Wonderful character development!

Really Surprised!

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

This is a fine adaptation of one of Christie's best known works. When people rate and compare this I wonewoif they're comparing the Dietrich film, or the text. Let's face it the text is so short that the play lends itself so well to development and interpretation. It is one of her most ingenious plots, and relies on convincing characters.This features, for the most part excellent performances, Ralph Richardson steals the show, closely followed by Diana Right, who manages to make Christine as cold as ice. Pleasance and Hiller are also fine. The problem for me comes from Beau Bridges, whom was wildly miscast, lacking the emotional depth required to make Leonard convincing. I would have loved to see Simon MacKorkindale in the role, he had so much charm.Some great scenes, some wonderfully dramatic moments, particularly the theatrical finale. I'd rank it third after, firstly 1957's classic, and secondly the BBC's deliciously dark adaptation from 2016. A very enjoyable watch, 8/10

I benefited by watching the 1957 version and this one within hours of each other. Each has it's weaknesses and strengths. The major weakness IMO of this version was the music used. It intruded and didn't match the mood of the story. Though Ralph Richardson's portrayal doesn't have the bravado of Charles Laughton's, he brought a quiet conviction to the part. Beau Bridges was compared unfavorably to Tyrone Power but he (Bridges) showed the boyish charm that would take in a lonely older woman who would want to mother him or even marry him. Power came across as more mature and world weary though he did bring his own brand of charm to the part. Diana Rigg was very good but I felt Marlene Dietrich in the 1957 film was the better actress, especially, as a native German speaker, she was able to pull off a Cockney (or near enough) accent. People have said the scene where Sir Wilfred meets the "Cockney" woman differed and that the 1957 version was the correct and superior one have got it wrong. This version's meeting is the one in the short story the movies were based on. Never having seen the play or read a copy I can't say which meeting was used in it but I do own the book that contains the short story and have recently read it.There are complaints that they followed almost word for word and scene for scene the Wilder version but I don't have a problem with that. A good story is a good story and they wouldn't be the first nor the last to do such a thing.

I am amazed at the number of comments here faulting Sir Ralph Richardson's performance here and praising Dame Diana Rigg's. The situation is, if anything, the reverse. Admittedly, I hadn't seen the Billy Wilder cinema version for some years when I watched this, and therefore couldn't compare Sir Ralph's work to that of Charles Laughton (I haven't viewed this one since, either), but that isn't necessary to evaluate Rigg. She is totally miscast, in a way that is fatal to the twist ending (note the spoiler warning above, please). Unlike Marlene Dietrich, for Rigg the German accent is a complete affectation, while the cockney isn't that far from her own British speech pattern: vocally, she is quite recognizable as the other woman, at least to anyone familiar with her from other work--the fact that Rigg is kept in shadows in this scene (something that was unnecessary with Dietrich) would raise some vague suspicions of any uninitiated but reasonably intelligent viewer as well, even if her voice didn't give her away. But it does.

Everyone who has seen both versions will compare. Well, Charles Laughton and Tyrone Power in my opinion are better than Ralph Richardson and Beau Bridges. Charles Laughton simply is very funny. Tyrone Power performs a more shady character. But Diana Riggs is excellent, while Marlene Dietrich, much to my surprise and disappointment, is quite woody. The story in both versions are very alike. Though I haven't read the book, I assume they remain both quite close to it. So preference depends on the acting. I don't have one. I quite enjoyed both. The strength of the story is proved by the fact, that one can enjoy it even with knowing the real meaning of all the twists and turns.