That would explain how he got the role, then, because it wasn't based on him being the right age/having the right look/acting ability/chemistry with the actress playing Tuppence! A shame, really, because with the right actor playing Tommy, it would have been so much better.
This is it in a nutshell. Every other cast member does the job just fine, and Jessica in particular is excellent. The downside to her excellence is it only serves to show up Walliams as the weak link in the entire thing.
I think it would be far more enjoyable with a believable and well played Tommy.
I seem to remember Francesca Anis starred in the original for LWT. I wasn't a fan as a studio production on video tape. I did like the production values tonight and locations.
I think the guy playing the bomb disposal expert/chemistry teacher would have been a better Tommy! I loved his scenes!
Jessica Raine is carrying this. I can't "buy into" her being married to Walliams though.
Why they've made Tommy clumsy and useless I don't know, because he wasn't like that in the books! The two weren't even married yet in the book either.
The production is good though, and the story entertaining and I did jump when that guy threatened Tuppence with the knife in the betting place! I'll be back next week.
Just read that Raine is engaged to the chap playing the Dad in Humans on Channel 4 at the same as this!
The location work was pretty well done. Apart from that I didn't enjoy it; too slow and little chemistry between Tommy and Tuppence. Shan't be watching next week.
FFS, such negative comments on here, it is light entertainment , so they have tweaked a lot from the original books, big deal...get over it ....chill out.
Don't get yourself all upset.
I've recorded this and will let people know what I thought of it afterwards.
From what has been said thus far it doesn't appear to be that good, but I'll decide for myself.
It is never a good sign when the weakest performer in a show is its star. I honestly thought that David Walliams would have done better than that. His problem seems to be that he is unable to forget that he made his name as a comic actor. This, to be fair, is made all the more difficult for him by the script. I have not read the original book, so I cannot comment on the adaptation, but if it wasn't for the genuinely scary villains, this would be a light comedy. He comes across as shallow, bumbling and not at all worthy of the excellent Jessica Raine. Fortunately, Episode 1 was more about her than him. Hopefully, he will find his feet and things will improve as it progresses.
There is no shortage of comic actors who made the transition to straight roles successfully. Tom Hanks started out doing comedies. David Jason turned dark as Frost. Perhaps there is a clue to the problem, there. The subject is still, essentially, comedic, so it is too close to what he has done already. Perhaps he would have done better cast as the villain. One of the most frightening bad guys I ever saw was Peter Sellers in his early days, playing a rare straight role. Making the audience laugh and frightening them are surprisingly similar skills. Both depend heavily on timing. That is why comics can often make good villains. To play good guys well, as David Jason did, they have to turn their back on their comic roots altogether and simply act. This is where David Walliams is struggling, at least so far. He doesn't seem to know quite where to pitch it. I will give him his chance to improve, though.
It is never a good sign when the weakest performer in a show is its star. I honestly thought that David Walliams would have done better than that. His problem seems to be that he is unable to forget that he made his name as a comic actor. This, to be fair, is made all the more difficult for him by the script. I have not read the original book, so I cannot comment on the adaptation, but if it wasn't for the genuinely scary villains, this would be a light comedy. He comes across as shallow, bumbling and not at all worthy of the excellent Jessica Raine. Fortunately, Episode 1 was more about her than him. Hopefully, he will find his feet and things will improve as it progresses.
There is no shortage of comic actors who made the transition to straight roles successfully. Tom Hanks started out doing comedies. David Jason turned dark as Frost. Perhaps there is a clue to the problem, there. The subject is still, essentially, comedic, so it is too close to what he has done already. Perhaps he would have done better cast as the villain. One of the most frightening bad guys I ever saw was Peter Sellers in his early days, playing a rare straight role. Making the audience laugh and frightening them are surprisingly similar skills. Both depend heavily on timing. That is why comics can often make good villains. To play good guys well, as David Jason did, they have to turn their back on their comic roots altogether and simply act. This is where David Walliams is struggling, at least so far. He doesn't seem to know quite where to pitch it. I will give him his chance to improve, though.
Great post, if I may say
I remember that film. It was called 'Never Let Go' and he was evil and sadistic in it. There was never a moment when you thought his mask might slip and he would say something amusing.
I watched this last night and neither liked or disliked it. It was OK. The whole thing looked good but I wouldn't be bothered if I missed the next one. David Walliams was ...........well.............David Walliams.
I love Agatha Christie and was looking forward to this. I enjoyed it, I like the period and the cold war setting. I also didn't mind that it was quite light hearted, we tend to need to pigeon hole things 'is it a comedy or a drama'? It didn't bother me that it did not fall solidly into either camp, it reminded me a little of Grantchester actually, which I also enjoyed.
I wasn't put off by an age gap between Tommy and Tuppence when watching the programme. As to David Walliams playing one of the leads, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before so I have nothing to compare him with, but I must admit I think it took me most of the episode before I was seeing the character rather than David Walliams. Still, I did enjoy it and I will definitely be watching it next week.
Pretty typical BBC drama output - set in the past with a poor script and poor acting. I thought the CGI was bad too.
Walliams should stick to swimming.
The scene where she walked through the rubble to get to the house where the gambling was taking place looked odd with St Pauls in the background. Was that supposed to be St Pauls?
The scene where she walked through the rubble to get to the house where the gambling was taking place looked odd with St Pauls in the background. Was that supposed to be St Pauls?
Yes. The 1950's skyline should have been a doddle to get to look realistic but it looked amateurish.
Something a bit quirky for a Sunday, and as always a bit of risk that you end up with a show that's a bit too niche for primetime, especially with DW being a bit of a marmite individual.
Its funny how so many people thought DW was terrible, I thought he was perfect for the part, no accounting for opinions hey?!
