Change Your Image
henry-plantagenet-04
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Midsomer Murders: Sins of Commission (2004)
Hilarious: One of the Best Ever
Throughout it's entire existence "Midsomer Murders" has played an interesting role in the TV mystery community. It's neither all-comedy, nor all-drama but a strange mishmash of both, and I'd be lying if I said the drama had the quality of the comedy. Everyone once in a while there was a largely sober episode that would work ("Destroying Angel" or "The Animal Within" were among the best), but usually the most enjoyable ones where the ones that were creative, far-fetched, and in on their joke. "Sins of Commission" (I never grasped the meaning of the title) is one of these. The murderer, their motive, and their scheme (or lack thereof) are utterly unpredictable, and the last thing you would expect to find in rural England, but I don't think any less far-fetched than some of the others. I didn't buy the motives in "Orchis Fatalis", "Dead in the Water", or "Death and Dust" but they felt much lazier than this one. I actually think this made more sense. The acting: absolutely on point. These are the kind of over-the-top eccentric and yet somehow lived in characters from the glory days of the series. I loved the dynamic between the Settingfield siblings (Donald Sumpter and Margot Leicester), the hilarious bitterness of the perfectly named"Jezebel Tripp" (Emma Buckley), the smarmy Sam Callaghan (Tom Mannion), the refined Camilla Crofton (Susan Engel), the insanely versatile housekeeper Mrs. Honeycutt (Rachel Bell) and the adorable John Denton (Robert Whitelock). If you want to laugh, and just generally have a good time, and that's what I want out of Midsomer Murders, I think you'll enjoy this one a lot.
Inspector Morse: Twilight of the Gods (1993)
Excellent, humorous episode with a scene-stealing performance by John Gielgud
I'm not typically such a fan of the Morse series. I do enjoy them, but its not something I could watch several episodes of in succession. This is by far my favorite that I have seen. It is much more upbeat than the others, and times very funny. Oxford as filmed here is sunny and beautiful not dark and grim as in the other episodes I've seen. The mystery is as convoluted as ever, a large part of it dealing with the attempted murder of Gwladys Probert (Sheila Gish), which is ultimately just an enormous red herring. But that hardly matters here. It is precisely the daft distractions that make this episode so worthwhile. Morse (John Thaw) and Sergeant Lewis (Kevin Whately) are both in fine sparring form, but they also have a very honest, compassionate moment at the end, which lends some depth to the episode. Sir John Gielgud is absolutely hilarious in his role as the aging college chancellor, gleefully contemptuous of everyone from Lithuanian billionaire Andrew Baydon (Robert Hardy) to American colleague Lyman Stansky (Don Fellows). A lot of his best witticisms are given away by the other reviews here, but I still think they're worth watching for his marvelous delivery. The story interweaves several themes from opera to freelance journalism to the Baydon family's trouble past, and it is difficult to tell where the motive for murder really comes from or even who the intended target was. (Like in "The Infernal Serpent," the other episode I really liked though for very different reasons, the two murders are committed by two different parties.) And though I watched this for the characters more than the mystery, the solution did make sense at the end, though I felt the inclusion of Victor Ignotas (John Bluthal) was very rushed. That is unless he appeared earlier in the story and I didn't notice him. The Morse episodes I've seen are usually fairly intimate affairs, but here the cast was gigantic and I felt they were introducing characters right up until the last twenty minutes. I also really enjoyed Morse's speculations on art and life, and the conclusion he comes to, though I wish we could have actually seen a conversation between him and Probert. I think that could have really added to that aspect. All in all, a very enjoyable episode from a typically somber series.
Marple: Greenshaw's Folly (2013)
"Ghosts Don't Exist, People Do": Decent Marple Mystery
This episode is a combination of two of Agatha Christie's short stories both featuring Miss Marple (here played by Julia McKenzie). It honestly does a very good job of combining them as I was frequently not sure what came from which story, and the solution worked well. There is technically nothing wrong with this mystery. It's just not that special in the series. The tricks played with the audience are fairly standard. A living person impersonating someone already dead to change the time of death, various illegitimate children. All of these have been done better in other Christie's. What saves it though from the ordinary are the actors. The Marple series always has quite star-studded casts, but they often risk having several cast members hamming it up (Simon Callow in "Body in the Library", Danny Webb in "At Bertram's", Warren Clarke in "Evans"), but they all perform very well here. Fiona Shaw is a fantastic actress, she inhabits the eccentric, sympathetic Miss Greenshaw quite well. Sam Reid (who sounds like he's a member of the Fox family) and Kimberly Nixon also impress. I hadn't heard of Vic Reeves (or Jim Moir as he is called in the opening credits) before, but I understand he was quite good. The standout however is Bobby Smalldridge. That kid can really act. One of the best child actors I've ever seen. All in all, a solidly enjoyable way to spend an evening.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars: Blue Shadow Virus (2009)
Dud in an Otherwise Good Series
I agree with axopnk. This is the worst episode from season one. "Downfall of a Droid" and "Duel of the Droids" may have been a bit infantile, but they did feel like Star Wars. This didn't even meet that low mark. It felt more like an episode of Mel Brooks' spy spoof "Get Smart" but with all the humor leached out. There is precious little worth seeing. The show is brilliant but I do think this episode represents some of the worst. When watching the season, I typically just skip over this one. Unless you want a kind of so bad it's good feel, which I almost got I recommend you do the same. Really not much to say here other than Michael York is wasted with a ridiculous German accent. They could have cast anyone.
