Agatha Christie's Marple The Pale Horse (2004–2013) Online

Yes there are bound to be the usual people that don't like it because Joan Hickson isn't in it and Miss M shouldn't be in it, but, she is here and i'm glad she is. Julia Mackenzie i think is making a wonderful Jane Marple and here she is wonderful, she is getting better with every outing. This is one of Christie's darker novels, I loved her work when she explored black magic and the occult. Fantastic casting, minor parts for class acts like Linda Baron and Nicholas Parsons. Tom Ward, Sarah Alexander, Jonathan Cake are fantastic, but i was so impressed at how good JJ Feild and Pauline Collins were. Heaps better then the ITV version from a few years ago. Seems that there is a lot of effort and money into making these films a visual treat. This is one of the best!!!

I like this Pale Horse better than the 1997 one which did not have a Miss Marple character. This one with Julie McKenzie as Miss Marple was very different than the 1997 version. There were a lot of surprises and intrigue.

As always in Miss Marple and the police work together and spend a lot of time at the end of the movie with all the characters explaining who did what and how they came to their conclusion of who committed the crime.

At the end it was a big surprise ending for me. I just did not expect the way it turned out. This movie had a lot of unexpected surprises and it made it very interesting.

The Pale Horse is one of Dame Agatha's later novels. Written in 1961, it is one of Agatha's best efforts in her later years, and I personally imagine it is one of the best novels she ever wrote, period. I love it more than her beloved masterpiece And Then There Were None, as a matter of a fact. It tells a brilliant tale of evil, and how the murder of a priest commences a series of events that— but you can read the back of the book for the summary. Its use of the occult and supernatural is brilliant, and highly reminiscent of the work of my favourite mystery author, John Dickson Carr, the master of the impossible mystery.

When this film was announced, I was immediately sceptic. After all, The Pale Horse is one of my favourite novels. What right had "they" to throw in Miss Marple? What else would they change? Would the murder of Father Gorman be committed because Gorman had sexually abused the murderer as a young altar server? Would the three sisters be lesbians? Would Miss Marple attend the supernatural show and perform all of her favourite chants? I was most furious of all about the casting of JJ Feild in the role of Mr. Osborne, who, those who have read the book will know, is the murderer. Mr. Osborne is a nearly retired chemist, and he is more than the 'eyewitness'—his character is there for a brilliant parody of amateur sleuths, as he begins to stalk Mr. Venables (who matched his description), coming up with complicated theories as to how Venables is not really a cripple and has managed to fool experts into swearing he is. He also claims to have trained himself to be able to recall any face, because he's always wished a murderer would try buying poison from him, so that he could go up to the witness stand. Feild, I claimed, was wrong for the role for so many reasons— he is young, attractive, and so forth. I was worried that my sexual harassment comment had been taken too literally by producers secretly stalking the Internet.

Now, all these pessimistic words of mine must solemnly be eaten. I've just seen the adaptation, and I think it may very well be the best of this fifth series. It is rather like By The Pricking of My Thumbs in Series 2: it takes some liberties, but effectively translates the feeling of the supernatural to the screen. Of course, it doesn't add alcoholics or anything as liberally as Thumbs did—in fact, it's surprising how faithful to the novel the adaptation is. True, Kanga and her husband did not appear in the book (Where's little Roo? Could they not have chosen a better name?), but their purpose here is to somewhat simplify the novel's complex plot to fit it into the 90 minute time frame. The Captain is murdered by Mr. Osborne in order to solidify his weak case against Mr. Venables, and this furnishes some vital proof to convict Osborne.

Now, to address my other major concern: JJ Feild's role. It pains me greatly to admit I was wrong. Feild turns in a brilliant performance as a very different Mr. Osborne. Paul Osborne is a lodger living in the same building as Mrs. Davis, the woman whom Father Gorman sees in the beginning of the story. I must acknowledge an excellent idea from the screenwriter, Russell Lewis (making his Marple debut). Some may know that The Pale Horse was a big part of the reason the "Bovingdon Bug" murderer was caught, and here, Mr. Osborne (now Paul Osborne) is very much like that murderer. Miss Marple reveals that he murdered at an early age, and thanks to psychology, he was allowed to walk free when a bunch of men in tight suits decided he'd been cured. His motive for the murders is the same as that in the book, and Feild is brilliant in his final scene, where he suddenly transforms from "that nice young man who's helping Miss Marple in this episode" into a full-out lunatic. No, he doesn't foam at the mouth and pick up a machete—it's little things that Feild does right. A glance, a nervous smile, some shifting in his seat, and so forth. True, in the flashback when he murders Gorman, he licks his lips a little ridiculously, but at this point, you are so engrossed that it doesn't seem all that bad. The layer of parody is lost, I'm afraid, and Miss Marple spins him a yarn that is basically full-out trickery instead of subtle clueing. But nonetheless, it is a brilliant idea by Mr. Lewis to take the real-life murderer and insert him into the story, adapting it, in a sense, around him.

