nastja97

After the mixed ratings, I didn't expect too much and was pleasantly surprised. In fact, while the Kate Beckinsale version still is firmly my favourite, this one is definitely worth watching and rewatching and probably my next favourite adaptation after the one with Beckinsale (I thought the miniseries with Romola Garai beautifully filmed but in the end strangely forgettable; I do like Emma Approved but it obviously stands apart as a modern-day reimagining).

There are, I admit, some major negatives: 1) The over-the-top comic moments, such as loud squealing and yelling. It isn't funny, just annoying. 2) Frank and Jane are sidelined completely, so there is almost nothing of the ship tease between Emma and Frank or of Emma's envy of Jane. 3) Isabella. Oh dear, Isabella. First Emma Approved turns John abusive, and now this adaptation goes the other way and turn Isabella into a cartoonish parody of Mrs. Bennet. I understand the need to flesh out their characters, but it surely can be done without turning them unnecessarily villainous. 4) Johnny Flynn gives a generally good portrayal of Mr. Knightley, but: a) his character is way too hysterical in most of the dramatic moments; b) the stripping scene. It's not just that it was entirely gratuitous. There's simply a thing called an establishing character moment. In the 1997 ITV adaptation, the first we see of Mr. Knightley is him greeting a servant like a friend and asking about his family. Here, the first we see of Mr. Knightley is him being undressed by servants whose presence he doesn't even acknowledge.

And now for the positives: 1) Emma's actress. Anya Taylor-Joy utterly nails it, managing to capture all the many sides of Emma's nature and her character development. 2) Harriet actually seeing that Emma loves Mr. Knightley herself and calling her out on her actions. Quite refreshing for a character who usually behaves like a sheep ready to be led wherever offered. 3) Emma apologising to Robert Martin in person (she insists on doing it herself instead of delegating the task to Mr. Knightley!) and giving him her sketch of Harriet. This was a really sweet idea. 4) Emma and Harriet's friendship as a whole. For once, it felt more like a genuine friendship than merely like Emma patronising her new project. 5) The romance arcs of Mr. Knightley/Emma and Robert/Harriet. In my opinion, both of them were depicted very charmingly. 6) In particular: Mr. Knightley and Emma stealing a moment to be alone together by hiding behind a screen on the pretext of hiding from drafts. Aw. 7) The costuming and the scenery, both gorgeous.

Just finished watching the last season. I must say, the show was a pleasant surprise: it's not often I find an engrossing original crime series (and a period drama, too!).

The first two seasons were brilliant. The plot was beautifully developed, the drama felt very real and the suspense was executed well in every season right until the season's last episode. There were some issues with believability (a chest of gold that seems to weigh nothing? the detective wearing a hat and coat everywhere?), but they didn't bother me much.

The Villanueva sisters are wonderful protagonists. I was especially glad that Carolina isn't shown as a stereotypical "dumb girly blonde totally worse than her adventurous tomboy sister". Carolina and Eva are both likeable, and the sisterly relationship is depicted very well. The main romance arcs (Eva and Nicolas, Carolina and Fernando) were developed very believably and didn't overwhelm the plot.

The third season, though, has some problems that are hard to gloss over.

1) A conwoman impersonates Carolina while the real one's held captive. She manages to achieve a perfect facial resemblance. All right, we weren't shown the process, maybe she is a makeup genius. But then, while knowing next to nothing about the real Carolina, she manages to deceive Fernando and Eva and everyone else for several days! Really, it's not about tricking some strangers - these are Carolina's nearest and dearest, and am I expected to believe they were fooled so easily? It's a plot twist straight out of opera, where putting on a veil is enough to make you unrecognisable.

2) Eva gets shot in the chest, gets up after a couple of minutes and walks around as if nothing has happened. When Nicolas got shot in season one, there was a great deal of drama about saving his life! Eva's wound isn't even mentioned afterwards. Pity.

3) The mutiny plot gets resolved too easily. One moment, Hector is completely in command of the ship, the next, nobody supports him, as if the crewmen apart from Santiago, Nicolas and Pierre are just mindless robots who obey everyone who says he's captain.

4) Continuity-wise. There was a complete lack of closure in the end (instead, there is a Titanic ripoff, with lifeboats and a sinking ship and "my heart will go on"). Apart from Eva, Carolina and Fernando, the character arcs seem to be left hanging in the air. In the second season, Varela made a lot of fuss about his suspicions of Natalia - he seems to have forgotten it. Dimas seems to have gone back to his season one-persona, except now Veronica loves him. Does anything ever happen with his business ideas? Sofia from season two - do we accept that she is never going to pay for what she has done? We never learn much about Fabio - unlike Nicolas, Eva's partner-in-investigation in the first two seasons, he never gets any kind of backstory.

