Agatha Christie: Partners in Crime

Maybe it is because I read the books or saw the (1983) (TV Mini-Series with Francesca Annis and James Warwick), that it takes some time to accept the characters in this (2015) (TV Mini-Series with Jessica Rain and David Williams.) then when you think about it the characters are what they are supposed to be and not particularly what you would have written them as.

This is a 1950's period piece and the characters, clothing, cars, etc. Are quite convincing.

We follow the partners as they move from their mundane life as beekeepers to quasi investigators of spies and other despicable characters. With the help of friends and relatives, they foil evil plots against man, king, and country.

Agatha Christie was not smothered up by the TV scriptwriting. There are of course changes for the different media. It took a bit of time to get used to as I would not have given a good rating until well into the story.

This has been a wonderful series, its great to have a story stretched over 2-4 episodes rather than 12-30 which seems to be the norm now. Of course this was a 3-parter so it was perfect.

I am not at all familiar with this story, as I imagine most others aren't either, but it was a thrilling little adventure, though I have to admit certain plot twists weren't entirely surprising it was still gripping and fast moving.

JR was fabulous and very believable in her role, the energy and feistiness she brought was great. And I just adored her outfits too. I look forward to seeing more of her in this role, and others. She thrives in the 1950s it seems.

David Walliams, in my opinion, was entirely miscast. I could count the number of times his facial expression changed on one hand. He just appeared stunned/frozen all the way through, even in the parts where you would expect a deeply strong emotional reaction to someone you love being in danger or a facial-flutter when your own life threatened or you are caught out by someone.

He just came across as unenthused, lacking energy and uncaring like he couldn't be bothered to act. If that is how the character is MEANT to be then that's a different matter, but I think he was going OTT on the old fashioned 'stiff upper lip' quiet, introvert and calm etc etc.

And frankly I didn't think the chemistry between them was zinging.

This aside I will watch the next story and hopefully this will improve. Overall it is a wonderful show, just let down by the lead male.

Although Agatha Christie is one of my favourite authors, adaptations of her work have always personally been judged on how good they are on their own merits, regardless of how good or bad an adaptation it is.

The Tommy and Tuppence books/stories are entertaining reads, though none of them are among my favourites from Christie, and the 80s Partners in Crime series is not only true in details and spirit to the stories but charming, suspenseful, light-hearted entertainment in its own right. But when advertised I surprisingly didn't find myself desperate in seeing this, which is highly unusual for an Agatha Christie adaptation. Despite looking good visually, the casting just seemed off and even when advertised the writing seemed clunky.

Finally giving it the benefit of the doubt, and without comparison to the source material and the previous Partners in Crime series, as someone who loves Agatha Christie and who has enjoyed a large amount of adaptations of her work this was disappointing. It has a few plus points, with the best thing about it being the production values. The 1950s setting is evoked beautifully, the scenery is positively sumptuous and at times effectively mysterious and a lot of work clearly went into evoking the period, because the attention to detail is great. It is also very stylishly filmed and atmospherically lit. While the acting is a vast majority really not very good, a couple of performances are decent, with particular mention going to an effectively menacing Jonny Phillips in The Secret Adversary, who shows that you don't have to do an awful lot to make one feel uneasy, and Christina Cole as a seemingly vulnerable Mrs Sprot, which Cole handles affectingly without being passive.

However, that is pretty much it for the good things. One of the main things that ruins Partners in Crime is the woeful miscasting of David Walliams as Tommy, have nothing personal against Walliams but there was the fear that he would be out of place and stick out like a sore thumb and that fear was proved correct. Walliams even when playing straight often looks vacant and doesn't seem to have a clue as to whether to camp it up as Tommy or underplay, his performance here is a mess of both and he never looks comfortable doing either, he acts jarringly buffoonish when camping it up, the dramatic scenes being very overwroughtly played, and when underplaying he is incredibly wooden.

