Marple: The Body In The Library Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
BBC Adaption of Agatha Christie's novel. In the small village of St. Mary Mead, Colonel and Mrs. Bantry, owner of the local manor - Gossington Hall is shocked when one morning a young lady's body is found in the library. They call in the police who soon run up against a brick wall, only finding out that the body is that of a dancer in London who the Bantry's didn't even know. But how and why was her body left in the library? To find out the truth, the Bantry's call in the help of their good friend and detective - Miss Jane Marple.
| Geraldine McEwan | Miss Jane Marple |
| Ian Richardson | Conway Jefferson |
| Tara Fitzgerald | Adelaide Jefferson |
| Jamie Theakston | Mark Gaskell |
| Giles Oldershaw | Edwards |
| Florence Hoath | Pamela Reeves |
| Joanna Lumley | Dolly Bantry |
| James Fox | Colonel Arthur Bantry |
| Simon Callow | Colonel Terence Melchett |
| Ben Miller | Basil Blake |
| Emma Cooke | Dinah Lee |
| Robin Soans | Dr. Haydock |
| Bruce Mackinnon | Scamper |
| Jack Davenport | Superintendent Harper |
| Mary Stockley | Josie Turner |
| Andy Wilson |
6.40 out of 10 (316 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Oh dear
posted on 01 Mar 2009As an avid fan of Joan Hickson's performance I wasn't expecting much from this new adaptation and I wasn't disappointed.Now I'm not against remakes per se (otherwise most Shakespeare would just be Olivier). McEwan obviously realises that there is a danger of unfavourable comparison so wisely she place (Miss) Marple differently, Not so wisely she plays he as though she's bidding for a role in 'Last of the Summer Wine'! (And why does she keep screwing her face up, like that?).Sadly, McEwan shines against the rest of the cast. Simon Callow rockets to new levels of overacting, making Brian Blessed look like Michale Kitchen in comparison. The real tragedy however, is Joanna Lumley. Not only is she grotesquely miscast as Dolly Bantry, being much too young and glamorous, but she suddenly sens to decide to play the role as though it were Patsy's posh country cousin.All in all, ghastly. The only good thing is that the remaining stories can't be this bad. Can they?
Just plain awful!
posted on 22 Oct 2008Words can not express just how awful this new version of Miss Marple is, Agatha Christie & Joan Hickson must be turning in their graves! I can't understand why they felt the necessity to remake the series after the BBC had already produced the definitive version starring the brilliant Joan Hickson. Geraldine McEwan is simply horrible in the role & just because they've crammed it full of well known actors doesn't make it a good series. The only plus point is the return to our screens of the legendary actor 'Herbert Lom' in the 'Body in the Library' episode, apart from that forget it. If you want to see Miss Marple then catch a re-run of the BBC's classic series - pure perfection!
I jolly well liked it!
posted on 20 Oct 2008I can't believe how many negative comments I see here! I have read the books and am a fan of Agatha Christie. I also have seen Hickson, Lansbury and Rutherford embody the dotty old lady with the razor-sharp brain. But there is room for McEwan, and to my mind there is NEED for her. Miss Marple is a wonderful creation, but after a while the premise, and the endless little gossipy asides and prim teacosy-ness wear a bit on one. That is why this clever re-thinking is so very welcome. Not only the clever move to the fifties, with its very different, more edgy world, but the idea that Marple is not so shockable. Take the idea that this is an old lady who has more to her than meets the eye, and expand on it. Lesbians, extra-marital sex and so forth shouldn't shock her; she solves murders! Plenty have commented that there is too much over-acting. But it's just that wonderful high-camp quality, the lurid and fun technicolour element shown on the original paperback cover art that's being celebrated here. And for those who complain of Miss Marple's shabby cottage, the 1950s in Britain were lean years. This is Marple with a difference, and I think it's a very welcome difference, and something to be revelled in. Simon Callow's arch pompousness is delicious! Joanna Lumley's eyebrow-raising and hooty laugh is hilarious! And McEwan is subtle, detailed and above all, fun. And why not? And get those frocks!