And what's going to happen to poor Chantal? If anything, Nicolas's death leaves her worse off than Eva - Eva at least has a family to lean on, and Chantal is completely alone. She is not mentioned at all.

I have a suspicion the third season was quickly edited to reflect the current pandemic. I have no problem with the idea itself, but it could have been executed much better.

However, the acting is still excellent and the main twist was genuinely shocking while being completely logical, so I still recommend watching it. Oh, and because of Chantal. She is probably my favourite character among those introduced in season three. It's sad she doesn't get more screentime.

Ten plus stars for the first two seasons. Six or seven for the third one.

The atmosphere of suspense is brilliant, the main characters, especially Johanna, are well-developed and well-cast, and the plot twists are mostly enjoyable (apart from the fact that Chris is a girl and the Stranger; I predicted it as soon as I realized Killane never referred to Chris with gender pronouns). However, as many other reviewers have noticed, there are many subplots that essentially go nowhere, which is why I ultimately enjoyed the series less than "Safe", my first acquaintance with Coben's work.

The dead alpaca is given so much attention at first (an alpaca is even shown in the credits!) that one gets prepared it will be very significant to the main plot. Instead, it quickly gets sidelined and forgotten by pretty much everyone, and the actual solution is revealed to have nothing to do with the mystery at hand. The solution also promptly gets forgotten. Really, the whole drug party is a giant red herring, and it gets - nowhere. Nobody gets any comeuppance for anything. No relationships are affected long-term (Dante has apparently forgiven everyone, Mike is everyone's best friend again, etc.). Yes, there were subplots in "Safe" that also had nothing to do with the main plot in the end. But they were woven in much better and didn't feel like padding with some eye-catching stuff.

Then we have Michaela with her abusive fiance. She decides to go on with the wedding, and that's the last we see of her. Not only is it quite a sickening conclusion, fine, we can decide the plot isn't a straightforward case of "heroes win, villains fail". But what was really the point of introducing Michaela? She has no connection to the main characters. The only things her subplot does is: tell Adam the stranger doesn't only target him (he has learned that already and will find out more of it) and give a tiny clue about the stranger's parents (which could have been put in any other scene, and really wasn't that necessary).

Dan and his son who's on steroids are pretty much away from the main plot as well, but at least Dan beats Chrissy up and it leads to her arguments with Ingrid.

Then, of course, there is poor Olivia. The deliberate poisoning was really a clever twist (until that reveal, I suspected she was pregnant by some important character). Her father slowly slipping into villainy was also a well-done plotline. And then - no closure. Yes, Katz is on trial, but what about his wife? Has she survived? Is she under treatment, in prison, or where? And how did Olivia deal with the fact that both her parents are murderers?

However, there are some things I really enjoyed:

Johanna helping Adam cover up Tripp's murder. For some moments, I was afraid it would be a standard case of "hero kills villain and nobody asks questions just because".

Adam reconciling with his father (though I do wish Edgar's Damascene conversion, as he puts it, would have been given more screentime. One moment, he doesn't care he has another child, the next, he is eager to reconcile with Adam. Doesn't look like a Damascene conversion to me).

Chrissy disappearing. I feared that Adam will sappily forgive her and accept her as family (all right, she is remorseful in the end, but she has been gleefully ruining lives for several episodes) right away.

Overall, a good series, but doesn't quite live up to the level of "Safe".

The plot points of the novel are generally kept, and the actors playing Ann Kathrin, Frank Weller and Rupert are brilliant: the characters are just like I've imagined them.

The only thing that bothered me was that the killer looked suspicious from the start. In the book, they seem strange but overall harmless at first, here, they look like the psycho they really are. I have read the book before I watched the movie, but for people unfamiliar with the plot, it might be a major spoiler.

I seem to be in the minority that prefers the 2005 version after all. It's one of my favorite movies ever (I watched it before I even read the book) but I decided to watch this one because it's generally everyone's favorite.

Well, the costumes and settings are beautiful, and I liked that this version omitted practically nothing from the novel. As for the acting, I especially liked the Gardiners, Georgiana (my favorite Emilia Fox didn't disappoint) and, more or less, Mr. Bennet. The rest of the actors was good enough, but the characters...

