This 1984 version of Ordeal By Innocence doesn't just fail as an adaptation, it also fails on its own terms too, the latter of which I always try to base my opinion of a film on. There are two adaptations(as far as I'm aware) of Ordeal By Innocence, this and the Geraldine McEwan adaptation. Neither really do the story justice and have similar problems to each other, but the McEwan version probably gives its actors more to do. The story is not perhaps masterpiece status, but it still has all the ingredients that make Agatha Christie so well worth reading. Just reading what it's about alone makes you want to engross yourself in the book and also watch an adaptation of it. Ordeal By Innocence is not a complete disaster. It does look good, it's well shot, slick and the costumes and sets are very handsome. Christopher Plummer is appropriately wry, Cassie Stuart is just lovely and lights up the film and while Faye Dunnaway deserved much more than a 2-3 cameo appearance she is quite memorable as a character who's easy to hate. However, while the cast is a who's who and were good on paper they don't have much to do. Donald Sutherland is rather workmanlike and Ian McShane brings some wit to his role but is given little to work with, while Annette Crosbie Sarah Miles are wasted and Michael Elphick- looking miserable with one of the worst Scottish accents I've ever heard on film- is embarrassingly bad. It's not surprising that most of the cast didn't register, because the characters are sketchy and not developed well at all. You have a vague sense of what their roles in the story are but little more than that, so it makes the audience find it difficult to properly care. The dialogue, when we could hear it, lacked flow and felt very flat. Same with the direction. The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to no suspense or life, and that is including the ending(further disadvantaged by the murderer being revealed way too early). So much so that I had a temptation to watch something else, something I don't want to feel from an Agatha Christie adaptation. And the music is just awful, overbearing and of the films I've seen recently it is by far the most out of place score I've heard for any film since watching 1965's Ten Little Indians(a film I actually liked). Overall, disappointing. 4/10 Bethany Cox
28 Reviews
Lifeless, low-grade tale.
gridoon7 April 2001
This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors ("Death On The Nile", "Evil Under The Sun") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot). The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat. (*1/2)
Mediocre rendition based on Agatha Christie novel with big name cast and atmospheric settings
ma-cortes18 July 2013
Yet another realization based on Agatha Christie novel in which there is a good cast who gives regular acting , nice set design , a twisted as well as confuse intrigue and logic absent . Dealing with an American Paleontologist called Dr. Arthur Calgary (Donald Sutherland) visits Mister Argyle (Christopher Plummer) to give him an address book that belongs to his son Jack Argyle , but the latter has been executed , condemned for murder his mother (all of Faye Dunaway's cameo is a black and white flashback) . Calgary has evidence that the convicted killer is innocent , but no one , neither a hard-nosed Police officer (Michael Elphick) modeled in American-style cop , nor villagers wish to reopen the case . Once the murder was solved , the real mystery began and Calgary learns that justice has been ill served in a small British community . After the clues have been shown we will get a chance to give the answer with Calgary finding out about the culprit at a twisted finale with outstanding surprises . Who is the killer? , can he find the true guilty?
The film is a detective story with Donald Sutherland as an amateur sleuth and in which you are the detective ; being middlingly shot , though filmmaker conjures up some atmospheric scenes . Too much red herrings it makes a little bit boring , pedestrian , endless and overlong . Stellar cast , but frankly wasted and interpretations are almost all phoned in . In the picture there is mystery , emotion , murders , suspense , pointless scenes and gorgeous outdoors . It packs a very good British support casting, such as : Sarah Miles , though miscast as Faye Dunaway's daughter , Ian McShane as Philip Durant , Diana Quick as Gwenda Vaughan , Annette Crosbie as Kirsten Lindstrom , Michael Elphick as Inspector Huish , George Innes as Archie Leach , and a young Phoebe Nicholls as Tina Argyle in some nudism scenes . The movie gets a lush costume design and acceptable production by known Cannon films , Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan , being well set in 1950s England, though being reallly cut because of budgetery reasons .
It contains colorful and glowing cinematography in Eastmancolor by excellent cameraman Billy Williams . Filmed on location in Dartmouth, Devon, England, UK . Dave Brubeck's unappropriate and anti-climatic soundtrack, including obstrusive jazz score that seems to belong to some other movie . Dave Brubeck replaced Pino Donaggio, who composed an enjoyable and sadly rejected musical score. The picture was a Box office flop , though received a Royal Premiere in the presence of HM Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip . The motion picture was regularly directed by Desmond Davis , containing some flaws, gaps and poor edition . Davis is an an expert on TV movies and television episodes , he also filmed some movies, such as : the notorious ¨Clash of titans¨, ¨Girl with green eyes¨ , ¨Smashing time¨, ¨The uncle ¨and a Sherlock Holmes flick , ¨The sign of four¨. Rating : 4.5/10 . Average, exclusively for hardcore fans of the star-studded cast.
