Why Didn't They Ask Evans?

For those who have read the book as it's almost totally different. Georgia Moffett and Sean Biggerstaff do a decent job as the main characters as do the rest of the cast. It was , however, a very strange part for the excellent Warren Clarke.

On occasions I thought I was watching a comedy and this was in scenes which were supposed to be a bit nasty.

I understand that it was done a lot better in 1980.

Since it's been so many years since I've read any of the Agatha Christie books - and I read them all - I have to admit I'm enjoying these various mystery series featuring the various Miss Marples. I like Julia McKenzie very much; she is very close to the Miss Marple of the books.

"Why Didn't They Ask Evans?" is actually not a Miss Marple story, but since the series runs roughshod over the Christie books, why not just throw some of her other characters in as well? The title of the book actually came from a conversation Ms. Christie overheard coming out of a movie theater, and she built a whole story around it. It wasn't this precise story, however.

Jane Marple is paying a visit to her friend Marjorie. Marjorie's son recently found a dead body whose last words were the story's title. He's eventually identified as a Mr. Pritchard. Bobby, Marjorie's son, is asked to go to the inquest, but upon arrival, there is no inquest there. Someone has tried to keep him away from the real one.

He and his pretty female friend, Frankie, decide to investigate on their own. They find out the man had a connection to the Savage Family, and Frankie crashes her car outside of the family castle and stays there to recover. The Savages are a dysfunctional bunch. The patriarch of the family, not well liked, is recently dead. Frankie is busy nosing around, trying to find out if there is an Evans, when both Miss Marple and Bobbie (disguised as a chauffeur) show up. It's quite a crowd. And Evans isn't who they think.

The production values of all these films are lush, with beautiful scenery, music, and '50s clothing. I do wish they set these films in the '30s, where they belong. The acting is very good, and despite the tinkering, this still manages to be an intriguing story, with the exception of the ending. Absolutely ridiculous. Be prepared for a big letdown.

Just once I'd like to see an actor look at a script and say something like, "I'm not appearing in this! It doesn't make any sense. Go back and rewrite it and then I'll have another look at it." Certainly that's the look Richard Briers has all over his face throughout this nonsense; he really gave the impression he'd rather have been somewhere else throughout. Warren Clarke looks confused about why he's even in this farcical nonsense. Rik Mayall was just going through the motions. Samantha Bond wasn't sure how to portray her character and I can't say I blame her the way her lines had been written.

A better title might have been "Why didn't they stick to the plot in Agatha's novel?" as at least the book was readable and could be enjoyed. This portrayal was just a painful way to spend an evening.

Agatha Christie's original novel was a light read, and above all, fun. Its plot was great as it was— a light romantic comedy/thriller, with enough plot to make it absolutely perfect for translation onto the screen. Unfortunately, Patrick Barlow, the screenwriter, decided he could out-Christie Christie. He can't.

I'm not a completely conservative Christie fan. If a book won't translate well to the screen, then some changes may be in order. I support that. But here, the plot changes don't work in the least— they subtract from the plot instead of adding. We now have a rather strange assortment of guests, a rather weird family history (which makes the odious move to constantly emphasize mysterious happenings in China), and a convoluted plot that leaves the audience spinning. Either way, it feels out-of-place in the fifties; the story belongs in the thirties. Besides, the climax is unrealistic— I would be amused to attend the trial that resulted.

Agatha Christie's novel was a fun read: not as compelling as, say, "And Then There Were None", but one where the characters rang true and the reader *wanted* to know the solution. The film feels strange— none of the characters feel like characters. They feel like dreadful cardboard caricatures who solely exist to scream or act suspiciously, ringing false. The only worthwhile characters are Bobby and Frankie, as well as Miss Marple.

Where acting is concerned, we have a case of a few strong cast members wading through weak material. Julia Mackenzie is absolutely stellar as Miss Marple: she is shrewd, but conceals this with a "harmless old lady" charm. Watch as she talks to a doctor, trying to get more information about a photograph. She transitions perfectly from the photograph to discussing a flower, then right back to the photograph. She puts on a perfect act that would fool mostly any murderer, and indeed, Mackenzie turns out to be the best actor of the piece. In fact, it is solely due to Mackenzie that the ridiculous climax turns out amusing-to-watch.

Two more actors stand out: Sean Biggerstaff (Bobby—Attfield? Would it have killed the producers to use "Jones"?) and Georgia Moffett (Frankie Derwent). The two have some veritable chemistry between them, and play their roles perfectly.

And now, I must mention the film's weakest actors. The first is Samantha Bond as Sylvia Savage. She exists solely to stare blankly, exclaim "Shut up!" every once in a while, and be a pathetic nuisance to all those around. Freddie Fox as Tom Savage is a particularly poor actor. His idea of acting suspiciously/mysteriously involves perpetually crouching in shadows while caressing a snake. Then, we have Commander Peters, played by Warren Clarke, who either has a serious anger management problem or has gone quite deaf—his role involves screaming, shouting, and a touch of yelling. And last, but not least, we have "Dottie", played by Hannah Murray. She remains a gawky, two-dimensional caricature wearing glasses, whose sole purpose is to loudly disclose embarrassing secrets at the dinner table. (Personally, I much prefer Aunt Cora from "After the Funeral".) By the end, I was hoping she "knew too much", and the killer would make her the next victim.

One last word: this barely felt like a TV movie. The direction was wonderful! And while we're at it, let's mention the music: although these films range in quality from "poor" to "excellent", Dominik Scherrer's music is consistently brilliant. If a CD of his compositions for this series is ever released, I'll be at the front of the line.

So, let's review, shall we? "Why Didn't They Ask Evans" has been altered beyond recognition for its TV adaptation. The acting is often poor, although the leads are phenomenal. The direction is top-notch, as is the music. But overall, "Evans" fails, due to the plot changes that only detract from it.

So the question I want answered is this: why didn't they leave "Evans" alone?

Probably one of the worst adaptations of an Agatha Christie work if not the very worst. Apart from the general story there are just too many changes to the original book, too many characters added that simply don't exist, too many characters removed and too many plot changes to what should be one of the cleverest Christie stories. Adding Marple was a waste of time. This version is made worse by some appalling acting from usually gifted performers and is made to look very 10th rate compared to far superior and much truer 2022 version. The plot twist at the end is just complete nonsense to go with what is a complete load of nonsense.