Add a Review

  • I couldn't agree more with Mike. My local PBS station here in the US is currently broadcasting the new Miss Marple series one evening a week, while showing the original Joan Hickson Miss Marple as a daily series at 1:00 PM. There is NO comparison. Even Agatha Christie, some years before her own death, predicted that Joan Hickson would be the perfect Miss Marple. She knew her character, and the right actress to play her. The new series struggles far too hard to be "trendy" and puts far too much present-day "politial correctness" into the plots. Geraldine McEwan's Miss Marple has become nearly as much a caricature as Margaret Rutherford's movie portrayal.

    Jim.
  • I have made no secret of loving the Joan Hickson adaptations of Agatha Christie's wonderful books, and this is no exception. This is a very good adaptation, it is a little slow on occasions I agree, but not bad, not bad at all. The writers also do an above-respectable job adapting, perhaps lacking the humorous touch of the book, but at least the story is coherent. The production values as always are excellent with lovely scenery, costumes, make-up and photography, the music is lovely and the characters are still interesting, especially the Symmington household. The direction is solid as is the writing and acting- Joan Hickson is just superb as Miss Marple and will always be the best Miss Marple to me. Michael Culver is great as Mr Symmington, Elizabeth Counsell is suitably whiny as his wife and Deborah Appleby is very convincing as Megan. Both Gerry and Joanna still maintain their interest and played well by Andrew Bicknell and Sabina Franklyn, and Penelope Lee is good as Partridge. Overall, this is a very good adaptation with a great cast especially. 8/10 Bethany Cox
  • The Moving Finger sees Miss Marple sort out the unpleasant events in the small idyllic village of Lymstock. The identity of a writer of spiteful poison pen (PP) letters is revealed, and a killer is unmasked.

    There is a quality that ran through this series, and The Moving Finger is a particularly good offering. Joan Hickson gives the usual immaculate performance which cements her as the quintessential Spinster detective, and the accompanying cast do a great job.

    The story is so full of spite and malice, a great book is very much brought to life, as a mystery you'll be kept guessing right until the end (if you've not read the book of course.) You get a true taste of the effects of the PP letters on the community, mistrust and gossip galore.

    I especially like the performances of Andrew Bicknell and Sabina Franklyn, they do a great job as the unsuspecting Burtons, but it's the performance of Michael Culver (Symmington) that I most enjoy. Hilary Mason is also well cast as the vinegary Miss Barton.

    THE PREMIUM version of The Moving Finger, 9/10
  • I have to agree with Mike. I have no idea what Ted was watching. Miss Marple 'obnoxious" huh? Joan Hickson nails her completely and is charming. She also is able to bring across just how intuitive and intelligent Miss Marple is. I, too, like McEwan as an actress, but her portrayal of Marple is vile. she is better suited to series like "Mulberry". As for Rutherford, she doesn't bother me as Marple because I don't take her seriously in them. It's more like a charming parody of the character. Remember both Lansbury and Hayes also had a crack at Jane and while both very talented could not come close to Joan Hickson. She manages to be both steely and soft, no small feat! Ted's comments show a lack of knowledge about the mystery genre. There is no such thing as just mystery; there are numerous subcategories as well. So, comparing Gardner to Christie is akin to comparing Chandler to Conan Doyle.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The casting for this adaptation is good. Deborah Appleby portrays the role of Megan Hunter very well: her depiction of the way the character moves from directionless youth to romantic heroine is striking yet restrained. Richard Pearson makes a delightful appearance as the covertly homosexual Mr. Pye. Criticism of her ability to act dead aside, I think the Elizabeth Counsell's role as Angela Symmington captures her essential character as a mother who is disappointed with her daughter, yet also an innocent victim of murder. As usual, Joan Hickson is brilliant in the role of Miss Marple.

    The adaptation is divided into two fifty minute episodes. Use of shadows continues to be used in this film: see Megan's discovery in part two and the closing ten minutes of the same part. I like the parts where the action cuts from the vicarage to the Symmington's house where Dr. Griffith is examining the body of Mrs. Symmington. The camera moves away from Mrs. Symmington to reveal that we are not looking at her body, but the reflection of her corpse in the mirror.