Star Wars: The Clone Wars: The Gungan General (2009)
The First Truly Great Episode(s)
Warning: This is a review for both this and the previous episode "Dooku Captured," as such it contains spoilers for both. I was a huge fan of this show in the past, and have started revisiting it now. One of the things I noticed was that the first season is actually one of the weaker ones, certainly containing some strong episodes (The Malevolence Trilogy, The Lair of General Grievous) but also a few serious duds (Ambush, Duel of the Droids). This pair were the first two episodes I watched, and I think some of the best in the first season. There are serious improvements in the animation, the leg movements seem much more fluid here than they did in past episodes, and the proportions are in better equilibrium. The dialogue really works here, with one-liners that are legitimately funny and not cringe-worthy like they were in several previous installments. This the first time Skywalker and Kenobi have really been able to banter together, and they're terrifically written, with Matt Lanter and James Arnold Taylor clearly enjoying themselves in the roles. This is the key to the success of these episodes, they are character-based and the story grows out of these characters and the way they act. It is still a little roughshod here, but in future seasons this will be ironed out to some impressive story arcs. The episode also features the introduction of Hondo Ohnaka (brilliantly voiced by Jim Cummings). Given the role that Ahsoka will later play, I cannot say that he is the first great character to be introduced by "Clone Wars," but at this time he is much more interesting than she is, though she will surpass him in future seasons. The creators must have sensed something about him as well, for he returns in every single subsequent season, and it's always a pleasure to hear that voice. These two episodes are not perfect. The presence of Jar Jar Binks is irritant (B.J. Hughes may not sound like Ahmed Best but he is equally annoying in his own way), and I can still not comprehend the strange way Count Dooku's face was modeled. This sequence however is a huge step forward and augurs the things to come.
Poirot: After the Funeral (2006)
She Did It With Mirrors
I may not be able to bring much new to this discussion. People here have already been heaping praise on this episode, and they are completely justified. It is one of the best. I watched this the same day as "Cat Among the Pigeons" and I think I marginally prefer the latter, but both of these are masterful and very different plots, with dramatic integrity and unique styles. "After the Funeral" takes place appropriately after the funeral of one Richard Abernethie (John Carson) as his dysfunctional family gathers at Enderby Hall. They're an interesting lot: less loopy than the Serrocolds from "They Do It With Mirrors" but not as vicious as the Cloades from "Taken at the Flood". Initially all of the characters seem rather unpleasant, but as the story progresses we come to see the good in them. All the characterizations are fully drawn, and even though there are many, I felt as though they had all had an ark of sorts. The best characterization of all is the murderer. Monica Dolan absolutely makes this episode in her dual role as Miss Gilchrist and her victim Cora Gallacio. The performance is simply superb, character, motivation, and one of the ingenious plots in the series all seem inextricably linked. The reveal at the end comes courtesy of an extra chilling detail, which I won't spoil here. I'm sorry I gave away the murderer's identity but I think many of the other reviews already have. The cinematography in this episode is also stunning. Very bright colors particularly greens at Enderby Hall, where there is also a stark contrast with the jet black cars from the funeral procession, and the smart suits of the guests. Then in the final drawing room scene, there is an aura which seems almost as if fog was floating through the room. David Suchet is fantastic as usual but I think Dolan actually manages to take his spotlight in the last third. Robert Bathurst makes for a good sidekick, his demeanor and his crush on Helen Abernethie (Geraldine James) are very endearing. Michael Fassbender who would go on to be nominated for two Oscars, turns in a very early performance yet he already shows great potential. (Suchet claims to have anticipated a great career for him and several others.) If you like the Poirot series, see this episode, but, let's face it, you probably have already.
