garywhalen

The short story upon which this episode is based provides an authoring mystery in addition to the plot mystery one expects in a Simenon detective story: It reads like a Maigret mystery as it's set in Paris with a murderer on the loose, but Maigret doesn't appear in the story; rather, there's a "Superintendent Saillard." And this Saillard is not important to the story. The central character is Lecoeur, a night duty officer who mans the switchboard and tracks the reported crimes, recording each with an X in his notebook. My guess is, Simenon wanted to tell Lecoeur's story and felt that Maigret would overshadow him and take over the narrative. (Authors' characters can do that with the character being as much in control of the author's writing as the author is.) Still, whatever it was that prompted Simenon to write the story as he did, he crafted a suspenseful and touching story that includes strained family ties, a young boy lost, and a mass murderer who has managed to elude capture for months. The filmmakers deliver everything Simenon provides in his story including solidly developed characters and an intricate plot, and then they craft it into a Maigret story.

The film's story is set in the midst of a hot, humid summer and covers events spread across maybe 12 hours from early evening to morning. (The short story upon which this is based occurs on Christmas Eve.) A series of murders has frustrated the police who have been unable to find a common thread, a motive, or any notion of a suspect. On the night of our story someone begins to set off police call boxes around Paris, a woman is found murdered---the latest victim to the unknown killer, and a night duty officer sees that each X he puts in his notebook possibly form a pattern. The murderer, the motive, the various threads will all be resolved but I predict that what you'll remember is the sound of a boy's steps on the dank mid-summer streets of a late lonely evening in Paris.

What I enjoy most about the Cremer series is how well it captures the atmosphere---from bars and bistros and apartments and mansions to the wet pavement of the streets to the peripheral noises to the varied dialogue to the quiet moments---that the author George Simenon brings to his Maigret stories. One doesn't read Simenon's Maigret mysteries simply for setup, epiphanous moment, and denouement. I would say the same is true of watching this series. Getting to and finding out "Who did it?" matters, yes, but only a bit. The best parts are the lingering moments in between.

"The Liberty Bar" is based on Simenon's novel of the same name, a story of the murder of William Brown, a man important enough to prompt the French government to send Maigret to the Riviera to investigate. Brown's body was found buried in his garden. Two women, having fled the house (and the buried body), are taken into custody. And then Maigret arrives. Soon after sifting through the murdered man's home, talking with the women who knew him, and learning the facts of his earlier life, Maigret comes to appreciate "good old William" and maybe we do too. The show follows the book quite well except for the name and appearance of one character: Here, I guess I'm being a Simenon purist, but I was looking forward to seeing how the filmmakers (and in turn the actress) delivered "Jaja" the owner of the Liberty Bar, and I was a little disappointed. In the film the name is changed to "Mado," and her appearance is quite different from the Jaja of the book. Yes, the character behaves here as in the novel and Pascale Roberts as Mado gives a fine performance, but (again I admit to being not just a purist but an obnoxious purist) I wanted Simenon's Jaja and we don't get her. Still, this is a splendid presentation of one of the better Maigret mysteries. Though a mystery with the expected twist here and there, this is as much a well-told story of a man---a man murdered and buried in his garden---we never get to meet.

Convinced that her employer was murdered, Cecile Ledru comes to Maigret to prompt an investigation. The young Cecile has been an assistant and companion to Madame Croizier, an elderly wealthy woman living in Bayeux who died soon after an appointment with her dentist. The woman died of a heart attack, as recorded by a physician, in her nephew's mansion. There were no indications of murder based on the condition of the body. The prosecutor warns Maigret to tread carefully as he delves into the lives of an upper class, connected family.

George Simenon's short story "The Old Lady of Bayeux" is the source for this solid episode in the Bruno Cremer "Maigret" series. The film follows the story very closely with two mild exceptions: 1) The film is set in Paris, whereas the original story is in Caen; 2) a death in the story is a bit more complex in the film. I can see why the filmmakers chose this short story as it provides a good mystery, clearly defined characters, and a plot that intrigues. (I'll add that though the plot is more Agatha Christie than typical Simenon, it works reasonably well here.)

Vanessa Larré, as the lady's companion, is perfectly cast as the demure lady's companion, and Vincent Winterhalter, as the nephew, captures the arrogant superiority of the upper class quite well. But there are others in small and large roles who play their parts quite well. Though the ending isn't perfect-while the denouement works it includes one minor (and odd) added piece not in the story-it's satisfying. I didn't notice until the end that this film is longer than average for this series, yet it's based on a "short" story.