    I wonder whether the original film was longer than that which was broadcast? That would have given time to show the development of the relationship between Megan and Gerry Burton on the one hand and between Joanna and Dr. Griffith on the other. I also think it would have been good if we were able to see more clearly what was written in the anonymous letters - maybe a shot scanning each line of the text written from letters cut out of a book.
  • mike-182827 December 2004
    Oh dear, poor Ted, he seems, from his email address to be in Education, and one would suspect that his academic speciality is "Mystery Writers". A pity, excessive analysis over the years appears to have rather distorted his power of judgement. I was lucky enough to have been brought up in 1950s England, and I have never seen a series which more accurately reflects the life and people I remember then, less the murders of course! The real problem Ted has with the whole series is revealed in this comment: "At least this one emphasizes the obnoxious, mousey character of Jane more than the others." He just doesn't like Joan Hickson's characterisation. Well, sorry old chap, I knew many friends of my grandparents who were extremely similar to this Miss Marple, intelligent ladies of the Raj who had returned to England or daughters of the prewar middle class coping with the new society that was being shaped. They were used to a 'certain standard' in all things. Behind the fierce formal exterior, though, there was a twinkle, although often buried quite deeply. If Ted doesn't like this Joan Hickson characterisation, then I'm pretty sure he would have not have got on with Agatha Christie either. Probably Erle Stanley Gardner's more his type! This episode is up to the standard of the rest of the series, and it was directed by Roy Boulting, who would also remember this time well since it was his heyday at Shepperton Studios, producing classics like 'I'm alright Jack'. Hence the accuracy of the period feel. If you want to see Miss Marple really messed up, then check out the new 2004 series featuring Geraldine McEwan, whom I admire in the right part (Mapp and Lucia for example). But she is NOT Miss Marple, Miss Hickson IS.
  • gbennie12 December 2007
    Warning: Spoilers
    I remember seeing this adaptation many years ago and remembered it as being rather scary, so recently I borrowed a taped version to verify my memory. Being an adept Agatha Christie fan and owning almost all her novels, this film sets the mood well of an old-fashioned quaint mystery, like most of the Joan Hickson series. I have seen both Margaret Rutherford and Geraldine McEwan as Miss Marple and undoubtedly Hickson exceeds them. In The Moving Finger, Miss Marple does not play a huge role and it is perhaps not the most clever or suspenseful of her cases. Whilst it moves at a slow pace, it does present realistic reactions to the murders. The film sets the scene well in the English countryside with stereotypical characters. The outfits in the Geraldine McEwan adaptations are a bit ambitious and too glamorous for quiet English settings, whereas they are more accurate in this with garments of tweed and natural hairstyles. The casting is suitable as it did not contain any famous movie stars (eg. Joanna Lumley in the recent 'Body in the Library') giving the film its authentic touch. For me, the most interesting and distinctive parts of the film were the murders. Although not violent, the body of Beatrice in the cupboard used to haunt me and when I re-watched the film it still did. I did notice Mrs Symmington's body twitching as though she were still breathing but this did not subtract from the brilliance of the acting. Elizabeth Counsell portrays a very loath-able character, providing a motive for any of the characters due to sheer hatred. Despite this, the murderer appeared rather obvious in my opinion, but that may be because I have read the book. Some may be disappointed at the very basic solution. Instead of calling the characters into the room and giving a fifteen minute monologue (with the help of flashbacks), here Joan Hickson explains it briefly in a few minutes with little ingenuity. Nevertheless, this film will impress those looking for a simple straightforward murder mystery because it has all the basic ingredients - clues, suspects, red herrings (such as the comment that the sender of the poison-pen letters is a woman) and the murderer caught trying to kill at the end. Overall this adaptation is hard to find but it is worth it. It is not too long and provides for a pleasurable night (just beware of Beatrice in the cupboard soon after the first murder, which may give nightmares). 'The Moving Finger' is not the most thrilling or clever Agatha Christie film but it is still well done.
  • Janet161213 December 2019
    This is one of my favourite Christie books, along with The Pale Horse, The ABC Murders, Sleeping Murder, By The Pricking of My Thumb and Nemesis. all these are great books, well told and with a dark story.

