Hmm! if you look at the original novel Christie wasn't happy with the ending. It actually finished with Vole being found not guilty - the end. She later amended the novel to add the extra twist of a mistress.

The 1957 film with Charles Laughton had a totally different ending to the one penned for the BBC.

In the film it's the barrister not the Toby Jones character who is the one in ill health. In the film, Romaine is called 'Christine'. What follows below is the final scene in the film.

Leonard has overheard Christine's admission and, now protected by double jeopardy, cheerfully confirms to Sir Wilfred that he had indeed killed Mrs French. Sir Wilfrid is infuriated at being had. Leonard then coldly tells Christine that he has met a younger woman and is leaving Christine. In a jealous rage, Christine grabs a knife, which had earlier been used as evidence by the defence and stabs Leonard to death. After she is taken away by the police, Sir Wilfrid, urged on by Miss Plimsoll, declares that he will take on Christine's defence.

There have been various different adaptations over the years, the BBC's is simply another.

I was just going to comment on this - what he was doing to her on that bed was definitely sexual!

ah yes forgot about that... maybe was a bit sexual... or was that her housemaid telling the court that the relationship was more than just friends.

Well we can't/shouldn't all enjoy the same things as life would become dull. I actually enjoyed both last years offering and this years adaptation equally.

I agree with this comment most. There was nearly as much focus on the solicitor's life than there was on the actual murder, and in my view it was needless. I guess there needed to be some background on him to show why his private life was in some array and some type of illness which would result in placing him in hospital but the rest of it was irrelevant.

Oh and that bloody repetitive tune (I found myself humming it at work the next day...!!!) .


That said I agree with this too, although the second part was the better half of the story. so I can also see why some may have been put off by the first half.
I am glad I stuck with it though, the story line may have been somewhat stretched a bit and the ending could have been a bit more breathtaking than that walk out to sea. But having not read/know of the story before, it was still a tale that kept me interested as I had originally thought the singer's partner may have had something to do with the murder! And despite ATTWN being the better portrayed tale, this was one of the top telly moments for this Christmas for me. The acting was well done, especially the maid and the solicitor, and good attention to detail, although smog inside the solicitor's room may had been a little too much detail.

That's not what I was talking about though. I was answering a post which praised the fact that the BBC had shown a drama examining the after effects of WW1 on individuals.

Caught up with this last night. As a character study of the solicitor and the nature of love and loss, guilt and atonement it was fine. As a whodunnit, it was terrible, but I don't know whether I was simply assuming it would be a murder mystery story, with it being a Christie story, or whether it's supposed to be, and it was just this adaptation that chose to make that a side-plot. If it's the latter, though, I think if you're going to put Christie's name in the title and make it the follow up to last year's successful ATTWN, people are going to reasonably assume it will be in a similar vein.

Trouble is, even as a character study, it didn't quite work. Where did that last ten minutes or so suddenly spring from? It was obvious the marriage had difficulties - and that they both knew that, and which John was trying to work through (but maybe less so his wife) - but the whole 'You came back, he didn't' scene seemed tacked on to give it the emotional depth it was lacking, and as if that was supposed to be the big twist of the drama. (Although to be fair, it's true I didn't see it coming.)

I thought the murder twist was creative, but that whole sub-plot was so completely lacking in tension or suspense that it just washed over me with barely a reaction, let alone a sharp intake of breath.

Questions (apologies if they've already been gone over):
- how or why was the maid so easily convicted? It all seemed to be down to blood on her cuffs, the killing of the cat, the loss of her stipend and her 'hysterical' reaction on the stand. Surely that wouldn't be sufficient, even in the '20's? There seemed to be an under-current of feminism, so was it a subtle comment on the the rise of suffrage, and by extension a backlash to it by an all-male police force and jury? (I'm probably giving the writing far more credit here than it deserves).
- why did Mayhew break down when he heard Romaine singing for the first time? Was it her? The song? In fact, why did he seem to be fixated/ fascinated by her at all?
- what was all that guff about 'the young' that Leonard and Romaine were talking about after Mayhew learned the truth? It seemed like they were suggesting that Mayhew was so desperate to get Leonard acquitted as some sort of atonement for not being able to save his son, but it was just one line.

we were thinking was it all in the maids imagination, was she telling the truth about what she saw or just making it up to implicate vole.

I guess she was telling the truth in the end.

It was never a whodunnit nor intended to be. Few of the Christie stories not including Poirot or Marple are. And Then There Were None is not primarily a whodunnit either to be fair.

