Prova d'innocenza

This 1984 version of Ordeal By Innocence doesn't just fail as an adaptation, it also fails on its own terms too, the latter of which I always try to base my opinion of a film on. There are two adaptations(as far as I'm aware) of Ordeal By Innocence, this and the Geraldine McEwan adaptation. Neither really do the story justice and have similar problems to each other, but the McEwan version probably gives its actors more to do. The story is not perhaps masterpiece status, but it still has all the ingredients that make Agatha Christie so well worth reading. Just reading what it's about alone makes you want to engross yourself in the book and also watch an adaptation of it. Ordeal By Innocence is not a complete disaster. It does look good, it's well shot, slick and the costumes and sets are very handsome. Christopher Plummer is appropriately wry, Cassie Stuart is just lovely and lights up the film and while Faye Dunnaway deserved much more than a 2-3 cameo appearance she is quite memorable as a character who's easy to hate. However, while the cast is a who's who and were good on paper they don't have much to do. Donald Sutherland is rather workmanlike and Ian McShane brings some wit to his role but is given little to work with, while Annette Crosbie Sarah Miles are wasted and Michael Elphick- looking miserable with one of the worst Scottish accents I've ever heard on film- is embarrassingly bad. It's not surprising that most of the cast didn't register, because the characters are sketchy and not developed well at all. You have a vague sense of what their roles in the story are but little more than that, so it makes the audience find it difficult to properly care. The dialogue, when we could hear it, lacked flow and felt very flat. Same with the direction. The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to no suspense or life, and that is including the ending(further disadvantaged by the murderer being revealed way too early). So much so that I had a temptation to watch something else, something I don't want to feel from an Agatha Christie adaptation. And the music is just awful, overbearing and of the films I've seen recently it is by far the most out of place score I've heard for any film since watching 1965's Ten Little Indians(a film I actually liked). Overall, disappointing. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Without doubt the worst production of an Agatha Christie novel. For a start the musical score by Dave Brubeck is totally out of place in a Christie murder mystery. At some points in the movie the backgroung music is so loud it is actually difficult to hear the on screen dialogue. The music becomes overpowering and extremely irritating mid way through proceedings. However for me the worst part of this movie is probably the most appalling piece of casting ever seen. Michael Elphick is a good English actor but he is a cockney and his portrayal of a Scottish Policeman is dismal. His scottish accent starts badly and gets worse as things move on. At the end he looks embarrassed to be involved in such a uncoordinated mess of a movie.

Yet another realization based on Agatha Christie novel in which there is a good cast who gives regular acting , nice set design , a twisted as well as confuse intrigue and logic absent . Dealing with an American Paleontologist called Dr. Arthur Calgary (Donald Sutherland) visits Mister Argyle (Christopher Plummer) to give him an address book that belongs to his son Jack Argyle , but the latter has been executed , condemned for murder his mother (all of Faye Dunaway's cameo is a black and white flashback) . Calgary has evidence that the convicted killer is innocent , but no one , neither a hard-nosed Police officer (Michael Elphick) modeled in American-style cop , nor villagers wish to reopen the case . Once the murder was solved , the real mystery began and Calgary learns that justice has been ill served in a small British community . After the clues have been shown we will get a chance to give the answer with Calgary finding out about the culprit at a twisted finale with outstanding surprises . Who is the killer? , can he find the true guilty?

The film is a detective story with Donald Sutherland as an amateur sleuth and in which you are the detective ; being middlingly shot , though filmmaker conjures up some atmospheric scenes . Too much red herrings it makes a little bit boring , pedestrian , endless and overlong . Stellar cast , but frankly wasted and interpretations are almost all phoned in . In the picture there is mystery , emotion , murders , suspense , pointless scenes and gorgeous outdoors . It packs a very good British support casting, such as : Sarah Miles , though miscast as Faye Dunaway's daughter , Ian McShane as Philip Durant , Diana Quick as Gwenda Vaughan , Annette Crosbie as Kirsten Lindstrom , Michael Elphick as Inspector Huish , George Innes as Archie Leach , and a young Phoebe Nicholls as Tina Argyle in some nudism scenes . The movie gets a lush costume design and acceptable production by known Cannon films , Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan , being well set in 1950s England, though being reallly cut because of budgetery reasons .

It contains colorful and glowing cinematography in Eastmancolor by excellent cameraman Billy Williams . Filmed on location in Dartmouth, Devon, England, UK . Dave Brubeck's unappropriate and anti-climatic soundtrack, including obstrusive jazz score that seems to belong to some other movie . Dave Brubeck replaced Pino Donaggio, who composed an enjoyable and sadly rejected musical score. The picture was a Box office flop , though received a Royal Premiere in the presence of HM Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip . The motion picture was regularly directed by Desmond Davis , containing some flaws, gaps and poor edition . Davis is an an expert on TV movies and television episodes , he also filmed some movies, such as : the notorious ¨Clash of titans¨, ¨Girl with green eyes¨ , ¨Smashing time¨, ¨The uncle ¨and a Sherlock Holmes flick , ¨The sign of four¨. Rating : 4.5/10 . Average, exclusively for hardcore fans of the star-studded cast.

Agatha Christie's books are not easy to transfer to the screen.The main problem lies in the fact that there's not much show and many many questionings ,deductions and explanations.

As always ,the director tries to make up for it by gathering an all-star cast (see yourself) :it sometimes worked in the past ("Death on the Nile" "Murder on the Orient Express"),it does not here.The film is much too short and we have not enough time to make acquaintance with the many-characters-who -had -a reason-and -an -opportunity-to -kill-Dunaway.However ,the very subject of the movie could have been interesting:an innocent was hanged and his family does not care when a witness claims that he was his alibi a couple of years later.

The ending is terribly disappointing,which is a shame .Dame Agatha Christie would turn in her grave.

It is difficult to describe this film without profanity. The rights to the book were clearly bought because of the title. I am a purist Agatha Christie fan, so I dislike adaptations which spoil her work. Normally, after the first three or four viewings, they grow on me (It happened with "Appointment with Death", it happened with the remake of "Murder on the Orient Express" and it happened with the remake of "Sparkling Cyanide"). I still hate this film. The cast are talented, but wasted - especially Faye Dunaway, who has about three words. The music is completely out of place. I expected them to start playing "The Merry Old Land of Oz" at the hanging. The story is unraveled ploddingly; a fiasco. I didn't understand it until I read the book. This is a pure waste of film.