One of Maigret's inspectors is shot while standing on a street in a Paris neighborhood outside of a boarding house and across from a small apartment building. The inspector is there as part of a stakeout to find and capture Emile Paulus, a robbery suspect. While the wounded inspector recovers in a Paris hospital Maigret rents a room at the boarding house intent upon finding Paulus, the robbery suspect, and now also suspected as the gunman.

Maigret spends much of his time among his fellow boarders discussing their movements on the night his inspector was shot. Someone fired at fairly close range. Someone intended to kill the inspector. Someone was comfortable with a gun. And whoever that someone is, their movements had to fit in with all the movements and sights and sounds Maigret is noting as he moves from one person to another, interview following on interview.

This is a nicely done episode in the Bruno Cremer Maigret series. Annie Grégorio as Mademoiselle Clement, the owner of the boarding house, is a hoot, and Maria Schneider as a bedridden invalid in a nearby apartment delivers a spot-on performance. The day to day of boarding house life is integral to the story and thus is a part of the film's story. One thing though: While this film does follow the book, it doesn't exactly; while it does reveal the same motive and thus attempted murderer, it doesn't. To explain the difference would force me to reveal the answer to "Who done it?" I won't do that, but I will say that the film has a more satisfying ending compared to the book. Again, in both book and film the motive for the shooting is the same and the shooter is the same (sort of), but the film, I think, provides a more satisfying and reasonable conclusion.

Pierre Couchet, owner of a pharmaceutical company, is seen slumped over his office desk. His shadow-his silhouette-is visible in the office window. The office/apartment building's concierge sees him, discovers he's been shot, and calls Maigret to report the murder. And so begins one of the more intricate cases Maigret ever solves.

We've seen these characters before in some form, in some other story, but here in this story and in this plot they all seem new. The murdered man, quite rich, is married, and he has a mistress, and there's his first wife who lives nearby (and she has remarried), and his son, and a business partner. The victim was shot in his office. His safe is open and empty. While this story includes clues and eye witnesses to various actions, it's the characters revealing themselves that leads Maigret to the solution. Greed and its corrosive effect are more evident here, I think, than any other Simenon story. The filmmakers capture that story perfectly.

"Maigret and the Doctor" is based upon George Simenon's short story "Monsieur Lundi" (Mr. Monday). I find it interesting that with the many Maigret novels the filmmakers decided to occasionally dramatize a Maigret short story. My guess is, the writers knew that if they went with a novel the Simenon fans would expect strict adherence to the story; whereas, with a short story there's plenty of room to flesh out characters and to add layers to the original plot. In this instance I think they did a fine job. Simenon's short story is nicely written but at 10 pages (if that) it's little more than a plot outline with some solid characters and a fascinating core plot. The film takes that plot and fills it out beautifully--no padding, no additional plot twists.

The film begins with the death of Olga, the maid responsible for watching the two children of Dr. Baron and his wife. Maigret arrives to investigate what appears to be a murder. And here the story begins. The cause of Olga's death is unique, I must say, and it leads Maigret to piece together not so much motive-that becomes clear-but opportunity. And the all-important "Why?" Why would someone murder Olga? What would someone have to gain with her death? The doctor, his wife, the cook, a patient, or the homeless wanderer who visits the cook on Monday for a meal?

The script, location, and the acting are all solid on this one. I can strongly recommend it.

(The short story upon which this is based is included in George Simenon's "Maigret's Pipe.")

I enjoyed this episode. I really did. The filmmakers, for reasons I can guess but don't know, decided to deliver a (somewhat) lighthearted story-a murder occurs in the same hotel in which Maigret is enjoying a few days of vacation. An employee of the hotel asks his friend Maigret to help find out what has happened, and (no surprise) Maigret protests and explains he's resting, enjoying a short holiday, doing nothing. But of course, Maigret can't resist and soon joins the effort to find who murdered who and why. Or maybe it's that he can't resist the charm of Mylene Turner (played by Arielle Dombasle, who reminds me of Mylene Demongeot with a touch of Brigitte Bardot), an actress caught up in this mysterious hotel murder.