I was really looking forward to this but found it disappointing.
I didn't think Walliams was the only problem though; I thought the script was weak, there was no warmth in Tuppence's character, no chemistry between the two leads, and the attemp at an injection of subtle humour didn't work for me.
I've long since stopped expecting any Agatha Christie adaptation to be very faithful to the books, and I don't really mind that, if they're done well - I just didn't think this one was.
I can't stand Walliams in anything, although his plate-shaped face is odd enough to make me stare for a bit. But I quite enjoyed this, in spite of him. It was just a light little distraction for a Sunday and worked very well, IMHO, in that sense.
FFS, such negative comments on here, it is light entertainment , so they have tweaked a lot from the original books, big deal...get over it ....chill out.
I don't mind tweaking if it improves the original. This didn't.
I was really looking forward to this but found it disappointing.
I didn't think Walliams was the only problem though; I thought the script was weak, there was no warmth in Tuppence's character, no chemistry between the two leads, and the attemp at an injection of subtle humour didn't work for me.
I've long since stopped expecting any Agatha Christie adaptation to be very faithful to the books, and I don't really mind that, if they're done well - I just didn't think this one was.
I was just going to post this myself.
Walliams wasn't the only problem, but, for me, he was the main one. Idon't really dislike him, and was going to give him a chance, but he failed abysmally to convince.
I didn't even watch to the end. Shame, really, as I love these Agatha Christies for what they are. Why do they have to try to make them what they're not?
I'd love to see a really good adaptation of The Man in the Brown Suit, or They Came to Baghdad.
Comments
This is it in a nutshell. Every other cast member does the job just fine, and Jessica in particular is excellent. The downside to her excellence is it only serves to show up Walliams as the weak link in the entire thing.
I think it would be far more enjoyable with a believable and well played Tommy.
Jessica Raine is carrying this. I can't "buy into" her being married to Walliams though.
Why they've made Tommy clumsy and useless I don't know, because he wasn't like that in the books! The two weren't even married yet in the book either.
The production is good though, and the story entertaining and I did jump when that guy threatened Tuppence with the knife in the betting place! I'll be back next week.
Just read that Raine is engaged to the chap playing the Dad in Humans on Channel 4 at the same as this!
So how big an age difference is that, as everyone's rules out Walliams as hubby material due to age difference?
20 years?
If they were doing it dead pan serious Walliams wouldn't be the right choice, but they aren't.
14 years between her and Tom Goodman-Hill, and 11 between her and Walliams! I didn't rule out on age though, they just didn't convince as a couple.
Don't get yourself all upset.
I've recorded this and will let people know what I thought of it afterwards.
From what has been said thus far it doesn't appear to be that good, but I'll decide for myself.
Perhaps it's really one of those 'On benefits and proud" type programmes; recreated to show up the 'scroungers' of the 1950's
There is no shortage of comic actors who made the transition to straight roles successfully. Tom Hanks started out doing comedies. David Jason turned dark as Frost. Perhaps there is a clue to the problem, there. The subject is still, essentially, comedic, so it is too close to what he has done already. Perhaps he would have done better cast as the villain. One of the most frightening bad guys I ever saw was Peter Sellers in his early days, playing a rare straight role. Making the audience laugh and frightening them are surprisingly similar skills. Both depend heavily on timing. That is why comics can often make good villains. To play good guys well, as David Jason did, they have to turn their back on their comic roots altogether and simply act. This is where David Walliams is struggling, at least so far. He doesn't seem to know quite where to pitch it. I will give him his chance to improve, though.
Eg In the opening minute he's carrying a bee and she's carrying 10 suitcases. That's light comedy.
For people wanting a tense who done it, look elsewhere I suggest.
Great post, if I may say
I remember that film. It was called 'Never Let Go' and he was evil and sadistic in it. There was never a moment when you thought his mask might slip and he would say something amusing.
I watched this last night and neither liked or disliked it. It was OK. The whole thing looked good but I wouldn't be bothered if I missed the next one. David Walliams was ...........well.............David Walliams.
I wasn't put off by an age gap between Tommy and Tuppence when watching the programme. As to David Walliams playing one of the leads, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before so I have nothing to compare him with, but I must admit I think it took me most of the episode before I was seeing the character rather than David Walliams. Still, I did enjoy it and I will definitely be watching it next week.
Walliams should stick to swimming.
The scene where she walked through the rubble to get to the house where the gambling was taking place looked odd with St Pauls in the background. Was that supposed to be St Pauls?
Yes. The 1950's skyline should have been a doddle to get to look realistic but it looked amateurish.
Something a bit quirky for a Sunday, and as always a bit of risk that you end up with a show that's a bit too niche for primetime, especially with DW being a bit of a marmite individual.
Its funny how so many people thought DW was terrible, I thought he was perfect for the part, no accounting for opinions hey?!
Yes, the bus going over the bridge seemed to be a couple of feet in the air! Why not just colourise existing 1950s footage?
I didn't think Walliams was the only problem though; I thought the script was weak, there was no warmth in Tuppence's character, no chemistry between the two leads, and the attemp at an injection of subtle humour didn't work for me.
I've long since stopped expecting any Agatha Christie adaptation to be very faithful to the books, and I don't really mind that, if they're done well - I just didn't think this one was.
I don't mind tweaking if it improves the original. This didn't.
I was just going to post this myself.
Walliams wasn't the only problem, but, for me, he was the main one. Idon't really dislike him, and was going to give him a chance, but he failed abysmally to convince.
I didn't even watch to the end. Shame, really, as I love these Agatha Christies for what they are. Why do they have to try to make them what they're not?
I'd love to see a really good adaptation of The Man in the Brown Suit, or They Came to Baghdad.