What the heck???
posted on 02 Oct 2008I was SO disappointed by this version of "Body in the Library"- it had such great potential! An excellent Miss Marple (So much better than Margaret Rutherford or Angela Lansbury! lol!) and it was so much fun to see Jack Davenport in a role that was quite different from his role in "Pirates of the Caribbean" (He's actually quite handsome without that silly white wig!)and the movie stayed quite close to the book... until the ending! Can you tell me WHY they felt the need to change the ending of Dame Agatha's famous book? Like, what's with that? I felt so violated after watching this movie- changing the m.urderers to two lesbian lovers was so totally ridiculous! That's not what was in the book and it so completely did not fit! The nerve of some people to change the ending of a famous book just to fit their own political agendas, to me is mind boggling! If you want to make your own mystery about two homosexual lovers who decide to m.urder someone- than go ahead- you have that right- but why feel the need to tamper with an already famous novel and then tout it as being based on an Agatha Christie mystery! That's just false advertising and I was so angry! Which is a huge disappointment because this movie could have been so good!
Why did they change the end?
posted on 16 Sep 2008I saw a murder is announced and was very impressed. After that I read the book a murder is announced and a body in the library too. Last night I saw body in the library and I thought it was alright until the end! Why did they change it? First they follow the book and then they change the murderer into a woman and a lesbian! I don't have any problems with lesbians or anything like that, I just didn't understand why they changed the end. I think the ending in the book is a lot better! If I hadn't read the book I probably would've liked it. I haven't seen any other miss marples so I can't compare it to them.Also I think that Geraldine McEwan was a bit weak in this episode. I gave it a 5 because I thought rest was okay.
Ugh...
posted on 11 Aug 2008I shouldn't have bought a damn collection of Miss Marple movies with Geraldine McEwan, it was really a mistake, I spent money for nothing. First of all, probably if you didn't read the book you'll like this episode, I enjoyed it until certain point! However, there's a lot of mistakes in the cast, in the story and overcoat in the final ending. I've never seen Joan Hickson playing Miss Marple but I am pretty sure that she's much much better than Geraldine McEwan (who is, actually, the first Marple I've ever seen acting)! Geraldine McEwan acts like she was a nice, kind and very happy lady, she's not the fluffy Miss Marple, she's a kind of grandmother who likes to smile and be kind and nice with everyone else, she tries to hard. The episode itself wasn't good at all when we talk about the acting - Dolly Bantry wasn't convincing (she was like so worried about how people would treat her and Dolly was really thrilled and excited in the novel), Mark Gaskell hadn't that 'bad boy look', but he wasn't awful, he was OK, Josephine Turner was nothing like she was portrayed in the episode (Josie was smart and clever, she wanted to love... she was a person that wouldn't love a woman! It's really weird!), Adelaide Jefferson is so strange (until certain point she sounded really really good but the lesbian thing made the character a lame), the only good acting was Conway Jefferson's, the girl who plays Pamela Reeves is really interesting, Basil Blake and Dinah Lee are well portrayed, that little boy, Peter Carmody, was somewhat captivating (and he didn't appear much), Melchett, Harper and Raymond Starr were okay. The spirit is well captured, the hotel, the village (the village isn't nothing much but it's okay) and the character of Ruby Keene is well captured. I found the episode really, really enjoyable in the beginning, good sets, a delight!! But the end destroyed all the magic and essence of the episode. "I love you, Adelaide!"?? "I also love you, Josie!"... and that kiss was really unnecessary. Hollywoodish and disrespectful to Agatha Christie, such a great novel destroyed by such a commercial episode! Are you imagining Miss Marple discussing lesbianism and sex?? Okay, it's weird. "Cards on the table" was terribly adapted, however, "Body in the library" is really worst, it really is!! How dare they to produce such things? Yes television and literature are different things but producers haven't any need to do things like this. The unique thing I've got to say is "Ugh... it's disgusting!".
