Towards Zero

I love a good Agatha Christie mystery. Years ago when young I reread the books over and over. I was excited about this adaptation, willing to give it a try because I like Angelica Huston and Mathew Rhys. Unfortunately this version had to muck with a really good Agatha Christie "who-dun-it" mystery. This version has changed characters, omitted some characters, overcomplicated their motivations for murder and switched who got murdered first, changing the plot line which dulls the mystery. Even the detective is swapped from Inspector Battle to Leach which is ironic because the name switch symbolises how the story has been dulled down from dramatic to boring. Leach is drowning in alcoholism and is suicidal which makes him overly dark and not compelling to watch. Angelica Huston is too passive, not dominating or caustic enough to murder, only rich. It's dark, not the plot, but rather the filtering chosen for filming is dark & grimy in a weak ploy to create mystery. It's simply annoying as the character's faces are difficult to see in the dark. Dialogue & plot should create the mystery rather than cinematic filters. Sex scenes are used also to create drama which is another by-product of a weak plot line. Christie employed flirtatious characters, but true to her era didn't use overt sex to tell a story, instead Christie always produced a good plot line with witty dialogue. Worst of all, the story is very slow. Christie skilfully wrote Towards Zero with a delayed murder, but this version can't pull that off and when they change the order of the murder plot lines, it jumbles the mystery right out of the story. The few positives are that the setting & costumes are period-rich with details that make the show nice to view.. But even this is dulled by the overused dark filters chosen for this version. Unfortunately setting & costumes can't trump the importance of plot & dialogue for drama. With weak story telling, this version isn't worthy of Dame Agatha Christie. Her descendants promote this film, as it's a money-making legacy for the corporation Christie has become, but I think Agatha the writer would be disappointed.

BAD: Too S-L-O-W. Pace is toxic. Wasting my life does NOT entertain me.

BAD : As my OH said flatly, as they left the living room after the final episode: "Not worth the wait." Yes, indeedy, at 3h this was far too long.

BAD : Multiple lingering camera shots. These are in place of nuanced facial expressions, that should have been caught on camera for just the right - and short - duration.

BAD : Beautiful panoramas of scenery do NOT make up for a poorly turned out drama.

GOOD: Sarah Phelps - and Kenneth Branagh - had NO involvement in this production. Be grateful for small mercies.

BAD : Endless modernisations that Christie would NEVER have put in her stories. From the 'F' word to . . . Shall I bother to go on?!

BAD : Ticking boxes aplenty.

GOOD: The last 20 minutes has an energy and pace that is absent in the rest of the drama. Which makes this the only time I felt that the magic of Christie's tale's was shown on the screen. A denouement worth watching.

BAD : The problem with training the camera on the cast's faces is that it is asking the actors to just hold an expression (elegant/beautiful/etc.), instead of allowing them to ACT a part. This is one of the reasons we can't see any ACTION on their serene faces. This happened with nearly all the cast, except Matthew Rhys who was clearly asked to look haggard. No beauty appeal there, no lack of expression, as his face was all about the mental pain he was enduring with his PTSD.

BAD : The costumes, hair, and makeup were perfect, and mesmeric in their stylishness. But sadly that plus point can only end as a negative, as someone in the production team seemed to think those could make up for a poor dramatic energy.

GOOD: It's great to see some unknown faces, rather than the pile of well-knowns that often hit us these days. Let's give NEW actors a start on the ladder. A few greats I like, but when I see the face and think of the actor rather than the character they are playing, I know that suspension of disbelief is just about to fail.

BAD : WHY do they keep casting the grand dames/gentlemen of American acting, & not of Britain, in the key roles? Recent Christie adaptations have seen them in their droves. From Glenn Close, to John Malkovich, to Angelica Huston. I mean, I know they're all great actors, but I feel it's somehow product placement. Can't they find anyone in 'Stage' magazine, to fit the bill?!

GOOD: Matthew Rhys is superb. I felt truly shaken when I saw his frazzled facial expressions. And the final scenes are his strongest point. Kudos to the actor.

BAD : Unnecessary, corny, meta references to other Christie novels - the 'Blue Train' and the 'Orient Express' - plus an in-joke titter by the characters, to clarify. (As if we didn't already know . . . !)

GOOD: The setting of the gather-in-the-drawing-room finale was changed to a grass tennis court. Very original. And a fitting location for the coda to this drama. (Unlike the closure to other Christie adaptations, it wasn't a daft setting. I mean: located on the train tracks next to a locomotive engine?! . . . would you believe Branagh?!)

BAD : Style-over-substance piffle. I felt I was watching an episode of a glossy US soap. So, instead, let's get the appropriate pacing back into our TV dramas!

GOOD: What a delight to see Burgh Island on screen again (for the 3rd time). One of Christie's own haunts, and of course used in the superb film of 'Evil Under the Sun'.

BAD : I can't say how many changes they made to Christie's work, as I've never had a chance to read the book. But as this is a modern production, I reckon on a fair few. I DO know that 'Supt Battle' has been removed. And the new detective serves to replace the actions of another key character in the book, who is cut, 'Angus MacWhirter'. These alterations strike me as unnecessary, and arrogant. Will they NEVER stop changing things? After all, as the mantra goes: If it ain't broke, don't mend it.

The second instalment sees the situations at Gull's point escalate. After a danced through afternoon at the nearby pleasure hotel with multiple partner exchanges and another troublesome newcomer in the form of a former boyfriend, Lady Tressilian is most displeased with her house guests and threatens to change her will. The love triangle at the centre concludes in two people having intimate relations in the stairwell of the house in view of everyone else, a scene that I guess was supposed to be erotic, but ended up more awkward than enticing. Soon after we (finally) get our first murder. Inspector Leach, who has survived his suicide attempt and strikes up an unlikely friendship with Sylvia, investigates the death and soon finds that things might not be as easy as they seem at first glance.

It all continues to be very pretty and glamorous, but by now the changes from the book become glaringly obvious and not all are good ones. The addition of a couple characters are fine, but the original characters suffer a little. Audrey in particular appears little more than a pretty distraction here. It's unclear why Neville seems unable to stay away from her to the point that he betrays his wife right in front of her nose - or why Audrey seems to have her heart set on prying him away from Kay after insisting on the divorce. Both of their motives for this love triangle have been done away with, leaving the central relationships a little flat in result.

Enjoyable tosh I'd say. Love seeing the mega-rich come unstuck. Love Agatha Christie too so this was a must-see. Looks great, lovely photography.

Reviewer kristhebass mentions the Black barrister played by the excellent Clarke Peters, as if this was an anachronism. This reviewer may be interested to know (but probably won't want to know) that the first Black barrister to practice in the UK was in 1884. No, Agatha Christie probably didn't mention any character's ethnic background so basically anyone could be cast. It's not as if it's 'unhistorical' in this instance. Oh and I think the 'maid' is more of a lady's companion, as she quite clearly states in the first episode.

I'll never understand why the main character of the book gets cut out of the televised version every time. Also, why is everything so dark? It's like it was filmed in the middle of the night with a filter.

It's a good try, but Kay is not the 23 year old redhead party girl from the book, and several other characters don't ring true either. I'm just hoping that they haven't changed the murderer too.

Although, I could see the story being updated to the modern day with Kay as a social media obsessed influencer and Audrey as an ex-supermodel.

I'm giving it 5 stars for effort, even though it misses for changing the story unnecessarily.