In my opinion, this was rubbish, crap, diabolical...missed out parts of the storyline..acting was awful..1 out of 10 for the train..for get the rest, forget it....television and film companies should NEVER make remakes of fabulous originals, which can never be bettered..
Was okay. All star cast? I'd never heard of them myself! Was this version going by the novel? What happened to the special brand of tea miss froy had in the dining compartment and her writing her name on the window in the carraige.
Not as good as the original. Didnt like the characters much really
Well I must be in the minority but I enjoyed it. It was apparently based on the original novel not any of the film or TV versions. The girl was supposed to be unsympathetic - she made a nuisance of herself and no-one liked her apart from the young man but she was tenacious and did the right thing where everyone else couldn't be bothered because of their personal circumstances. As for leaving the young man in the end - I would too if someone had drugged me!
Well I must be in the minority but I enjoyed it. It was apparently based on the original novel not any of the film or TV versions. The girl was supposed to be unsympathetic - she made a nuisance of herself and no-one liked her apart from the young man but she was tenacious and did the right thing where everyone else couldn't be bothered because of their personal circumstances. As for leaving the young man in the end - I would too if someone had drugged me!
I was going to post more or less exactly the same. It WAS explained why each person/people lied - all for separate reasons. And it was based on the original book, not the Hitchcock film (I haven't seen that so can't comment on which was better).
I was going to post more or less exactly the same. It WAS explained why each person/people lied - all for separated reasons.
It wasn't brilliant but it wasn't bad either.
I believe it would have been the more enjoyable had it been shown at Christmas as intended. It was sort of "Christmassey" without being Christmassey if you know what I mean. I reckon this was bumped for Loving Miss Hatto. However, I did enjoy it. It was a decent enough way to while away 90 minutes.
I might have liked it better if I hadn't seen the Hitchcock film. This was very much inferior to that.
I'd disagree with some posters about the lead actress though. It was clear that they intended her to be dislikeable to start with; all the dialogue pointed that way. She became far more likeable later as she became increasingly isolated and vulnerable. I don't think there was any lack of ability or charm on Tuppence Middleton's part, she was just playing the part as it was intended to be in this version.
I was going to post more or less exactly the same. It WAS explained why each person/people lied - all for separate reasons. And it was based on the original book, not the Hitchcock film (I haven't seen that so can't comment on which was better).
It wasn't brilliant but it wasn't bad either.
But this is such a typical thread for this forum.
"Too slow", yes, if you have some form of ADD, "nothing is explained" er, yes it was, "characters not nice", yes, that was the point, etc etc.
If you want a decent discussion you have to wait until all the moaners have had their say, then come back and discuss it properly.
"Too slow", yes, if you have some form of ADD, "nothing is explained" er, yes it was, "characters not nice", yes, that was the point, etc etc.
If you want a decent discussion you have to wait until all the moaners have had their say, then come back and discuss it properly.
Agreed Granny. It was a perfectly enjoyable 90 minutes which made perfect sense. Some people possibly need to pay more attention to what they're watching!
I enjoyed it and thought Tuppence Middleton played her part well. This version was based on the book, not on Hitchcock's film so of course there were differences. I have to admit I'm surprised by the number of negative comments on the forum - still, each to their own!
Well I must be in the minority but I enjoyed it. It was apparently based on the original novel not any of the film or TV versions. The girl was supposed to be unsympathetic - she made a nuisance of herself and no-one liked her apart from the young man but she was tenacious and did the right thing where everyone else couldn't be bothered because of their personal circumstances. As for leaving the young man in the end - I would too if someone had drugged me!
I enjoyed it too. Im sure I must have seen the film but could not remember it, and its a story to get engrossed in on a dark rainy night.
If only her tumble down the mountain had been fatal. We would have been spared the following hour and a quarter of badly acted nonsense.
It was rather naughty of Film4 to show the 1979 film this afternoon but I recall that being just as bad. I wonder if they had a spoiler alert before it came on!