"All-Star cast, Major Disappointment."
posted on 30 Jun 2008When I heard that ITV were playing the re-make the Miss Marple series, I feared that the new episodes would be too modern, and not at all credible; and after watching this story, my fears were confirmed.I was firstly disgusted when I saw that the 'Miss' had been removed from the title - why? Part of the charm of the Miss Marple stories are the wonderful period details and the 'old-fashioned-ness' of it all, and by dropping the 'Miss', to me it feels as though some of that charm has gone - it seems too modern.The time limit is also too short for the story to develop in any way - the original, made by the BBC and featuring the great Joan Hickson, was at least 155 minutes long, but split into two parts, so that it was easily digestible for the viewer. The characters in this adaptation are not given enough time to develop, and such great actors as Edward Fox are practically completely cut out.Geraldine McEwan is also clearly not made for the part of 'Marple', as I presume that she must now be known, as 'Miss' is too fusty and old-fashioned, apparently. Her portrayal is too outwardly proud and smug; in the books and in the brilliant original adaptations with Joan Hickson, Miss Marple was very scatty on the outside, but inside the viewer could tell that she had a mind as sharp as a meat cleaver. This is what made Joan Hickson's performance so convincing, and faithful to the original descriptions of Miss Marple in the books. McEwan is also too racy as Miss Marple - can one really imagine the Miss Marple of the books, and Joan Hickson's excellent Miss Marple, sitting at a bar stool, and talking about such things as sex and lesbianism? Also, the writers tamper with Christie's original intricate plot to include a modern and completely unnecessary lesbian denouement, which seems quite ridiculous and not in context with when the story is set (1950's England). They even go so far as to change the identity of the murderer from the one in the book to authenticate this absurd and unwelcome 'plot-twist'. Also, the inclusion of a totally pointless back-in-time story to Miss Marple having an affair with a married man back in 1915 is a total waste of time, and uses up time that could actually be used to develop the important plot. I fear that we are to be subjected to more of this 'affair' story in the remaining three episodes.One final thing - why does McEwan carry around that huge monstrosity of a bag? In the books it does state that Miss Marple is often seen with a "big handbag." However, McEwan appears to be carrying a picnic hamper with her! It is quite ridiculous.It was not necessary to re-make the Miss Marple (sorry - 'Marple') stories after Joan Hickson so magnificently played them during the 1980's. I know that I am repeating myself, but her performance really was the definitive. McEwan seems uncomfortable in the role, the plots have been tampered with too much, and the period detail is in some places inaccurate. Bad show, ITV, bad show.
Absolute rubbish
posted on 05 May 2008What a waste of time and money.I could understand wanting to remake the books as I was not 100% pleased with Joan Hickson (a bit too dark in her portrayal). But this production is more like "Lucia Moves to St Mary Mead" than anything else.GM is woefully miscast as are most of the players. British actors used to be so good at playing characters from times past but lately this and other programs have made me wonder what the acting teachers are telling the younger generations.A great shame. This was a worse choice than David Suchet as Poirot. I enjoyed Finney's Poirot despite what other fans have said. Suchet has made the role far too effeminate for my liking, but at the very least the shows were enjoyable up until the last two sets of episodes which have changed things more than they needed to be. But this latest incarnation of Miss Marple is just too much to handle. Please, someone resurrect Margaret Rutherford!
A change for the better? Not with this one!
posted on 22 Mar 2008The denouement change of "The Body in the Library" was original to say the least, but ridiculous, and quite pointless. It did nothing for the unnecessary enhancement of Agatha Christie's reputation as the "Queen of the Whodunnits". If producers and directors think they can do better, they should write their own novels. They could then muck those up to their hearts' content.Why this new series of "Marple" was ever made in the first place is quite beyond me. I've seen all the Miss Marple screenings (and read all the books), and the only actress to really perfect the character was the magnificent Joan Hickson, and her efforts are all still readily available, and repeated on TV quite regularly.Geraldine McEwan brings a pleasant quirkiness into the character, and in her own way is very good, but somehow it's just not quite right, and as in "4:50 from Paddington", those who thought they knew better just had to tart up the novel. I do wish they would retain the story lines and keep them sensible".
