Don't Believe the Hype

Disturbing yet enthralling

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

A Miss Marple mystery with an all-star cast—what could go wrong? A lot, actually, and I'm not just talking about the murder.The story isn't the best whodunit out there, but it's the acting that's the real problem. I don't know what kind of direction Guy Hamilton gave his cast, but everyone overacted like they were in a bad dinner theater performance. It's just sad to see Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis, Kim Novak, Geraldine Chaplin, and Angela Lansbury giving horrible performances. If this was the first movie someone saw of them, they'd probably hate them. Liz's and Kim's performances are particularly over-the-top; they play fading movie stars who hate each other, and it's just heartbreaking to watch.The only bonus is if you look at the full cast list on IMDb, you'll see Pierce Brosnan listed as "Actor playing 'Jamie' (uncredited)". But don't watch the entire movie hoping to spot him. I'm sure he'd give you the same advice.

It is so elegant picnic, through elegant places, and among elegant people. You're accompanied by lovely music, serenely-colored cinematography, and sedate directing. This is my kind of "afternoon", "calm down", "have a nice time", movie. Yet it has more to it. More of what can exceed the eye enjoyment to the mind enjoyment.Talking about the eye enjoyment; Taylor, Hudson, Novak, Lansbury, Chaplin, Fox, and Curtis are all here and doing well. I believe it wasn't the tradition back then with movies based on Agatha Christie's novels, rather it was another battle in the war between cinema and TV since the late 1950s, where mobilizing many stars was always a good weapon. I love to think sometimes that the good the TV reaches, in terms of quality and popularity, the more these star-studded movies are made. Notice well that the 1970s was the golden age of the "crime solvers" shows on TV, thus gathering all star cast for a crime solver movie at the time was more like "we can fight fire with fire" from the cinema side !Lansbury was wow as Miss Marple. Maybe that what made her win the role of Jessica Fletcher, in the TV show (Murder, She Wrote) 4 years later, which was less connected to Miss Marple and more Agatha Christie-like. It lasted for 12 seasons for some reasons; one of their first is Lansbury's exceptional charm. However, pardon me all, Elizabeth Taylor stole the show this round. While being not one of my favorites, I have to admit that Taylor showed some acting muscles as the unsettled, yet deeply wounded, movie star Marina Rudd. Still the scene of interrogating her by Edward Fox's character is the top of this movie, one of the evidences why she's considered an acting icon, and an interesting intro to the movie's intellectual core; which was presented somehow in its title.Now Taylor plays an actress who acts on everybody in real life as a victim, while being the actual killer. At that specific scene, she was trying to resist the investigator by her only weapon : acting. However, he exposed every try with his movie culture and certain love for that star. The original "crack in the mirror" happened when she couldn't resist anymore, and the divider between her played character and real self collapsed; thus she could see the criminal in herself, not the victim, which pushed her to committing suicide eventually. Throughout the movie there were many other cracks, between fiction and reality, however deeper. One when you watch the stars of the 1950s, after passing their prime, making a movie – in the 1980s – where they act as stars in the 1950s, after passing their prime, trying to make a movie ! Remember the hints about Hudson as a has-been, Taylor as unstable.. these are wicked cracks in the movie's mirror for sure ! (At least while the 1950s movie within the movie didn't complete, the movie of the 1980s did!).Another cracks, not less wicked, when Hudson and Curtis, while playing film director and producer respectively, speak openly about some of the movie industry's facts, such as "the director gives the producer an ulcer", "the matter of which actress's name will be written first is defined by which one sleeps with the producer!". They're shown as rude jokes, but maybe there is a mirror crack there, where we watch not a tame image of something, but the real deal ! Surprisingly the biggest "mirror crack" this movie has is the fact that it's nearly based on real story. As I read, American film star Gene Tierney, while pregnant with her first daughter, contracted German measles after a performance she did to the American soldiers in June 1943. Because of her illness, her daughter was born disabled. Tierney met that fan later, and learned that she had sneaked out of quarantine, while sick with German measles, to meet the star after her performance for the American soldiers in June 1943. Christie inspired the incident, showing maybe the scariest revenge a star had on an importunate fan.Actually cinema, as an art and world, had enough share of satire in this movie's conscience. It is shown as a devise which doesn't tell right history but makes its own version of it; e. g. changing the historical fact of what Queen Mary's guards wore as long as it didn't please the director (!). Not only this, you can powerfully touch a darkness that the cinema's glossy world contains : e.g. 2 stars smile for a photo while insulting each other whisperingly, a seemingly nostalgic conversation between a star and her devoted fan turns into a murder, a joyful party that contains a murder done in so cold blood.. etc. It's the main smart irony here : fiction vs. reality, shapeliness vs. ugliness, or simply the image reflected in nothing but burnished yet cracked mirror.That itself is pictured brilliantly. While the image is smooth, colorful, and bright, we have – in the same time – a fan who deformed a star's baby, a star who killed her secretary, a producer who tried to kill his wife, and a star who killed her fan, then herself at the end. The serene image, a mark of director Guy Hamilton's movies, represented the catchy element that it used to be, and – also – a fine contradiction with the disturbing events, as if all of that beauty is a mask to cover the beast, which consolidated the movie's both artistic and intellectual personality.So, as you see, I enjoy this movie, and not only for its good mystery, stars, and image. It does have more to it. That's why it's one of the best Agatha Christie's adaptations. In most of the other adaptations you may find nothing else good mystery, stars, and image !