Poirot: Cat Among the Pigeons (2008)
Early Screenplay from Mark Gatiss
I am a huge fan of BBC's "Sherlock" though I had my gripes about the last two seasons, and I wanted to check out early work from Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. This, I think, might be the former's first screenplay in the mystery genre. I have to say it's sensational. I was already suitably impressed with "Halloween Party", but this one is even better. Both episodes tighten their story line even though they have a large number of characters. The proceedings move quickly and with purpose. We don't have the odd 30 minutes of exposition as we did in "Sad Cypress". Right from the start, there is immersion in the going's on, well before the first murder. Here the plot is suspenseful. This is not a given for an Agatha Christie adaptation. They are almost always interesting, but they rarely leave you on the edge of your seat. Here, I legitimately feared for the character's lives. Subsequent turns of events were nigh impossible to predict, because the murderer's identity was so well shrouded that it was not possible ascertain who the next victim would be. Throw in the misdirection with the attack on Miss Rich (Claire Skinner) and there is no way you will be able to predict the solution except through process of elimination, which you can't do until the circumstances of the attack on Rich had been clarified. The cast as usual is great. David Suchet is always great as Poirot and had wonderful dynamics with both Miss Bulstrode (Harriet Walter) and the Inspector (Anton Lesser), both fantastic characterizations. The two school girls (Lois Edmett and Jo Woodcock) whose tennis rackets become crucial evidence added welcome humor to the story, but I was also very worried that one of them might get killed. The murder sequences, all of which take place at night, are filmed almost like a horror film. (Gatiss gets even better at this in Halloween Party.) The cinematography is worthy of special note, with its choice of grayish haze, which suits the hazy nature of what is going on. Poirot seems to feel fairly comfortable in the circumstances, but nobody else is. And neither is the viewer. Finally, there is simply the taught energy, on which I already commented that holds together this episode, in a way that others from the series do not. That and many great scenes I will not spoil here but leave for the viewers to discover.
Sherlock: The Six Thatchers (2017)
There's Something About Mary ...
I apologize that this review will be all over the place, but then this episode was also all over the place. Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch, brilliant as ever) has been pulled of of his certain-death mission because Moriarty has apparently returned from the dead. And he doesn't deal with that for the entire episode. Instead the focus was Watson (Martin Freeman) and Mary (Amanda Abbington). I hate to say this but I'm still not a fan of the Mary story line. I like the actress and the character but she feels wrong in the show, and she and John took up so much time in the last season. I thought they had her assassin past done and dealt with, but they brought it back, with more details, and also Lady Smallwood (Lindsay Duncan) is involved and Moriarty might be as well. The plotting in the episode is truly irksome. Sherlock story lines tend to muddy the water with multiple over-lapping plots, but that's not what happened here. The plots only intersect by chance, the resolution of one mystery, only reveals another, but there's no master plan; just one event following another. When I said that "Taken at the Flood" replaced an opportunistic villain with a mastermind; this did the opposite, it replaced the usual criminal mastermind who opposed Holmes with opportunity. Only, there was no villain. Events occurred. People moved from place to place. Secrets were revealed but it was random. The plot points were chosen by a throw of dice (just like Mary journeyed around the world). The resolution of the mystery was that there never was one. One could try to peer through the fog of overlapping events but these get lost in their own confusion. This is such a pain for a show normally as meticulous as it's main character. There were good things though. Mark Gatiss, Una Stubbs, and Louise Brealey were all brilliant in their parts as usual, though they did not have nearly as much to do here. The dialogue between the leading trio was clever and snappy, and as usual the relationships were very enjoyable. The mini-mysteries Sherlock solved on the side were clever too. Marcia Warren even made for a very good villain, albeit a villain who stood in no relation to the crimes being committed. I enjoyed it a lot, but I watch this show for the game as well as the players. The players are in top form as ever; they should have something better to play. (This does not detract from my curiosity about the next two episodes.)
