Murder Is Easy

I confess to being a lover of Agatha Christie. Having read every book and seen every ITV Poirot and all renditions of Miss Marple.

I found the beginning of this plot really gripping thanks to Miss Pinkerton aaand was looking forward to how things developed. I did not like the decision to introduce a black Nigerian character with the odd confusing vision on top of an already busy plot. I also found the pletherer of well known actors playing characature roles distracting.

The bright colours had my eyes straining and desperately reaching for the contrast adjustment on my remote.

The plot was plodding but at least it was so confusing it took me a while to work out which of the books I was watching. I realised in enough time to recall who did it and why.

I found the acting wooden throughout but to be fair it reflected the stuffy English class system of the period. The setting, costumes and cars was excellent.

I felt Fitzwilliams character out of place yet deserving of an entirely different production.

Without giving the plot away this is one of Christies more disturbing plots with a cold blooded murderer who really does find Murder is Easy witb weight added being based on more than a little truth to there being some people, such as Dr Shipman, who hide among us capable of such awful deeds. .

Well, the scenery and locations didn't disappoint. They're absolutely gorgeous (filmed in Scotland I believe).

Agatha Christie stories are pretty rote so the bar isn't too high, but this two-parter didn't manage to clear it.

The body count was really too high for Our Hero (Luke Fitzwilliam) to sink his teeth into any one murder and frankly while he did ID the killer in the end ... he was one step behind the whole way, unlike say Miss Marple.

About the casting and the plot line:

I was very distracted by the fact that David Jonsson's left eye is much smaller than his right. There are many many closeups of his face where this affected my ability to focus on the plot.

Apparently in order to justify casting a Black actor in the lead role, they gave him a back story as being from a rich Nigerian family and coming to London to work in a diplomatic post as an attache to some British muckymuck. He speaks with a posh accent and there is almost no relevance to his African background in terms of the plot.

We get some stereotypical racist comments about "mud huts" from the local high and mighty lord of the manor, but almost everybody else in the film basically just accepts him and appears virtually color-blind. In 1954 rural England? I dunno about that.

Also, he's not given much to do, other than to wander around snooping, and then give a knowing smile in almost every scene.

The dialogue he was given to say didn't help at all.

I couldn't help feeling, this would have been a much better production if they'd just stuck with a snoopy old maid like Miss Marple as the detective.

Agatha Christie wrote many dozens of murder mysteries, some famously ingenious; but either 'Murder is Easy' was a dud, or this adapatation is badly screwed up. People start dying in a small English village, but everyone still alive is remarkably unperturbed and several seem not to care if they're suspected to be the killer. Eventually, the real culprit is unearthed, and explains exactly how they've done it, although our amateur detective hero has identified the villain without in fact piecing any of it together for themselves. I've seen Christie adaptations that were fun, preposterous, or anachronistic; but none as anemic as this.

Agatha Christie has a chequered history with Tv and Film adaptations, from early Poirot characterisations that made him French, yes French. Margaret Rutherford was a fun but hardly faithful to the source Miss Marple. The recent ITV adaptations of Marple have played fast a loose with the narratives and even changed murderers at points. So, it's true to say that adapting Christie can be fraught with difficulty when it appears 'easy'.

This adaptation was a mess on many levels. From a sub Wes Anderson approach to texture and editing rhythm, strange close ups, wobbly camera work and a script that clanked along pouring exposition on top of the imposition of a post-colonial narrative - it just didn't mesh.

The ideas were bold, and in many ways could have been brilliant, just so many choices at once going away from the source material began to stress the story so much that it became vague and confused, an original piece about colonial attitudes in the 20th Century or a straight down the line thriller would have been much more effective and a much stronger choice from the BBC.

The problem with BBC commissions at the moment is their lack of vision to make original drama, they appear to want to be commercial whilst trying to service what is current and hotly debated. This leaves the BBC feeling confused and only concerned with issues that trend in London and liberal media outlets.

ITV have delivered Christie stronger, better and more radically than the BBC over the last two decades. So perhaps it would be nice to see this 'tradition' of a bbc Christie at Christmas knocked on the head, until they begin to understand how to produce drama that doesn't betray the source.

This was just a real dud.

My wife and I were really looking forward to this, it should have been right up our street as we live this sorry of things, but it was very disappointing. Just felt very tedious, disjointed and a bit of a chore to watch. Good cast and basis of a good story but it really, really dragged.

Maybe it was the script that was the problem, and having. Also we found the excessive colours jarring, almost cartoonish. Some of the characters were just caricatures and the "reveal" felt forced. A real opportunity missed as it probably cost a lot to make. The romance felt unconvincing and some very good actors came across like they were in panto. Not recommended.