Into the Blue

When a woman he has just met disappears on the island of Rhodes, Harry's innocence is doubted. But as he begins to examine the woman's past he realizes his closest friend could be involved in murder.

Robert Goddard is a solid and reliable British writer of clever and complex mysteries. However this adaptation of his novel Into The Blue as a vehicle for John Thaw is disastrous from word go. Embarrassingly miscast, Thaw struggles with accent and intent as he blunders from one scene to another, and he is horribly betrayed by a great clunking script and ghastly supporting actors - Ba is particularly awful as Harry's reluctant sidekick.

Find Goddard's original novel and avoid this turkey at all costs.

While a bit of Inspector Morse comes through, Thaw pulls it off with a working class persona. We get to follow him through his investigation, and this is the most appealing type of mystery for me. Thaw's Harry Barnett is as tenacious as is his Morse (created by novelist Colin Dexter). Harry is driven mostly by two forces, his attempt to disprove his involvement in a disappearance of a woman and his lifelong relationship with a wealthy former politician, Alan Dysart. But the more questions he asks, the more questions arise about his longtime friend. The connection between the very beginning of the film and its ending works, provides an added twist (there is one right before the end as well), and brought the (film) story full circle, including the exchange of an important gift between two main characters (Barnett and Dysart), bound together through life experiences. You will not be disappointed.

As an author of mystery novels and an observer of the two industries (print & film), the media are so different that I often discount the "it did not follow the book" criticisms. Most viewers of the film never have nor ever will read the novel. We writers need to bank the movie checks and move on to the next book.

Harry, a man who's down on his luck, meets a beautiful young woman whilst house sitting in Rhodes, all is going well until she vanishes, and he's accused of her murder.

I wanted to see this after reading the book, and having only recently filmed it, I'd have to question how much of the book was adapted, it almost feels like an entirely different story.

If you're a fan of mysteries, and a fan of the late great John Thaw, I think you'll enjoy this, if you're looking for a faithful adaptation, you'll be sorely disappointed.

It had a great start, decent core, and a very confusing, but exciting ending. The conclusion was the only poor element for me, not all events were explained, it felt very vague and ambiguous.

Great location work, fine acting and some excitement. The acting was great I thought, and for me John Thaw was very well cast.

I enjoyed it, 7/10.

Having been dismayed by many tawdry TV rewrites of perfectly good books, I can understand why the "Into the Blue" author and many readers would be apoplectic after watching this. Instead of gasping at the thrills and chills in this TV movie, those who read the book first will merely gasp in surprise at how well over half of anything to do with it has been radically altered for this film, including the most major characters and plot twists.

That any major changes should occur is not a surprise, however. Indeed, one wonders just why the producers chose to film this book of all things. There was just no way 400 pages of dense, hard paragraphs and exhaustive backstory (all in tiny font) could've made a film of 110 or so minutes. Despite having some compelling drama and ideas, frankly the book can afford to lose perhaps 100 pages.

Even so, by the standards of adaptations, this film's condensations and rewriting are savage. I read the book second, then revisited the film. Thus for me, it's rather a hoot how the film broadcasts right from the start how it's spared nothing in its rewriting. In the first five minutes, Harry Barnett shows someone a portrait of Alan Dysart's wife, a small but important (and alive) supporting character in the book. Harry reports that she died of cancer 2 years ago, then moves on without another word. That's that for wifey!

But the film gives us a decent enough TV movie thriller. Its technique is plain, typical for TV movies, but offers attractive sets, location shootings, and cinematography. The book has its share of melodrama, but the film really ups the thriller factor, which gets clichéd but still fun.

The altered story also retains much of what worked best in the book's drama: Harry Barnett's central quest, and an interesting friendship with the vivid, yet inscrutable Alan Dysart.

True, the film is clichéd in how it sets up Harry's private investigation of Heather Mallender's disappearance. The usual "innocent man must launch his own private investigation to clear his name, while the authorities hassle him and do nothing useful." But it keeps the device of Harry obtaining photos Heather has shot, and using them to retrace her own investigative journey from the past. The film gets great cinematic fun out of this -- Harry will give us a close-up view of a photo of a building; then the shot pans up to show the actual building, proving that he's on the right track.

Alan too remains compelling: a well-fed and well-groomed man of power (love the suspenders) who's generous, supportive, yet ambiguous. (The film errs a little by making him ambiguous from the start.) Forever helping Harry out of trouble, Alan provides one of the most gripping dramatic moments when Harry declines to do him a major favor. Alan stops and glares at him, and complains to Harry for the first time. "It's the only favor I've ever asked of you." Immediately he departs in defeat. We feel the pain and guilt such an accurate criticism must've made to Harry.

Unfortunately, the film glosses over their surprising drama at story's end.

Zora Labrooy, friend of Heather and secretary to a shifty psychologist, provides another strong character and relationship for Harry. Despite rewrites, her essential elements are largely the same. The investigation pushes her to become an ally and assistant to Harry. Besides its own ambiguity, this friendship is made interesting by an increased, constant tension and fragility. They're never sure they can trust or find a real use for each other.

Also of note is John Thaw, who provides the right dramatic gravitas whenever required. It's also fun to see him convincingly play a cockney man of modest background, in contrast to his famous role of cultured Inspector Morse.

Apparently author Robert Goddard was not happy with the adaptation of his novel. It does seem clear to me that John Thaw was miscast, although this was a star vehicle for him.

The made for television movie starts with a flashback. A schoolboy finds a box from the railway line, it contained a baby.

In later years two women have been attacked and found dead.

In the the present day. Harry Barnett (Thaw) is house minding a property in Rhodes for politician Alan Dysart.

Harry is a failed businessman but Dysart has helped him out. Only Dysart was a government minister who had to resign over a scandal.

Now Harry is involved in a scandal of his own. A young woman called Heather Mallender bedded him and has now disappeared. Harry knows she was snooping about Dysart's house looking for something.

Harry returns to Britain to clear his name. He finds that Dysart had been involved with Heather's sister who was found drowned.

Maybe there is a dark side to Dysart, he seems to be involved with dodgy business dealings.

By the end the various plot elements all makes sense. It is just not that good.