Still Life: A Three Pines Mystery

Storyline was fine, but there are amazing characters in these books, and their witty repertoire is key to capturing the heart of Three Pines. Instead, they looked like a bunch of crazy (and thinner than expected) extras.

There was also lack of character development in Armande's team. Beauvoir and Lacoste were bland background characters.

This, and other Louise Penny mysteries could (AND SHOULD) be made into a series.

There is enough wit and mystery to carry a single novel through a short season, and allow for the long term characters to grow on you.

Critics need to remember this movie is based on one novel, not 11! I thought it was a treat to see Penny's characters come to life, even though they didn't exactly meet my expectations. Her Gamache novels are murder mysteries, after all, and while the movie doesn't have the books' atmospheric quality, it does a fine job with the characters and the plot. Looking forward to another!

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read any of the Inspector Gamache series. But I love Nathaniel Parker, so I watched this.

Have to say it was a big bust.

It was directed in a static fashion and moved slowly. Also, the acting was pretty bad.

Even the mystery wasn't impressive, at least the way it was set up.

An elderly woman is killed in the woods by an arrow; she was beloved in the community, so who could have killed her and why?

Inspector Gamache (Parker) investigates. Someone called this "Inspector Lynley Goes to Quebec." I didn't find Parker like Inspector Lynley, who had quite a temper and wasn't anywhere as near as quiet as Gamache.

The characters were not well fleshed out.

All in all, kind of a waste. Reminded me of the Canadian films of Mary Higgins Clark movies - not well done.

This picture was not a disappointment -- it was a travesty. If I were Louise Penny I would be on a rampage. This picture was miscast, stilted and perfunctory. How the charm and sensuality of the book could be intentionally reduced to this abomination is a testament only to the consistency of a lackluster effort. Maybe a mini series could manage the subtleties and nuances of the books. Really this could have been filmed anywhere - New England, the North Carolina mountains -- there was no flavor of a Canadian village so carefully created in the books. Gamache was reduced to a bilious sort of sourpuss and Jean Guy was more Miami Vice than Sûreté Du Québec.

I love the Gamache books and was so excited for the movie. What a painful disappointment. Nathaniel Parker is definitely not the Gamache I imagined, but the most astounding miscast is Clara. Louise Penny's descriptions are closer to Helena Bonham-Carter than the beautiful blonde actress playing the character. Clara is unkempt, always has crumbs in her hair and paint smudges on her face, has no fashion sense and frizzy hair. By contrast, the Clara in the movie is straight out of a Hollywood red carpet.

Don't even get me started on Myrna (who is not only about 100kg off, but never has a chance to say a line and is not even referred to by name).

Yet, I feel that (mis)casting is not the complete issue here. Someone needs to tell the screenwriter that book adaptations to screen are not required to use the book dialogue word for word. What works in a book sounds clunky and is difficult to deliver in a movie, no matter how good the actors may be. Adaptations are tough, yes, but the name says it all - take the essence and create your own dialogue! Meryl Streep and Anthony Hopkins couldn't deliver those lines with straight faces!

Just for fun, here is my Hollywood, award-winning dream cast, dead or alive:

Inspector Gamache - Geoffrey Rush or Jean Reno | Jean-Guy - Jean Dujardin | Clara - Rachel Weisz or Helena Bonham-Carter | Peter - Christian Bale | Gabri - Phillip Seymour Hoffman :-( | Olivier - Jared Leto | Ben - Adrien Brody | Ruth Zardo - Judy Dench | Myrna - Octavia Spencer