The director is Andy Hay, also a Marple first-timer. His direction is also brilliant, as he does little things that suggest the sinister without becoming farcical about it. I'm also a big supporter of the series' music composer, Dominik Scherrer, who once again dishes out a brilliant score, eerie-sounding when it has to be, which works together with the director's vision, resulting in a considerably scary adaptation.

One more thing. Mark Easterbrook is not thrown in as an afterthought as other detectives in non-Marple stories have been (like Bundle Brent). He performs a role, and with Ginger's help stages a fight between the two. He then goes to engage the services of The Pale Horse. So the screenwriter avoided placing Miss Marple in silly situations she wouldn't have been caught dead in, and the result is gratifying.

The acting on all fronts was brilliant, and Miss Marple doesn't become too annoying. It's a very entertaining adaptation, probably more faithful to the novel in tone and in some aspects of plot than the older one. It's great fun to watch. I'm quite happy with what has been done.

Julia McKenzie is as good as Joan Hickson as the mischievous Miss Marple;both are closer to Christie's character than the sturdy Margaret Rutherford in George Pollock's sixties movies.

I read "the pale horse" a long long time ago but I remember the black magic,an unusual subject for the writer.Note that Ariadne Oliver was replaced by Jane Marple.The first sequences ,in a foggy street ,looks more like a Sherlock Holmes adventure ,but what remains takes place in one of these small villages where the old lady pulls the rug from Under the cop's feet.It includes a (mortal) equivalent of Viagra-not in the book-,a list of people who mysteriously died after staying in that "Pale Horse" (from the Apocalypse?),a priest who was murdered after confessing a dying woman,a secret ceremony in which the three witches invoke the evil spirits ,a man in a wheelchair who might be able to walk (and kill?).

1997's TV version was pretty good, I enjoyed it, it was dark and fairly true to the book. In 2010 they decided to make a spot for Jane Marple in it. Some of the reworked stories worked and some failed miserably. This was the success story. The basic premise of The Pale Horse is maintained, the main difference of course being that Jane Marple is included, I seem to remember The Seven Dials Mystery was due to be made and it was shelved in favour of this. I'm glad they did, this was a very dark, slick and enjoyable production. Julia McKenzie was an excellent Jane Marple, and she fitted in very well. The parts involving the witchcraft in the Hotel itself were brilliant, I loved Thyrza and Sybil, they were very sinister. Miss Marple once again proves to be more intelligent then the Police, as you'd expect. Plenty of surprises in store.

The Pale Horse mystery by Agatha Christie is arguably one of her best stories. It is a story that is on another level and more than just a motive by one of the characters. We saw an elaborate scheme or set up that was almost fool proof. Witchcraft was the supposed centre and cause for many so called natural deaths. Dig deeper and you see a non practicing lawyer taking bets for predicting the deaths and the owner of the Pale Horse Inn also collecting money for the witchcraft. However digging deeper you find the true head of the scheme who is a figure in the dark that actually executes these murders carefully and disguising murder as natural causes. This story is so intriguing and remarkable that perhaps adding action and thriller on a bigger scale would be worthy of a James Bond film.

However the film adaptation was poorly executed. The story was told so badly that it was hard to follow in its entirety. Often stories are paced very badly. You have close to nothing revealed in 3/4 of the film and then a big complex story with no backstory is given quickly to close the case. The audience is wondering how we jumped from A to Z. Sadly a few Poirot episodes have followed the same trend with little revealed throughout and a hasty summary at the end. A good film would have clues distributed evenly before the big reveal. Overall great story but poorly told and portrayed.