A darker version of the Miss Marple Stories
posted on 23 Feb 2008I like this new series that ITV are screening at the moment. I didn't know what to expect but having seen first couple of episodes, the first being "The Body in the Library" I am quite impressed.Though there is a bit of poetic license in some of the plots I have to admit it gives the Miss Marple stories a lot more "OOMPH", I think Agatha Christie would have liked that, for she always hinted of a darker side to human nature in many of her books, and her creation Miss Marple was a ruthless woman in her own right, hiding behind cups of tea, inane chit-chat and lace gloves.Geraldine McEwen is superb as the devilishly clever Miss Marple, and the sting in the tale in this episode is one that I think Agatha Christie would have loved but never have dared to put in her books when she wrote them all those years ago.I am looking forward to this series and I hope more of Agatha Christies are given this dark but curiously addictive update by ITV in the future.
Wonderful Cast - Terrible Script
posted on 07 Feb 2008I agree with the previous reviewer that Joan Hickson was THE Jane Marple. Geraldine McEwan is a fine actress (see "The Magdalene Sisters"), but not in this role. Helen Hayes and Margaret Rutherford were also great actresses, but their portrayals of Jane Marple were also inferior to Hicksons. Jane Marple was a gossipy old village lady who was a keen observer of human behavior coupled with superior deductive skills. Hickson captured that character better than any other actress.The cast in this remake is strong, but superb acting can't make up for a bad script and bad directing. TR Bowen's scripts were faithful to the books and were also very quotable. Stephen Churchett's script suffers by comparison though the blame should be shared with the producers and director.
Debacle!
posted on 14 Oct 2007ATTENTION! CONTAINS SPOILERS! This film is a major disappointment. It remains very faithful to the original novel and then at the end, at the moment of the solution introduces a so-called twist (to make it more modern?)by changing the sex of one of the murderers. Instead of secretly married couple, the murderers are now a lesbian couple, a development that is completely alien to the entire novel and, also, to the movie up to that last moment. The change in sex is forced in the screenplay, with absolutely no rhyme or reason and makes nonsense of the motive and the entire plot. Pity! Miss Marple was hardly convincing. Again in an effort to"modernize" the plot we see her drinking spirits and behaving in a way completely alien to the character.
entertaining, but the plot doesn't really work
posted on 16 Sep 2007WARNING - SPOILER ALERT! it's not till the end, and i have put a second warning down below so that if you want you may read my comments till that point.i disagree with many reviewers here, so i figured my comments might be useful to some.1 - i think geraldine mcewan makes a wonderful miss marple. joan hickson was good, yes, but i do enjoy the cheekiness and energy than mcewan adds in her portrayal. hickson always seemed like she was about to keel over at any minute.2 - the production values on this episode - the sets and locations, costumes, the saturated colors of the film - are lovely and quite enjoyable in themselves.3 - overall, i was amused/entertained by the slightly over-the-top acting in this episode (the other one i've seen is "a murder is announced". it was much more subtle, and very enjoyable in its own way). but, simon callow, who i generally love, completely got on my nerves. his was WAY over-the-top acting, and it was totally irritating. hamming rather than acting. for a talent like him to do that is unfortunate. oh well.4 - but the clincher - the plot absolutely DOESN'T WORK AT ALL. the switch in plot from the book to the movie seems to have forgotten that murderers need to have a MOTIVE. argh! i haven't read the book, so i can't compare it (actually, i wish i did know what the actual plot was! i'm still trying to figure out how it actually would make SENSE...) so... to get into more detail....**** SPOILER ****what is the motivation for the lesbian lovers to kill ruby? i don't see any at all! if they want to run off together, they could just up and leave, no? how at *all* did ruby threaten that? i agree with another commenter that the little girl would not believe that a woman was a big deal movie director. also, all SORTS of other things are left hanging (perhaps in the book too, i dunno). how'd the murderer get into the film star's house? how'd she know nobody'd be there? the film star is totally drunk when he drags the body into the library... you even see him using the handrail in the library when leaving... hello, FINGERPRINTS? speaking of dragging bodies around, how does josie get the body out of the hotel without anyone noticing? staff etc? and how does she get the keys to that guy's car? there are just WAY, way too many things left unexplained/implausible for this to be a really satisfying murder mystery. i'm left frustrated.oh and also, i find it unfortunate that this movie ends up showing lesbians as being crazy enough for murder. of course smart people won't draw that conclusion but the way it all works is - all of a sudden you find out they're lesbian and then - boom! that's why they killed ruby... uh, great. what a wonderful stereotype to promote.
