Wow! Such a good movie.

I wanted to but couldn't!

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

For major fans of the book (such as I), you will be extremely disappointed in the movie. I watched it for 15 minutes and was done. I was hoping to see an adventure film set in the early 1920's with Anne being portrayed as a young, charming, and clever girl on her first adventure who encounters romance and thrills. The movie is nothing like this. It is set in late eighties/early nineties and every detail from the book has been thoroughly twisted and overdone. I am truly disappointed. It is true that my opinion stems largely from the fact that The Man In The Brown Suit is my favorite book of all time, and I am a huge fan of Agatha Christie. When I saw this DVD in the library, I was absolutely shocked that it existed and could not wait to go home and find the time to watch it. For those of you who have not read the book...I'm at a loss for words due to my own biased opinion except to say the acting is cheesy and there is nothing quaint or cute about this film at all.

This is one of the few Agatha Christie novels that I have not read so I am not in a position to say how faithful or otherwise this adaptation is. It's a fast moving TV movie starring many famous TV faces of the time (late eighties). Although a thriller, the emphasis is mainly on comedy with Stephanie Zimbalist very likable and endearing as 'girl in search of adventure' Anne Beddingfield. She has a suitably square jawed, handsome hero to team up with in Simon Dutton and is surrounded by an assortment of rather two dimensional 'suspects' including Edward Woodward being VERY English and Rue McClanahan being VERY Southern and basically replaying Blanche from 'The Golden Girls'. Tony Randall shows that he is definitely NOT a master of disguise and there is a very funny episode towards the end when the ladies 'fail to recognise him'. There are a few moments like this (Anne escaping from the worst cell ever, the prat-fall over the edge of the waterfall etc) which one is never quite sure if they are meant to be funny or not.On the whole this is quite enjoyable fluff but I must now read the novel which I believe is a far superior tale.

This is definitely nostalgic and reminiscent of those great unreal late 70s mystery-dramas, but this is IN NO WAY related to the Christie's book. The book is set in the early 1920s and deals with an orphan who spends her last few dollars to travel by ship to South Africa after witnessing an accident in the tube station and finding a scrap of paper (referencing the ship) on his body. This '89 version could have held its own as a made for TV piece and need not try to take credit as any sort of adaptation of the novel - because it definitely isn't. There are some great moments in this one though - the crossdresser is great but Zimbalist is FAR too precocious and the plot is ridiculous (it's filled with unreal 70s style nonsense - getting on the wrong plane by accident and ending up in Egypt for one, among others.) But all in all, it's cute if you like that early 80s made-for-TV mystery. And, incidentally, UK TV plays it periodically so even if you didn't tape it off American TV in 1989, you could still catch it from time to time in England.

Uneven Agatha Christie adaptation with great locales, a swift adventure pace, and an odd assortment of acting styles from an equally odd assortment of then popular TV stars. Ken Howard ("The White Shadow") does a Humphrey Bogart spoof, Tony Randall ("The Odd Couple") does comedy skit impersonations, Rue McClanahan ("Golden Girls") plays her familiar Blanche character, Edward Woodward ("The Equalizer") is doing light theater, and Stephanie Zimbalist ("Remington Steele") at times looks like Pinocchio with wooden legs trying to balance on her two feet. I can't tell if the film was badly miscast (Tony Randall's role should really been done with an unknown unrecognizable actor), badly scripted, or just bad direction choices. My guess, a little of each. Imagine the director telling each of his actors that they were in a different type of film (spoof, mystery, adventure, drama, comedy, etc...) and you get an idea of what happens on screen. Still, the pace, humor, and locales actually make this one of the most enjoyable Christie inspired efforts and one you won't likely be nodding off to. Maybe there is a method to the madness afterall, or at least a purpose. I taped this film during it's original broadcast in 1989 and still watch it from time to time as a guilty pleasure. Go figure.