Towards Zero

Neville Strange, a celebrated tennis player goes through a messy divorce with his wife Audrey, who has legitimate grounds after Neville had an affair with the glamorous Kay. Neville takes his new wife to visit his wealthy Aunt, Lady Tresillian, it just so happens that Audrey has been invited as well.

I was truly looking forward to this, as I do with any Agatha Christie adaptation, but in recent years it's been a case of approach with caution.

There are lots of changes, let's be clear, it's altered from the book, with several characters perhaps very different, that said the core essence is still here.

The best element has to be the visuals, it is a stunning looking production, an area where The BBC still thrives, expect stunning clothes, great sets, and as it's set at Burgh Island, expect a terrific location, one Agatha Christie fans will know very well.

The issue I had, the pacing, it is very slow to get going, it takes the best part of two episodes to see an actual murder, they spend an age introducing the characters and building the murder, heading Towards Zero.

I wish they'd put this on over Christmas, it may have added an extra bit of sparkle, putting it on at the start of March felt a little odd, this was a big production.

Not as bold as some of the more recent Agatha Christie adaptations, I don't think it held a candle to the stunning adaptation of And then there were none, in comparison it felt a little bit flat, but all in all it's a good adaptation, and the feel of the book is captured well.

Anjelica Huston steals it as Lady Tresillian, but there are good performances all round, Jack Farthing in particular was excellent.

7/10.

The good thing about this was it was just 3 episodes long and, being bbc who don't spend big bucks on the same old actors allowed me to watch the show rather than thinking "What have I seen them in before?" For me the story was too slow at times with a lot of filler (an hour is an hour on bbc unlike other channels that only need 45 minutes) but it was still engaging.

Waiting a long time for the first murder wasn't helpful but that was the whole point of the story we are told.

I was losing interest until Audrey and Neville became intimate on the stairwell in episode 2.

A strange ending it has to be said after twists, turns and double buffs.

I can see why this hasn't been given the same publicity as on social media that other re went dramas have received.

Watchable but you won't miss anything if you don't.

The ABC Murders was much better.

The visual aesthetic of the series is a major letdown. The overly dark and blueish tint gives it a dated, early-2010s look that feels more like a tired crime drama than a timeless Agatha Christie mystery. The muted color palette and lack of visual creativity make the entire production feel bland and uninspired.

The pacing is another significant issue. The combination of an overtly slow and melodramatic score and hollow conversations drag the story unnecessarily. The result is a miniseries that feels much longer than it actually is.

Finally, the characters, while seemingly layered, quickly become tiresome. Each one is burdened with a troubled past or some nuanced background, but these elements feel overused and repetitive, and lacking authenticity. Instead of adding depth, the constant focus on their personal struggles makes the characters feel like clichés. By the time the mystery reaches its conclusion, it's hard to care about who did what or why.

For me this miniseries is a waste of three hours that I want back.

BAD: Too S-L-O-W. Pace is toxic. Wasting my life does NOT entertain me.

BAD : As my OH said flatly, as they left the living room after the final episode: "Not worth the wait." Yes, indeedy, at 3h this was far too long.

BAD : Multiple lingering camera shots. These are in place of nuanced facial expressions, that should have been caught on camera for just the right - and short - duration.

BAD : Beautiful panoramas of scenery do NOT make up for a poorly turned out drama.

GOOD: Sarah Phelps - and Kenneth Branagh - had NO involvement in this production. Be grateful for small mercies.

BAD : Endless modernisations that Christie would NEVER have put in her stories. From the 'F' word to . . . Shall I bother to go on?!

BAD : Ticking boxes aplenty.

GOOD: The last 20 minutes has an energy and pace that is absent in the rest of the drama. Which makes this the only time I felt that the magic of Christie's tale's was shown on the screen. A denouement worth watching.

BAD : The problem with training the camera on the cast's faces is that it is asking the actors to just hold an expression (elegant/beautiful/etc.), instead of allowing them to ACT a part. This is one of the reasons we can't see any ACTION on their serene faces. This happened with nearly all the cast, except Matthew Rhys who was clearly asked to look haggard. No beauty appeal there, no lack of expression, as his face was all about the mental pain he was enduring with his PTSD.

BAD : The costumes, hair, and makeup were perfect, and mesmeric in their stylishness. But sadly that plus point can only end as a negative, as someone in the production team seemed to think those could make up for a poor dramatic energy.

GOOD: It's great to see some unknown faces, rather than the pile of well-knowns that often hit us these days. Let's give NEW actors a start on the ladder. A few greats I like, but when I see the face and think of the actor rather than the character they are playing, I know that suspension of disbelief is just about to fail.

BAD : WHY do they keep casting the grand dames/gentlemen of American acting, & not of Britain, in the key roles? Recent Christie adaptations have seen them in their droves. From Glenn Close, to John Malkovich, to Angelica Huston. I mean, I know they're all great actors, but I feel it's somehow product placement. Can't they find anyone in 'Stage' magazine, to fit the bill?!

GOOD: Matthew Rhys is superb. I felt truly shaken when I saw his frazzled facial expressions. And the final scenes are his strongest point. Kudos to the actor.

BAD : Unnecessary, corny, meta references to other Christie novels - the 'Blue Train' and the 'Orient Express' - plus an in-joke titter by the characters, to clarify. (As if we didn't already know . . . !)

GOOD: The setting of the gather-in-the-drawing-room finale was changed to a grass tennis court. Very original. And a fitting location for the coda to this drama. (Unlike the closure to other Christie adaptations, it wasn't a daft setting. I mean: located on the train tracks next to a locomotive engine?! . . . would you believe Branagh?!)

BAD : Style-over-substance piffle. I felt I was watching an episode of a glossy US soap. So, instead, let's get the appropriate pacing back into our TV dramas!

GOOD: What a delight to see Burgh Island on screen again (for the 3rd time). One of Christie's own haunts, and of course used in the superb film of 'Evil Under the Sun'.

BAD : I can't say how many changes they made to Christie's work, as I've never had a chance to read the book. But as this is a modern production, I reckon on a fair few. I DO know that 'Supt Battle' has been removed. And the new detective serves to replace the actions of another key character in the book, who is cut, 'Angus MacWhirter'. These alterations strike me as unnecessary, and arrogant. Will they NEVER stop changing things? After all, as the mantra goes: If it ain't broke, don't mend it.

I'll never understand why the main character of the book gets cut out of the televised version every time. Also, why is everything so dark? It's like it was filmed in the middle of the night with a filter.

It's a good try, but Kay is not the 23 year old redhead party girl from the book, and several other characters don't ring true either. I'm just hoping that they haven't changed the murderer too.

Although, I could see the story being updated to the modern day with Kay as a social media obsessed influencer and Audrey as an ex-supermodel.

I'm giving it 5 stars for effort, even though it misses for changing the story unnecessarily.