Marple Murder Is Easy (2004–2013) Online

I thoroughly liked this presentation of Murder is Easy. I found the acting to be of high quality & think that Julie McKenzie is an excellent choice for Miss Marple. I believe she will add some zip to the character. As for being reader of Agatha Christie's books, I'm sorry but I find her rather dry. I believe that movies & books are 2 different mediums & cannot be compared & to be fair to both, they shouldn't be. I look forward to more of this new Miss Marple. I hope other folks enjoy this new Miss Marple & will support the endeavors of both the writers & actors. It's really nice to have another drama program to be able to enjoy. Let's hope they keep it up.

I truly for the life of me cannot understand how anybody in their right mind can find this anything less then wonderful!! I was slightly disappointed with A Pocketful of Rye, but this was superb, Julia McKenzie is more into her role and echos of Joan Hickson, a more tender character then Geraldine's (Who I adored) The Stella cast in this is wonderful, Shirley Henderson though steals it, giving a wonderful performance. I've read a few comments where people have said it hasn't been well adapted and that the film was better, come on give me a break, this was wonderful, Pocketful gets a 7, this gets a 10!!! Wonderful.

I give kudos to Julia McKenzie and the cast for pulling together on this recreated version of Christie's "Murder is Easy." The New Marple series has really changed many of Christie's wonderful works, but this is one of the lesser known books, done only once in the past to my recollection. That one was dreadful, with Bill Bixby in the lead. This is not Agatha Christie's book, but I've come to grips with it. I confess that I enjoyed watching these good actors doing better than the mediocre script. I also enjoy Julia McKenzie as an almost dead-on version of Miss Marple. She's just a bit young for the role.

I gave up on the plot and just watched the actors. I love the village setting and the fact that there's no "cutesy" element anymore in this Marple series. No silly, loud background music either.

You know what mystery is greater than "And Then There Were None" or "Murder on the Orient Express"? It's the mystery of WHY producers and screenwriters think they can out-write Agatha Christie, whose books still outsell today's authors. There's a reason why she is The Queen of Crime. Though, granted, not all her books were perfect, "Murder is Easy" had a very nice, if somewhat far-fetched, plot, and was lots of fun to read. This adaptation was quite unfaithful, and turns the original's farfetchedness into pure, mind-boggling, improbability.

To begin with, I was prepared the original story would have changes in it, so as to include Miss Marple's character. What I don't understand is why they went to such lengths to change the story. The murder of Lavinia, in the book was clever: the murderer pushed her into the street, in busy traffic. Here? The killer pushes her off an escalator in the train station. Now, this already makes the solution far from probable. How is it that a) no one on an escalator (going two ways, side by side) will not notice this? b) no one remarks there was such-and-such a person by her before she fell? c) that this same person did not offer any information? d) the killer calmly walks right beside the body and leaves with no one noticing or getting suspicious (no crowd, either)? Is it just me, or is that far more ridiculous than being pushed into heavy traffic, where everyone is too crowded to notice?

On a lighter note, Julia Mackenzie again delivers a solid performance as Miss Marple, completely outdoing her predecessor, Geraldine McEwan. It seems, though, that "A Pocket Full of Rye" was only to get her off to a better start with the fans-- this rewrite is just terrible. Murders went from being unlikely in the book to ridiculously crazy in the movie.

My, what a disappointment! What a letdown! Despite solid performances from the cast, great music (yet again, one of the things I look forward to in every episode), the changes to the plot were unnecessary and numerous. A potentially perfect episode went down the tubes. I'll give it a 7 out of 10. It has some interesting elements, but the plot changes just don't work.

This is my fourth Julia McKenzie Marple after Pocket Full of Rye, They do it with Mirrors and Pale Horse. She is getting really warm on me. I'm a big fan of Geraldine McEwan, who used to play Marple, so I was cautious with the new Marple. Well, Julia McKenzie is a very different Marple. I wanna congratulate her for not copying Geraldine. Her approach to the character is more active (since she's 10 years younger) and seams more worried. I like her, it still is Marple, but she's certainly different.

As for the story, I was shocked. If anyone saw butchery that is Poirot: Halloween Party (very good film, butchery as in many dead, not as in destroying the story), then you'd have an idea of what I wanna say. Usually there are 1-3 dead bodies per episode, and usually we wait for one third of the episode to pass before the murder is committed. Not here! So, in the opening sequence a murder victim has been buried, at her funeral another person is killed and by the ten minutes of the film we have four deaths. And lets say that's not all. Plus some cold cases that are connected.

