User reviews

Taken from the 1961 novel of the same name, this Anglia TV rendition of The Pale Horse was filmed in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Oxon, and London. Notable differences from the novel are the absence of Ariadne Oliver and some of the other characters from the book.

The story concerns young sculptor Mark Easterbrook (Colin Buchanan) who discovers a priest dying from a head wound-the man gives Mark a list of names before he dies. The police don't exactly believe Mark's story, even to the point where they suspect him in the priest's death, but Mark determines to follow up the list-which leads to other murders before he finally solves it with the aid of Kate Mercer (Jayne Ashbourne), a friend of one of the victims.

The Pale Horse is nothing superlative, rather more like average, and the two young leads are somewhat bland. The good things about this production are the photography, and very fine performances from Sir Leslie Phillips and Michael Byrne-that alone makes it worth watching. Martin Kennedy is also quite good in the small part of Tate, a tough henchman. Jean Marsh plays one of the three witches who reside at the house known as The Pale Horse.

A lesser Christie story in a distinctly lesser adaptation.

The trouble starts with "The 60s". Christie published the book in 1961 but was still writing classic Christie-style stories that really only work to their best in a pre-war setting as per Suchet-Poirot. Hickson-Marple got away with the 50s by pretending little had changed since the 30s (and had the sense to set the 60s Marples in their version of the 50s alongside the others) but in both cases the result was the same: a comforting historical atmosphere that can make some poor plotting and characters forgiveable. But few people have charming fantasies about the 60s so the story has to hold the attention that much more securely: a tough job even with a major story and/or well-loved characters, both of which this film lacks.

The attempt at doing the 60s in this case is also pretty ham-fisted: book 1961, coffin lid 1964, mini dresses and knee boots scream 1967; hospital bedside electronics suggests 80s at least.

So with no convincing period atmosphere to fall back on, the weak plot with too few suspects and too many gaps is laid rather bare.

Even given these issues, all might not have been lost with stronger main characters but Colin Buchanan is simply not leading material. Jayne Ashbourne is arrestingly pretty and her easy naturalness could have made a great contribution given a powerful male lead and more dynamic script but as it is she just hovers unproductively.

In summary, it is watchable despite rather than because of itself but could have been much better for the same money if the producers had simply used a bit of common sense, set it in 1997, and spent the mini-skirt budget on a better leading man and a decent script editor.

Agatha Christie's "The Pale Horse" is not one of my favorite Christie books. There is no Poirot or Miss Marple to liven things up, and the witchcraft motif seems contrived.

The film of the same name is a 1997 British TV production, loosely based on Christie's novel. I wasn't expecting much from this film, and not much was what I got. The film's confusing plot meanders around, seemingly without direction. There are too few suspects. And the ending is a letdown, and potentially unclear for anyone not familiar with the book.

On the other hand, the acting is OK, though a bit hammy at times. And the film has good production design.

Overall, this film is not terribly bad. But it's not particularly good either. There are other Agatha Christie movies out there that are so much better. If these films were in competition with each other, most of them would leave "The Pale Horse" at the starting gate.

I think those who despised this mini series must be Agatha Christie purists. I've never read her; don't care much for mysteries though I know she is revered. So I went into this brief series with low expectations and did n-o-t feel it was the trainwreck others had. Love Sewell in everything so that was a plus. Even liked the ending. It was watchable, perhaps because it reminded me a bit of Wicker Man or just for whatever reason...I did not hate it, nope not at all.

This is a 1997 version of "The Pale Horse," based on the 1961 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie.

Ariadne Oliver is in the book, but she's not in this production.

The story concerns a sculptor, Mark Easterbrook, who finds a priest dying in an alley. The priest has a list of names. When the police arrive, they take the list away from Easterbrook and accuse him of murder.

He and an art restorer, Kate Mercer, work to prove his innocence, using whatever Mark remembers of the list. He's shocked to learn that everyone on the list is dead, save one, and all from natural causes.

Mark and Kate are led to a house called "The Pale Horse," where three women who claim to be witches live. Can their spells actually kill people? What about the booking agent Mark meets? Can he think someone dead, or does he set it up? This could have been a more interesting story, but it isn't, due to the fact that it's somewhat confusing. Also, while some of the women's clothing appears to be from the '60s, nothing else seemed very '60s to me with Easterbrook walking around wearing a leather jacket. The era is amorphous.

The acting was okay. I enjoyed seeing Hermoine Norris in a different kind of role from the one she played on MI-5 and her character on Wire in the Blood. She was very good. Also, Michael Byrne and Leslie Phillips give outstanding performances. The rest of the acting was so-so, as were the production values.

After watching the Hercule Poirot series, it's hard to go back to anything less than the characterizations, production values, and costumes found in them.

This would have been better without some completely pointless changes brought in to the plot. At the start there is a completely implausible attempt to suggest that Mark is suspected of being the killer. Nothing in the show suggests the police would suspect him in this way and the plot line dies quietly, having wasted a fair amount of time. Most of the performances are adequate at worst but the dialogue is often poor. One of the things which made the book successful was the way it at least played with the idea of the supernatural. No one could be fooled by the witches here. Agatha Christie was usually luckier than this in her adaptors for the screen.

