Associés contre le crime

Only one Series, comprising two 3 part stories, firstly we had The Secret Adversary, and secondly we had N or M.

I thought they were rather fun productions, trouble is they seriously didn't feel like Agatha Christie, I thought the first part of The Secret Adversary was excellent, but after that it went downhill a little bit.

Jessica Raine was really well cast, she looked excellent in the part, fitting of the period. I think Walliams was the main issue for the failing, for anyone that has read the novels he just wasn't Tommy. Far from it, he was out of character, I couldn't relate him to the books.

Really great production values, they looked excellent, even though the time frame had been altered.

I don't think the series was given enough mileage, who knows, if it had continued maybe there would have been an improvement. There were only 5 Partners in Crime novels, the best one I think being 'by the Pricking of my thumbs' shame it won't be made.

6/10.

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.

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.

Twenty-four years ago London Weekend Television produced a series based on the Agatha Christie short stories with James Warwick and Francesca Annis in the leading roles, supported by a youthful Reece Dinsdale. Shot mostly on videotape, its principal focus centered on the relationship between the two amateur sleuths, Tommy and Tuppence, and their marital squabbles as they solved a variety of crimes.

In this more expensively mounted remake, director Edward Hall places far more emphasis on period externals - the fog-bound London streets, the fading Victorian glamor of a Norfolk seaside resort, the endless vista of a deserted beach. As with most BBC examples of the genre, there is a strong emphasis on period detail: antique cars (that almost look too shiny to be in regular use), Denby china, over-stuffed interiors, and oak-paneled pubs. The costumes are also well recreated, even down to the battered hats worn by Tommy (David Walliams) and his uncle Carter (James Fleet). In the "N or M" story, we even see a banner above the local town hall, telling us specifically that the action takes place in 1952.

The plots, as with most Christie adaptations, are preposterous - especially in "N or M" we ask ourselves why two part-time sleuths should be engaged on a vital mission to save Britain from destruction by a nuclear bomb. What is more important is to focus on how the adaptations build up suspense and deal with the resolution.

The plot unfolds at a leisurely pace, with plenty of establishing shots interspersed with comic interludes where Tommy and Tuppence banter with one another. They seem an ideally suited couple, their natural curiosity combining with a tendency to ignore everyone's sound advice and blunder on regardless. They end up in some difficult situations (forming a cliff-hanging coda to episodes one and two of each story), but their instinct for self-preservation carries them through.

Stylistically speaking, Hall's production contains strong visual echoes of the British "B" movie that flourished during the mid- twentieth century. There are chase-sequences making clever use of light and shade; sequences showing people getting into and out cars and driving out of shot; and interior sequences comprised of shot/reverse shot sequences. This is no bad thing: the detective thriller was a staple of the "B" Movie genre. The only real snag is that whereas most "B" movies lasted just over an hour, each one of these stories last nearly three hours. Some judicious pruning might have come in useful.

The dialogue sometimes veers towards the risible, but then it was never Christie's strong point. All in all, the adaptations are pleasantly watchable, even if they don't necessarily erase memories of the earlier version.

The negative reviews of this series are laughable. Is it spot-on Agatha Christie? No. Is it fun? Yes. Suspenseful and enjoyable. Jessica Raine is not attractive? Oh, please. Yes, David Wallaims' character is a bit of a dolt, but that's part of the charm of the series. The acting is fine; the script is fine; and the stories are engaging. The episodes each ended with engaging cliff-hangers, and the resolution of each was believable. The series also captures a post-war '50s feel quite nicely. Some of the folks who reviewed this seemed determined not to like it, and it might not be your cup of tea. But I found plenty to like here, and wish that they had made more.