It really adds suspense. Just like Hallowe'en Party, I have a feeling that if a director wanted to make a horror film, it could have been done with some very slight changes of perspective. You always have the feeling someone's gonna die. And usually they do. And the person or persons who did it all is completely different personality than you're used to as well.

Cast is excellent (like in all Marple/Poirot movies). I knew many of them: Benedict Cumberbatch from The Atonement, Sylvia Syms from The Queen, Lyndsey Marshal from Poirot: Cards on the Table, Shirley Henderson from Harry Potter and Anna Chancellor from Hitchhiker's Guide Through the Galaxy. Also, my new discovery was Margo Stilley, who is just too beautiful. Everyone did their best, so it was very nice seeing them in different roles.

As for those who say the movie has to be identical to the book, and that therefor this isn't Agatha Christie, I say: It says: BASED UPON, not literally copied. I loved all the books, but I also loved all the changes so far. Some of them are also modernizing it a bit, like opening some subjects that exist (and existed back then too), but were too much of a taboo for that time. I'm sure Agatha wouldn't mind people changing it a bit from time to time. This one is not an exception, it turned out just great.

If you love mysteries and/or horror, recommendation to see.

Julia McKenzie is the latest actress to step into Miss Marple shoes and it's always tough for anyone to take over from another. However I do enjoy her acting. I enjoyed "Murder is Easy," with a few reservations. Of course the screenwriters have changed the script vastly from the book. They did this to many in this new Marple series. I have never known Christie to write about "Adult" subjects such as rape and incest which are covered in this episode. So I would not let children watch most of these Miss Marple episodes.

For family viewing, check out the Miss Marple series by Joan Hickson. It's wonderful and more family oriented (except that there's always a murder).

I agree with others that the cinematography is better and the filming seems to be more in the country, which I love. I'm also thrilled that they toned down the background music and garish colors.

Murder Is Easy isn't at all dire, and I think it is unfair to say it has no redeeming qualities. Flawed it is, and not quite as good as Pocket Full of Rye, it is well worth watching. One reason is the splendid photography, and the wonderful period detail. The scenes down by the river in particular were beautifully shot. Julia McKenzie, despite the fact that Miss Marple isn't in the book, is evidently making the most of her role and is settling in quite nicely. Of course I have always said that Joan Hickson is the best Miss Marple, but McKenzie brings a certain wisdom and sparkle to her interpretation, and it was lovely to see. The music score was beautiful, very haunting yet had a tragic undertone to it. However, as an adaptation it is disappointing, though I will say right now, I prefer this adaptation above almost all the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, save Murder is Announced and Murder At the Vicarage. The plot does suffer from a number of deviations from the text, and came across sometimes as a tad confusing, and there was about half an hour when I barely knew who the characters were. Another problem was some of the dialogue, including (forgive my vague recollection) the Major's conversation with the sergeant about golf, when he was asked to give his alibi. The sergeant's dim-witted responses came across as rather awkward. Though I will say the acting was fine, with good performances from Anna Chancellor, Sylvia Syms and Lyndsey Marshall. Shirley Henderson- I am still trying to get over the fact she played Moaning Myrtle in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets- overdoes it slightly in the role of Honoria Wainfleet though. Overall, disappointing but not all bad. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Though others have already said it, and with much more detail, this is nothing like the book. Besides the character names pretty much everything is changed, and not for the better. For one thing, Miss Marple isn't in the book at all; Luke Fitzwilliam does the detecting, and it's a refreshing change. The cast does a good job and the story they come up with is fairly interesting, but Agatha could have done better. And...oh right...she did. This is one of my favorite Christie novels ever, and this adaptation could have been so great if they had just stuck to it!

And Benedict Cumberbatch would have been in it more. Sigh.

While on a train, a woman tells Miss Marple that two deaths that occurred in the town of Wynchwood and that everyone thought were accidents were in fact murders. After getting off the train the woman is pushed down an escalator and dies. Miss Marple is intrigued and visits Wynchwood. People continue to die in strange circumstances and the suspect list is long. Luckily she has the assistance of former policeman Luke Fitzwilliam, played by Benedict Cumberbatch.

One of the better Miss Marple episodes, and one of the bloodiest. The murder count ends well above the norm for the series. Quite intriguing, and the murderer is not obvious. A few good twists and red herrings along the way too.