The film is a detective story with Donald Sutherland as an amateur sleuth and in which you are the detective ; being middlingly shot , though filmmaker conjures up some atmospheric scenes . Too much red herrings it makes a little bit boring , pedestrian , endless and overlong . Stellar cast , but frankly wasted and interpretations are almost all phoned in . In the picture there is mystery , emotion , murders , suspense , pointless scenes and gorgeous outdoors . It packs a very good British support casting, such as : Sarah Miles , though miscast as Faye Dunaway's daughter , Ian McShane as Philip Durant , Diana Quick as Gwenda Vaughan , Annette Crosbie as Kirsten Lindstrom , Michael Elphick as Inspector Huish , George Innes as Archie Leach , and a young Phoebe Nicholls as Tina Argyle in some nudism scenes . The movie gets a lush costume design and acceptable production by known Cannon films , Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan , being well set in 1950s England, though being reallly cut because of budgetery reasons .
It contains colorful and glowing cinematography in Eastmancolor by excellent cameraman Billy Williams . Filmed on location in Dartmouth, Devon, England, UK . Dave Brubeck's unappropriate and anti-climatic soundtrack, including obstrusive jazz score that seems to belong to some other movie . Dave Brubeck replaced Pino Donaggio, who composed an enjoyable and sadly rejected musical score. The picture was a Box office flop , though received a Royal Premiere in the presence of HM Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip . The motion picture was regularly directed by Desmond Davis , containing some flaws, gaps and poor edition . Davis is an an expert on TV movies and television episodes , he also filmed some movies, such as : the notorious ¨Clash of titans¨, ¨Girl with green eyes¨ , ¨Smashing time¨, ¨The uncle ¨and a Sherlock Holmes flick , ¨The sign of four¨. Rating : 4.5/10 . Average, exclusively for hardcore fans of the star-studded cast.
Woeful
dave_cull14 July 2001
Without doubt the worst production of an Agatha Christie novel. For a start the musical score by Dave Brubeck is totally out of place in a Christie murder mystery. At some points in the movie the backgroung music is so loud it is actually difficult to hear the on screen dialogue. The music becomes overpowering and extremely irritating mid way through proceedings. However for me the worst part of this movie is probably the most appalling piece of casting ever seen. Michael Elphick is a good English actor but he is a cockney and his portrayal of a Scottish Policeman is dismal. His scottish accent starts badly and gets worse as things move on. At the end he looks embarrassed to be involved in such a uncoordinated mess of a movie.
The plot was wonderful, despite being buried in an overproduced, overstylized film.
susanjmaki35731 July 2006
I have never seen so much talent and money used to produce anything so bad in my entire life! As stated in other commentaries, a who's who of talent, such as, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Donald Sutherland, and many more were thrown together in a film that is not recognizable as an Agatha Christie story. I keep thinking of how it could be with the same cast, done the right way.
The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies. The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone. Dave Brubeck's progressive jazz soundtrack had me wondering if the wrong video was in the the case from the rental store. The music became more and more offensive as the plot progressed. It's hard to say whether the soundtrack or the annoying technique of repeating information from earlier scenes, was more offensive. From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one. It is not an Agatha Christie movie. Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery.
The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies. The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone. Dave Brubeck's progressive jazz soundtrack had me wondering if the wrong video was in the the case from the rental store. The music became more and more offensive as the plot progressed. It's hard to say whether the soundtrack or the annoying technique of repeating information from earlier scenes, was more offensive. From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one. It is not an Agatha Christie movie. Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery.
Far From Mrs. Christie's Best Film Adaptations
ragosaal5 November 2006
When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.
"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).
Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.
You won't miss much if you skip this one.
"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).
Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.
You won't miss much if you skip this one.
An Ordeal Alright.
rmax30482329 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.
Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.
Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.
Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.
The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.
Dullsville.
Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.
Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.
Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.
The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.
Dullsville.
One for fans of Dave Bruback! Christie's beware!
JohnHowardReid3 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Agatha Christie rides again, but, alas, the pleasures of this one are offset by a wildly inappropriate and cursedly intrusive jazz score by Dave Brubeck. Worse still, in order to accommodate Mr. Brubeck, several sequences are lengthened way past their palatable appeal. Some irritating editorial cross-cutting – even when attempting to be inventive – further dampens our enthusiasm, but nevertheless the movie ends up as a fairly suspenseful outing, well acted and atmospherically photographed against some fascinatingly unusual locations. Sutherland is aptly cast as the meddling do- gooder, but Dunaway is wasted in a few brief flashbacks. But the little usherette is delightfully pert. Indeed, most of the players are really excellent. Alas, for some unknown reason, the killer is revealed to the audience well before the actual climax, so that it no longer comes as a surprise. The fakey special effects are also a drawback, but all these points are merely quibbles. It's the outrageously intrusive music score that's the source of most audience irritation.