First, some other reviewers have already mentioned that the unlikable characters are made into caricatures. I felt it too. Lady Catherine looks and behaves like a more richly-dressed version of Mrs. Bennet - after watching the amazing performance of Judi Dench that can give you the shivers this one is rather bleak. Every fault of Mr. Collins and Mary is taken to such extremes that they couldn't even be annoying, they just felt wrong.

Mr. Bingley and Jane were all right, but they were hardly given any interaction beyond dancing. Caroline was nicely cast, but I think sometimes her characters was too loud and rude in public - it would have been unthinkable for the oh so proper Miss Bingley who was poisonous but always kept her cool.

Second, about the leads. I like Colin Firth - he was wonderful in "The King's Speech" - but he looks way too nice for Mr. Darcy in the first half of the story. His expression just says "poor; misunderstood, in love with Elizabeth from almost the beginning". Jennifer Ehle does capture Elizabeth's liveliness and wit... but here's the main problem. For me, the chemistry between the characters seemed far too weak. Their banter at Netherfield was excellent, but afterwards... let's just say that I was bored during the first proposal scene (one of the most electric and passionate ones in the 2005 movie). Even Mr. Collins sounded more emotional with his offer!

Elizabeth didn't help matters either. She talked in the same cheerfully ironic manner to Mr. Darcy, Mr. Bingley, her relations or anyone else - there was very little to signify "her feelings are quite the opposite".

I could understand that Mr. Bingley and Jane were left in the background (well, they are exactly there in the novel), but I would have liked better development for the main couple.

It seems lots of people disagree, but there it is. It was a nice series to watch once, but the 2005 adaptation still remains the best for me.

I p

To begin with, the main reason I rated it 8 and not 10 is the creepiness of the witches. Yes, I know they are shown exactly like Roald Dahl described them, but I really think that it's different to see it on screen rather than read about it. The true face of the Grand High Witch is absolutely repulsive to the point I feel sick looking at it and want to skip directly to her counter-transformation. As other reviewers have noted, it's for PG-13 more than for PG.

The rest of the film is very charming. Grandmother Helga is splendid and exactly like I imagined her when reading the book. Luke's a bit shrill with his "Graaaandma!" but acts very well. Anjelica Huston (apart from the true-face sequences) is a perfect Grand High Witch, and the hotel staff and Bruno (a nicer incarnation of Augustus Gloop) are hilarious.

Right, but I know it's always more interesting to read about flaws, so…

The character of Miss Irvine is a bit underdeveloped and even if one hasn't read the book (I have), it can be noticed that it is a later deus ex machina addition (one moment she's cackling with everybody else and the next she "never really wanted to be with them anyway"). I mean, the Grand High Witch burns at least one witch per year and does horrible things to kids – compared to that, merely not allowing her secretary to attend the banquet is nice everyday behavior; so it seems odd that Miss Irvine alone suddenly snaps and for a petty reason at that. But Jane Horrocks whom I like very much does a wonderful job of the part and manages to make it as convincing as the script allows.

I personally liked the change to the ending in itself. I believe that the problem with filming the original ending isn't its bittersweet flavor – it just leaves too many threads hanging. Fine in a book, but, in my opinion, hard to film. It's a pity that the filmmakers took the other option to the extreme as well, and the whole Susan-Irvine-ex-machina thing seems rushed altogether, as many reviewers point out. Besides, although it effectively concludes the plot line of Luke's life as a mouse (the chief one that left the book ending open), it raises an entirely new question of the witches' nature – the book was very vague on it; Grandma said the witches are humanoid demonic creatures, but the Grand High Witch selected the elderly witches and said that they were the ancestors of others. And now we learn that a witch can turn human if she really wants (and I'm really puzzled about the hair – was Miss Irvine by the end still in her wig though with human hands or did her new hair magically grow exactly to match the wig?). Of course, it's Dahl and not Tolkien so no one expects a full story of witches from the creation of the world with all dynasties and rulers, but the witches are left a pretty mysterious species, and here even more than in the book.

However, I believe that (again and again, save for the witches' true faces) it's a very nice family movie. The ending of the book is quite a depressing one for kids – I don't know firsthand as I read it at nineteen (it still nearly brought me to tears), but I'm sure that had I read it at around seven, at the same time as the Chocolate Factory, the Giant Glass Elevator, the Giant Peach, and Mr. Fox, I would have been terribly shocked, especially with the contrast. The movie ending is not so much rushed as to be a problem during watching. It's very funny and touching, I particularly liked Miss Irvine sending the white mice back to Luke. The questions only come to your head later, and they don't keep you from enjoying the film.