The Last Kingdom (2015)
A Lesson in Radical Adaptation
When I previously voiced my opinion on Episode 5 of this series, I was quite angry, and it affected my delivery of what I saw had happened with this show. Now I have set back and let the experience sink in, I can talk about the series more fairly. Even though I still don't like it, I think I can explain why. "The Last Kingdom" is adapted from the "Saxon Tales" series by Bernard Cornwell. They are fantastic books, in which the world is fully realized and the characters are completely unique. I highly recommend them to any fan of historical fiction. Like George R.R. Martin with Game of Thrones, Cornwell's gritty, ambiguous, sexual approach to the action epic was something he did before it was cool. But now in an age where such shows are popular it was only natural they would try to bring his world to the screen. In my opinion this has not been successful. My primary complaint is not that the story deviates from the book, although it does, and some cases that's excruciatingly painful. Nor is it the production values which are fantastic and give the world, a great physicality. It's the point of view of the TV show that kills it for me, as I think it will for many fans of the books. The "Saxon Tales" series isn't just about the story that's being told, its about how that story is told and who is telling it. And the show changes that. Cornwell's big conceit, his masterstroke was that he was telling the stories of the early Christian kingdoms from the perspective of someone who was resolutely pagan. It was the ultimate reversal. The familiar and respected institutions that we associate with our past were bizarre and perplexing, whereas the supposed alien element came across as familiar and comforting. Using this Cornwell was able to build intriguing characters whose interactions straddled the gap between the two worlds. We could understand how the vikings thought and why they acted the way they did, and we could fill in the Christian world from our own cultural reservoir. As such both sides worked. The show completely forsakes this. Uthred may be our protagonist but he is not our storyteller. In fact, he isn't a particularly good protagonist, merely reacting to events but not engaged with them. Instead, the show's focus is on Alfred of Wessex. I partly understand this decision. To the English, Alfred is certainly the most historically recognizable character, and Cornwell crafts him brilliantly. David Dawson gives a great performance as Alfred. He is the center of the show, and an entirely justifiable reason for watching it. Also very good are Harry McEntire as Aethelwold and Adrian Bower as Leofric. And they are all Saxons. Officially the focus. But like I said earlier, the point of the "Saxon Tales" was that they were the tales of the Saxons told by someone who refused to be one of them. In taking the Saxon perspective, the show allows these characters to shine, but shortchanges all of the Danes. Their motivations become hazy; sometimes, their actions seem downright ridiculous. There are reasons to see "The Last Kingdom", even enjoy it. But for the reasons stated above, I will not be coming back next season.
Marple: They Do It with Mirrors (2009)
Brilliantly staged and fantastically acted, with a clever solution but a few serious defects
"They Do It With Mirrors" centers on the estate of Stonygates and its owner Carrie-Louise Serrocold (Penelope Wilton). From the first glance it is another mystery involving a large amount of people converging on a large house. However, there are several major differences from the conventional form, which make this episode so interesting. The first is the inhabitants, aside from the incredibly complicated family (more on them later), the estate is used as a center for juvenile delinquents, which adds an interesting dimension to the proceedings. But seriously, let's talk about this family. We have a wife who has been married three times, she has two children from each of her husbands, and an adopted daughter. All members of the family are somehow involved in the arts. They are the Royal Tennenbaums of the Marple world, and they're so much more interesting than your average manner house crowd. Of course, this is aided by the fantastic ensemble of actors, these productions always get together. Only here they are used to much greater effect than usually. Penelope Wilton and Brian Cox mesmerize as the central couple, and the complexities of their relationship dictate the proceedings that unfold. Ian Ogilvy is very charismatic as Carrie-Louise's former husband. His presence evoking a greater blow, than the first murder victim's (Nigel Terry), but despite the harm he presents the central couple he remains a likable character. Of course, Julia McKenzie holds it all together as Marple. I prefer Geraldine McEwan, but McKenzie has grown on me a great deal (this might be her best outing, though I haven't seen them all). I also really liked Alex Jennings as the inspector; just like Richard Hope in "Poirot: Taken at the Flood" I wish he'd recur in the series. Speaking of "Taken at the Flood", Elliot Cowan is in this, and I don't hate him. His American GI character is very likable, and his accent is very convincing (but would it have killed them to cast a real American for once). The direction and camera are also of note. The opening scene involving many mysterious doings at night, which actually shifts from one point of view to the other is masterfully staged, as is the scene where Marple reads a letter from Ruth van Rydock (Joan Collins), and her head appears in the reflection of the train window. The actual execution of Gulbrandsen's murder is fantastic, and all the clues fit together in the end. So what didn't I like. Well, the second murder was completely unnecessary to the plot, and the ending was sadly awful. This could have been the story of one murder concluding with an arrest. Instead we have a second murder committed by a second murderer, and both murderers die at the end. This could have been really tragic, but the relationship dynamic between the two murderers was not shown, and that robbed the scene of its tragic impact. When re watching this I will probably shut off, after the culprit is revealed. That does not make the previous hour and 15 minutes any less worthwhile.