Scoreless Would Have Been Better
BaronBl00d10 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The film's mystery is not a fault I have with the film nor is the acting nor are the production values or settings. The musical score has to be one of the most out of place scores I have ever seen in ANY film. I just cannot imagine who thought a Dave Brubeck jazz score would complement an Agatha Christie mystery film. It boggles the mind and, more unfortunately, muddles this film pretty good. Ordeal by Innocence is not a great film but does have a solid mystery and good acting. It held my attention when I wasn't irritated beyond belief with that ridiculous music. The music isn't bad by no means just loud and over-intrusive and not for a film of this ilk. It really detracts from your viewing. Anyway, the story about a man trying to clear the name of someone who was tried and executed for a crime this stranger knows for a fact he could not commit is rather interesting. Donald Sutherland does a workmanlike job. True, he is not flashy. The character suspects include a wry and devilish Christopher Plummer, a witty Ian McShane, a drunken(and wasted)Sarah Miles, a gorgeous Diana Quick and Annette Crosbie from One Foot in the Grave fame. No one wants to help the stranger, other people die, and the mystery is not all that hard to figure out by the end but all of it is done with some style and workmanship by director Desmond Davis(he did actually direct the original Clash of the Titans - though I am sure deferred to Ray Harryhausen more often than not!). All makes for a reasonably enjoyable story and then...then...then that music intrudes and even covers up what is said. I marked this film down two stars just because of the music. The director must have been deaf OR forced to use that score! Anyway, Faye Dunaway has a couple flashback scenes as the murdered mother/wife and Cassie Stuart plays the wife of the murdered innocent man. I only mention her because she has a topless scene, is drop-dead gorgeous, and has a smile to kill for. She is the best highlight that this film has to boast and she has two short scenes.
cold Christie mystery
SnoopyStyle16 November 2019
American paleontologist Dr. Arthur Calgary (Donald Sutherland) has come to foggy seaside England to return an address book to Jacko Argyle. Jacko had hitched a ride with Calgary two years ago and left the book in his car. Dr. Calgary had been on a research mission in the Antarctic since that time. He's surprised that everybody is cold and standoffish. Jacko's father (Christopher Plummer) reveals that Jacko had been convicted and hung for the murder of his mother (Faye Dunaway). The murder took place at the exact time when Calgary picked him up. Despite being the perfect alibi, both the family and the police are reluctant to reopen the case. Someone in the family would be obviously the prime suspect. As Calgary investigates, he uncovers many dark family secrets.
This is an Agatha Christie mystery produced by Cannon Films. It does leave me a little cold. The foggy, shivering setting doesn't help. It's the production. The story is mostly Calgary sitting down with various people recalling the past in black and white. It's hard to keep track of everybody and what they were doing. Eventually, the secret reveal is rather simple. I don't blame the production since the story is meant to be about the cold, distancing effects of the Brits of that era. Despite the random attempts to run down Calgary with a car, the story lacks the thrills to drive it. The actors are great but they need to inject the movie with more energy. Other than the first class actors, this movie fits more on the small screen.
This is an Agatha Christie mystery produced by Cannon Films. It does leave me a little cold. The foggy, shivering setting doesn't help. It's the production. The story is mostly Calgary sitting down with various people recalling the past in black and white. It's hard to keep track of everybody and what they were doing. Eventually, the secret reveal is rather simple. I don't blame the production since the story is meant to be about the cold, distancing effects of the Brits of that era. Despite the random attempts to run down Calgary with a car, the story lacks the thrills to drive it. The actors are great but they need to inject the movie with more energy. Other than the first class actors, this movie fits more on the small screen.
Ordeal for the viewer, poor Agatha Christie
Maziun22 August 2015
Adapted from good Agatha Christie book this is one bad movie produced by Cannon Group. It's no strange that it was a box office flop. It's far from Mr. Christie's best adaptations. Undoubtedly the film is unfaithful to the novel . This 1984 version of "Ordeal by innocence" doesn't just fail as an adaptation, it also fails on its own terms too.
The musical jazz score by Dave Brubeck is pretty cool itself , but feels out of place in the movie. The music simply doesn't match with what is happening on screen. The musical score has to be one of the most out of place scores I have ever seen in ANY film. Scoreless it would have been a better film The story is so muddled , that I doubt that anyone who didn't read the book would understand it. It's a shame , because it's a waste of such potential. The ending on paper is quite powerful , but when it arrives here you simply don't care about the movie and just want it to end. The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to zero suspense or life .This is a "mystery that goes nowhere" as somebody said it. The murderer is revealed half way through the movie. We don't have time to care for any of the characters or even remember their names ! The plot is such a boring mess and impossible to keep up with .The dialogue lacked flow and felt very flat.
