Agatha Christie's Seven Dials Mystery (1981)

A lot of fun.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

This is the sort of production that gives Agatha Christie a bad name. It doesn't know what it is trying to do. Part of it is played like a farce, part like a spoof, some of it straight; the direction is all over the map.Harry Andrews struggles through it manfully, but sinks under the strain. The leads are awful and totally confused.There are only two good things: the production itself, in terms of scenery and use of lovely old vehicles, is super. Finally, the only actor to really shine is John Gielgud. He plays his part superbly well, with a delicate touch that shows why he is such a great actor.Worth watching for Gielgud and the cars, but be prepared to watch a lot of awful acting and directing in the meanwhile.

Unbelievable adaptation! Completely and utterly faithful to the novel, except for 2 things: 1) The climax is slightly altered to make it more "scary" 2) During the climax, #7 explains the purpose of the Seven Dials before revealing him/herselfThe acting was fantastic! (Bundle's dad is portrayed so perfectly, it's almost scary!) You could watch this while reading the book, that's how faithful it is! The humorous scenes are still there, Bundle and her dad providing most of them. Some people complain that it is too long. Not at all, the length is just right! A long and drawn-out adaptation is WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?.An overall summary: One of those rare "perfect adaptations" which you'd like to watch over and over again. It deserves more than 10/10, but that is not allowed.

A secret formula, an enigmatic society, and a murder steer the plot in this TV movie, based on Christie's whodunit novel, set in the English countryside during the 1920s.Most scenes take place indoors, using what looks like theatrical sets borrowed from some TV soap opera or Broadway play. As the actors move about, the production lighting casts annoying shadows on the walls. Further, the actors tend to overact, with accompanying facial mannerisms that are exaggerated. I found the Bundle Brent character to be particularly irritating, as she darts and flutters around, in a flippant sort of way.Especially in the film's first half, the stagy sets, the overacting, the absence, for the most part, of background music, and a very talky script, all contribute to the impression that we are watching a community playhouse production.The film improves in the second half, when plot suspense finally overpowers the production flaws, as a murderer tries to manipulate a mansion full of innocents. Near the film's end, flashbacks explain the story, reveal the clues, and show us once again how Agatha Christie cleverly leads her readers down the garden path.The book was better than this film, in my opinion. But, the film is not bad, if you can overlook the production weaknesses.

Even hardcore Whodunnit fans will probably be disappointed in this one, a slow, confusing and badly directed tv film, based on an Agatha Christie novel. Cheryl Campbell is sometimes irritating as Lady Brent, while James Warwick is adequately convincing as Jimmy Thesinger. The story is dated and lacks credibility, but this is probably due to the aforementioned poor direction; more interest was shown in recreating the late 30s era (which was achieved, by the way), which resulted in nervous editing and bad acting. Only to pass the time.3