After all the praise lavished on this film, I decided to watch it, in spite of knowing about the changed ending.

Well, to put it short: if I hadn't read the book and watched the Soviet adaptation, I would have found this one absolutely charming. The actors are good (I especially liked the ones cast as Judge Quincannon and Emily Brent), the pace is fine, considering it was filmed seventy years ago. But nevertheless, first and foremost, it's an adaptation of Agatha Christie's masterpiece, and I viewed it as one.

The good points of it:

1) The shot fired by the judge and Dr. Armstrong when they stage the judge's murder. After all, it was the most reasonable thing to do.

2) The soundtrack. A splendid one (and catchy, too!)

3) The judge's "game of the mind". A nice addition to his character.

4) The Rogers. Both well played, and their interaction was shown quite believably.

The bad points:

1) The whole comic atmosphere. Two of the reviewers compared the film to a parlor game, and I couldn't agree more. The mistrust, tension and fear that completely dominate the characters after Mrs. Rogers dies… are simply absent here. Up to the very end, everyone seems to behave as if they're in a murder game. It's okay by itself, it's not like a detective comedy is bad, if you haven't read the book, that is.

2) The general's reduced to a clown-like character, and his story (the most touching story of them all) is barely mentioned.

3) Blore is made an idiot. No: an IDIOT. Of course, he's not a genius in the book either, but here, I was shocked he had lived to his age at all, being so utterly brainless.

4) The change in Vera's backstory. I wouldn't have minded it (although it seems pointless, like Beatrice Taylor being replaced by Peter Brent for no reason), but it makes the seaweed trick nonsensical.

5) Had to mention it. The ending. It seems that THIS judge's real plan was like "seven murders and one matchmaking". I thought he would have had his future victims' photographs! Why didn't he react to the wrong person (Morley)'s arrival? He searched for murderers so scrupulously, yet he failed to deduct that it was Vera's sister who was actually guilty. It seemed to me after watching the film that Lombard and Vera were in fact lying by the end. Why not? It would be very fitting for Lombard to make up a convincing story about him being another man. I mean, when a gun's pointed at you, you'll call yourself any name just to escape! As it's implied that Vera's sister is dead, Vera, too, could throw the blame on her to save her neck (she told Lombard about her sister before the killer was revealed, so she could have thought him Owen).

So, it's a romantic comedy with some mystery thrown in-between, but so different in spirit from the original book it was hard to consider it an adaptation.

Though the 1995 adaptation still remains my favorite, this one does have some advantages over it. First, of course, there are the younger actors cast as Elinor and Brandon; as much as I admire Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman, it's a fact that they were about 15 years older than their characters. Second, the miniseries format which allowed more scenes to fit in. Third, the addition of Elinor's drawing hobby - after all, she's a living and breathing 19-year-old, not Rational Sense personalized.

The costumes and sets are all splendid. Almost no complaints here, though the poverty of Barton Cottage was, I believe, a bit exaggerated – with rooms so tiny there is barely enough space for the family, let alone their guests.

But the main flaw of this adaptation, in my opinion, is that it gives too much away too early. We see Willoughby seducing and leaving Eliza Jr. in the first scene, and his sly smile, shifting eyes and plainly arrogant remarks later makes one wonder just how he completely bewitches everybody. On the other hand, Marianne is shown much more sympathetic with Colonel Brandon from the start, and after the duel scene no one can doubt which of the men will end up with her.

Edward is shown much less shy than in the 1995 film. It allows him to converse with Elinor more freely, but then he (all of a sudden!) begins to mumble and stammer during the famous "talk about his education". Why the change?

Finally, the scene with Marianne's sickness is much less dramatic. It seemed that the director wished to get her quickly to her happy ending, so, although she's raving in fever, there is always a feeling that there is no real danger.

I think that this miniseries is a wonderful adaptation for those who are already familiar with the plot. Somehow it's like a big fanfiction in the "missing scenes" genre. It's for people who want to see Elinor not so rational and Edward not so shy; Colonel Brandon and Marianne's romance developing earlier and, well, less subtly; Willoughby the Villain from the beginning etc.

But I wouldn't recommend it to these who don't know the novel or other movies based on it. Spoils all the intrigue, especially in the case of Marianne and her suitors.