George Simenon's short story "The Improbable Monsieur Owen," upon which this film is based, is not a good one. It reads more like an outline of a novel-and maybe that's how it started-than as a solid short story. It includes some characters and plot points and Maigret quickly resolving the mystery but it's quite boring and unconvincing. (I likely just made the Simenon fans angry. But I'm one too and I do feel this short story is bad writing.) The filmmakers, I guess, decided to use the basic plot of the story and turn it into something fuller . . . And also decided to have a bit of fun while doing so. Again, a guess: This episode looks-and I mean really looks and plays out-like one of the David Suchet "Poirot" episodes from the 90s. (Yes, I know the Suchet "Poirot" series ran through 2013 but I'm specifically remembering the early years of that series.) Maybe they were parodying that, but if not, it doesn't change my enjoyment of this film.

If you've been working your way through the Bruno Cremer "Maigret" episodes then consider this a slight detour, a little respite from the typical Maigret story. And smile along with Bruno Cremer as he smiles throughout this episode at the improbability of his character Maigret at a beach resort, ensconced in dress shirt and jacket, pipe in hand, solving the mystery of a murder of a man who wore grey gloves in the summer heat.

Twice I have read George Simenon's Maigret novel "Inspector Cadavor" and both times-years apart-I felt the same about it: three-fourths of the way through the story I'm bored, finding dialogue, place descriptions, and character movement overly tedious, but then I get to the final fourth of the book and I'm engrossed as I begin to feel the weight of the story and imagine the life of these characters. As I began to watch this episode, I was anxious to see how the filmmakers handle this story. And in particular, will they be faithful to the book's ending?

While the film includes the general flow and plot of the source material it does noticeably deviate (and I wonder how Simenon purists might react). The deviations are obvious to anyone who's read the book but they're not destructive to the original story. A young man is dead, believed to have been drunk when he stepped into the path of an oncoming train. For several reasons the common folk of the town feed on the rumors that the young man was actually murdered and, in fact, murdered by one of the richer men (a Mr. Naud) in the area. Maigret is asked to make an unofficial visit and see if he can quell the rumors. And visit, he does.

Maigret, being there unofficially and thus without the gravitas of his "inspector" title, is dismissed by many in the town who see him as someone there to protect the rich and put a rubber stamp on the official report of death by accident. But Maigret, who had little desire to investigate, is quickly pulled into the flow of events as he sees a former inspector (referred to as Inspector Cadaver, a play on his name of Cavre) getting off the same train at the same station of a small town. Why is he here? Knowing that Cavre is now a private investigator and having a low opinion of Cavre leads Maigret to believe there is more to this story than originally thought.

The film changes some of the plot points and to overcome the novel's slow buildup the filmmakers have frontloaded many of the important facts in the first half of the episode. Does it work? I think so, though I do think too much is given away too soon, and then the ending is rushed as well. Also, there's a bicycle race (not in the book) that seems out of place. Still, this is a solid entry in this Maigret series. Oh, so is the film faithful to the book's ending? Yes, yes it is.

Bargemen save a homeless man from drowning in the Seine, but the police soon discover this man, who been living under a bridge, had been beaten prior to being thrown in the river. Maigret investigates this attempted murder, but there few facts and fewer witnesses to consider. The man is in the hospital in a coma. Why would someone want to kill this man? Why does anyone kill anyone? Motives for murder are limited, so of them what might apply here--apply to a nameless man living under a bridge?

"Maigret and the Tramp," the novel upon which this episode is based, is, for me, one of the more enjoyable George Simenon "Maigret" novels. As you read through the novel or as you watch this film two distinct threads begin to merge: Maigret considers the accounts given--the-what-happened-when-sort-of-thing--and he searches for the nameless man's past. Eventually the nameless man becomes known and the witnesses accounts merge, and Maigret knows what happened and why. The conclusion is typical Simenon.

This is a great episode in the Bruno Cremer "Maigret" series and one I can highly recommend. The casting seems perfect. A comment I often use to describe Simenon's mysteries and several episodes in this series is that the best parts are the lingering moments in-between beginning and end. Here, though, the ending--the last 5 - 10 minutes--may be the best part.

Mr. And Mrs. Marton, each approaching Maigret at separate times, claim that their life is in danger at the hands of the other. What an interesting couple these two are. He sells electric trains (and parts). She sells women's lingerie. He says his wife will poison him. She is worried because her husband has a gun. Maigret thinks they're in need of psychiatric help. But he trusts his instincts, enters their world, investigates their lives, and watches, and waits. What else can he do?