Poirot: Taken at the Flood (2006)
"Hercule Poirot - You killed what?" One of the Weakest Poirots
Like the ITV's Marple, Poirot has had it's ups and downs, but for the most part, they've been pretty good. This is one of the few weak ones. That's not to say that there weren't good things in it, but overall the result was quite disappointing, more so than Sad Cypress, which I also didn't like that much. First, the good. David Suchet is always excellent as Poirot, and he gets to play some very emotional scenes here, along with the requisite comedic moments. Some of the supporting players are also excellent. Pip Torrens and Elizabeth Spriggs, both of whom I adored in Wooster & Jeeves were good in their roles; one serious, the other comedic. And Richard Hope made for an unusual and surprising detective inspector (one I could see more of). Amanda Douge is fine as the next in a long line of beautiful and sympathetic women who help Poirot out (though there is a problem with her that I'll get to later). But there is one thing that absolutely drags this episode down. And that's the murderer, David Hunter (and the way Elliot Cowan plays him). This may seem like a huge spoiler, but I could tell from the minute he appeared on screen, that it was going to be him that had done it. I couldn't for the love of me work out how, but his behavior was so obviously villainous (and way over the top) that I was absolutely sure. And, he was. One of the most maniacally over the top murderers in the show, and I mean that in a really bad way. Not only is he a Moriarty type schemer (not interesting like Shaitana) which Poirot didn't really face in the books, but they also felt the need to give him a diabolical effect on women, if that cliché hadn't been done to death. If this guy tried to kiss me, I'd flee in terror, not dissolve in his arms like Lynn Marchmont does, and I'd pretty sure most women would agree with me. The other big problem again stemming from this character, is the nature of the story, Christie was trying to tell. "Taken at the Flood", a quote from Shakespeare, refers to the idea of a murderer who is an opportunist and who tries to get on top of circumstances as they come his way; not a Moriarty type villain who manipulates it all in his favor. The latter has been done to death; whereas as the former is a fascinating underused idea, and I would love to see it done cinematically. Sadly, I will not here. One other thing, the usual glorious visuals and production values of the Poirot series seem very muted here; all a palette of drab grey, maybe this was supposed to give the story a somber tone, but I don't think it worked very well. All in all, give this one a pass.
The Last Kingdom: Episode #1.5 (2015)
Terrible Adaptation
I am not normally a person who complains about adaptations not being true to their source material. If the changes are done cinematically or in the spirit of the original author; I don't mind. But this episode not only ruins two of the best scenes from the book; it also fundamentally betrays the nature of some of the best characters and the text itself. First off, let me actually start out with the two things that were actually good. I appreciate that the makers turned Mildrith (Amy Wren) into a more developed and likable character; she was kind of bland in the books. The scene with Aethelwold's (Harry McEntire) tit monologue is funny and very faithful to the book. (It's the only scene faithful to the book.) The rest was changed and for the worst. How could they mess up Ubba's (Rune Temte) death in this way? Not only did it lack the simultaneously emotional and hilarious sequence from the book; it also didn't make a lick of sense. Why would Ubba challenge Uthred to duel while the Saxons were advancing on them? Another problem is the actor playing Ubba; in the early episodes he was suitably menacing, but at this point he seems simply goofy. The meltdown with him and Storri the Sorcerer was amusing but for all the wrong reasons. With the exception of the two things I referenced, this episode is terrible. It doesn't work on its own, and it is downright painful considering the brilliance of Bernard Cornwell's books. I think the source of this problem might simply be that the filmmakers have capitalized on the title of the series being "Saxon Tales." But this rendition heavily favors the Saxon perspective and gives them far more screen time. With this imbalance the magic of Cornwell's world is lost, and the characters short-changed into irrelevance. P.S.: Where is Stepa? He should appear just about now.
Poirot: Cards on the Table (2006)
The Victim is Complicit in his own Murder. A Really Good One!
I think this might be one of my favorite feature Length Poirot's. I know it deviates from the book, but I still think it's brilliant. The mystery is a sort of perfect crime. There are four (or five) suspects: all have motive, all have opportunity, all of them have killed before. The only way to figure out who the culprit is, is through psychology. Thankfully, they were all playing Bridge, a very psychologically revealing game. Then there's added factor that the victim, psychopathic crime fan Mr. Shaitana (a brilliant Alexander Siddig) was fully expecting to be killed, and had in fact drugged himself accordingly. The premise is so brilliant that it probably could have held me on its own, but, of course, it is also accompanied by David Suchet's always great performance as Poirot, and a splendid supporting cast who for the most part fully inhabit their characters. This marks Zoe Wannamaker's first appearance as Ariadne Oliver, the bumbling crime writer, whom Poirot reluctantly takes on as a sidekick. I understand from the reviews, that a lot of people don't like this character, but I personally find her hilarious and am glad that she is in so many of the later episodes. The rest of the cast is also very good. Alex Jennings, Lyndsey Marshal, Lesley Manville, and Tristan Gemmill all bring the mentalities of the four suspects to the screen. While David Westhead (I'm not his greatest fan) brings genuine vulnerability to his unlikely role as police superintendent. But the crowning glory is Alexander Siddig as Shaitana, with the screenwriter's help he takes a character who has initially a racial caricature and transforms him into the kind of Moriarty-type villain so fascinated with the machinations of crime that he is willing to die to experience them. I love characters like that and Siddig plays this one to the hilt. The only weak link the cast is Robert Pugh as Colonel Hughes from the foreign office. Knowing this was originally supposed to Colonel Race (who was perfectly portrayed by James Fox in Death of the Nile), this was a huge let down. Pugh, though good in other parts has none of Fox's jovial charisma, and is rather boring here. I also think the plot line concerning Miss Meredith's roommate should have been left out. It was melodramatic and in an episode where psychology carried the day, not very psychologically plausible. It's the reason this gets nine stars and not ten. Aside from that, I completely love this episode, and gladly recommend it, with the warning that the last half-hour is very different from the book, and that one really has to pay attention to details.