As for myself, I usually can't watch classic operas being modernized. "Aida" with fireworks and circus gymnasts or "Tristan and Isolde" with mobile phones and handguns – no, thank you. The only exception is Mozart's "The Magic Flute": in my opinion, its surrealistic libretto can survive any modernization.

I see that the reviews for Branagh's adaptation are quite mixed, but I generally liked it. Joseph Kaiser is a great Tamino, Amy Carson is excellent as Pamina. Benjamin Davis may not have a very strong voice, but he has the cheerfulness and charm of Mozart's Papageno. The rest of the cast also fit their roles wonderfully.

The Masonic references are gone, but the rest of the libretto is preserved, with all its humor and fairytale aura.

There are only two moments in the film that really annoyed me. First, the combination of the overture with battle scenes. It looked, well, odd. Second, the suicide of the villains – the episode seemed a bit rushed and not quite understandable. I can see why the Queen of the Night killed herself, with her terrible pride. I can see why Monostatos killed himself, with his maniacal passion for Pamina. But the three ladies? Had they climbed up and agreed to serve Sarastro, he'd have pardoned them for sure (he'd have pardoned everyone, judging by his face). Of course, they could have been enormously devoted to the Queen… Their suicide was something of an unsolved mystery.

But overall, the film is definitely a very nice one.

Despite it was filmed almost 40 years ago, Murder on the Orient Express still is great - even if you've read the book. Finney, I have to admit, isn't the best Poirot, but he acts well enough. And the rest of the cast is wonderful! Lauren Bacall is the best, I think: she manages to be an excellent actress twice, to play the part of Linda Arden who plays the part of Mrs Hubbard! When Linda's identity is revealed, you can almost see her turning into a totally different person!

The humor of the book is kept in the movie. Pity that Monsieur Bouc's constant suspicions about the Italian are cut out, but instead we have him changing his opinion after every interrogation. Yet Mrs Hubbard's hilarious character is very much the same. And the questioning of Countess Andrenyi is accompanied by continuous looks of devoted watchfulness and almost grotesque jealousy of the Count. There are countless other details (such as Princess Dragomiroff's doggies) that give the movie some lightness a mystery always needs.

And, last but not least, the film's very touching. It's actually the only film besides Titanic and Hamlet that always brings me to tears. Ingrid Bergman gives a perfect performance of the gentle, soft-hearted Swedish lady, who is hesitant even to strike the brutal murderer. And by the end of the film there also is a very moving scene with the calm official Pierre Michel crying over his dead daughter's picture - that was the director's brilliant addition that allowed us to further understand the struggles and suffering of the characters.

Again, it's a truly ageless movie and you won't regret watching it.

The Clocks is one of my favorite Poirot mysteries, so I decided to watch this adaptation - despite the mixed opinions of the viewers.

Well, I liked it very much. Sheila, Colin, and of course the great detective himself are portrayed perfectly, the plot is generally faithful to the book.

Though, some story changes seemed pointless to me - for example, why change Edna Brent's name?

And I think that the additions on the spy subplot were completely unnecessary - they only confused everything and didn't play a big role in the solution. Casting suspicion on the Waterhouses (and making them German-born refugees), for example.

So, I give the movie 8 out of 10. Minus one for the useless plot alterations, and minus one for making Inspector Hardcastle way too dull - in my opinion, too dull even for the classical "stupid policeman" of the detective stories.

Stanislaw Lem is one of my favorite authors. Every book of his is both very deep and philosophical and so funny that I laugh to tears. And "The Inquest", the short story that the film's based upon, is one of his most wonderful pieces. So even though I'm not a fan of old sci-fi movies which usually seem boring and dull, I decided to watch this one.

Luckily, it turned out to be an exception. The action was as swift and exciting as in modern films, and the plot was great. It was altered, of course - you can't turn a short story into a 1,5-hour film without expanding it. But the alterations fitted in perfectly. Most of Lem's hilarious humor remained in the movie, and some more was added (such as "Humans generally are less reliable. - Poor... poor humans").

The acting was very good. I think Alexandr Kaidanovsky was the best - but perhaps that's because his part was the most difficult one. (I can't explain why, because I would spoil one of the main plot intrigues!) And Sergei Desnitsky made an excellent performance of the clumsy, awkward but brave pilot Pirx.

To put it short: if you want first-class special effects and modern actors, skip it. If you want a both funny and thrilling sci-fi based on Lem's masterpiece, with various psychological and philosophical problems raised and discussed, "The Inquest of Pilot Pirx" is just for you.