The plot is given no time to breath and the cast ham it up for reasons that are never clear
posted on 16 Sep 2007The Bantry's wake up in their home one morning to find the body of a young woman they have never seen before, lying in their library. They duly call the police and the girl is identified as a dancer from the Majestic hotel (several towns away) and the time of death is established. However, with more of a link to the girl than he realised and no alibi for the time of the murder, Colonel Bantry finds himself a suspect at worst and a point of gossip at best. Mrs Bantry decides to get away for a bit and, hoping to clear her husband's name, asks her friend Miss Marple to accompany her to the seaside and the Majestic Hotel, to carry out their own investigation.Despite not being a fan of the ITV Marple films, I always want to give them the benefit of the doubt because their version could be good, light mystery if it could avoid the problems. It sets itself out with the usual overdone and rather gaudy approach that ITV feel audiences want on a Sunday evening (personally I'll stick with 24 on Sky One). This approach could always make for fun but it somehow always fails to do so. The development and delivery of the story is rather too pushy and rushed – making for a strange feel where everything is played out with sinister music and not given time to breath.What really kills the film though is the cast. McEwan is a poor Marple and seems totally out of her depth – for much of this film she looked like some dottery old dear who had stumbled onto the set. Lumley therefore steps up to dominate but I'm not that keen on her and felt she was unconvincing. Fitzgerald is OK but maybe I only thought that because she plays opposite the charisma-free zone that is Jamie Theakston. On radio etc he can be relaxed and natural – here he is as stiff as week old bread and about as interesting. The support cast are impressive on paper but for some reason everyone seems to be overplaying it – Callow in particular is a massive piece of ham but he is well matched by Miller. Davenport varies between "cheeky cockney" and "Eastenders' gruffness", neither performance is any good though.Overall this is a strange mix of things that doesn't really work. The plot is forced and given no time to breath and fill out. The cast seem to have been told to overact for effect but the delivery of the rest of the film leaves them looking silly; yet again McEwan is weak and most of the others just ham for all they are worth.
Disappointing
posted on 04 Jul 2007Maybe I've watched the definitive Joan Hickson Miss Marples once too often and expected too much, but this did not live up to my expectations. The inclusion of David "Little Britain" Walliams, Jamie Theakston and the chap who played Myles in "This Life" did little to raise my confidence in the piece.Technically and visually it was very good, but the characterisation by Geraldine McEwan was too light hearted, as was the whole piece; it totally lacked the quiet menace it needed. Miss Marple herself should be a lot more sly and outwardly scatty, as she appears in the original books and in Joan Hickson's superb portrayals. McEwan makes her more like Mavis Riley in Coronation Street.If you want something thats easy to watch then this is for you. If you want to watch a Miss Marple mystery find a rerun of the BBC Joan Hickson series as it's far superior in every way.
Abysmal
posted on 24 Jun 2007This is one of the worst travesties I can imagine. Written and cast like a pantomime, even down to the two incredibly stupid policemen (supposed to be a chief constable and superintendent). Would an employee even now, let alone then, be allowed to hog a sun bed at the pool of a top hotel? (And did they really have those tan-enhancing reflectors back in 1950?)This and the other episodes I saw before giving up in horror appear to have been made by cynical producers convinced that celebrity casting, old cars and plush settings will sell the series to Anglophiles around the world and make lots of money. Tragically, I fear they are probably right.Get hold of the excellent 1980s series made by the BBC which caught beautifully the slow, period tempo of the stories and allowed the wonderful Joan Hickson to leave for us the definitive portrayal of Miss Marple.