Taking a train journey to London, Miss Marple finds herself sitting opposite a woman (Lavinia Pinkerton) who appears to be babbling somewhat about a suspicious death and her fear that she will be next. When Pinkerton "falls" to her death at the train station, Miss Marple decides to take a closer look and travels to Wychwood to investigate further. What she finds are several "accidental" deaths, neither of which totally ring true with Miss Marple and, with her experience in village life, she knows there must be secrets below the idyllic surface of this leafy English village.

As is often the case the reviews of this film are mostly negative and almost all make the focus of their criticism the fact that the film is a hack job of the book. I can totally understand why those that love the books feel this way and, yes, as an adaptation then it is probably "bad" but most viewers will be coming to this Sunday night ITV stuff as a film in its own right so, again, I find it easier to judge it on its own merit. As such Murder is Easy is "OK" stuff. The numbers of deaths in the narrative mean that the viewer is never bored because the script never has to fill the time with substance when it has so many murders to deliver. This makes it feel engaging in a way that, to be honest, it really isn't. In terms of guessing the plot or picking up on things, forget it, this is one of those films where all is revealed at the end but it is helped by it being an engaging resolution when it comes. The script doesn't make the many characters particularly complex or layered but it does enough to make them interesting to the point where you pay attention to them.

The cast are not "starry" but there are plenty of faces that UK viewers will recognise (but may struggle to remember precisely why they do). In some of the previous Marple films this type of casting has meant camp performances and people hamming it up too much to try and meet some sort of "light entertainment fun" target that was being aimed for; with this film it works the way it should do, by avoiding the viewer being distracted by the presence of one clear "name" that is clearly going to be central in some way. Of course this ignores the central turn from McKenzie, who I continue to be distracted by because of how much Jim Broadbent and her appear to be one in the same. I found her better here than in Pocketful of Rye because she seemed to be a bit more involved in the mystery and be demonstrating a sharper mind in her own style. This makes her a better fit in the role but also has the downside for her of not making it a particularly memorable Marple because she is playing a pretty straight bat. The supporting cast are generally good with solid turns from Henderson, Lance, Cumberbatch, Speer, Haig and a few others. The only "camp" risk is avoided because Tim Brooke-Taylor is actually OK.

Murder is Easy isn't brilliant in any aspect but the film does enough to be considered a solid "Marple" film. Please note I'm not saying it is a good film if you floated it out to the general market, or that it is a good adaptation but just that, as an ITV Marple film on a darkening Sunday night, it worked reasonably well. Know what you're coming into and you'll be OK, expect anything more and you'll be disappointed.

"Murder is easy when nobody thinks it's murder."

It certainly is, in the little village of Wychwood.

Honoria Waynflete kills her retarded brother (drowned) to save him from incarceration. To cover herself, she then kills Mrs Gibbs (mushroom in the stew), the vicar (insecticide?), Miss Pembleton (pushed down escalator), Dr Humbleby (blood poisoning), Bridget Conway (hat dye) and Mrs Horton (insulin in the toe). I think that is right.

If Miss Marple hadn't solved the mystery when she did, Wychwood would have been a ghost town by the end of the year.

This was another amusing and outrageous rewrite of a clunky piece of tosh by Agatha Christie, the Queen of impossible crimes committed by implausible characters for preposterous reasons.

I loved it!

The ITV version of Murder is Easy is after all a good addition to the series.The atmosphere of the haunted village is very good,the culprit is very pleasantly creepy,the acting of Pemberton,Haig,Speer,Henderson,Chancellor absolutely stunning.It could be perfect if only changes wouldn't have damaged the final results as it can happen to Poirot and Marple in the last times.The new motive for the murders is unlikely,melodramatic and very good only if found in a Nineteenth century French feuilleton.It seems more De Montepin or Ohnet than Christie.So,I strongly disagree with other reviewers accusing or defending the writer for his use of "modern adult themes".They are not.They are far older than Christie's books,they are so old that Christie wouldn't ever have used them.The great mistake of the last Poirots and Marples SPOILER is their excessive use or misuse of the illegitimate child theme,sometimes with very ludicrous effects (the very awful Appointment With Death) sometimes in a better,dramatic vein(the excellent Nemesis or here,in Easy) but always with an unpleasant sense of ancient melodrama(babes in the river like Moses,phooey!).And the real problem is that the last four or five solutions are always based on the same trick,they have begun with the abominable Missing Will,and, after some years of peace ,they are using it more and more, wasting even the quite good Third Girl.Third Girl, Sittaford,Appointment,Nemesis,Easy,perhaps next Chimneys if my suspicions are correct...no,it's frankly too much.If the culprit would have commit the murders SPOILER

for revenge,trying to destroy a fiancé having jilted her for her madness,as in the novel, the solution would have been newer and perfect,and the actress would have had the acting skill to render it wondrously.Instead,it's only a Seven Stars for me,as the old inn.It's a pity,because, really,it's an enchanting little gem of a movie,with a very unpleasant flaw in its otherwise highly poetical structure.

