Le mystère des sept cadrans

Unbelievable adaptation! Completely and utterly faithful to the novel, except for 2 things: 1) The climax is slightly altered to make it more "scary" 2) During the climax, #7 explains the purpose of the Seven Dials before revealing him/herself

The acting was fantastic! (Bundle's dad is portrayed so perfectly, it's almost scary!) You could watch this while reading the book, that's how faithful it is! The humorous scenes are still there, Bundle and her dad providing most of them. Some people complain that it is too long. Not at all, the length is just right! A long and drawn-out adaptation is WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?.

An overall summary: One of those rare "perfect adaptations" which you'd like to watch over and over again. It deserves more than 10/10, but that is not allowed.

this was a good movie based on the novel. JamesWarrick once again plays a good role in trying to solve the murder of an old pal, in which gets him caught up in a trail of international intrigue. good acting and story keep this from being out of place. I like the way this was filmed in the english countryside outside of London.

At almost two and a quarter hours, it's a very long drama, but it's worth watching, as it is absorbing, fun and intriguing. It's a slow, ambling mystery, full of espionage and intrigue. Don't expect great drama or sudden shocks, it's all very subtle.

I quite like the book, it's worth noting that this is a very accurate adaptation, the one thing I would point out is that here you're given subtle clues as to who the killer is, whereas in the book you're given hardly any. The solution always baffles me.

I love the style of it, it looks terrific, nice sets and lovely costumes. It is a production of its time, sometimes it looks more like a stage play.

Cheryl Campbell and James Warwick are excellent together, they work incredibly well, although producers were guilty of casting Mr Warwick too frequently, in all fairness he's perfect for them. Sir John Gielgud adds the humour, he's wonderful.

I like that we have references to Chimneys, Inspector Battle appeared in a few novels, including Chimneys.

Long, but lovely for a wet Sunday afternoon.

Intriguing. 9/10

Personally, I rather enjoyed the whole film put together. The beginning was relatively confusing to people who are not familiar with the British style of doing things, as well as the numerous characters which popped up without proper introductions... There were also several misleading moments whereby the character's portrayal of themselves caused you to wonder if this character is important to the whole plot, yet the character disappears after a while. I rather liked Bundle Brent... She added much mischief and fun to the mystery, which seemed distinctive of an Agatha Christie mystery - the element of witty characters added into the story. The ending is really surprising though. All in all a good mystery, though i do agree that the film is not very well directed.

I have an all-encompassing quest to experience films in a lucid, coherent way. Within that are several little projects that have become hypnotic vortices of their own. One of these, in a sort of self-referential way is the quest for the best film of a Christie novel.

This comes close in terms of Christiness. That's because it is a pretty faithful rendering of the book. As such, it follows her nice form of introductions. In these novels, it is all a game of defining people that sew into each other. The people come first and we find of course that by the end we have sewn them together incorrectly because of the simple order in which they were introduced.

Christie (and others, Sayers) have this game of limited watching. Everything we see is true, but we don't see everything we need to in order to weave a coherent narrative until the end. That's when we revisit many scenes, which we "see again." Its all about seeing, really. And that's especially so when she writes book without her regular detectives. With the detectives, there is some internal sight, some mental perspectives, but with these it is purely about what is seen physically.

Here's the interesting part. Movies, and especially these puzzle movies are also about what we see and what we don't. That's the root of the cinematic experience. But Christie didn't write with a cinematic imagination. So the two conventions of visual trickery are close but not the same.

That's why I'm so fascinated by films of Christie stories. It is a wonderful cinematic challenge for the filmmaker, and in a way — because all this is collaborative construction — one for the viewer as well.

This adventure plays with secrets in three ways (signage, association and "state" secrets) and allows us to confuse them by natural assumptions that prove false. It is clever. As a book it is clever, I mean.

As a film, it goes on too long and asks us to accept some rather extreme portrayals.

Even with its length and observance of the story, there is a pretty jarring discontinuity between the first part of a large group of young, silly people. We need this large number to justify the eight clocks. But managing so many red herrings in a movie isn't feasible so all the girls are dropped.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.