Témoin indésirable

This 1984 version of Ordeal By Innocence doesn't just fail as an adaptation, it also fails on its own terms too, the latter of which I always try to base my opinion of a film on. There are two adaptations(as far as I'm aware) of Ordeal By Innocence, this and the Geraldine McEwan adaptation. Neither really do the story justice and have similar problems to each other, but the McEwan version probably gives its actors more to do. The story is not perhaps masterpiece status, but it still has all the ingredients that make Agatha Christie so well worth reading. Just reading what it's about alone makes you want to engross yourself in the book and also watch an adaptation of it. Ordeal By Innocence is not a complete disaster. It does look good, it's well shot, slick and the costumes and sets are very handsome. Christopher Plummer is appropriately wry, Cassie Stuart is just lovely and lights up the film and while Faye Dunnaway deserved much more than a 2-3 cameo appearance she is quite memorable as a character who's easy to hate. However, while the cast is a who's who and were good on paper they don't have much to do. Donald Sutherland is rather workmanlike and Ian McShane brings some wit to his role but is given little to work with, while Annette Crosbie Sarah Miles are wasted and Michael Elphick- looking miserable with one of the worst Scottish accents I've ever heard on film- is embarrassingly bad. It's not surprising that most of the cast didn't register, because the characters are sketchy and not developed well at all. You have a vague sense of what their roles in the story are but little more than that, so it makes the audience find it difficult to properly care. The dialogue, when we could hear it, lacked flow and felt very flat. Same with the direction. The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to no suspense or life, and that is including the ending(further disadvantaged by the murderer being revealed way too early). So much so that I had a temptation to watch something else, something I don't want to feel from an Agatha Christie adaptation. And the music is just awful, overbearing and of the films I've seen recently it is by far the most out of place score I've heard for any film since watching 1965's Ten Little Indians(a film I actually liked). Overall, disappointing. 4/10 Bethany Cox

This is really & truly the absolute worst Agatha Christie movie ever!! (And I've seen 10 little Indians with Frank Stallone!!!) Sutherland & Plummer are greatly wasted in a go no where "mystery". You could also say that Faye Dunnaway's appearance was little more than a cameo. Her scenes total about 2 minutes of the movie. I'd keep it short too if I were in this film. The movie doesn't even have a climactic climax, and the murderer is revealed half way through the movie. (To the viewers that is.) I'm sure Agatha rolled in her grave when this came out. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!

Agatha Christie's books are not easy to transfer to the screen.The main problem lies in the fact that there's not much show and many many questionings ,deductions and explanations.

As always ,the director tries to make up for it by gathering an all-star cast (see yourself) :it sometimes worked in the past ("Death on the Nile" "Murder on the Orient Express"),it does not here.The film is much too short and we have not enough time to make acquaintance with the many-characters-who -had -a reason-and -an -opportunity-to -kill-Dunaway.However ,the very subject of the movie could have been interesting:an innocent was hanged and his family does not care when a witness claims that he was his alibi a couple of years later.

The ending is terribly disappointing,which is a shame .Dame Agatha Christie would turn in her grave.

When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.

"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).

Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.

You won't miss much if you skip this one.

As a massive, in fact - borderline obsessive, Agatha Christie fanatic, I am particularly interested in reading the books and watching the film versions of the stories that she herself loved the most. "Crooked House" was a personal favorite of hers, and it was indeed a terrific book and got turned into a very enjoyable movie recently (in 2017). "Ordeal by Innocence" is another favorite of Mrs. Christie, and while the book is a masterpiece, this 1984 film-version was quite a disappointment.

The plot, of course, remains genius. The convoluted and twisted, but simultaneously highly original murder mystery is one that only could have come from the brilliant and practically inexhaustible mind of Agatha Christie. It's the tale of the noble Doctor Calgary who travels to a remote British island to return an address book to a young fella named Jacko Argyle whom he gave a lift two years earlier. When Calgary finds out Jacko got executed for the murder of his adoption mother, while he could have confirmed his alibi and save his life, Calgary insists on reopening the case. However, the rest of the entire family, as well as the local police inspector, are very much pleased how the case got resolved with Jacko's hanging, and Calgary's persistence and intrusion leads to new crimes.

Once more, the story is great and the denouement - albeit reasonably simple for a Christie mystery (which is perhaps why she loved it so much) - is marvelous, but the rest of the production is heavily flawed and poorly handled. The pacing is often too slow, the camerawork and editing are monotonous and dull, and then there's the misfit music. I'm glad to read I'm aligned with all my fellow reviewers around here who also state that the moody jazz-soundtrack (by Dave Brubeck) was a terribly wrong choice. The cast looks impressive, but notably the acclaimed names (Plummer, Dunaway, Sutherland) deliver the most underwhelming performances.