The film opens with a slight alteration from George Simenon's novel, but it's unimportant. Unfortunately, the film will deviate further from the novel as the episode unfolds. By "deviate" I don't mean the scriptwriters change the plot. They don't. If you compared a basic outline of the novel's plot to that of the film they would align, but what is missed in the film is what underlies the actions. I don't wish to give anything away, and won't, but in the book and film there is the same guilty party (OK you might say, film aligns with book) but in the book Maigret wishes someone else was the culprit. Some of the underlying suspicions and angers of the novel are ignored and some relationships sweetened.

The actors play their roles nicely. All were well-cast. I enjoyed the electric trains, the city shops, and Maigret's initial befuddlement upon being approached by Xavier Marton. And to be fair, if I judge this episode without a comparison to the novel (and thus to the story I expected to see) does it hold up? I think it does. The story told here moves along nicely and the motives are reasonable (if a bit weak). I did care about the characters and the mess in which they find themselves, and so I can recommend this one. But I can't help myself and must say that there's a sinister depth which could have been included in the script but was not.

Maigret is visited by a friend from childhood, someone he hasn't seen in decades. This friend, Leon Florentin, tells Maigret of Josee', a woman he's been in love with, a woman who has other lovers, and this woman is now dead. Murdered. The suspects include Josee's lovers (which includes Florentin) and the concierge of the apartment building in which Josee' lived and was killed.

The mystery is a good one and worth watching as the suspects' stories unravel, and it really is more an unraveling of threads than a series of uncovered facts and big reveals. Maigret presses on his friend again and again-like scratching at a scab-to get at what really happened in that apartment. This episode deviates slightly from George Simenon's novel in how Maigret gets at the truth, but it aligns with the book's ending (which would have been tedious to script and film). Roger Pierre as Florentin and Marianne Groves as the concierge are a treat to watch, capturing those crucial roles nicely.

How to explain the mystique of George Simenon's Maigret mysteries: For me, one doesn't read Simenon's Maigret mysteries simply for setup, epiphanous moment, and denouement. I would say the same is true of watching this series. Getting to and finding out "Who did it?" matters, yes, but only a bit. The best parts are the lingering moments in between. In this episode, more than almost any others, I think the scriptwriters have outdone Simenon in delivering on those "moments."

Mr. Fumal, a wealthy and influential businessman comes to Maigret for protection. Fumal shows Maigret anonymous notes he's received that include threats of death. Maigret and Fumal knew each other from childhood days, and Maigret's memory of Fumal is not a pleasant one. Maigret, though, tries to ignore his antipathy toward Fumal and provides some police presence at the man's house. But then Fumal is murdered. How could someone murder Fumal with police nearby and on close call?

While there are several suspects all of whom hated Fumal, who among them would have had the opportunity and willingness to kill? His secretary? His butler? His accountant? His wife? His brother-in-law? His mistress? His chauffeur? Or a fellow businessman?

The reveal of the murderer and the story's conclusion is perfect Maigret. Absolutely perfect. And yet . . . The scriptwriters achieved this by slightly departing from the book and improving on Simenon's conclusion. Yes, the murderer is the same in both book and film, but . . . In the novel Simenon throws out some tidbits here and there--comments about the past--but leaves them never to return. In this episode the scriptwriters decided to follow some small, almost throw-away bits of dialogue included in the book and take them to an appropriate conclusion. The ending here is the ending Simenon should have written. There's a poignancy at the end seldom seen in television episodic murder mysteries.

George Simenon's novel "Signed, Picpus" is great fun to read with the twists and turns, the nooks and crannies, of a "structured" murder mystery. It's one of those "things are not as they seem" stories with a gradual unfolding of facts, motives, and connections. This episode (my DVD set has it titled "To Any Length") remains true to the plot and for that I enjoyed it.

One issue--a frustration, really--I have with the film is the rushed ending. The last third of the film needs to cover a lot and so things are skimmed or facts told that lack a buildup and a discovery by Maigret and his team and by us the viewers. This episode begins well enough. A man says he has information that claims a fortune teller will be killed in the afternoon. Well, there are lots of fortune tellers in Paris, so where might Maigret begin? And, no surprise to the viewer, soon there is a murdered fortune teller. How did the man learn ahead of time what was to happen? And is his story believable? All he has is a story of a blotter that reflects a written note--written apparently at a café--that mentions the planned killing and it's signed "Picpus."