Miss Marple was not featured in the Agatha Christie novel on which this is based. But that didn't stop the writer from turning this into a Miss Marple mystery and throwing away most of the original plot points to come up with a completely different story and motives. In doing so, they've come up with an elaborate subplot that defeats the purpose of the entire story behind the murders.

The 1982 version of MURDER IS EASY stayed faithful to the novel in most respects except that it updated the story to include the use of computers to try to solve the case. It featured guest star performances from Helen Hayes and Olivia de Havilland, but gave too much time to Bill Bixby and Lesley-Anne Down. At least it kept the reason for the murders which made far more sense than the ones offered here.

The writer has given all of the characters different backgrounds, different motivations, different relationships and while the murderer's identity remains the same, her reasons and explanations are startlingly different from those in the original story. She is poorly played by Shirley Henderson with a speech impediment that makes it necessary to use the caption feature to catch her dialog. Layers of complex motives have been added to make the story a confusing mess.

JULIA McKENZIE gives a nice characterization of Miss Marple and it's not her fault that the script puts her at the center of detective work in a most unlikely way. The other performers in the British cast are all fine but their roles are never true to the novel.

My least favorite so far of the new Miss Marple series. The revelation of the killer was done in a very different confrontation scene in the book (used in the earlier TV version) rather than the dull and dry exposition offered here with all of the suspects gathered for the reveal. Lavinia Pinkerton's demise on an escalator is just one of the silly touches (and name changes) that loses credibility when you think about it.

Absolute rubbish! Dame Agatha would certainly not approve of this complex rewrite of one of her best stories.

There are two things writers for TV should never rewrite--Shakespeare and Agatha Christie. Both are too classic and are sure to annoy purist fans. Secondly, Agatha needs no rewriting, because she can still cut it on her own. Her books don't need updating to entertain even young viewers.

As a project for my honors senior British Lit this year each of them had to pick a different Christie novel to read and analyze. After doing research on Agatha's life, they had questions to answer about the time period, the slang, the customs of the society, etc. Since even her most recent novels predate these kids by forty years, they all seem old to them and they just accepted that as a given. To my delight, not one kid reported being bored with the novel they picked. Some were frankly incredulous as the way the novel had drawn them in and at the ingenious plotting techniques the author used. They also gained tremendously from having to "decipher" some of the British references and putting them into context. One of the things they had to identify were historical references to events, things or persons. To my astonishment--I'd never picked up on this--one of my students realized that the plot point upon which Mrs. McGinty's Dead turns is archaic--no one writes letters using fountain pens anymore, therefore Mrs. McGinty buying a bottle of ink was something this student definitely found an interesting piece of history. This was only one incident in a unit that brought many interesting pieces of information to their attention and the parallels they found between Agatha's life and the books was masterly.

These kids were raised on computers and action films. If they can find a read through a richly plotted Agatha Christie novel fun and challenging, then surely Masterpiece Theatre can show the Queen of Crime some respect and stop eviscerating her work. I will not watch these horrible adaptations. They make me too angry.

If I want to see Miss Marple, I'll rent something with Joan Hickson which adheres to the original.

truly dire adaption of Agatha Christie. not only was the plot changed dramatically (different motive for killing etc) but also the dialogue creaked and was totally anachronistic. None of the characters spoke or treated each other like people from the 1940's - as though the writers were either completely ignorant, too lazy to read the original or watch contemporary drama, or desperately trying to make it more 'accessible' to a 21st century audience. But Agatha Christie is not The Tudors. Her characters and the language they spoke are still recognisable to people living today. The pace also sagged like a pair of ancient granny's tights. The only realistic thing in the entire episode was Gemma Redgrave's performance as the doctor's new widow going mad with grief - but perhaps she was desperately trying to escape the reality of the direness of the drama she found herself in. ITV seems to have completely lost confidence in Agatha Christie's power over her readers, which is strange considering the David Suchet Poirot series is meticulous and gripping and still making money for ITV today.