While Jessica Raine is not as badly affected, this viewer is in the camp of not finding her that much better, she doesn't look very engaged as Tuppence (as if she didn't want to be there), a very charming and authoritative role, and comes over as rather too forceful in the more dramatic scenes, although this is more to do with how the character is written here Raine seems and acts too modern for the 50s, at least in this series. The two have no obvious chemistry together, while it may not have been the case at all it was like they didn't get along, or maybe it was how the roles were written because Tuppence looked more annoyed with rather in love with Tommy. Both manage to do something seemingly impossible and make Tommy and Tuppence annoying. The rest of the acting is not good either, the lack of chemistry also applies to the supporting cast which severely undermines the tension and pacing of the stories and few seem sure of how to play their roles.

As good as the production values are, the effort put into them doesn't translate in the music, script and storytelling. The music is too loud, too much, too constant and too intrusive, not to mention very one-note mood-wise, even in scenes that would have benefited from more understated scoring or none at all. The script-writing is clunky and instead of being suspenseful and light-hearted it's like trudging and struggling through very thick mud, and it never feels like it belongs in the 1950s, constantly I felt like I was yanked back to 21st century. The dialogue, complete with comic elements in serious need of a toning down, dramatic elements that are talky and overwrought and mystery elements that feel under-explained and as long a way from tense as one can get, is rather stilted and lacks pulse and urgency, especially in the talkier scenes.

Sadly, the storytelling in both The Secret Adversary and N or M, but in particularly the former, is near-disastrous. Even if both as stories in book-form are slow going at times, both are pretty diverting in their own right, but the storytelling in the series rambles on ponderously as a result of far too much padding (the first part of The Secret Adversary in particular is a real slog), with a lot of the 'tense' or 'suspenseful' scenes instead bordering on the laboured, and there are additions that are either silly (some of N or M did get ridiculous in places), pointless or confuse the story, sometimes even all three. Even when episodes gain some momentum (the second part of The Secret Adversary did pick up slightly) they are spoilt by being confused or getting too ridiculous. Regarding the direction, while it fares well visually and does a good job bringing a sense of period it does poorly in the direction of the actors, most of whom look lost at sea with what to do, and with the storytelling.

In conclusion, while some viewers may have felt that Partners in Crime had a slow start but got better, for me and other viewers, the series never really ignited fire. This is a real shame, as this is coming from a viewer who tries to find merit in even the weakest adaptations of her work. Not the worst Agatha Christie adaptation ever, but one of the most of the most disappointing (even on its own terms), in spite of my initial intrepidation. 3/10 Bethany Cox

The Good: the sets, the clothes, the cars, the cinematography, the fun moments The Bad: poor interpretation of Tommy, poor adaptation of post-war 20s to cold war 50s. The Ugly: no dramatic integrity - impossible juxtaposition of fun-loving adventure chasing, and brutal murder. Tuppence cannot lightly enjoy chasing down criminals under the threat to life and limb of her child and her husband - it does not make sense. The original Tommy and Tuppence series (books and BBC) present a light-hearted version of adventure and this is the only one that makes sense for them. We watched the first story, The Secret Adversary (3 episodes), but will not be watching "N or M" because of our disappointment. However, I will restate that visually it is very stimulating and satisfying - beautiful sets, scenery and atmospheric camera work.

The tag line to this series – rather than "Sometimes a marriage needs an adventure" – should more rightly be "Sometimes a VIEWER needs an adventure" . . .

As this turgid new series is, simply, uninspired & uninspiring.

There is NO chemistry between the 2 leads. I think it was a case of miscasting, not just of the 2 actors individually, but as a pair. David Walliams seems lethargic almost to the point of depression. And as for Jessica Raine: I had never seen the actress before, but she plays the role like she is in a safe, pleasant, 'feel-good' little evening drama like 'The Royal' or 'Heartbeat'; concentrating upon her character being all cutesy twee 1950s prettiness rather than a real person. I gather Raine was in the 'Call The Midwife' before this; well, that explains her flat interpretation of what should be a winning Agatha Christie character.

