Témoin indésirable

When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.

"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).

Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.

You won't miss much if you skip this one.

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

This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors ("Death On The Nile", "Evil Under The Sun") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot). The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat. (*1/2)

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.

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.