Poirot: The Mystery of the Blue Train (2005)
Thoroughly enjoyable, with great actors and characters
It feels cruel. After seeing "Sad Cypress" one of the most beloved Poirot mysteries and finding it somewhat disappointing, I now really enjoy one of the more disliked episodes in the series. While not fantastic, "Blue Train" has of the things I enjoy in a mystery, and a couple of things I wasn't expecting but really took a shine to. And yes, sadly, I will spend nearly the entire review comparing it to "Sad Cypress". The plot concerns the murder of an American heiress (Jaime Murray) who is murdered on a train in the South of France (unsurprisingly, she's played by a British actress). Ironically, with this one exception, the cast is excellent. Elliot Gould is often stuck playing the same jovial part (which he does very well), but here also gets saddled with some emotional scenes, after the death of his character's daughter, and completely sells them. Lindsay Duncan and Tom Harper are dorkily hilarious as one of the strangest and yet loving couples in the shows history. James D'Arcy broods handsomely and yet strangely like-ably (he was also great in "The Moving Finger") as Ruth's ex-husband. Georgina Rylance is a very likable sidekick to David Suchet's Poirot, Roger Lloyd Pack nails the choleric detective, and Alice Eve is simply a delight. I just really enjoyed the characters and actors in this scenario. The clues were interesting, and logistically it made sense. The only weak point I think were the murderers' and their motivations'. Both characters; the secretary (Nicholas Farrell) and the maid (Bronagh Gallagher); were side-lined throughout, and while I understood where they were, I can't believe that there are two people who steal and murder just for the fun of it, and the whole denouement with Farrell trying to kill Katherine (Rylance) did not feel right. That said the exposition of the murderer and confrontation with all the suspects was masterfully orchestrated (something Sad Cypress doesn't even have). Generally, what I like so much about this one are the suspects. In Sad Cypress, there barely are any, and they're all very dour and sad. Here, they actually have lives and interact. Sad Cypress left me feeling disconnected because all the characters did was bottle up their feelings. It was a master class in repression, but it wasn't very entertaining to watch. Here, we got to see people actually act. The actors acted in both versions, but here so did the characters. I definitely enjoyed this more, but seeing the other reviews here, I don't know if I should recommend it. (Also note the way the director uses cigarette smoke obsessively in many scenes.)
Poirot: Sad Cypress (2003)
Well-acted and gorgeous to look at, but also confusing and ultimately unsatisfying
From reading the reviews I gather that this is a great favorite for many fans of the Poirot series. It pains me then to say that I agree with the two lower reviewers and say that I find to be a bit overrated. I'll start with the good things. The cast as usual is outstanding. Elizabeth Dermot-Walsh wavers beautifully and I completely felt for her. Kelly Reilly gives Mary Gerrard a potentially nasty streak under her apparent innocence. I understand this one of the few gripes, that fans had, but I personally thought it made her more interesting. She reminded me a little bit of Lucy Punch's spectacularly bitchy performance in "Midsomer Murders: Tainted Fruit", an awkward comparison, I know, and I'll actually go further in pairing the two episodes. The costumes, sets, and cinematography are top-notch as they are in many of the feature length films. But what I can't help being bugged about is the plot. The motive for murder is money, but we are never given a good reason why the culprit should be in such financial need to commit double murder, particularly since the victims were her sister and her niece. (Neither of whom recognized her?) In fact, the murderer just generally very interesting. And to sasha99, assuming no one has answered your question since 2007, the murderer is Nurse Hopkins (Phyllis Logan), who is actually Mary Riley, the aunt from New Zealand. Which brings us to the biggest problem that the solution comes entirely out of left field. It really feels like one of the episodes of Midsomer where they had a set up and then chose the culprit out of a hat. There is no way the audience will be able to figure out who did it, and the motive is insubstantial and uninteresting. (The motive in "Tainted Fruit", mentioned above is actually better.) I do not think this episode is a waste of time. There are good things in it. Also Poirot's war against British sandwiches which I forgot to mention earlier. But on the whole, I would have to say, this is one of the weaker entries in the cannon.
