Nature morte

If I had never read more of Louise Penney's books than Still Life, it might have been okay. As most of the reviewers have already said, casting was terrible. Not one of the characters (most especially Gamache and Clara) was right for the part, except Susanna Fournier as Agent Nichol. She actually got the part right. Too bad her role was so pathetic. The locale was terrible. The village was too big, the roads too well kept. Three Pines isn't even on a map, and no way would such a large village be as inbred as depicted in the books. My husband and I often joke about roles actors are offered by their agents. Patricia McKenzie's agent must have said "you'll be the only Black in the movie and you'll get to say 3 words, but oh honey, it's a great role". Why even put Myrna in the movie? Nathaniel Parker is about 20 years too young to play Gamache. Also too tall. Kate Hewlett was just very wrong as Clara. My husband kept asking why she was happy so quickly after her best friend was murdered. I could go on, but why torture myself remembering?

Critics need to remember this movie is based on one novel, not 11! I thought it was a treat to see Penny's characters come to life, even though they didn't exactly meet my expectations. Her Gamache novels are murder mysteries, after all, and while the movie doesn't have the books' atmospheric quality, it does a fine job with the characters and the plot. Looking forward to another!

I was so looking forward to seeing the adaptation of the Inspector Gamache series set in the fictitious town of Three Pines somewhere in Quebec. I have read every book in Louise Penny's series and I have enjoyed Nathaniel Parker's acting in several different works. Somehow, though, the TV-movie of "Still Life" just fell flat. I think maybe a one and a half hour TV movie just wasn't enough to fully develop the characters and some of the acting was just so-so. Whatever it was, it was certainly not up to the caliber of Inspector Morse or Inspector Lewis, however beautiful the cinematography. I would say that if another episode is filmed, I would have to watch it.

I have read all the books. Louise Penney has created a fascinating subculture in Quebec. The characters, starting with Inspector Gamache, are as well developed as any that I have read in this genre. It's sad that the first effort to dramatize this author's work is such a weak effort. Let's start with the fact that books and movies are different media. To compare them isn't always fair, but good movies made from good books are quite possible. History shows that (e.g. "To Kill a Mockingbird"). To start with, the movie is just plain dull. The script has no sparkle, no oomph. It seems like nothing ever comes to a point. Penney's characters are marvelous. Not only do they not look the part (bad casting) but the lines they deliver are lacking in breadth. Ruth is one of the most precious, almost frightening of the residents of Three Pines. She would never let Gamache push her around like he does in this film. There is no tension at all. Even when they go to the archer's house, the discovery is ho hum. I hope at some point, this author who has found herself atop the New York Times best seller list will get her due.

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read any of the Inspector Gamache series. But I love Nathaniel Parker, so I watched this.

Have to say it was a big bust.

It was directed in a static fashion and moved slowly. Also, the acting was pretty bad.

Even the mystery wasn't impressive, at least the way it was set up.

An elderly woman is killed in the woods by an arrow; she was beloved in the community, so who could have killed her and why?

Inspector Gamache (Parker) investigates. Someone called this "Inspector Lynley Goes to Quebec." I didn't find Parker like Inspector Lynley, who had quite a temper and wasn't anywhere as near as quiet as Gamache.

The characters were not well fleshed out.

All in all, kind of a waste. Reminded me of the Canadian films of Mary Higgins Clark movies - not well done.