Dial 'M' for Murder

Yes, give this a try. The Hitchcock one is very fine, but you won't be disappointed by the performances here, either. Some of the explanations of Tony's behaviour I found clearer. Good cast all around.

Angie Dickinson is not what can be called an extraordinary actress, not even one of the best, she is just an actress. Not the same can be said about Christopher Plummer, he is one of the best actors of all time, in everything he plays, he super shines and eclipses everything around him. Here he also has a very good story, a solid script, as you rarely meet, he is the film in fact. He also has quality help from Ron Moody (the excellent Fagin from "Oliver!"), Anthony Quayle and Michael Parks. Boris Sagal, the director, did a very good job, the film is excellent.

While not as compelling as Hitchcock's 1954 adaptation when it comes to cinematic technique, Christopher Plummer's turn as the socipathic but suave Tony Wendice makes this made-for-TV version of the perennial thriller classic DIAL M FOR MURDER worth a watch. It's not exactly a filmed stage play, but it's a hair away from being as such. It does try to "open up" the play by setting Margot and Max's conversation at a movie studio filming an adaptation of one of the latter's mystery novels rather than in the Wendice apartment, which I thought was a clever touch, playing upon the subtle meta elements of the original play.

As for the story itself, it's pretty much exactly the original play and/or the Hitchcock movie (which was adapted by the play's author Frederick Knott anyhow). I personally think the play's first half is more interesting than the second, since none of the other characters can match Tony for charisma or guile. But it is clever and twisty, and therefore enjoyable.

This is a nearly line-for-line remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1954 classic. It is drably shot (we're far from the Technicolor lushness of the original), and although the actors are good, especially Anthony Quayle as the wry Scotland Yard inspector, none of them really surpass their predecessors (the lover being the least interesting character in both versions). Yet the clockwork ingenuity of Frederick Knott's story comes through, and is more than enough to sustain it: I guess you can say it is foolproof. But if you DON'T know the story, better to start with the Hitchcock version and not get it spoiled by this one. **1/2 out of 4.

A so-so, fairly competent update of the Hitchcock classic.

The film for some reason has been moved in time to 1963, which is fine by me - but seems a, little pointless if you're not going to bother dressing your cast in period clothing. Agreed, Dickinson does have a fine Dusty Springfield "do", but the gents all look to have been fitted out in a 1981 Moss Bross - Halliday doesn't even wear a tie, which just would not have happened in 1963.

The casting is less than satisfactory, Plummer does an okay but uninspiring job as the murderous husband; but Dickinson is totally wooden and passionless, as is the chap playing Halliday - and there is absolutely no magnetism whatsoever between these two

Dear old Anthony Quayle, love him, as fine an actor as he was - and he does nothing wrong here in the thankless task of recreating John Williams' Inspector Hubbard - sadly though, at 68 he's just too damned old for the part.

The film itself lacks the tension, the pace, the finesse, the pure brilliance of Hitch. Only okay if you've never seen the original.