I have hesitated for a long time before watching this version. I couldn't choose between it and the one with Gwyneth Paltrow: both versions include actors I know and admire, both seemed to be adequately faithful to the book, etc. But the cover illustration of the edition of "Emma" I have shows a dark-haired girl, so I have always imagined Emma as a brunette - that's why I chose this version after all.

And I'm INCREDIBLY glad I did.

It is really very faithful to the book, and, what is more, it captures the book's spirit. We see quite a complicated drama, with confused human feelings and a very vague good guys-bad guys distinction, and yet everything is in the 19th century style, one can see no traces of modernization.

The main heroine is portrayed perfectly, with all the contradictions of her nature. Kate Beckinsale shows us a girl who is full of good will but can be quite arrogant, who is rather clever but too self-assured... And, furthermore, we see Beckinsale's Emma changing and maturing as the film goes on.

Mark Strong, too, gives a great performance as Emma's ever-faithful friend Mr. Knightley. He always conveys the emotions his character's supposed to feel - sometimes with only his facial expression, as Mr. Knightley is not a talkative person.

The other actors are wonderful as well, so I think the characters look and behave just as Jane Austen must have imagined. My favorite among the minor characters is Harriet Smith, a naive sweet-natured girl whom we can't help but pity as she struggles to sort out her feelings. She is so realistic in the movie! After watching it, I sometimes find myself in situations similar to Harriet's - even though I live two hundred years later!

I can't see why some people find Spy Game boring. It is one of the most exciting movies I have ever seen - keeps you thrilled from beginning to end! And at the same time it's one of the funniest. My whole family adores Redford's Nathan Muir and his dry humor (such as "Every time my coach told me that, I knew I was about to get benched").

Of course, some scenes in the movie can be frightening for someone - shootings, bombings and so on. But they are not too graphic, so I think for people who like action/crime/spy movies, it is all just fine.

The setting of action in several completely different countries adds a lot of color and brightness to the movie.

And... last but not least... there is the romance of Tom and Elizabeth. Although for a major part of the movie it is in the background, it always appears in time to remind the characters (and also the watchers) that there is more in this life than the CIA's cold rules and calculations.

A very nice little movie, quite faithful to the book.

Mrs. Todd, though, is a bit vulgar-looking, she wears too much makeup and too bright clothes - it's not like the strict plain housewife I imagined when I read the story. But this portrayal of her doesn't spoil the overall impression.

The mystery here is as twisted as in Christie's larger works. I liked it that the director didn't try to prolong it by adding a whole set of new characters and details. Almost everything is just as it was in the story.

I highly recommend the movie to everyone who likes the true Agatha Christie stories, her ideas and her characters, preserved on screen. Watching The Adventure of the Clapham Cook is literally like seeing that mysterious but also quite funny short story coming alive.

The movie is simply great. The actors played the complicated roles very well, I especially admired -I won't say whom because it gives away too much plot- as the cold-blooded murderers who are, though, not incapable of human feelings. The plot was almost the same as in the book - with just some minor characters such as Ann Reynolds missing or replaced.

But I will not recommend watching this if you want a peaceful sleep at night! Actually, that's why I rated the movie 9 and not 10: all the light humor (such as Mrs. Oliver's remark "Blame it all on me!") has been cut off, so only the thrilling but horrifying and depressing mystery remains. Even though I read the book before watching the movie, I couldn't sleep after it!

Apart from the lack of lightness and ease, the movie is great. Until the scene where the girl Miranda narrowly escapes from death, you would never guess who are the murderers - and what actually led Miranda's best friend Joyce to being killed! The characters and their psychological conflicts are shown in an excellent way, and you will not get bored.

I absolutely loved the movie! It's my second favorite adaptation of Poirot novels (after Death on the Nile). The actors are brilliant, especially Peter Ustinov and Faye Dunaway. The changes made to the novel plot were minor, and they didn't spoil the movie. The intrigue is just as thrilling as it was in the book.

I liked the characters being practically the same as in the novel. None of the major ones was omitted, and everyone almost always looked and behaved just as Dame Agatha Christie had portrayed them.

Only one thing annoyed me a little: the plot was modernized. I don't like it, because it usually changes the atmosphere of the movie. But here I rarely noticed it (except for the very beginning of the film), so it's not a big defect.

So, I give the movie 10 stars out of 10.