Witness for the Prosecution

This is a fine adaptation of one of Christie's best known works. When people rate and compare this I wonewoif they're comparing the Dietrich film, or the text. Let's face it the text is so short that the play lends itself so well to development and interpretation. It is one of her most ingenious plots, and relies on convincing characters.

This features, for the most part excellent performances, Ralph Richardson steals the show, closely followed by Diana Right, who manages to make Christine as cold as ice. Pleasance and Hiller are also fine.

The problem for me comes from Beau Bridges, whom was wildly miscast, lacking the emotional depth required to make Leonard convincing. I would have loved to see Simon MacKorkindale in the role, he had so much charm.

Some great scenes, some wonderfully dramatic moments, particularly the theatrical finale. I'd rank it third after, firstly 1957's classic, and secondly the BBC's deliciously dark adaptation from 2016.

A very enjoyable watch, 8/10

Enormously enjoyable courtroom murder mystery. Agatha Christie's simple yet ingenious concept (which has been copied many, many times by other writers, e.g. Joe Eszterhas) is brought to life by a terrific cast, headed by the impeccable Ralph Richardson. Diana Rigg and Donald Pleasence (old James Bond veterans!) are also superb. Only Beau Bridges seems a little out of his league in this company, but he comes through at the end. One of the better made-for-TV Christie movies, and perfect for a night-in with a cup of hot cocoa (or anything else you might prefer). *** out of 4.

Everyone who has seen both versions will compare. Well, Charles Laughton and Tyrone Power in my opinion are better than Ralph Richardson and Beau Bridges. Charles Laughton simply is very funny. Tyrone Power performs a more shady character. But Diana Riggs is excellent, while Marlene Dietrich, much to my surprise and disappointment, is quite woody. The story in both versions are very alike. Though I haven't read the book, I assume they remain both quite close to it. So preference depends on the acting. I don't have one. I quite enjoyed both. The strength of the story is proved by the fact, that one can enjoy it even with knowing the real meaning of all the twists and turns.

Excellent TV version of the Agatha Christie classic with an amazing array of talent for this type of enterprise. This is the sort of high quality fare that was standard on American television in the 70s & 80s and is sadly missing today.

Bridges is okay but miscast. Leonard Vole needs to be played by someone with a slick charm as it was by Tyrone Power in the original, a persona like George Clooney projects now and Bridges while a capable actor doesn't have that quality.

Therefore he is easily put in the shade by the powerhouse team of Sir Ralph Richardson and Diana Rigg. Both give exceptional performances, Richardson sly, knowing and wise while Diana Rigg is perfect as the determined if misguided Christine. Deborah Kerr provides a nice light touch as Richardson nurse. Good fun all around.

In 1954, when the efficient but bitter and stubborn barrister Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Ralph Richardson) returns to his office in London recovering from a heart attack, he is invited to defend Leonard Stephen Vole (Beau Bridges), who is the prime suspect in a murder case. Leonard is a former soldier that fought in World War II and is married with his beloved German wife Christine Helm Vole (Diana Rigg). He is unemployed and accused of seducing and murdering the wealthy middle-aged single woman Emily French (Patricia Leslie) to inherit 80,000 pounds. His unique alibi would be the testimony of Christine, which would not be accepted by the court, since she is his wife. Along the trial, Christine is surprisingly called to testify in court by the prosecution, when secrets about their lives are disclosed.

"Witness for the Prosecution" (1957) is another remarkable movie of Billy Wilder and one of the best about trial. Based on the play of Agatha Christie, the plot is perfectly tied-up without any flaw in the screenplay, which has many plot points and witty lines in a perfect combination of the caustic and sarcastic "British humor" with crime, drama and mystery. Despite being a good remake with great cast and performances, I do not understand the purpose of shooting frame-by-frame the masterpiece of Billy Wilder. The last time I had seen this film was on 14 June 2003. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Testemunha de Acusação" ("Witness for the Prosecution")