As we move through the story and its characters, we are immersed in yet another fascinating Simenon plot. I do wish the filmmakers had shaved off a bit of dialogue here and there early on so that there was a bit more time at the end to better present the threads and how Maigret finds the connections. Still, it's a fun ride in the Maigret TV series, and one I can recommend. But I'd suggest reading the novel afterwards to really enjoy the ending.

As I get older the threads of memory of the long-ago days begin to twine together, and the past begins to seem more immediate--more recent--than it actually is. Now that time has gone by, I see the results of past actions and inactions. Simenon captures this sense of the past--and it's about more than nostalgia--in his novel "Maigret and the Old People" (the source for this episode). An elderly former ambassador Saint Hilaire is found dead, shot multiple times. Who would want him dead? What sort of anger would drive someone to shoot him repeatedly? Maigret, understandably, delves into the man's past to find the answer. But is the answer there? Letters, the devotion of the man's housekeeper, and the memories of a princess begin to intersect, and as they do Maigret realizes fully the events that led to the man's death.

Prior to watching this episode, I wondered how the filmmakers would capture the story of the novel--a concern I had with other episodes in the series--since it's so driven by old letters and bits of memories. The film did what I hoped it would do: As I watched I cared about these people and understood their motives within the film's parameters. Having said that, after watching this episode I decided to go back and read the novel again. And maybe that says a lot about how nice this episode is.

The first Maigret mystery I read was "Maigret and the Toy Village." My wife had bought it, intrigued by the title, and after reading it passed it on to me. This would be the beginning of a long and enjoyable reading experience that would include reading all of Simenon's Maigret stories and many of Simenon's other novels. So, I have a fondness for this story - a quirky mystery with the young housekeeper Felicie at its center - of which the original title is "Felicie is here." Maigret arrives in a town on the outskirts of Paris to investigate the murder of "Peg Leg," and there he meets Felicie, Peg Leg's housekeeper. It's the repartee between inspector and housekeeper that drives the story. Yes, there's a plot and it does work, that is, the actions and the motives behind them are sufficient to drive the story, to allow it all to hold together. But it's the conversations between Maigret and Felicie that will hold you through to the end. The acting is spot on as Maigret gradually shows a fondness for Felicie like that of a father to daughter, and Felicie in her own way returns that feeling. I wish I could better capture in my description here the almost touching connection that occurs between Maigret and Felicie because it's what makes this episode one of the best in the series, I think.

And while there are some seemingly unimportant characters and creatures that flow into and then out of some scenes (like a rabbit that is seen here and there) it's integral because it's how the filmmakers captured not just the plot of the book, but more important its mood. On several occasions in his novel Simenon refers to this place as a "fairy-tale village" or a "toy village" and so it's clear this locale was different from other towns and villages Maigret has visited. It's a fanciful place and Maigret will miss it when he concludes his work there and must leave.

See this one and I think you'll look forward to seeing it again.

I agree with wjspears's excellent review that Maigret working outside of Paris, whether in the country, on the Riviera, or even in another country often provides an excellent story-a story distinct, as it should be, from the congestion of the city of Paris. Here we have Maigret investigating the death of the local post mistress, a woman unliked by the townspeople. He decides to take on the case after receiving a letter from the young son-a child-of the man accused of the murder.

The townspeople may not have cared for the murder victim, but they are even more distant towards the accused (a teacher) and his wife and child. This family is not from there and have never seen to fit in, and the mother has a "past." Maigret doesn't think the man accused to be guilty. And he sets out to prove it. It's his interviews with some of the children that make this episode worth seeing. It's what they witness, what they admit to, what they are asked to do by the adults that eventually leads Maigret to see fully what really happened.

My complaint about this episode is the conclusion. As Simenon's novel ends it is very clear why things happened as they did, the driving motive for the murder, and the series of mis-directions that followed after the murder. In the film some of this is glossed over or ignored. I think it weakens the story and most important weakens the motives of why various townspeople said what they said. Still, this is a nice film and certainly worth seeing.