People, is there ANY reason you have to butcher the original story? Luke does NOT live in the village, he's only recently returned home, and Bridget Conway is NOT an American trying to find her parents! What was so bad about Bridget being Lord Easterfield's intended, and Luke stealing her away? And Honoria Waynflete is supposed to be the same age as Easterfield, not 20 years younger! I understand the initial meeting between Luke and Lavinia had to be changed to add Miss Marple to the story, but they totally missed on the rest of it, and yet, they took the care to make sure the extremely minor subplot about the doctor's daughter and the younger doctor was left intact??? And why the changes in the Lord Easterfield character? He was a poor boy who worked his way up in the world and became rich, no need for him to be politician WITH a wife already! I know Dame Agatha had some books she liked better than others, and I don't know how she felt about this one, but I'd bet she'd be mighty disappointed with it. At least they didn't make half the characters gay in this one....:-) (nothing wrong with gays, but pointless changes of sexual preference just to make the story more tititlating are LAME!) This gets a 2 though because as always, it's beautifully shot, and costumes, cars, etc are all extremely well done. HOWEVER, I'd prefer a little less technical perfection and a BETTER interpretation of the story!!!!

This adaptation of 'Murder is Easy' bears very little resemblance to the original Christie novel. Most of the character names stay the same and so (surprisingly) does the identity of the murderer although the motive is completely different; a couple of the murder methods are also retained. I didn't hate it and this was largely down to some of the performances. Also, whilst I hate the changing of Christie's plots just for the sake of it, I must admit that the original motive for the many murders involved in the novel was actually just as unlikely and convoluted as in this new version! The problem is of course that in the book the murderer is mad and that goes some way to explaining his/her unlikely actions. In this version the murderer is not mad and therefore their actions seem less in keeping with the character as presented.

Julia McKenzie continues to impress as Miss Marple, shrewd and likable and sympathetic although I did feel that her complete integration into village life in Wychwood after only a few hours was very unbelievable. Of the others I liked Shirley Henderson as a younger Miss Waynflete, Jemma Redgrave as a Mrs Humbleby racing towards a nervous breakdown and Anna Chancellor as a likable Mrs Horton. None of the others really made any great impact largely because they were given so little to do. There was the usual case of 'big stars for the sake of it' in the line up. There seemed little point in Tim Brooke-Taylor or Sylvia Syms being there for the tiny, tiny little amount of screen time they were given! I was completely unimpressed and unmoved by the hugely forgettable Benedict Cumberbatch and Margo Stilley in the important roles of Luke and Bridget.

As always it looked lovely although unlike some I rather miss the 'technicolour' brightness of the earlier McEwan adaptations. All in all it was OK - this was never one of my favourite Christie novels but it probably did not warrant as much 'tampering' as it received here.

I guess the Christie estate doesn't care what anyone does to Agatha Christie books, as long as they get their money.

I like very much what one reviewer on this site said, "good on its own merits." Alas, when watching the Julia MacKenzie and Geraldine McEwan Marples, you have to forget about Agatha Christie entirely and just focus on what's in front of you. And most of the time, that has nothing to do with the original story.

I saw a version of this in the '80s with Helen Hayes, whom I always thought was the best Marple. She's the one I pictured when reading the books, a woman with a sparkle in her eye and loads of charm. McKenzie has this; Hickson for me was too dry and serious; and McEwan is too knowing for a small town lady.

I watched this version because of my adoration of Benedict Cumberbatch, who was gorgeous in his way in this, playing the role of Luke.

Miss Marple (MacKenzie) meets a lady on a train who talks about murder being easy and is en route to Scotland Yard. She's nervous for her own life. Minutes later, when off the train, she falls down some escalator steps. Or was she pushed? Reading about her death, Miss Marple becomes instantly suspicious and travels to the town, which has had a few accidental deaths. They have still more once she gets there. Slowly but surely she uncovers a web of blackmail, illegitimacy, suspected abortion and more, all stemming from a situation that took place years earlier.

Beautifully photographed with lovely performances, this is a good TV movie -- on its own merits -- with very good acting all around. I will say pay attention - there are lots of murders and lots of characters.