I enjoyed it and thought Tuppence Middleton played her part well. This version was based on the book, not on Hitchcock's film so of course there were differences. I have to admit I'm surprised by the number of negative comments on the forum - still, each to their own!
If I remember correctly, Hitchcocks version was with Margaret Rutherford. I think it was on the day after Boxing Day. It was enjoyable and rather light and fluffy but gripping nevertheless. Then a virtual remake with Angela Lansbury and Cybil Sheppard came along in 1979. This was a modern retelling of the Hitchcock version and not of the book. This new version, I believe, was the first time the actual book was told on screen and because I had only seen the two versions on screen and not read the book, I enjoyed it more for it. It was a good way to end a cold snowy day.
If only her tumble down the mountain had been fatal. We would have been spared the following hour and a quarter of badly acted nonsense.
I'll let you into a trade secret. If you want to be spared something you are not enjoying on TV, pick up the thing called a remote control. It has buttons on it. You press a few buttons and voila! You get a different programme on a different channel! It really is clever. Saves you having to watch an hour and a quarter of something you don't want to watch.
I'll let you into a trade secret. If you want to be spared something you are not enjoying on TV, pick up the thing called a remote control. It has buttons on it. You press a few buttons and voila! You get a different programme on a different channel! It really is clever. Saves you having to watch an hour and a quarter of something you don't want to watch.
Comments
No change there then;)
Tuppence ha'penny
Whatever you do, never watch Doctor Who.
That's good advice for everybody.;):sleep:
Not as good as the original. Didnt like the characters much really
The two sisters wanted to get home for a flower show.
The Vicar and his wife were rushing home as their son had been diagnosed with Influenza.
The couple were on an extra marital affair break and were returning to their respective spouses.
I was going to post more or less exactly the same. It WAS explained why each person/people lied - all for separate reasons. And it was based on the original book, not the Hitchcock film (I haven't seen that so can't comment on which was better).
It wasn't brilliant but it wasn't bad either.
I believe it would have been the more enjoyable had it been shown at Christmas as intended. It was sort of "Christmassey" without being Christmassey if you know what I mean. I reckon this was bumped for Loving Miss Hatto. However, I did enjoy it. It was a decent enough way to while away 90 minutes.
I'd disagree with some posters about the lead actress though. It was clear that they intended her to be dislikeable to start with; all the dialogue pointed that way. She became far more likeable later as she became increasingly isolated and vulnerable. I don't think there was any lack of ability or charm on Tuppence Middleton's part, she was just playing the part as it was intended to be in this version.
But this is such a typical thread for this forum.
"Too slow", yes, if you have some form of ADD, "nothing is explained" er, yes it was, "characters not nice", yes, that was the point, etc etc.
If you want a decent discussion you have to wait until all the moaners have had their say, then come back and discuss it properly.
Agreed Granny. It was a perfectly enjoyable 90 minutes which made perfect sense. Some people possibly need to pay more attention to what they're watching!
I enjoyed it too. Im sure I must have seen the film but could not remember it, and its a story to get engrossed in on a dark rainy night.
Always good to see Stephanie Cole on our screens too.
Gosh, my nerves are actually quite frayed!
It was rather naughty of Film4 to show the 1979 film this afternoon but I recall that being just as bad. I wonder if they had a spoiler alert before it came on!
If I remember correctly, Hitchcocks version was with Margaret Rutherford. I think it was on the day after Boxing Day. It was enjoyable and rather light and fluffy but gripping nevertheless. Then a virtual remake with Angela Lansbury and Cybil Sheppard came along in 1979. This was a modern retelling of the Hitchcock version and not of the book. This new version, I believe, was the first time the actual book was told on screen and because I had only seen the two versions on screen and not read the book, I enjoyed it more for it. It was a good way to end a cold snowy day.
Yeah, no one quite does 'repressed englishwoman' like her. IMO a very limited actress.
I'll let you into a trade secret. If you want to be spared something you are not enjoying on TV, pick up the thing called a remote control. It has buttons on it. You press a few buttons and voila! You get a different programme on a different channel! It really is clever. Saves you having to watch an hour and a quarter of something you don't want to watch.