Associés contre le crime

Although Agatha Christie is one of my favourite authors, adaptations of her work have always personally been judged on how good they are on their own merits, regardless of how good or bad an adaptation it is.

The Tommy and Tuppence books/stories are entertaining reads, though none of them are among my favourites from Christie, and the 80s Partners in Crime series is not only true in details and spirit to the stories but charming, suspenseful, light-hearted entertainment in its own right. But when advertised I surprisingly didn't find myself desperate in seeing this, which is highly unusual for an Agatha Christie adaptation. Despite looking good visually, the casting just seemed off and even when advertised the writing seemed clunky.

Finally giving it the benefit of the doubt, and without comparison to the source material and the previous Partners in Crime series, as someone who loves Agatha Christie and who has enjoyed a large amount of adaptations of her work this was disappointing. It has a few plus points, with the best thing about it being the production values. The 1950s setting is evoked beautifully, the scenery is positively sumptuous and at times effectively mysterious and a lot of work clearly went into evoking the period, because the attention to detail is great. It is also very stylishly filmed and atmospherically lit. While the acting is a vast majority really not very good, a couple of performances are decent, with particular mention going to an effectively menacing Jonny Phillips in The Secret Adversary, who shows that you don't have to do an awful lot to make one feel uneasy, and Christina Cole as a seemingly vulnerable Mrs Sprot, which Cole handles affectingly without being passive.

However, that is pretty much it for the good things. One of the main things that ruins Partners in Crime is the woeful miscasting of David Walliams as Tommy, have nothing personal against Walliams but there was the fear that he would be out of place and stick out like a sore thumb and that fear was proved correct. Walliams even when playing straight often looks vacant and doesn't seem to have a clue as to whether to camp it up as Tommy or underplay, his performance here is a mess of both and he never looks comfortable doing either, he acts jarringly buffoonish when camping it up, the dramatic scenes being very overwroughtly played, and when underplaying he is incredibly wooden.

While Jessica Raine is not as badly affected, this viewer is in the camp of not finding her that much better, she doesn't look very engaged as Tuppence (as if she didn't want to be there), a very charming and authoritative role, and comes over as rather too forceful in the more dramatic scenes, although this is more to do with how the character is written here Raine seems and acts too modern for the 50s, at least in this series. The two have no obvious chemistry together, while it may not have been the case at all it was like they didn't get along, or maybe it was how the roles were written because Tuppence looked more annoyed with rather in love with Tommy. Both manage to do something seemingly impossible and make Tommy and Tuppence annoying. The rest of the acting is not good either, the lack of chemistry also applies to the supporting cast which severely undermines the tension and pacing of the stories and few seem sure of how to play their roles.

As good as the production values are, the effort put into them doesn't translate in the music, script and storytelling. The music is too loud, too much, too constant and too intrusive, not to mention very one-note mood-wise, even in scenes that would have benefited from more understated scoring or none at all. The script-writing is clunky and instead of being suspenseful and light-hearted it's like trudging and struggling through very thick mud, and it never feels like it belongs in the 1950s, constantly I felt like I was yanked back to 21st century. The dialogue, complete with comic elements in serious need of a toning down, dramatic elements that are talky and overwrought and mystery elements that feel under-explained and as long a way from tense as one can get, is rather stilted and lacks pulse and urgency, especially in the talkier scenes.

Sadly, the storytelling in both The Secret Adversary and N or M, but in particularly the former, is near-disastrous. Even if both as stories in book-form are slow going at times, both are pretty diverting in their own right, but the storytelling in the series rambles on ponderously as a result of far too much padding (the first part of The Secret Adversary in particular is a real slog), with a lot of the 'tense' or 'suspenseful' scenes instead bordering on the laboured, and there are additions that are either silly (some of N or M did get ridiculous in places), pointless or confuse the story, sometimes even all three. Even when episodes gain some momentum (the second part of The Secret Adversary did pick up slightly) they are spoilt by being confused or getting too ridiculous. Regarding the direction, while it fares well visually and does a good job bringing a sense of period it does poorly in the direction of the actors, most of whom look lost at sea with what to do, and with the storytelling.

In conclusion, while some viewers may have felt that Partners in Crime had a slow start but got better, for me and other viewers, the series never really ignited fire. This is a real shame, as this is coming from a viewer who tries to find merit in even the weakest adaptations of her work. Not the worst Agatha Christie adaptation ever, but one of the most of the most disappointing (even on its own terms), in spite of my initial intrepidation. 3/10 Bethany Cox

This has been a wonderful series, its great to have a story stretched over 2-4 episodes rather than 12-30 which seems to be the norm now. Of course this was a 3-parter so it was perfect.

I am not at all familiar with this story, as I imagine most others aren't either, but it was a thrilling little adventure, though I have to admit certain plot twists weren't entirely surprising it was still gripping and fast moving.

JR was fabulous and very believable in her role, the energy and feistiness she brought was great. And I just adored her outfits too. I look forward to seeing more of her in this role, and others. She thrives in the 1950s it seems.

David Walliams, in my opinion, was entirely miscast. I could count the number of times his facial expression changed on one hand. He just appeared stunned/frozen all the way through, even in the parts where you would expect a deeply strong emotional reaction to someone you love being in danger or a facial-flutter when your own life threatened or you are caught out by someone.

He just came across as unenthused, lacking energy and uncaring like he couldn't be bothered to act. If that is how the character is MEANT to be then that's a different matter, but I think he was going OTT on the old fashioned 'stiff upper lip' quiet, introvert and calm etc etc.

And frankly I didn't think the chemistry between them was zinging.

This aside I will watch the next story and hopefully this will improve. Overall it is a wonderful show, just let down by the lead male.

The negative reviews of this series are laughable. Is it spot-on Agatha Christie? No. Is it fun? Yes. Suspenseful and enjoyable. Jessica Raine is not attractive? Oh, please. Yes, David Wallaims' character is a bit of a dolt, but that's part of the charm of the series. The acting is fine; the script is fine; and the stories are engaging. The episodes each ended with engaging cliff-hangers, and the resolution of each was believable. The series also captures a post-war '50s feel quite nicely. Some of the folks who reviewed this seemed determined not to like it, and it might not be your cup of tea. But I found plenty to like here, and wish that they had made more.

The series title is misleading as it has little to do with Agatha Christie if you are a purist, but it is entertaining enough for a quick break from reality. I love the sets and costumes in general; the setting is just post WW2. They did not have Botox and filler back then. A number of the female characters are pumped full of the stuff as their eyebrows are situated so high and arched on their foreheads and their cheeks so round and full, they have that all too common permanently surprised or even pained clown look that many celebrities have today. Unfortunately, the art of acting with a natural expression that includes facial expressions is becoming a lost art.

The Good: the sets, the clothes, the cars, the cinematography, the fun moments The Bad: poor interpretation of Tommy, poor adaptation of post-war 20s to cold war 50s. The Ugly: no dramatic integrity - impossible juxtaposition of fun-loving adventure chasing, and brutal murder. Tuppence cannot lightly enjoy chasing down criminals under the threat to life and limb of her child and her husband - it does not make sense. The original Tommy and Tuppence series (books and BBC) present a light-hearted version of adventure and this is the only one that makes sense for them. We watched the first story, The Secret Adversary (3 episodes), but will not be watching "N or M" because of our disappointment. However, I will restate that visually it is very stimulating and satisfying - beautiful sets, scenery and atmospheric camera work.