Murder is easy is one of my favourite Christie novels. It does features neither Poirot nor Miss Marple, but a retired police officer, Luke Fitwilliam. It does also depict the unfurling of a wonderful grown up love story, between him and Bridget, a Gothic beauty with a past. Why, oh why, dispense with all of this and add Miss Marple to the mixture? And why change practically all the rest, so that nothing but the barest of bones are left of this wonderful, chilly story? To the authors: if you have run out of ideas, why not stick to the original story since Dame Agatha was the genius of the potboiler? Now, let's talk abut the acting. As usual, we have a pantheon of great British actors, but why bother if they are restricted to churning out these horribly stilted dialogues?

Please avoid like the plague if you are Christie fan.

Agatha Christie wrote enough "Miss Marple" mysteries so that Masterpiece Theater should not have injected her character into MURDER IS EASY. (Was that really MURDER IS EASY or did the writers just borrow the title and names?) As if that was not enough of a production boondoggle, Miss Marple has been changed into an on-the-scene detective, terse, business like and not given to the meandering comments on village life that punctuates her personality in the original stories. Julia McKenzie's ability as an actress was indeed wasted in this rendition.

A "2" is given for good acting in a very poorly written script.

I don't get it - the majority of the audience watching these series are folks who have read and enjoyed the books. Why oh why must the producers screw them up so badly? They've taken a book that was *never* a Miss Marple book to begin with, inserted her in it and then twisted the plot around to make it almost unrecognizable. The only thing that's stayed the same are the character names. Oh, and who done it (but the reasons why she did everything she did are completely different from the book - why?). I really don't get it. I understand that TV series and books are two different animals - one can't be exactly the same as the other. But throwing in big plot points (illegitimate pregnancies, adoptions, "simple" siblings) that were never there to begin with and skipping over actual plot points from the book is ridiculous and makes a real mockery of the line "Based on the novel by Agatha Christie." The previous Miss Marple series (the Joan Hickson one) hewed pretty closely to the books and was quite enjoyable. I'm giving it two stars because there are some really fine actors in it (would've given it one star otherwise). I guess the producers wanted the story to be modernized for today's audience, but I think that even an audience ignorant of the book (and again, probably NOT the majority) would've found the plot overdone. Dame Agatha must be spinning in her grave.

Be warned - though the title is from Agatha Christie and the character names are from the same book, this is NOT the Agatha Christie story and has no resemblance to it what so ever. The writers have gone ahead and written up their own story line and passed it off as Agatha Christie probably because they know no one would see the god awful mess if it were marketed under their own name. But putting Christie's name to your tripe is a great way to get some ignorant financier to pump in millions of dollars into getting your story made into a film. What a racket! If you want to know what the original story is - and it is a charmer by the way - bypass this rubbish and read the book.

I thought this was terrible, I don't understand why they rewrote the entire story. Why even call it an Agatha Christie story? Some of the things in this one she would never have written. She had a way of describing characters that the writers of this story can only dream of. This was like watching just another detective film. Leave Agatha Christie alone and call this something else. This is a good book with a good story, here they changed not only minor details but just about everything. The murderer had the same name as in the book, that was all. I liked Miss Marple though, she's better than the previous one. And the costumes and everything is always nice to watch.

Just read the book so I can't be all mistaken; there are no bees, no vicars, no bomber jacket clad sleuths on motorcycles chasing any long legged blonds, no election campaign going on – and certainly no left leaning young country doctor, in Agatha Christie's original with this title. Not even miss Marple is present in this odd little village with all its funerals, simply because it is not written as such! It is in fact no Agatha Christie story at all, except names and characters are used most hap hazardous. The only mystery is why this baffling yarn bears her (brand) name. If modern screenwriters are so ingenious, why not use their own names?

MAY INCLUDE SPOILERS Another disappointment! Why, oh why do the re-writers think that they can create a better mystery than Agatha Christie? Is it some complex or is it just the urge to destroy? "Murder is easy" is a very pleasant second-tier Christie that stands very well on its own. Of course, when the rewriters start their work, they make nonsense of the whole plot. For example, in the original, Miss Pinkerton is killed by being shoved onto the oncoming traffic. Fair enough. Here she is pushed down an escalator. Odds are that is such a case she would be bruised,perhaps have a number of broken limbs BUT SHE WOULDN'T HAVE DIED. Then we get a radical change of the motive of the crimes, to which for titillation(?) purposes we add an incestuous rape!!! Motivations are changed, Mr Abbot, a secondary character in the book develops into a blackmailer who has fathered an illegitimate child. I hope that the producers will come to their senses and offer us Agatha Christies which really represent the authors intentions. "A Pocketful of Rye" was very good. Why did they change the formula?