Okay, it isn't easy finding enough Miss Marple stories in the Christie canon to create a full-fledged series. But the producers have done a nice job of wedging her into one of Christie's most ingenious tales. Like "The Mirror Crack'd," "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" and "Murder on the Orient Express," the tale features a wonderfully original plot device -- in this case, a whole new approach to contract killing. Throw in a kind of British take on re-creating the Salem witch trials and you have a mordantly murky and entertaining mystery. Purists may take umbrage at Miss Marple wandering off her own turf to solve a series of seemingly occult murders. But if it's a well-told mystery (as this one is) and doesn't otherwise twist Dame Agatha's story, why not?

A close friend of Miss Marple, Father Gorman, is savagely beaten to death while on his way to see one of his ailing parishioners, Mrs Davis. Miss Marple is deeply upset and suspects it wasn't a random act of violence. She received a letter from him shortly after his death, listing names and a Bible verse from Revelation. Mrs Davis, who died the same night as Father Gorman, had a similar list. There may be sinister forces afoot.

Quite clever and reasonably intriguing. Miss Marple herself is as dull as ever but the case is puzzling and quite dark, making for a suspenseful episode.

One or two interesting sub-plots too.

The Pale Horse has some fine actors and performances, albeit a few chosen for popularity rather than their acting prowess. The production value is without fault and Julia McKenzie delivers another strong turn as Miss Marple.

As another long-term fan of Agatha Christie - I was introduced at a young age by my mother, and as someone with a reading difficulty, having me watch the televised version first helped me develop my reading skills - I get upset when people attack these versions of the stories, just because there are changes to suit the storyline. It's like criticizing art that has come from a school of a great painter. While some elements of the stories haven't been handled with the greatest of care, these new updated versions are bringing the world of Jane Marple to a younger audience. I like to take each tele movie as a story on its own - I can see the distinct differences, but can appreciate why sometimes it is necessary to adapt the stories to meet the needs of modern set of viewers, whose attention span and ability to read between the lines might not be as astute. I personally have watched Margaret Rutherford, Helen Hayes, Joan Hickson, Angela Lansbury, Geraldine McEwan and Julia McKenzie all play the role, and for my generation I prefer Joan Hickson onwards. Watching Margaret Rutherford as Marple puts me to sleep as those productions are slow and plodding. For the purist out there, these stories were not aimed at you, but rather at a cross sectional transcontinental audience. Considering the many levels they have to appeal to, I think they do very well.

If Ms. Christie's books are to appeal to the next generation, the stories will have to adapt slightly to appeal to them.

As soon as I saw this production titled as Miss Marple I groaned. The book is narrated by Mark Easterbrook who helps solves the crime and Miss Marple is nowhere to be seen. Yes I'm a purist (as one reviewer describes those of us who wonder why screenwriters have to re-hash Ms Christie's stories). The book/story doesn't need to be changed or dragged into the 21st century, it's set in the late 1950's/1960's and is a very good read. It doesn't need to be dumbed down as the writers of this current series of Miss Marple think. I don't like Julie McKenzie as Marple and won't be watching her again (what does she have in her mouth? 'yesh', she says, 'I'm shomewhat apprehenshive myshelf' and 'show, to the lashht shhtep' aaghh). Anyway, from an extremely good book, with an excellent story, this production is a third rate amateur effort (Pauline Collins comes to mind). I can understand one reviewer not understanding what was going on, and another reviewer wondered where all Miss M's clues come from; the screenwriter messed up.All I can say is read the book. Please.

I have been a fan of Agatha Christie for about eight years now, reading her books and the adaptations based on her work. I just love her compelling stories, memorable characters and atmosphere you get when reading. The Pale Horse I was sceptical of, the book is wonderful and one of the best of her later works and I was worried it would be another Sittaford Mystery, Nemesis or At Bertram's Hotel. While not the best of the series, The Pale Horse is far better than I thought it would be, and I was actually expecting it to be worse than it was.

My only real quibble is the pace, the middle segment dragged a bit and had a couple of scenes that either didn't move the story forward as much as ought to have done or were a little too long. That said, the dialogue has its good spots, and the direction is solid on the whole with some interesting little things. The story is compelling mostly even with the changes, it is coherent with a very impressive, chilling atmosphere and intriguing final solution, while the production values are superb with beautiful photography and settings and the music just adds to the atmosphere the adaptation does have. The acting is very good, Julia McKenzie is a terrific Miss Marple and JJ Field also stands out as he manages to do something special with a role that could have been uninteresting or obvious, everything from the body language, voice, face and little things were very well done and contributed to a very good performance.