    Hickson is Marple. This is the best of two adaptations - ignore the ITV at all costs!!. The ITV writers are all amateurs who rewrite the story - even the endings to suit themselves, as if they can do better. The BBC have tended to stick to the story here.

    This adaptation is truer to the book and portrays the characters just as Christie wrote them. I love the fact that the awkward and shy Megan is transformed into an elegant, lovely lady. Something she wasn't allowed to do under her mother's care. I do think that it should have been three or four episodes to allow the story and characters to unfold. I suppose that was the BBC budget in those days - now they have so much money they can engage John Malkovich as Poirot!

    Hickson as Marple is a joy to watch. She is just as Christie described her (with no pink cardigan/shawl in this book). A gentle, unassuming elderly lady that no one would take any notice of, until her sharp brain gets to work.
  • Miss Marple is called into action once again. This time it's poison pen letters circulating in her friend's village. However, this wouldn't be Miss Marple without a murder or two and sure enough we get them. Another enjoyable, leisurely stroll through Christie country
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Superb adaptation of this story! Unlike the novel, Miss Marple is with us from the start; in fact, one could imagine this story without Marple and it would not suffer due to the strength of the characters and story.

    This is a fine film in that it makes you think of the characters and what they would do after the end of the story.

    1. Would Gerry and Megan marry and stay in the village or move? 2. Would Owen and Joanna marry and move to Wales? 3. Would his sister get a degree as a doctor? 4. Would Mr. Pye come out of the closet and open the first Starbuck's in the world? :) 5. Would Miss Marple get her nice cup of tea?

    Poor Beatrice. :(
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Intriguing Miss Marple mystery about a series of poisoned pen letters being distributed in a small town. This time Jane is brought on board as she is the relation of the local vicar - and she hears of a mystery. Joan Hickson, as always, nails the role of Jane Marple. She looks befuddled at times. Says, "oh" quite a bit and seems to be omni-present and omniscient at times. The mystery here is, confessedly, not that hard to figure out. There, for me, really was only one conclusion, but we do get a host of nice British character actors doing their best as they are asked questions, put in awkward situations, or just bouncing dialog off each other. A young couple - a brother and a sister - move into a place called The Firs as its owner needs money and rents it out. Soon a poison pen letter arrives basically saying the sister is a trollop. We then find that many people, the doctor, the solicitor, the vicar, etc...have got letters as well. Why were these letters sent out? Well, we get to that by the end in typical Christie fashion, which means at least another murder or two after the initial murder. I particularly liked Richard Pearson's characterization of a flippant, petulant, single man living nearby. He is always good. Deborah Appleby; however, sort of got on my nerves. All that notwithstanding, The Moving Finger was enjoyable.
  • pwme4 August 2017
    I really enjoyed this one a lot. I've seen it many times prior to buying it. It was sweetly romantic and the suave, deceptive nature of the actual murderer was chilling.

    It was so true to village life, observant and nosy neighbors (we all have people like that in our lives) and so many other things well represented.

    Worth buying.
  • I love Agatha Christie. I've read most of her books several times, and "The Moving Finger" is one of my favorites. Each time I open it, I am captivated anew by the adorable English-village setting and the delightful relationship between witty Jerry and his spunky sister Joanna. As I continue reading, I am drawn in further by the rich cast of unique characters and a host of clues. Even though I know who committed the murder -- and it IS a bit obvious in retrospect -- I always enjoy trying to spot all the clues and remember how they fit together.

    Unfortunately, this adaptation really doesn't live up to the book. To be blunt, it's boring.

    First, I found the acting wooden. None of the characters seem to believe that they live in a village terrorized by anonymous letters and brutal murders. For example, at the end, the murderer's former employee/confidante explains that she needs to leave the village. Instead of seeming shocked and saddened, she positively beams! The placid music and bland lighting add to the absurdly calm atmosphere.

