Nature morte

I think that maybe I might be in the minority here ! Having read all the reviews before me , I did think twice about writing mine, but decided to go ahead , even though I think I might get a lot of thumbs down.

I have not read any of the books, so these characters are new to me.

I really enjoyed the whole film, the plot, the characters , the setting , and the fact that I did not have a clue as to who the murderer was !

Usually , these type of movies are fairly predictable and boring , but I found this one very interesting and mysterious!

The location was absolutely beautiful , maybe that drew me in also .

So, for me it worked , but I can appreciate that fans of this author's work do beg to differ !

If I had never read more of Louise Penney's books than Still Life, it might have been okay. As most of the reviewers have already said, casting was terrible. Not one of the characters (most especially Gamache and Clara) was right for the part, except Susanna Fournier as Agent Nichol. She actually got the part right. Too bad her role was so pathetic. The locale was terrible. The village was too big, the roads too well kept. Three Pines isn't even on a map, and no way would such a large village be as inbred as depicted in the books. My husband and I often joke about roles actors are offered by their agents. Patricia McKenzie's agent must have said "you'll be the only Black in the movie and you'll get to say 3 words, but oh honey, it's a great role". Why even put Myrna in the movie? Nathaniel Parker is about 20 years too young to play Gamache. Also too tall. Kate Hewlett was just very wrong as Clara. My husband kept asking why she was happy so quickly after her best friend was murdered. I could go on, but why torture myself remembering?

I was so looking forward to seeing the adaptation of the Inspector Gamache series set in the fictitious town of Three Pines somewhere in Quebec. I have read every book in Louise Penny's series and I have enjoyed Nathaniel Parker's acting in several different works. Somehow, though, the TV-movie of "Still Life" just fell flat. I think maybe a one and a half hour TV movie just wasn't enough to fully develop the characters and some of the acting was just so-so. Whatever it was, it was certainly not up to the caliber of Inspector Morse or Inspector Lewis, however beautiful the cinematography. I would say that if another episode is filmed, I would have to watch it.

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read any of the Inspector Gamache series. But I love Nathaniel Parker, so I watched this.

Have to say it was a big bust.

It was directed in a static fashion and moved slowly. Also, the acting was pretty bad.

Even the mystery wasn't impressive, at least the way it was set up.

An elderly woman is killed in the woods by an arrow; she was beloved in the community, so who could have killed her and why?

Inspector Gamache (Parker) investigates. Someone called this "Inspector Lynley Goes to Quebec." I didn't find Parker like Inspector Lynley, who had quite a temper and wasn't anywhere as near as quiet as Gamache.

The characters were not well fleshed out.

All in all, kind of a waste. Reminded me of the Canadian films of Mary Higgins Clark movies - not well done.

This picture was not a disappointment -- it was a travesty. If I were Louise Penny I would be on a rampage. This picture was miscast, stilted and perfunctory. How the charm and sensuality of the book could be intentionally reduced to this abomination is a testament only to the consistency of a lackluster effort. Maybe a mini series could manage the subtleties and nuances of the books. Really this could have been filmed anywhere - New England, the North Carolina mountains -- there was no flavor of a Canadian village so carefully created in the books. Gamache was reduced to a bilious sort of sourpuss and Jean Guy was more Miami Vice than Sûreté Du Québec.