All in all, much better than I thought it would be. Is it a faithful adaptation? Things are changed certainly, but it is not a complete re-write, and very watchable on its own terms. 8/10 Bethany Cox

It's been years since I read the Agatha Christie canon -- and I read every one -- but I don't remember all of them well enough to do a comparison with the book to the movie.

"The Pale Horse" is a Christie book that does not feature Jane Marple, and yet, here she is. Before I go on, I need to say one thing. I don't know why the producers of this series decided to change Christie's stories. However, Acorn Media owns something like 67% of the Christie estate, and apparently, in the negotiations, Christie's relative, Mathew Pritchard, who heads the estate, put no restrictions on the sale. So all of this is okay with the estate. In other words - if they don't care, why should we?

In this story, Miss Marple receives a letter from an old friend, Father Gorman, with a list of names and a Biblical quote. The same day she receives the letter, she reads that Gorman was murdered right after attending to a dying woman.

Miss Marple is right on it, traveling to the area where Mrs. Davis lived and checking out her room. There, she finds the same list. On tracking down the names, she finds out that all of the people have recently died. She also discovers a reference to the Pale Horse Inn, which ties in with the Bible quote. She stays at the inn and begins to investigate.

I found this particular movie a little confusing and hard to follow. The subplots were not woven in together as well as they should have been, making it a little disjointed. I did like Julia McKenzie, who is a fine actress.

I wouldn't say this is one of the best of the series, but it's okay.

While not a total disaster, THE PALE HORSE leaves a lot to be desired in the way of a coherent plot that gives us a Miss Marple who wraps everything up very tidily without giving the viewer any idea of how she gets her clues. Indeed, her explanation for the killer's rationale is a textbook study in psychoanalysis as well as a Sherlock Holmes display of knowledge she couldn't possibly have given the dearth of clues.

JULIA McKENZIE, however, does a nice job, settling into her role as Miss Marple with professional poise and ease. And making a strong impression is JONATHAN CAKE as Mark Eastebrook, a character I understand is given much more prominence in the original story. The others do well in supporting roles and there's some juicy atmosphere throughout with costumes and settings doing nicely to sustain the mood of the piece. The supernatural witchery seems more like a red herring thrown in for whatever value it adds to the story about shady goings-on at an inn called "The Pale Horse." The basic plot outline is close to the Agatha Christie original, but as usual the writers have made changes that will upset purists.

The drawback here is that Miss Marple seems to possess detailed information about the criminal that is mind-boggling considering how scarce the clues actually are. Miss Christie never convinces us that Miss Marple could possibly have detected the killer in a back story with so many fabrications.

Simply too ghastly for words is how awful... I am afraid. A disaster. Inserting Miss Marple into a story where she does not belong does not make an Agatha Christie Marple story. What it does, is shift the entire story off balance. Mark Easterbrook, far from being a very young painter in his early twenties, is a care-worn middle-aged man; since his role is now a bit part, a complete transfer of his role in the tale having gone to Miss Marple, he drifts about, mostly redundant in his own story. As if this were not depressing enough, some of the pivotal scenes of the story, including the scene in the flat which leads Easterbrook to his conclusion, are dismissed in a "blink and you'll miss it..." flashback. Osbourne is along for the ride.... but has little else to do... The whole witch scene was entirely farcical, the writhing on the cushions and the possessed voice routine was simply pathetic. Throughout the scene Jonathan Cake looked as though he wanted to be somewhere else. A feeling that neatly sums up what I felt watching it.

Here we go again! The screenwriters in this "Marple" series just cannot resist trying to improve the non-improvable and failing utterly. When are they going to pay attention to the original Christie plots?

I can accept the replacement of Adriane Oliver by Jane Marple, but the original tale is narrated by Mark Easterbrook an historian (not an artist...that was the Colin Buchanan character in the movie version), and as sarahmarquis has observed Mark plays little part in this TV production.

Once again we are treated to additional characters (and deletion of others), additional subplots (which are either supplied as added and unnecessary red herrings, or for the producers to get the most out of their screenwriter for their money), and a different denouement. Thankfully the original culprit was retained. Notwithstanding, unlike some episodes of this unfortunately dreadful and seemingly endless "Marple" series, the overall plot of this tediously slow paced version of The Pale Horse is actually recognisable to the original Christie novel...but only barely. It's still pretty awful, but I give it an extra star in admiration of those poor suffering actors who managed to stay awake during the making of it. I fell asleep twice in the watching of it.