Usually, when a movie made in Britain cast characters from America they usually select fellow Brits for the parts even though their American accent is pretty bad and stereotypic.  In this case, however, actual Americans or longtime transplants made their way into the respective roles.  As a result, things turn out rather bad just from the drag factor of the Hollywood trained actors' performances.  Lacking, as they do, the stage training typical of their British counterparts, they merely bring down the whole performance to their own tediously pedantic level.   Lansbury's Marple, seems less the cerebral type and more a throwback to the music hall tradition.  Too many years of Sweeny Todd, perhaps.  More likely, just plain bad direction from a hack hired by a producer without a clue.

I always want to see any production of Agatha Christie, and usually enjoy it overall. Her stories are that good. To me, the classic interpretation so far is the BBC television series with Joan Hickson as Ms. Marple and David Suchet as Poirot. They were so authentic and true to the books, while being very well done. The 80's and 90's seemed to yield the best of the crop. But, I even enjoy Margaret Rutherford's series, though they are so loosely adapted. This decade's offerings give the heartburn, even the newer ones with Suchet. They have taken the stories much farther afield than I can swallow, stellar production and casting notwithstanding.But here's Rock and Liz together again - in Agatha Christie. This is one of the more glamorous of the Marple stories, and there is plenty of glamor here. My goodness, the superbly correct butler was the wonderful Charles Gray. All these people together - Kim Novak, in an over-the-top Lola Brewster. Everyone loves the vitriolic exchanges between the two actresses in the story, which they knew would be the case. That's why they indulged in much license with that aspect. Edward Fox is interesting in his reaction to Marina (Lizzie) in the interview, calling her on her pulling out a scene from one of her movies when his questioning got too close. Then, she immediately switches back to near serendipity. Side note - realized how small a figure Fox is, while next to the very full sized Rock Hudson. And with Angela Lansbury, again appearing quite diminutive in contrast. Tony Curtis as the producer follows the more outrageous type. This really was quite a mix of British and American actors. It was interesting seeing a number of the local characters showing up later in the BBC series in different roles.Of course, Miss Marple with the Lansbury talent brought to it. Miss Marple seems to be the hardest to define. She is varied from the first book treatment, and some in the BBC series as well. It seems hard to land on a persona for her. Personally, I prefer what Joan Hickson did with her, overall presenting a balance of the proper old lady of older times who has developed a depth of understanding of human nature and genuine caring for people. She is an atypical old lady, with her perky persistence when she's really onto something. Unfortunately, most have taken that aspect and run with it, ignoring her foundational substance. The newer ones especially seem to make her out to be a liberated know-it-all. With that, she has become a very vapid, shallow character. The treatment here has her starting out as the know-it-all at the local movie night, but she becomes more biddable as it goes along. She demonstrates the life experience correlations, which are so pivotal in her sound assessments. Geraldine Chaplin is the secretary, holding herself very tightly, with all sorts of complications going on beneath her surface. The Heather Babcock character was effective, that being an important one. They really had the vicar fuddled up in this. And the location and sets – quite wonderful, but other versions are too. There's a lot of the old world charm still intact in the British isles. They cleverly carried out the story with overall accuracy, adding and subtracting with an eye to please modern viewers and the run time of the film. It seemed to work. Everyone, including myself, note the variances, but forgive them. You usually find that British productions of Christie and anything really, have a way of stereotyping Americans rather unflatteringly. It's funny that in this American production, they made it even worse. But, it's about film personalities, and I guess they are fair game. A line from another Christie movie comes to mind. Ms. Marple is having tea with a crony, who mentions a recent trip to America where she asked for muffins and got tea cakes with raisins. Ms. Marple responds, "Americans have a lot to answer for." That one's funny; some others, not so much. If this film has piqued your interest, you might find the book enjoyable. You'll not be disappointed, I think, with its wider scope and development. Also, if you have opportunity and are enough of a fan of Christie, you probably have seen the BBC Marple series. If not, I think you would really love it. Personally, I consider the BBC Marple/Poirot stories to be the defining version, just as the 1995 Pride and Prejudice film version is to all the others. Hey, this film has the usual Hollywood treatment, but it's actually a jolly good show and all that.