How you managed to miss the strains of "You came back, he didn't" running through the entire piece I simply have no idea. Why did you think that Mrs Mayhew visited the son's room every day and sat stroking his clothes? Why did you think Mayhew was sobbing like a baby at the theatre? Did you not hear Romaine say "this was never about whether Leonard was innocent but whether you were" or words to that effect?

People were convicted and hanged on far flimsier evidence than in the maid's case. Read any of the works by people leading the campaign to end hanging in UK for a slew of miscarriages of justice that'll make your eyes water!

Overall thought it was dreadful though it did have some redeeming features.

The maid was very good and I like the fact that it didn't have the melodramatic ending of the 1957 film version or the theatre version I've seen. But then it had another melodramatic ending instead.

Toby's cough cleared up remarkably well. Obviously it had all been caused by his oversized moustache, once that went so did the cough.

I wonder if the moustache was drowned in the pond alongside the cat?

I agree. The only redeeming feature was the excellent performance of the actress playing Romaine.

I hate it when they try to make Agatha Christie gritty and meddle with the storyline. Most people like her stories for the puzzle element not gore or realism.

- also why did Mayhew not go and check out "Miss Moffat's" story with the theatre about being maimed by Romaine? Surely somebody there must have known she left bcs she was pregnant.
- and why didn't he cross check the business of Romaine having a lover? He never tried to find this fictitious person... sloppy work!
- how did the murdering couple think they were going to get away with it without the police looking for the real killer? If Leonard didn't do it, who did? The murderous pair could not have known beforehand that the maid was going to hang herself...?

Why would he? She's standing there in front of him. What reason would he have to believe that she wasn't exactly who she said she was? Also this is mere hours before the next appearance in court; midnight. Who's he going to check with?

Similarly why check for the lover when he's got a letter in her handwriting to the man in question?

Moreover, it's his job to get his client acquitted not to conduct the investigation. He has all he needs to do the job. It's up to the prosecution to overturn the evidence which as their witness is basically admitting to her dalliance in the witness box would be just a little difficult.

Finally, you seem to have forgotten that you cannot be tried twice for the same crime under the law of double indemnity. Once acquitted it matters not a hoot if absolute proof that you committed the crime surfaces subsequently. The maid being convicted is simply a nice little bonus which preserves his reputation. It doesn't affect his legal status in the slightest.

You'll forgive me for pointing out that your hate is not grounds for them not to do it especially when the Christie executors have given their explicit blessing to the project. There has been more than fair warning about how the stories will be approached so you can easily avoid it by simply not watching.

Really? I didn't see any. And all the pre publicity stressed it was a Christie story, not a Christie story butchered to bits by the adaptor and director.

Yes really. Here's the Guardian interview with Sarah Phelps for starters.

Finding a dead cat in the pond proved nothing anyway, it could have fallen in itself or been taken ill & fallen in. To say The maid is a murderer on that evidence is rubbish, indeed Mayhew himself could have planted it.!

I don't read The Guardian so pretty flimsy evidence to back up your theory. In general people do not read articles about programmes before watching them on TV.

Well that's not at all a sweeping generalistation based on zero actual evidence. The Radio Times is still selling 3/4m copies each week, the TV Times 200k, every major newspaper has a TV guide with reviews, previews and recommendations, there are many websites devoted to TV (including this one), but obviously the fact that you don't read the Guardian trumps all that.

This information was freely available (you conveniently ignored my declaration that the Guardian article was only 'for starters', I note). If people were happy to ignore it and blindly watch a programme without having made any effort to determine whether it will appeal to them then that's their right, of course. But they don't then get to moan and groan about how it wasn't what they expected afterward as if it's anyone else's fault but their own.

Yes, let's ignore the fact that she admitted to killing the cat deliberately in court. Why not?

It does sometimes look as if you take personal offence at any criticism of a TV programme.

It was billed as an Agatha Christie. Nowhere was it billed as an Agatha Christie stretched to the limits of what she actually wrote with the main focus switched to characters who weren't even in the original or if they were had minor roles. People have every right to moan and groan that it wasn't what they expected. Most people do not read long articles on TV programmes before they decide whether or not to watch them.

Hear hear!

So you'd prefer it if I was one of the all too many who castigate every programme on principle making no attempt to understand the writer and producer's intent and take personal offence at any celebration of a TV programme?

I agree. The Agatha Christie name implies a whodunnit, a certain tone and style and subtle references to, as opposed to graphic depictions of, anything sordid.

I also agree with your other points.