Intriguing, handsomely produced, but too many alterations...
posted on 24 Jun 2007If the alterations to Agatha Christie's novel were only minor in nature, much of the criticism leveled at THE BODY IN THE LIBRARY would vanish, for it's a handsomely produced version of the story starring GERALDINE McEWAN as the inquisitive Miss Jane Marple.At least for most of the running time, this sticks pretty closely to the Christie tale about the body of a young girl being found in Colonel Bantry's (JAMES FOX) library, a woman who turns out to be a dancer from a high class hotel but with no obvious attachment to the Bantry household. Dolly Bantry (JOANNA LUMLEY), the colonel's daughter, invites Jane to play sleuth and investigate the case with her.It's another case where nothing is what it seems when the convoluted plot is finally unraveled and this is where the scriptwriters got into trouble by applying a twist to the identity of a murderous couple that was not present in the book. However, even with this flaw, the story makes a diverting viewing experience.Not that there aren't other flaws. The acting is all a little over the top, including such seasoned performers as SIMON CALLOW and JAMES FOX, while JACK DAVENPORT does an interesting job as Superintendent Harper. Davenport is an actor who was so brilliant in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY.No expense has been spared to give the production the look of an expensive movie and updating the story to the '50s does no real harm (the novel was written in the early '40s).I'm not a fan of GERALDINE McEWAN's interpretation of Miss Marple, too light-headed and never giving the appearance of the deep thinking that supposedly goes on below the surface.Summing up: Not as bad as some of the comments insist, and certainly worth watching for the cast alone.
Marple on TV
posted on 25 May 2007What a disappointment. After all the hype I was really looking forward to this programme. The central character Miss Marple looks like Harpo Marx but unfortunately we hear Miss Marpel's twee voice. She overacts horribly as indeed do most of the cast. It watches like a staff pantomime or a charity fund raiser. This really is such a waste as it is obvious that a lot of money has been spent on this, the settings are fabulous. Too many shouting actors obviously acting. Miss Marple has no gravitas or believability, she just cannot carry the load. She is not even in the same league as Joan Hickson or Margaret Rutherford. What a shame. And by the way what was the make of the car that was burnt out? Not the one we saw that's for sure.
A Bad Case Of Style Over Substance
posted on 27 Jan 2007In theory there is nothing wrong with revisiting classic Christie stories and characters - Poirot has been essayed a number of times (Finney, Ustinov, Suchet), and over the years we've had various spins on Miss Marple, ranging from Margaret Rutherford in the early 1960's to June Whitfield on BBC Radio.However, after the BBC's quite brilliant series from the 1980's, in which Joan Hickson used economy and subtlety to create a brilliant Marple, what more could be added? This new interpretation, with McEwan taking up the baton, fails where Hickson's succeeded. One of the joys of the BBC series was the ensemble work within each show, the characterisations and restraint displayed by each cast member, and Hickson being well served by each script. 2004's The Body In The Library is alive with theatrical over-acting of the worst kind, and all the 'star' turns (Callow, Davenport, Walliams, sadly even Lumley) simply bury McEwan's plain Jane under a thick layer of over-playing. Too often British actors confuse the crafts of stage and film acting, so here we have moods, thoughts and reactions being telegraphed rather than suggested.This latest version really offers nothing new, other than the 'twist' at the end... and let's just say that pedals a movie stereotype I thought we'd finally moved away from. I suspect Hickson's Marple would have viewed this whole sorry enterprise and said 'yes, well... all rather tawdry, don't you think?'.
- 1
- 2
Character development
posted on 25 Jul 2009seems totally unimportant to the makers of the latest Marple series (Geraldine McEwan). There are all kinds of camera angles and other modernizations but, frankly, I miss the slightly dowdy, underplayed subtlety of the Joan Hickson series. I miss recurring characters like Inspector Slack -- and the somewhat grungy, down-at-heel look of postwar 1950's England that characterized the earlier series and that I know for a fact is more authentic. I think McEwan is a fine actress but she seems almost too young and sprightly at times...puckish even. I've watched several of these episodes. At first, I was only going to watch episodes of stories I had not seen (Toward Zero, Ordeal By Innocence, etc) because they were not part of the Hickson series -- but I just watched At Bertram's Hotel and am totally and completely confused by the re-write. I think I'll skip Nemesis -- it's one of my very favorite Hickson episodes -- and Sleeping Murder, ditto.