I wasn't going to bother reviewing this film until I came onto IMDb to see what others had thought of it and found only one review. This one review essentially says "how awful is this going to be", which is a sentiment that the same user put on the title message board some months before she actually saw the film. Unsurprisingly she came out with the same opinion she went in with and, while this doesn't mean she is "wrong", it certainly makes me question what the film had to do to make her think otherwise since many of the criticisms she has of the film she had already made when the film was in post-production. Anyway, reviewing a review is a bit more meta than I intended it to be, so on to the film itself.

As any fan of Christie will tell you (well "shout" more than "tell"), ITV's Marple series is a travesty that should be dealt with before we get onto sorting out the many political and natural disasters in our world. The Pale Horse will do nothing to temper this cry since it is another book which doesn't feature Miss Marple and has been rewritten to do so. Not having read the book I cannot comment on this but I can sort of understand why anyone who loves this book would hate such a "butchered" version of it. On the other hand though, as long as it produces an enjoyable mystery drama for a Sunday (or on this occasion, Bank Holiday Monday) evening then I will be happy enough and will leave the "travesty" cries to others.

Sadly the truth is closer to the existing review than I would have liked because generally this isn't up to much. The central plot is a bit of nonsense and could easily have been played up for fun in the way that ITV did with The Moving Finger but surprisingly the colour and supernatural nature of the plot is actually delivered in a rather dull fashion. There doesn't seem to be a spark to it and there is an earnestness to it that nothing here justifies. The effect is to make it hard to care about what is going on – which is a bit of a problem in a film where you do need to pay attention so that, even if you don't totally follow it, at least you have fun being led round the streets during the telling. It is made worse by having quite a lot going on in what is a reasonably simple plot (once you get to the solution) – or if not a lot going on then certainly a lot of people milling around.

McKenzie does alright in the most part but personally I still cannot get over the fact that her Marple looks for all the world like Jim Broadbent doing panto. She is solid enough though and I think her delivery does deserve a strong film around her. Parsons makes a small appearance in a cast cluttered with UK TV "faces" such as Planer, Valance, Collins, Alexander and others. Some (Collins) are quite fun while others (Valance) just seem like unnecessary clutter. Generally though, there are too many faces making too little of an impression in a story that I was struggling to really care about. While some may focus their complaints on the film's merits as a version of the book, I personally find the problem with it to be that the version they did deliver was not particularly good – whether it is the same as the book or not is secondary to me and, had it worked, I wouldn't have cared.

Another thing worth noting is not really the film's fault, but I'll still mention it – adverts. I rarely watch "live" television. I'll record stuff to watch later or (mostly) I watch whole seasons from box-sets at a pace I decide. So watching this as it was broadcast was quite a thing because it was so fragmented by adverts. It is bad enough that 30 minutes of the 2 hours is adverts, but they are so frequent as well that it only served to hurt the film more. I realise that on commercial television these are needed to pay for things, but it did serve to remind me why I generally try and avoid stuff live.

I guess in some ways one should feel sorry for ITV. It has had this Marple series for some time now and, while I presume its Sunday night comfort-viewing slot gets viewers, I cannot think of many that I have really loved – "solid" is generally the best it gets and some of them are awful. This is in my mind because this Marple film came on shortly after the BBC finished its very well received (by critics and viewers) updating of Sherlock Holmes – a show that was engaging, fun, entertaining and accessible. Those worried about the future of ITV must only have more to think about when they contrast Sherlock with this rather dry, dull and cluttered film here.