George Simenon's novel "The Madman of Bergerac," upon which this film is based, is one of Simenon's more taut mystery novels, and that's saying something for Simenon whose novels are seldom if ever bloated. Much is packed into its story: Maigret in intrigued by a fellow passenger on a train. Maigret jumps off the train to follow him. Injured (differing from the original story where Maigret is shot in the novel) he finds himself in a town traumatized by a murder and an attempted murder of women, not unlike similar events from the town's past. Forced to remain in the town for a few days, first in a hospital bed and then in a hotel as he recovers, Maigret investigates. He quickly focuses on a doctor, a lawyer, the police chief, and the mayor.

As the film began and then proceeded to move through the story, I was surprised at how well the filmmakers were adjusting the book's plot to a later time. (The novel is set in the early 1930s, but the film is set in the early 1950s.) The change in time matters and parts of the novel's plot wouldn't work two decades in the future. But then . . . But then the filmmakers found themselves unwilling to keep with the novel's conclusion. And there was no reason not to keep with Simenon's denouement. It's as though the scriptwriters got to the end and got bored and had no desire to craft an ending that aligned even somewhat with the novel. The actors do the best they can with what they're given, but this is a disappointing episode, and I think that disappointment will hold true even for someone who hasn't read the book.

Maigret has no desire to step into a pollical problem, but when the new Minister of Public Works explains the situation Maigret agrees to help where he can. A disastrous landslide destroys a recently built children's home/hospital and results in the death of over 120 people, mostly children. A study surfaces of the proposed building project, the Calume Report, done prior to the development of the land. The Minister encounters those who wish to publish it and those who wish to steal it, and so he turns to Maigret for help. And then murders occur and Maigret's distaste for political intrigue no longer matters.

The filmmakers make a solid effort in dramatizing Simenon's novel. The book includes no murders, and the resolution is not satisfying so I'm not surprised the film's story adds a layer or two to keep the viewers attention without messing with the core plot. (Actually, when I read the book years ago, I was surprised there were no murders: "How could none of these characters have found it necessary to kill someone in order to protect themselves?")

This episode's acting and script bring some clarity to the novel's convoluted plot making this episode worth your time. Far from perfect, though, but I can recommend it.

Our story begins with the murder of a wine merchant who is a most despicable man. Everyone gave him what he wanted when he wanted it. He controlled and relished that control. So, of all the suspects is there anyone who wouldn't want to murder him? But upon an initial closer look no one seems to have hated him and wished him dead. Yet someone did.

The filmmakers stick to the Simeone novel quite closely. Oscar Chabut is a very successful wine merchant who wants women and money. His wife accepts him as he is, shrugging off his lifestyle. Maigret interviews Chabut's wife and employees. He visits his offices and home. And all the while he suspects someone is following him. Eventually the story that matters-the story that reveals motive and suspect-comes out. Maigret has his men track the murderer, yet he believes the murderer will come to him.

I enjoyed this episode and the book upon which it's based. It's less mystery and more suspense, really. There is no elaborate denouement, no surprises, no unexpected twist. As I've said in a few other reviews on episodes in this series: Getting to and finding out "Who did it?" matters, yes, but only a bit. The best parts are the lingering moments in between. Here we get those wonderful lingering moments between murder and the apprehension of the suspect. Those moments reveal much about the murdered man and the murderer. We feel we've seen more of them in the film than we actually do. The motive and murder make complete sense.

This was the worst film I've ever seen. Bad script. Atrocious acting. Violent, even gruesome, sequences that were there, I guess, to be violent and gruesome. Toni Collette defines over acting, and she does it in every single scene she's in. The premise was a good one, I thought: an American woman from a middle class home, married with a son, goes to Italy to claim an inheritance and take over the "family business." No surprise, that business is the mafia. A handsome, young Italian man seems to instantly fall in love with her. (No way in real life, and yes I know there's a twist but still . . .) No joke worked. I didn't care about any of the characters.

Why did the filmmakers choose to base one of the episodes on this Simenon short story? It's about 10 pages long, includes no interesting characters, and reads more like an outline of what was to be a friendly spoof of an Agatha Christie mystery. The short story's denouement includes lots of complicated mechanizations. Did the scriptwriters see a chance to flesh out a story and make improvements to the original Simenon short story? Sad to say, the film is no better.

A businessman is killed in his office and that office has very limited access. There are people waiting in the outer office to meet with him (including a police inspector), a secretary/clerk, and the businessman's wife. One thing I'll give the film: they did develop the characters a bit when compared to the nameless people in the short story, but other than that it's a story of Maigret plodding along waiting for something to happen, someone to crack, someone to say the wrong thing. And while he waits, we wait . . . And wait . . . And wait. And then the ending comes and it's quite unconvincing.

