Thanks for the memories!

not horrible nor great

A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Nifty production of Agatha Christie story. A man is found dying among some rocks on a beach in Wales, evidently having fallen from the cliff above. Bernard Miles and (someone else) find him. He utters only a few last words -- "Why didn't they ask Evans?" -- before giving up the ghost. Francesca Annis, a young lady with a title visiting Wales, inserts herself into the mystery. She finds out the man's identity and his local hosts, a patron, a young blond lady, and a young man. The host family is a suspicious lot, especially the father who is a nervous wreck and makes several allusions to opioid drugs. All of this is sharply but discretely observed by Francesca Annis who has managed a longish visit at the family's stately home, Merriway Court. She manages to enlist her boy friend in the case and has his pose as her chauffeur, and both of them begin prying.Much of the conversation takes place at the dinner table. Everyone dabs decorously at his plate and seems disinterested except that they are listening with keen ears. This is an English pattern. I know I shouldn't make such Olympian judgements but I'm beyond that. The QE2 dining room was filled with British passengers and was silent except for the tinkling of silverware on china. As my wife and I were preparing to leave, I said audibly, "I never believed one bullet could make such a mess. There was blood everywhere." The tinkling paused only for about two seconds before resuming its silvery fairy-tale melody.This is rather a typical Agatha Christie tale in that the plot -- extending as it does over three longish installments -- is labyrinthine. I lost track of who was suspected of what, and why, from time to time, despite the recurring themes of greed and narcotics. Bonus points for exquisite photography and location shooting. Everything seems so CLEAN and SUNNY.We must count Francesca Annis among the many things that are clean and sunny. Her chipper persona enlivens every scene she's in. And though she's not one of those stunning English blonds one often finds in these tales, she's a splendid actress, a delight to watch. Her friend, the faux chauffeur, is something of a dull bulb compared to her sharp wit.In fact, if there's anything resembling a message in this story, it's that men are either a little slow witted or are particeps criminis. It's the young, good-looking, energetic women in their white frocks and 1930s hair styles that ferret out the truth.

I saw this television version of a Christie mystery story when it was shown back on Channel 5 in New York City in 1980. At the time I was surprised it was not shown on Channel 13, the Public Television Station that showed most of the Masterpiece Theater programs, but (aside from some Dorothy Sayers "Lord Peter Wimsey" stores, and THE MOONSTONE) the BBC productions rarely dealt with British detective stories. Another series, THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had dealt with stories set in the Victorian and Edwardian period, so a period charm was involved in getting those stories onto Channel 13.The plot of WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? dealt with a young couple stumbling upon a dying man who's only last words are the question of the title of the story (the novel was originally called WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?, but subsequently was retitled THE BOOMERANG CLUE). The young couple start investigating the murder, and trace the crime to a set of people who surround a questionable doctor (Eric Porter). Despite the warnings of the father of the hero (John Gielgud), the hero (James Warwick) and the heroine (Francesca Annis) pursue their investigation - even as it gets murkier and more dangerous. The death of another suspect by suicide increases the apparent dangers as the killer starts looking into silencing the two amateur detectives.It's not a bad film, although I agree it was a bit too long for a single night's entertainment (if it had been done like later Miss Marple episodes with Joan Hickson, or the Hercule Poirot episodes, in two parts it would have been better). But it has it's strengths. One is the proper use of Porter as chief suspect, and a clever scene later in the film where he appears to be spying on the young couple who are investigating the mystery. If you stick to the film, you will be in for a fair surprise later on.But it has one failing. When dealing with a Christie novel the figures in the story have to be in a rigid schedule of movements so that the reader might be able to figure out what the secret of the plot is. I will only add that if you hear the dialog at one point, and how a little boy was almost killed (but wasn't), then you will find all the parts of the story coming together, and what the villain's motivations were.Except for that and the lengthy time the telefilm takes to tell it's story, it is quite a good film, and worthy as one of the best programs based on a Christie story in the period when their was a sudden renaissance in films based on her novels.

Spoilers herein.I make a habit out of examining film adaptations of classic mystery novels for clues. I'm looking for clues about why the narrative works. There is a reason Christie is the best selling writer in history, even now as print runs are huge.I think I understand the primary mechanisms, how she engages the reader in a contest of wills. Usually, these don't translate well to film and we are given instead some puzzles with a surprise answer at the end.One approach is what was attempted here, just work through the book more or less as it is written. But that doesn't work either because the infrastructure of the imagination differs so between reading and viewing.Here the stretch of the mystery is too long for the reward. We'll know who the villain is soon enough just because of the theatrical mannerisms of the actors, and the rest comes across as `Hardy Boys' stuff. Add in some unbelievable coincidences (even for Christie), a Miss Moriarty Morphia and a little too pert Frankie and you'll see why this series wasn't continued.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

This movie adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel is similar in feel to "The Seven Dials", and has a number of the same actors in it, but I found it inferior. The movie is quite long, but it still manages to leave several things unexplained by the end. The traditional "explanation" scene at the end, where the devious plans of the criminal(s) are laid bare, is oddly uninvolving, despite the fact that the heroine is alone in a big house, at the mercy of the killer. It seems to go on forever, and seems to be answering questions that no one really bothered to ask. Besides, there is one outrageous piece of information provided at this moment that the viewer could not possibly have known, and which is thrown in just to make things easier for the villains. I suspect this is the fault of the original book (Christie was not above tossing in a sort of deus ex machina, especially in her early books) but it leaves the viewer feeling cheated.Francesca Annis is a touch too smug and smooth in her portrayal of Frankie, and I found her "bright young thing" character grating after a while. Eric Porter, as the suspicious Dr. Nicholson, gives the best performance of the movie, both affable and alarming.