Marple: Towards Zero (2007)
"With Any Luck I'll Be Dead by September" One of the Best ITV Marples
One of the previous reviewers was right. There is something about this episode that just really works. The plot is both logical and unexpected as it should be in a good Christie adaptation. It really fits together in the end (though it would have been nice if Marple had explained it all in one sitting as opposed to two different people at different times). I know Marple wasn't originally supposed to be in this, but I think she fit well, certainly better than in some of the Julia McKenzie episodes (cringe). Geraldine McEwan is my preferred of the two ITV Marples. I think she had good chemistry with detective Mallard, played by Alan Davies, and also the supporting characters. Eileen Atkins was fantastic as the grumpy matriarch, and I was quite sad she died so early in the film. Saffron Burrows, Paul Nicholls, and Greg Wise were also excellent. I really cannot think of many bad things to say about this one. The makers knew exactly what they were doing, and they pulled it off well. The story followed through completely, and the characters were interesting. If you want to check out the series this might be a good one to start on.
Midsomer Murders: Breaking the Chain (2016)
Wow, What a Terrible Ending!
On reflection I have noticed one thing about this show. The plots in the newer generation generally suck. Since the arrival of Nelson, there have only been 3 really good episodes: "The Christmas Haunting", "Wild Harvest", and "A Vintage Murder". In these episodes, the killers' motivations made sense and the audience were able to pick up on what was going on. Not so here. "Breaking the Chain" is an episode that follows in the tradition of solution must come entirely out of left field. That's fine if there were any build-up for it, but there just isn't. Literally, all the crucial information is introduced in the last ten minutes. There is literally no way the audience would be able to figure it out for themselves. Sad to say, there's been a lot like this recently; "The Sicilian Defense", "Ballad of Midsomer County", "The Flying Club", and "Killings of Copenhagen" all relied on the introduction of plot threads no one could have seen coming. The point of a mystery is putting together the pieces, and you can't do that if there aren't any pieces at all. All these episodes also rely on a person who seems completely sane and nice turning out to be completely psychotic. On top of the motive for the murders, not being introduced so were those for all the other crimes. Virtually, every revelation was cobbled together at the last second before it became relevant. The only way to figure out the culprits identity is simply to guess the least likely person, and probably be right.
Marple: The Secret of Chimneys (2010)
Something seems off ...
I have never read "The Secret of Chimneys", but from the other reviews here, I think I can get the picture. Even without the advance knowledge there seems to be something off in this adaptation; some sort of over-simplifying that I don't like. There's the underline for a fun frisky romp and then it is barraged with more "mature", but rather corny clichés from a lot of these Marple adaptations. The dreaded illegitimate child cliché rears it's ugly head again, and the poisoning everyone a little bit, but only one person completely over dinner is ripped straight out of "4:50 from Padington" (probably one of the best ITV Marples). Still there things to like. I enjoy Julia McKenzie as Marple, same way I did Geraldine McEwan, and there are some pretty good players in the supporting cast as well. Stephen Dillane (who was brilliantly unlikable in Game of Thrones) makes for one of the more engaging detectives in the series (as one other reviewer said, he could have carried this thing on his own). Charlotte Salt was also quite charming as Virginia Revel. I just couldn't make up my mind about Edward Fox though. Sometimes he's above what's going on, sometimes he isn't. It was sadly very obvious that he was the murderer. I realize they were trying to make us like him, but we already knew. I also felt very sad about both of the victims (The Count and Ms. Treadwell), but then the film decided to settle for gallingly happy again. I know that Christie had a range for comedy and tragedy, and some of the adaptations have done both brilliantly, but here you have both and either is well executed. If it is worth seeing than for the actors.
Midsomer Murders: The Incident at Cooper Hill (2016)
Some Plot Holes...
It recently struck me that a lot of episodes from the new series have sort of been stealing their themes from episodes in the old series. These include examples like mushrooms, herbology, and hotels ("Destroying Angel" and "Wild Harvest"); bird-watchers ("Birds of Prey" and "A Rare Bird"); Celtic rituals ("The Fisher King" and "The Sleeper Under the Hill"); New Age cults ("Death in Disguise" and "The Oblong Murders"); and now Alien abductions which call back to "The Electric Vendetta". Of course, in both episodes the culprits aren't really aliens, but there are people who think they are. The only difference between the two is that in "Electric Vendetta" the bodies were only marked and left in crop circles, but here they've actually been submerged in a synthetic resin unknown to science. I mean, come on. One guy just invented this, and used it to kill three people. The problem is that there were only a few hours between the time his motive emerged and the first murder. Did he synthesize the resin in that time? Or did he just have it lying around on the off chance he needed to kill someone? Yes, it's one of those episodes again. Most Midsomers have logistical plot holes, but it's typically possible to ignore when the episode is absorbing. This one frequently falls short. Another thing that annoyed me was that the murders and the alien sightings nearly always took place at the exact same time, even though the perpetrators were completely different people, and had no knowledge of each other. I'm baffled that fairly well-known actors like Alison Steadman (Life is Sweet) and Pip Torrens (Wooster & Jeeves) chose this of all episodes to be a part of. Their roles aren't particularly demanding. Still this was somewhat enjoyable, and was not able to guess the culprits' identity until fairly late.