Very good actors, but one of the worst productions of Agatha Christie's works I've seen. The soundtrack tried to add to the feel of the period but only helped to make the film seem "dated". I've only recently re-discovered Agatha Christie as I had read only a couple of her books as a child in the 50's, and I've now been devouring all the works NetFlix has to offer. I've especially enjoyed Joan Hickson as Miss Marple and was looking forward to seeing one of Agatha Christie's later works having been released in 1961.

I was so very disappointed in this "made for TV" movie as it was full of cliché's, miserably wrong music, incredibly bad direction and was one of those movies where I want to yell at the characters on the screen, "How can you be that stupid." I've not read the book but it appears that this could have easily have been an exceptional movie, but instead I felt that my intelligence was being assaulted more and more by the minute. The ending was a huge let-down. What a waste.

I bought this boxset of Agatha Christie thinking that Hercule Poirot is in all of the movies of Agatha Christie. I kept waiting until halfway through the movie, I gave up. But watching Jayne Ashbourne still made it worth watching. Her character here is so lovable. Anyone knows about a fan club of Jayne Ashbourne? I fell in love with her in this movie.... Anyway let me know where can I find any other details about Jayne ashbourne. I was only able to get a handful of her photos in the web and I don't think he has a facebook or twitter account...Anyone who can help me out will be much appreciated. I will be watching the second disc in the boxset tonight and I'm pretty sure I won't be disappointed.

We rented this expecting to have a cozy evening at home. I came away very disappointed. Most Agatha Christie adaptations are very good, and I was not familiar with this particular story. The first 15 minutes promise an entertaining experience, but then it more or less runs off the tracks.

The writing is pretty poor and should have provided additional exposition. Watching this was like reading a novel and skipping the even numbered chapters. I had only a faint clue as what was going on and could not figure out why the characters were doing or why they were doing it, mostly the latter.

In the future, I will stick to the Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple stories. With them, you know what you are getting and won't be disappointed.

I have to admit that this is one Agatha Christie book that I have not read. The reviews are polarized and there does not seem to be any compromise. However, this movie is darker and spookier than any Christie movie I have seen. And this is the 60's. I do not think of Christie and the '60s as compatible. If the time era does not bother you then you may want to watch "Thirteen at Dinner (1985) ASIN: 079074130X." If you do not think of this as an Agatha Christie movie, but as a spooky mystery it is well put together. You can figure out what and how pretty quickly. Yet, who takes a little bit longer. I make you want to watch Macbeth.

"The Pale Horse" is based on a late mystery novel by Agatha Christie. By 1961, her two most famous detectives had become immortalized with many novels and short stories. She would still have a few more mysteries to write about Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple as she was winding down her writing career. And with only a dozen films having been made based on her stories, there were another dozen in store before her death in 1976. But modern fans will be most familiar with the several dozen feature films and TV movies from the1970s through the first two decades of the 21st century. Of those, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple appear in the vast majority.

This movie is quite different just in having all new characters with a very good plot. Black magic was a draw for her novel of the same title and the film. But it differs from the book in some characters, including not having Ariadne Oliver in a small part.

Christie wove a very interesting plot here. She wrote several mysteries around the supernatural, including black magic and witches. But Christie fans learn early to not suspect the dark characters of being the actual culprits in her stories. I did have suspicions about one outcome, but I really miss the conclusion and who the villain was.

The film seems to be updated to the late 1990s in England when it was made. I aways prefer her Poirot and all of her characters and plots to be set in the older and original times. Mystery fans especially should enjoy this film.

After Sarah Phelps' butchering of the story, I was hoping this adaptation was better...

It isn't.

A lot is ommited from the book (as usual with any adaptation that isn't Agatha Christie's Poirot, which makes changes but always keep the core of the story intact), including the best character- Mrs. Oliver.

In this one, Mark witnesses the murder and puts himself in the frame, then (reluctantly) investigates to find the real killer.

Our first issue, beyond the budgetary constraints that makes the supposedly 60s setting feel token and badly done, is Mark himself. Our hero is pretty dim here, obstinate, and kind of a moron. Even though he's in the frame and a supposed artist (he doesn't seem to know anything about art), he refuses to believe anyone telling him that the other deaths are connected.

Next we have the cops, who are complete idiots on the level of a Monty Python sketch, complete with Andy Serkis with ridiculous hair and a chief inspector that constantly looks to camera with a devilish smile. I realise cops in reality are probably this inept sometimes, but I doubt they look to camera and grin about it.

Everything else just annoyed me. I think it is Mark's attitude throughout, a kind of cooler than thou attempt at James Dean that falls flat.

He looks so disinterested and dismissive, sulking his way through scenes as if his life doesn't hang in the balance.

And the rest of acting is more panto than murder mystery. Even Serkis is bad.

The women fare a lot better, with better acting from them. None of it saves the adaptation, though, which would have been a lot better if they'd stuck to the book more.