    The book features two romances. In both cases, the man and woman start off friends, then have some misunderstandings. All four people experience painful self-discovery: For example, pampered city girl Joanna must decide if she has what it takes to be a rural doctor's assistant. Christie understands how to craft a believable (and interesting!) courtship story. In contrast, in the movie, both couples fall in love almost at first sight (although the understated acting does not convey a lot of passion), and both romances run a smooth, uneventful course.

    Miss Marple actually plays a minor role in the book. However, the whole point of film adaptations is to bring beloved characters to life! Viewers want and expect to see Miss Marple blinking her china-blue eyes, fussing with her fluffy white knitting, and reminiscing about trivial events in her village 50 years ago. Sadly, in this adaptation, Miss Marple gets very little screen time, and her character is not developed beyond "old woman." I don't think this adaptation would inspire a new viewer to love Miss Marple and read more about her.

    Finally, and most importantly, this adaptation eliminates most of the MYSTERY. Miss Marple's limited screen time allows her to mention the key points of the case, but not to display her deduction process. The script leaves out most of the clues from the book, so the viewer has no real chance to solve the puzzle. (And isn't that the fun of it?) When the solution is presented, there's no thrill of discovery. Miss Marple explains in about two lines because she has so few clues to fit together.

    All in all, watching this adaptation felt like reading Cliffs Notes. I got the basic gist of the plot, but I missed out on the pleasure of the setting, characters, and mystery.
  • I haven't the faintest notion how anyone could submit a positive review for this dreadful adaptation. The book I only remember vaguely but I do recall enjoying it. But, unlike the other BBC adaptations featuring Geraldine McEwan, the excellent A Murder Is Announced is the first to spring to mind, this one is horrendously overacted by all concerned (every cliched character we expect to find in a small English village drama is front and centre) with Miss Marple playing only a minor role, more often than not seen here knitting and subtly assembling information. And there's a certain unsavoury element about one of the two love affairs that underscore the story, one involving a grown man and girl who seems to be a schoolgirl when the story begins but struts around by the end decked out as if she's ready for married life.

    Very cheaply put together (the car and motorbike sequences have some of the phoniest back projection I've ever seen in a modern production) and easily the weakest of the Marple series featuring McEwan.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A PP story, PP for poisoned pen, anonymous slander letters, in a small community, it is always revealing on many people's characters and generally it is the smoke that hides the fire, in that case a feminine smoke to hide a masculine murderer. And all that fire was all about love, love for a young beautiful Scandinavian blonde from an older wealthy and respectable man and father of two children who lost his head, literally. Sad isn't it but very well done. This particular adaptation makes it nearly intimate, everything like happening within the walls of a vicarage parlor. It is this velvety feel that is all the more soothing, as if those murders and crimes would not be so ugly after all since anyway the culprit is always captured, isn't he? Crime as natural human phenomenon.

    Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID
  • Naturally, if they kept the subplots and characterization the same as the book, this movie would be a miniseries. However, they did do a good job of consolidating characters and sticking to the main points of the story. Even if you have read the book you will enjoy watching the movie.

    One of the plusses of this movie is the character that plays Edward Symmington (Michael Culver.) He is in several other English films and plays Prior Robert in the Brother Cadfael series.

    One of the minuses of this movie is the Lisa Doolittle scene; it is totally out of character for "Aunt Jane" films.

    You have the characteristic mystery and the usual (or unusual) suspects. Aunt Jane is confronted with a problem that may snowball into murder if she does not figure it out in time. But as everyone says, "Ask Miss Marple. She usually has the right answer."
  • Not one of the best entries in the Joan Hickson - Miss Marple series. For one thing, the story is not one of Agatha Christie's strongest; I admit that the identity of the killer caught me by surprise, but in retrospect that happened because the script makes his/her motive almost completely obscure. For another thing, with the exception of 1 or 2 well-done atmospheric scenes (like the discovery of the second body), the film flirts dangerously with dullness. And for yet another thing, although the cast is adequate (it's surprising that Deborah Appleby's career went nowhere after this, because she is indeed - as her character is described by someone else - "a breath of fresh air"), nobody really creates a character as memorable as, say, Selina Cadell's Miss Dove in "A Pocketfull Of Rye". OK for one viewing. (**1/2)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Having recently re-read 'Moving Finger' I re-watched this adaptation and was a little disappointed. The humour so evident in the book is largely missing in this rather po-faced version. The central characters of Jerry and Joanna Burton are a little drab in comparison with their ITV McEwen counterparts as are many of the villagers. The character of Aimee Griffith is changed completely into a dowdy mouse and the vicar and his wife are rather too ordinary.