I'm a huge fan of this series and of Simenon's Maigret mysteries. But this episode is not a good one, and in fact may be the worst of all 54 episodes. We'll see.

What a beautiful place-an island off the coast of France--with beautiful men and woman, conniving men and women, and a murderer. Maigret arrives to investigate. And why Maigret? Because the man murdered had made a point of telling people that Maigret was his friend. Yet even with this claim of friendship someone murders him. Or is he murdered because of his friendship with Maigret?

The murdered man was a longtime local, known to everyone on the island. Who among the locals would want him dead? There's a painter. The painter's girlfriend. Jo-Jo, a young woman who works at the café. An elderly couple. A young man working as the assistant to the wife of that elderly couple. There's a fisherman. Also, a woman from Maigret's past. And the hotel owner. Maigret will observe them. He will chat with them. And eventually the clue appears.

This is a fun episode and a nice change of locale for this series. The filmmakers remained faithful to George Simenon's novel with the changes between book and film being incidental. I think you'll enjoy this one if you like Maigret mysteries.

Sir Walter Lampson seems unconcerned when informed that his wife has been murdered. Her body was found in a stable used by horses that pull barges along canals. Another murder will follow. Who among those along this section of a canal--the café owners, bargeman, lockkeepers, skippers, and their wives--would want to kill and kill again?

The film adds a few minor things to the original novel's story (George Simenon's "The Carter of la Providence"), but the core plot is unaffected. Michel Lonsdale perfectly portrays Sir Lampson. The film's location captures the novel's description wonderfully, and this attention to detail is what makes the Bruno Cremer series so good: One doesn't read Simenon's Maigret mysteries simply for setup, epiphanous moment, and denouement. I would say the same is true of watching this series. Getting to and finding out "Who did it?" matters, yes, but only a bit. The best parts are the lingering moments in between.

After receiving a strange letter that predicts a murder without naming the future victim nor perpetrator, Emile Parendon, a highly paid corporate lawyer, contacts Inspector Maigret. Maigret visits Parendon at his home and then he (Maigret) receives an anonymous letter warning of a murder, too. (In the book Maigret receives all the letters, written on expensive stationary, which warn of a future murderer, but none provide information as to who the murderer or victim is. Maigret traces the paper to the law firm and then to Mr. Parendon.) Eventually there is a murder.

I dislike the title given to this episode. (George Simenon's novel, upon which this episode is based, is "Maigret Hesitates.") While the family at the center of the story is rich, that's not what drives the plot. As for that plot, much comes down to timing: Who had the opportunity to commit the murder considering the estimated time of the murder? Maigret realizes that if he can figure that out the motive will become apparent. On the morning of the murder the house is full of people moving room to room. Who would be in a position to find that tiny window of time needed to kill and be unobserved?

The setup and the motive are reasonable here, though I think the Parendon children's ages in the book make a better story. They are older in the film (teenagers or even early 20s maybe) and that added age makes them and their encounters with Maigret, I think, less interesting. Again, Maigret is joined by his nephew Inspector Paul Lachenal, who it seems is a composite of Maigret's various assistants in this and future episodes. I would guess that Maigret purists will not like it-and I can understand that-but it doesn't bother me.

A man is shot while in his bedroom, and it appears the shooter was in a hotel room across the street. Why would someone shoot a nobody like Maurice? Here was a very boring man with wife and family living a simple life. Of course, Maigret will learn much about this "boring" man and find the motive and the killer.

This episode is based on George Simenon's short story "Death of a Nobody" which is included in the collection "Maigret's Christmas." The film deviates a bit from Simenon's story, but I can understand why. Simenon's short story is a bit weak-I hate saying that, but it is-with one important detail explained rather poorly at the end of the story. It certainly seems the scriptwriters thought so and decided to provide a more developed story line-they deviate in a substantive way in the film script vs. The original short story--and thus deliver a more reasonable motive for the killer.

A special treat is the relationship between Maigret's nephew Inspector Paul Lachenal and the victim's daughter Francine Tremblet. He flirts with her and spends time with her hoping to find out more about the victim and the relationship between her and her father while she flirts back. Or is she toying with him to keep him from finding out the truth? Watch this one and find out.