pranderson063095

This is a good series which misrepresents its origins. Episode 1 part 2&2 is represented as an Agatha Christie story but only has taken bits and pieces. The title is the same. The names of the main characters are the same, but only the names and not the characters really. Yes, it happens all the time when an author loses the rights by selling them they also lose any say in how the story might be reproduced in film, television, or other means. In this rendition of "A Secret Adversary" so much has been rewritten it is no longer a story by Agatha Christie but only a story claiming to be "based on". "A Secret Adversary" is Christie's debut Tommy and Tuppance who are friends, not married, and decide to join forces as crime solvers. It's a complex story set between WWI and WWII. A pre-Nazi force threatened England with a revolution. In this version Tommy is not the suave smart and funny man who works with Tuppance but a whimpy milquetoast.

Good actors and although Julia McKenzie is my least favorite Miss Marple, in this episode she gives one of her better performances. Edward Fox always brings a higher level of class to the characters he portrays. Charlotte Salt as Virginia in this adaptation does well.

Now, we know few are the times when a movie truly does right by the book but "Chimneys" TV episode is woefully lacking Agatha Christie's clever and artistic work. The book Christie wrote is delightfully complex and broad. The lead up to the action at Chimney's is so clever but the TV adaptation is nearly an abomination rendering a confusing and uninteresting backstory to the mystery. The characters Cade, Lorax, and Eversleigh are portrayed stiffly and empty of any reasons to either like or dislike them. The book on the other hand paints complex characters with purposes and motivations which are good, bad, and excellent and not necessarily in the same order.

I could easily include what would be spoilers for reading the book without giving away the TV show version. But I will not for it will spoil any ones effort to read the original story. It's a pity such s great Christie story is diluted down to cheap shorthand with what certainly was done with weak excuses. Thankfully not every Christie story brought to the small screen suffers so.

What is included from the Bible about the death, burial and resurrection of Yashua/Jesus is accurate even though the order might be a bit rearranged. Facts are left out and rearranged to augment the fictional scenes. The "what if" story that is woven into the historical account is very good and even plausible. As usual, the disciples lean towards being much older than what they probably were. But, that is minor. There are several really strong moments and very well played. Just maintain attention to not miss any. Those who know the Biblical accounts very well should be able to handle the ones that are a bit mislaid in the order of the Biblical account. The payoff of the "what if" satisfies even if it's predicated.