Midsomer Murders: Habeas Corpus (2016)
Revenge of the Gay Undertaker!
"Habeas Corpus" is the first episode of Season 18 of Midsomer Murders, and it's a weird one, though sadly not in the way one would hope. There are some fine elements, including a teenage girl who looks like she came out of a Tim Burton movie, and the weird romantic/business arrangement between the doctor and the undertaker (the undertaker isn't actually the culprit, but it just made me notice that all the undertakers in this show are apparently members of the LGBT community), but the main plot line is pretty weak. I'll admit I didn't figure out the culprit until quite late, but that's only because a whole bunch of crucial clues were introduced in the last 10-15 minutes, making about 40 minutes of this mystery pure filler. The episode actually has a pretty impressive cast including Helen Baxendale (Friends), Ciaran McMenamin (Jericho), and Clive Merrison (The History Boys), but they are stranded with not much to do. Then there's all the plot threads that are just left hanging: What will happen to Bobby Loxley's farm? Why was that scene ever there in the first place. This episode pads with needless conflict it never resolves, and it just never gives us a good mystery. The humor in the Barnaby family isn't funny either. I have yet to make up my mind about Dr. Karimore. That said, it wasn't terrible, and I'm sure there will be good episodes coming this season.
Midsomer Murders: A Vintage Murder (2015)
"It's England. It always rains." One of the Best from the New Generation
I really liked this episode. It certainly is the stand-out in a rather lackluster 17th season. The solution is logical yet unpredictable. There are some incredibly intriguing clues and red herrings, and the supporting characters are genuinely interesting. That's become a rarity in recent times. I had no idea who the murderer was right until the moment they were revealed. The way this scene is edited it constantly tricks into thinking Barnaby will reveal someone as the killer and then he simply turns to someone else. But the solution made sense both logistically and in terms of motivation. It was also rather sad. It also featured a good supporting cast (though no one I knew), the standouts being Mark Bonnar and Rosie Cavaliero, but solid work all round. The domestic humor in Barnaby's family was a bit cringe-worthy. I rolled my eyes at the know-it-all, do-it-all maid. But I thought the dynamic between Kate Wilding and DS Nelson was well-played and funny. Definitely the best of Season 17.
Midsomer Murders: Tainted Fruit (2001)
Good Ideas, Confusing Execution
Warning: Contains massive spoilers, including murderer's identity. First off, I would like to say that I am a fan of Midsomer Murders old and new. And this episode actually some good things in it. The cinematography in this one is gorgeous, and these are some of the best settings chosen for the atmosphere of the episode. There are also some really good performances, specifically Lucy Punch as the truly despicable Melissa Townsend and Eleanor David as the socially ambitious Georgina Canning, and an unusual motive for murder: social status. The mystery even mostly congeals at the end. That said the main problem is coherence: I found it incredibly hard to follow what was going on, which could be just attributed to being a beginner, but I've watched many episodes of this show, and I usually can follow them, but this one was just all over the place. Even though the murder's motivations made sense, so many other things did not. Why was Georgina Canning drunk the night of the party, and why did she drive Sally Rickworth? Were they in any way close? Why didn't she go back with her husband? Was Sally Rickworth a lesbian? Why did she suddenly want to hook with Frederick Bentine-Brown? Why was she having an affair with Melissa, if she knew Melissa broke up her marriage? How could she even stand Melissa? How did Georgina get the chemicals from Joan Farley's place? Why did Joan wait for so long to bury the stuff she still had? In addition to that, I guessed that Georgina was the murderer about 50 minutes in, even though I had no idea why, and I was right. On top of that, they threw in her killing her own husband because "stumbled on some evidence"(a plot device I never like in these mysteries). His death brought nothing to the story, it didn't even prolong the run time, because it didn't provide any useful clues, except exculpating Joan Farley, in a scene so clumsily written it made me cringe. Then there was Melissa's habit of calling Sally "the Medlar", presumably this was supposed to insult her for being a lesbian. But what kind of vague insult is that. She'd have had to do research to figure out what it meant, and even so based on the description of the fruit alone, I don't think it would have sprung to mind.