It is a pity that the writers of this film and all the other Julie MacKenzie "Miss Marple" films think that they can write a better story than the greatest read (apart from The Bible and the dictionary) writer of all time. As with most of Julie MacKenzies "Miss Marple" films, Miss Marple does not appear in the original story and any resemblance between this and the original story is purely coincidental......if they must bastardize an original story.....please change the name of the film !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please Miss MacKenzie don't do any more of these filmsm but ......If you must please make it a condition that they change the title name/s

I live for Mystery from PBS, especially when it is concerning an Agatha Christie production. So looked forward to "The Pale Horse". And there might be some SPOILERS INVOLVED when I ask my questions!! My good comments: 1)Costumes, props,scenery, and cars-EXCELLENT!! 2)Acting-stellar

Now for the Bad: I didn't get it!! Quite simply, all I got was people were dying who stayed at The Pale Horse. Then Jane Marple goes to this guy and he alludes to a betting game where he bets when someone will die. Why? How did people find out about him and his services? Why was the Pale Horse involved? Who was Paul Osbourne? The owner of this mysterious, and alluded to murder by hire company that was hired by the disbarred lawyer? Why did the first woman victim die? Why was the priest killed? Why was the maid sleeping with her boss with his wife's approval and how was that part of the plot if the wife was okay with him sleeping around? And why was that man killed and who hired Paul Osbourne to kill him? Instead of Jane Marple explaining stuff at the end, it left me in a fog of bewilderment and not understanding any of it. Why were the three women doing witchcraft but then it turned out it was just harmless? I could go on and on with the questions, but as I said before, I was left with more questions than when I first started watching it. I guess I will go check out the 1997 version of it,maybe it will explain more, or perhaps I can wait until they make a remake of this one,and hopefully it will make more sense, since it seems a lot of the Jane Marple shows have been remade with each new actress who plays her.

I would like to say it was a waste of an hour and a half but the costumes,acting, and scenery made up for the uncomprehensible plot. I guess I'll move the book, "The Pale Horse" up to the top on my "To Read List."

I'm not one of those to bash the film just because it doesn't completely and exactly mirror the book. I didn't read it anyway, so judging from what we actually saw in the movie, it's safe to say that gloomy, dark whodunits go very well with the rural, romantic landscapes of English countryside. The production is on its usual high level with Julia McKenzie in the role of Jane Marple, and she actually manages to pull it rather well off. I never really liked Joan Hutchingson, so McKenzie fit the bill much better. The Pale Horse is a small town inn where Marple stays to inquire into the murder of her friend, father German, who dies the same day she received his the letter,after tending to a dying woman who gives it to him, with a list of names. What follows is a series of murders all of which are somehow linked to the The Pale inn, whose owners present themselves as witches with special powers able to control other people's psyche. Eventually, Marple discovers that there's nothing surreal about the murders and lures the culprit into the light by one of the most impressive twists I've seen in the Marple series. The downside is that it takes a bit of time until you work out the connections between the characters and their motives, and it's somehow clear from the very start that the inn owner is up to no good. There are certain echoes of "The Ninth Gate" here, albeit probably unconscious. All in all, good Sunday fun in spite of a few rough spots along the way.

As someone who usually finds the Miss Marples character supremely irritating and Agatha Christie stories somewhat trite, superficial & boring I was surprised at the fact that I kind of enjoyed this one. I don't care what was in the book or whatever and yes it was a bit muddled and asked for a great deal of suspension of disbelief. None of that mattered to me. The Marples character was actually delightful (for a change) and the cast was interesting and all mildly amusing - like a parody - but still with a ripping little whodunnit yarn as the main focus. If you're not overly invested in the book and just want a bit of light entertainment this will probably do ya. I did giggle at one review who compared Agatha Christie's books to the Bible. I mean come on guys, Christie wrote formulaic, generic, trivial, superficial but entertaining mystery stories. She's not some kind of a God, she's just an author.

In comparison to the older TV version of the same Agatha Christie book, which was made in 1997 and which I also watched just a couple of days ago, this one boasts superior production values and generally better casting, but it still can't overcome the main problem with this story: the fact that anyone even vaguely familiar with Agatha Christie's motifs will know instinctively that the entire Pale Horse - modern witches section of the plot is merely one big red herring, as anything involving the supernatural almost always is with Christie. Elsewhere, however, this film can surprise the unsuspecting viewer, especially since the character who turned out to be "the man behind the curtain" of the entire diabolical operation in the previous version does not exist in this version at all! I'm assuming the older version was more faithful to the original text, however the essentials of the story can be located in this version as well. Julia McKenzie is an ideal Miss Marple, and I particularly liked the police inspector of this episode: he starts out like most of the others ("Don't interfere, Miss Marple, this is a police matter"), but he quickly realizes how beneficial it would be for him if he worked with her and not against her, so he treats her like an unofficial partner. **1/2 out of 4.