    On the plus side, the Symmington household are well done. Michael Culver is spot on as the unassuming, well liked solicitor. Elizabeth Counsell whines suitably as his wife and Deborah Appleby is convincing as adult-child Megan who emerges quite unexpectedly as a beautiful (but not TOO unconvincingly beautiful) swan. I also liked Penelope Lee as the gloomy, put upon Partridge. Joan Hickson as ever is perfect as a Miss Marple who remains in the background.

    Its really OK but in my opinion the newer versions knocks spots off it.
  • The Moving Finger sees brother and sister Gerry and Joanna Burton (Andrew Bicknell and Sabina Franklyn) move to a quiet English village for Gerry to recooperate after injuries sustained in a car accident. Everything seems hunky dory and all so ordinary, but pretty soon they receive a poison pen letter. It turns out that a number of the villagers have received them, but little do they suspect that before long it will result in a death. And when it does, it is Miss Marple who suspects there may be a far more sinister cause behind it all.

    My first encounter with the story was the actual novel some years ago. I can't remember it that clearly, but I know I enjoyed the book. And this serves up as a decent adaptation, creating an ordinary quiet village community of the post war period where it seems unlikely that anything untoward could ever happen. That it does makes it all the more intriguing. There's the village doctor Owen Griffith and his sister Eryl, vicar Rev Calthrop and his wife Maud, solicitor Edward Symmington and his wife and children, including awkward tomboy Megan Hunter, plus spinster Miss Barton (whose house the siblings rent out while Gerry recovers) and waspish Mr Pye, a man who lives on his own in a grand house. For me when reading the book I immediately thought of Richard Pearson as Mr Pye, so when I finally got to see this adaptation I was delighted to find him playing the part. He is perfect in the role. His character is clearly gay but without overstating it as they do in modern adaptations of period dramas, he is seemingly affable at first but soon flexes his critical claws when he gets talking. He makes Mr Pye both a slightly camp character and at the same time also sinister, which is perfect when trying to create the possibilities of who the poison pen writer may be. Also good is Michael Culver as Symmington, the cultured solicitor who all the village women like working for. His understated acting gives an added edge of quality and realism to the proceedings just by keeping it ordinary, but he still keeps your attention regardless. And then there is Hilary Mason as Miss Barton, who can conjur up sinister just by her appearance in Don't Look Now (1973). Here she is a genteel spinster of the Victorian generation, still coming to terms with the new world, and Mason plays it beautifully. But is her character actually just an act hiding something more macabre?

    Indeed, I have to say the support cast probably make more of an impact than the main leads, though both Bicknell and Franklyn do well enough as the brother and sister. There is little really at fault with the cast performances, though some - like John Arnatt's vicar - are somewhat bland, and I could of done without the 'comic' turn of Victor Maddern's policeman, despite loving him in the Carry ons. But it's Deborah Appleby's role as Megan that is a little conflicting for me. She's decent enough in the role, but she looks way too old to be playing a girl of 20. It's nice the writers stayed faithful to the novel and didn't decide to sex her up for the TV version, which makes her character so interesting from the usual glamorous "girl in peril" parts. But at times Appleby looks a little awkward in the role, and not just because her character is supposed to be. And there is one scene where Gerry whisks her off for a surprise makeover that looks decidedly cheap. Instead of seeing footage of her being done up, it inserts montage snaps of the event that robs us somewhat of her moment. It's surprising the makers chose to do that, considering the lavish treatment they have done in recreating the past in both costume and sets.

