutes. And what a terrible waste of several fine veteran English actors, all of which seem to be visibly cringing to be in this mess of a flick.
But, even assuming there is some merit to doing this and forgetting for a moment that this is supposed to be an adaptation (?) but instead just judging it on its own, this production is simply god-awful. Is it supposed to be a farce? It's not funny. The plot makes no sense whatsoever, the camera work is based on the conceit that each scene should be shot at a diagonal angle, which gets old after about 3 minutes. And what a terrible waste of several fine veteran English actors, all of which seem to be visibly cringing to be in this mess of a flick.
It didn't work
TheLittleSongbird12 February 2010
While I have not read the book in a while, I do agree it is a great compelling story. I was hoping for something different to the unfaithful, not to mention disappointing, adaptations of Sleeping Murder and Nemesis. I got that, for all the wrong reasons. Sorry to disappoint those who loved this, but this is for me the worst Marple, not only because it is a travesty of an adaptation, but on its own terms I just couldn't get into it. Of course the acting was decent from Robert Hardy(despite the fact his character was unnecessary), Zoe Telford, Patricia Hodge and especially Timothy Dalton. Plus Geraldine McEwan gives an assured performance as Miss Marple despite the fact she isn't in the book, though I do prefer Joan Hickson, I occasionally find McEwan too fussy. And the production values, costumes and music were nice. Sadly that is the only praise I can give. The plot is often confusing with sometimes long and even pointless scenes, and the reviewers are right in saying it bears literally no resemblance to the book. (I try not to compare adaptations to books, but sometimes when I love a book and I am disappointed in an adaptation I feel I have to say so) Even worse was the pace, the first hour went by very slowly and it failed to get me excited or compelled. And maybe it is just me who feels this, but I found the dialogue often horrendously stilted, and I didn't like the character of James, I found him somewhat clichéd. The ending was very disappointing and didn't make sense, and there were times when the mystery itself seemed implausible. Overall, a huge disappointment. Had potential, didn't work. 2/10 for the production values and the acting. Bethany Cox
and then there was nothing!
sharkey1973 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I have been reading Christie since I smuggled a copy of After the Funeral into my 8th grade class because I couldn't wait to see how it ended and read it behind my science book. It ruined me for Nancy Drew. Ever since, I've adored her books, have read them over and over and am a fanatical devotee to her characters and style. I happen to really like Murder at Sittaford and was delighted to find that it was now a film.
Except it isn't. This piece of tripe bears no resemblance to the original novel at all! Not only are characters juxtaposed and deleted, the whole plot is different. I can't believe that English people would actually change the plots of their greatest mystery writer Agatha Christie and not blush with shame. I was actually incredulous and kept waiting for them to get back on track, never believing that anyone would have the temerity to rewrite Agatha. I mean, really, who has that kind of gall? I guess a lot of people. Apparently from reading these comments this has been done to other versions, which I hopefully will never see.
And sorry, but there is only one Jane Marple for me, Joan Hickson. Not only were those well done and faithful to the incomparable plots, but Miss Hickson was perfection. Skip this travesty of a film and read the book.
Except it isn't. This piece of tripe bears no resemblance to the original novel at all! Not only are characters juxtaposed and deleted, the whole plot is different. I can't believe that English people would actually change the plots of their greatest mystery writer Agatha Christie and not blush with shame. I was actually incredulous and kept waiting for them to get back on track, never believing that anyone would have the temerity to rewrite Agatha. I mean, really, who has that kind of gall? I guess a lot of people. Apparently from reading these comments this has been done to other versions, which I hopefully will never see.
And sorry, but there is only one Jane Marple for me, Joan Hickson. Not only were those well done and faithful to the incomparable plots, but Miss Hickson was perfection. Skip this travesty of a film and read the book.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