Oh where, oh where!, are Francesca Annis & James Warwick – the leads from the last TV adaptation, in the 1980s – when we need them?! That series had it all: charisma, believable baddies, zipping plots, credible flirtation, effervescent fun, lovely 1920s period moments, and STYLE. It was only a few months ago that I was voicing to a friend that the tales were ripe for a new interpretation; especially as the canon of Christie's Poirot & Marple stories have just been completed, leaving a void on our TVs. So when I heard of this new series only a few weeks ago via a TV trailer, I waited, hopeful for entertainment . . . but it never emerged.

There is no wit, no sparkle. The stories are disjointed, with gaping holes in the plot. Parts of the episodes quite literally make no sense at all.

The camera persistently floats over the faces of the 2 chief characters as if we ADORE just watching them in their lovely little lives. No, we don't; Agatha Christie stories are fine mysteries, with great plots, and that's what we need to see. But we never do.

The series comes across as just an excuse to languish in retro enjoyment of the 1950s. Instead of being what it should: the telling of a great tale, with a clever plot & the full-bodied characters with which Christie stories are loaded. I made myself watch all 3 parts of the first episode, before I passed judgement (wink!) in writing, in order to be able to fairly critique a complete story. But, sadly, the 2nd & 3rd parts were no improvement upon the 1st. I even made myself start watching episode 2 . . . after which I knew for sure I'd have had more entertainment spending that hour rewatching a well-loved (however well-known) episode of 'Poirot'.

The story is slow-moving to the point of dullsville. There is NO passion between Walliams & Raine; the one scene where they appear in bed, even just cosying up in a demure manner, looks completely unbelievable. And when at one point in a taxi "Tommy" tries to get a bit saucy & suggestive with his "Tuppence", it's about as believable as a librarian suddenly doing a strip dance in the middle of the non-fiction section. And I really was willing this series to be good, as I know TV can adapt Christie so effectively. So the word let-down does not suffice.

The script has great lengths that are unnecessary. Things aren't explained that should be; other things best left out are laboured upon. Overall the story is so badly put together that it often fails to tell a cohesive tale at all.

As for the characterisation: Bah! I have seen more believable 'baddies' written into an Enid Blyton 'Famous Five' novel.

And WHY did they reset this series in the 1950s?! Yes, the "Beresfords" are the only Christie characters she let age throughout her stories, so although the first "T&T" story was written & set in the 1920s they did go grey with the times, right up to the last story of the 1970s. But as the '50s have been well documented on TV in both sets of Christie's 'Marple' adaptations, why not use the opportunity to portray the young "T&T" in their 1920s' heyday? The previous TV version of "Partners In Crime" saw fit to set it in that decade, and did a sterling job in their adaptation. So why the 1950s on TV, yet again?! Surely a case by the production department of being too safe . . . but unwisely so!

Excitement? None. Gripping stories? Nil. Likable leads? No way. Great characters? Nope. And just good drama? WHAT drama?!

Admittedly, I haven't read any of Christie's "T&T" stories, so can't speak of this series as an adaptation of the original format. But in comparison to any TV depictions of Christie – including the 1980s' 'The Agatha Christie Hour' – this series is completely unwatchable.

In all honesty I blame the production team, rather than the actors. Good actors, such as Roy Marsden and Alice Krige, have guest roles in this series. But, without exception, NONE of the actor's depictions seem to work. Even reliable James Fleet can't spin out his regular character in any believable way. Over-lingering camera-work on these secondary actors doesn't help with this, just as it didn't with the lead actors Walliams & Raine. In my (humble!) opinion what this means is that the result we see on-screen is not the fault of the actors as much as the people behind the scenes, who put the production together.

Sadly a case of too much humdrum saccharine pleasantness, more suited to a safe 8pm timeslot than a prime time programme. We need sparkling – not flat – entertainment.

Advice: get out a DVD of any other Agatha Christie series, or the 3 'big' film adaptations of the 1970s & 1980s, and your time will have been more enjoyably spent.