Agatha and the Truth of Murder

When I heard the premise, and heard that it wasn't endorsed by Agatha Christie's family, or indeed the estate, I feared the worst, so in truth I watched it with exceedingly low expectations, and is so often the case, I really enjoyed it. I thought the plot, direction, acting, and general vibe were all terrific.

The last time I watched something which tried to explain away Agatha's disappearance it involved The Doctor, Catherine Tate, and a giant wasp, this proposed a slightly more Earthly solution, but was equally as entertaining and witty.

Great acting, I loved Ruth Bradley's interpretation of the great writer, Samantha Spiro and Pippa Haywood were excellent also.

Bravo to those involved, a great Agatha Christie fix, ahead of The ABC Murders.

9/10

In 1926 the authoress Agatha Christie famously disappeared for eleven days then reappeared claiming no knowledge of what happened; this story imagines what might have happened. Agatha is suffering writer's block and her husband is seeking a divorce; then she is approached to solve a real murder. Initially unenthusiastic she later agrees and starts investigating. Pretending to be a lawyer named Mary Westmacott she assembles the suspects, with the lure of a large inheritance and starts questioning them. She quickly realises that real mysteries and works of fiction are quite different.

I confess I was a little unsure about the premise of putting a real person in an obviously fictional situation... but surprisingly it really works if you can suspend your disbelief somewhat. The story nicely combines known facts about her life at the time with an interesting fiction. The mystery she investigates has the feel of one of her stories, perhaps somewhat helped by the way the time period is captured. There are a good number of suspects, each with their own motives, as well as one or two red herrings. The cast are really good; most notably Ruth Bradley as Agatha Christie, Pippa Haywood, as the woman who brought the mystery to her and Tim McInnerny as one of the suspects. As stated before it is necessary to suspends one's disbelief at times; noticeably towards the end when a local policeman recognises our protagonist but does tell the authorities despite it being made clear that there is a nationwide manhunt for her. Overall though this was a fine murder mystery that could easily have come from the pen of the great women herself.

This was a very enjoyable and engrossing drama that was much better than I had anticipated. The characters were well defined and well acted, the story was engrossing (if a little far-fetched), and the production quality was top-notch. Ruth Bradley was extremely engaging as Agatha Christie and it was lovely to see Pippa Haywood on our screens again. Yeah, it was good!

Yours truly is a genuine Agatha-Christiephile. I know that's not an official term, but what else would you call someone who's literally obsessed with everything regarding the legendary female mystery-author. I worship her novels & short stories, love the flamboyant film-adaptations of her most famous books and am fascinated with the enigmatic facts of her personal life. In 1926, Christie disappeared for a period of eleven days. An impressive search party followed, and she was eventually located in a hospital supposedly with amnesia. Multiple speculations arose, but the true circumstances and reason of her disappearance were never fully clarified. This modest made-for-TV production is a fictional tale about where she could have been, much like the 1979-film "Agatha", directed by Michael Apted and starring Vanessa Redgrave and Dustin Hoffman. At first, I was reluctant to see this, but I'm glad I did because it's a compelling and well-acted, albeit largely inconspicuous little film.

The 36-year-old Agatha Christie balances on the verge of a massive depression in 1926. Her husband Archie insists for a divorce, so that he can marry his much younger mistress, and she suffers from a writer's block because her fans always guess the identity of the culprit of her stories via the wrong method. When she's literally begged to help solving the real-life murder of nurse Florence Nightingale, who got brutally bludgeoned to death on a train six years earlier, she sees an opportunity to both escape her personal problems and to perform research and seek inspiration for her work.

The plot isn't exactly plausible, but it's nice to see how the writers attempt to hint at the possible origin of famous Agatha Christie stories that followed after 1926, like the luring of guests to a remote location (And Then There Were None - 1939) and the train settings for "4.50 from Paddington" and "Murder on the Orient Express". The anti-climax actually fits the plot rather well. None of the performances are highly memorable, but the entire cast does their best. You're still better off reading an authentic Christie novel, but "The Truth of Murder" certainly isn't a waste of time.

This is a fictionalized account of prominent novelist Agatha Christie's 11-day disappearance back in 1926. Evidently, Christie never revealed where she was or what she was doing during that time; the writers of this film imagined what it would be like if Christie went off and solved an actual murder.

Christie is approached at her home by a retired nurse who wants Christie to solve her lover's murder. The murder happened several years ago, but the trail went cold, so the police gave up and moved on to something else. Christie eventually agrees to help, disguises herself as a law-firm secretary, and formulates an imaginary will-reading at an old house, that names each of the nurse's murder suspects as heirs.

Another murder does occur (as is generally the pattern of these things), and it's a race against time to discover who the true killer is before they strike again. I enjoyed the overall feeling of this film. I am a huge Agatha Christie fan, and I like to watch film adaptations either about her, or about her books. I solved almost all of the murder by myself (for once) and was immensely proud.