    I reiterate that it is a good adaptation, intriguing to the viewer. But that's what puzzles me - it's intriguing, rather than absorbing, and I can't put my (moving) finger on just why. Maybe it's because the suspects are so everyday they struggle to make this mystery truly stand out. Yet there are moments in this that stay in the memory, both involving poor tragic maid Beatrice (played by Juliet Waley, who I remember from Look & Read's Dark Towers). The first is the image of her waiting fretfully for her boyfriend to turn up among a series of scenes about the village as it builds up to the first murder. The second is when Megan eventually discovers poor Beatrice, with the scene notably effective and creepy. Indeed, it is even more effective than the fate of another maid in A Pocketful of Rye which I do recall as a kid (what DID Agatha Christie have against domestics?). And considering sometimes they say crime writers don't play fair with the viewers, there is a remarkable scene where it practically shows the killer placing the book used for the poison pen letters to plant on another villager, but you don't realize this until the culprit is later exposed. Talk about having confidence in your direction, but it works neverhtless. And at least this time Joan Hickson's character is introduced into the story more naturally, paying a visit to old friend Maud Calthrop (Dilys Hamlett) who happens to relay about the poison pen letters to her in conversation.

    So an intriguing mystery overall, and enjoyable to watch. But for some reason it doesn't feel in the same quality as the truly great Miss Marple mysteries. And I really can't put my finger on why.
  • Although made on film. I saw the upgraded high definition version. It looked better than the broadcast version from 1985 and had less of the filmic room.

    There are new arrivals to the village. Gerry (Andrew Bricknell) and Joanna Burton (Sabina Franklyn) are siblings who have rented a manor house. Gerry was injured in the war and they soon get poison pen letters which they dismiss as a bad joke.

    However for another resident, the poison pen letters are no joke. She apparently kills herself. Her husband the local solicitor is left distraught as he finds the body.

    The story has a casual pace to the modern viewer. There are lots of red herrings and misdirection as Miss Marple goes through the potential suspects. There is another death as a character believes she came across something vital.

    The story highlights how bucolic life in an English village can be behind the curtains. The motive for the deaths are rather hackneyed in retrospect.
  • I obtained the Joan Hickson version of Miss Marple due to all of the Marple connoisseurs raving about her characterization. Nevertheless, watching paint dry offers more entertainment value than viewing this poorly constructed story.

    First of all, the initial murder does not occur until 42% of the screen time has already elapsed. Somehow the filmmakers expect us to be content watching scene after scene with very little dramatic import.

    I did some research and discovered this film version mirrors the book. IOW, in the book Miss Marple doesn't enter the picture until quite late in the story. So the REAL problem with this film is systemic. Simply put . . . This is a lousy Agatha Christie story.

    Yes, Miss Marple DID solve the mystery. But the flow of events in the film was very slow and dull. Especially the black and white montage which was reminiscent of what was done in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. However, that technique did not work in this story because none of those snapshots involved the main character, Miss Marple. THAT'S who we want to see, not secondary players with whom we have no emotional connection.

    I truly don't understand the other reviews. Anyone who is a fan will quickly tell you this story is definitely NOT one of Christie's finest. Save your time, pass on this one. The Moving Finger is excruciating to watch.
  • tedg9 October 2003
    Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers herein.

    These Marple mysteries are driving me a little batty, just like our detective does the local constabulary.

    In my case, it is because I am watching each one and finding them so radically different I am shocked. Sure, they all have Joan Hickson and the same music. But each has a different adapter and director, so the result is like meeting a dozen different interesting woman all wearing the same hat.

    And that matches what Ms Christie was doing with the Marple books, I think. Each is a completely different construction. Where Erle Stanley Gardner repeated the same formula each time, Christie prided herself on not only a variety but in the novelty of the thing.

    And incidentally, nearly every story has a writer, here the letterwriter. I think the game here (in the book that is) has to do with a completely ordinary killing obscured by the writing - both the writing of the letters and the book. But you need her cleverly written obfuscation to appreciate the story, and that has all been lost here.

    What remains makes no sense as a traditional detective story, because there is nothing to figure out, no tricks to watch out for. Instead we have just the regular march to the end: two young couples happily joined. and a hero restored.

    This could be the worst of the bunch, though many miss the whole point of the enterprise. At least this one emphasizes the obnoxious, mousey character of Jane more than the others.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.