The direction is hopelessly flat. Lifeless , endless , makes you totally indifferent about the characters. Even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity. Director makes even a mistake of replaying some of the audio from previous scenes over present scenes to represent Donald Sutherland thinking ! On the plus side "Ordeal by innocence" captures a British fell if you know what I mean. The setting is atmospheric. The movie doesn't have a big budget , but this kind of story doesn't really need it. The costumes and sets are very handsome Donald Sutherland gives a good and believable performance as amateur sleuth. He deserved his money. Others like Christopher Plummer and Faye Dunaway are wasted. The performances seem uninspired to say at least.
This movie is only a little bit better than those horrible TV movies with Peter Ustinov as Poirot. It's fascinating how bad this movie is. I give it 2/10.
The musical jazz score by Dave Brubeck is pretty cool itself , but feels out of place in the movie. The music simply doesn't match with what is happening on screen. The musical score has to be one of the most out of place scores I have ever seen in ANY film. Scoreless it would have been a better film The story is so muddled , that I doubt that anyone who didn't read the book would understand it. It's a shame , because it's a waste of such potential. The ending on paper is quite powerful , but when it arrives here you simply don't care about the movie and just want it to end. The story is a great one, but told in this film confusingly and ploddingly with next to zero suspense or life .This is a "mystery that goes nowhere" as somebody said it. The murderer is revealed half way through the movie. We don't have time to care for any of the characters or even remember their names ! The plot is such a boring mess and impossible to keep up with .The dialogue lacked flow and felt very flat.
The direction is hopelessly flat. Lifeless , endless , makes you totally indifferent about the characters. Even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity. Director makes even a mistake of replaying some of the audio from previous scenes over present scenes to represent Donald Sutherland thinking ! On the plus side "Ordeal by innocence" captures a British fell if you know what I mean. The setting is atmospheric. The movie doesn't have a big budget , but this kind of story doesn't really need it. The costumes and sets are very handsome Donald Sutherland gives a good and believable performance as amateur sleuth. He deserved his money. Others like Christopher Plummer and Faye Dunaway are wasted. The performances seem uninspired to say at least.
This movie is only a little bit better than those horrible TV movies with Peter Ustinov as Poirot. It's fascinating how bad this movie is. I give it 2/10.
Great Movie, Terrible Music
ladymidath10 June 2021
As much as I enjoyed this movie, there are a couple of things that stop me from giving it a higher score. First of all, the cast and the performances were wonderful, Donald Sutherland gave a good sold performance as did Christopher Plummer and the rest of the cast. It was a treat seeing Annette Crosbie, I loved her in One Foot In The Grave and an episode of Doctor Who. The story, based on a novel by Agatha Christie follows a paleontologist who seeks to solve a murder and clear the name of a man wrongly hanged for a crime he did not commit. The big problem though is the musical score, it is awful. It is completely out of place for what is supposed to be a brooding mystery. Why Dave Brubeck wasn't replaced by someone who could have created a more nuanced score is beyond me,
It's a shame because the rest if the film is very good. I would recommend this movie but with a warning that the music really does let it down.
About justice
sol-20 January 2016
Guilt-ridden after learning that an acquaintance was executed for murder since he was his only alibi and could not be located, an archaeologist conducts his own investigation when the man's family and local police shown no interest in this Agatha Christie murder mystery. The film has a reputation as the most underwhelming Christie big screen adaptation to date - a charge that is understandable but unfair. This is a very different sort of mystery movie, and while one might tempted to dismiss it due to its early revelation of the actual killer, the lack of urgency in the air or lifeless supporting characters, solving the mystery and our protagonist putting all the clues together is actually a secondary concern. What is primarily of interest is the disinterest of one and all to finding the killer with everyone grateful for the acquaintance's execution, justified or not. Along similar lines to 'The Third Man', the archaeologist finds out increasingly shocking things about the man as the film progresses and yet curiously enough, he never gives up his quest. 'Ordeal by Innocence' is an incredibly mood film too, full of atmospheric lighting choices and much fog in the air, capturing a dreariness in post-World War II Britain as rarely seen on film. One almost gets a sense that the entire town is jaded by all the trials and tribulations of war with the murder mystery representing old wounds that they simply do not desire reopened. This may not be a Christie film worth seeing for an imaginative twist, stellar performances or excellent period costumes, but it is noteworthy nonetheless.
Unintentionally funny
kittylee5527 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film is on my list of worst movies ever made. The story is disconnected and it is difficult to understand what is going on or the reason for the characters' actions. All films need to have an inner logic, and this film just doesn't have it - the story doesn't make any sense.
To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime. Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything.
If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing! The movie is that bad!
To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime. Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything.
If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing! The movie is that bad!
Botched job
dbdumonteil19 December 2005
Agatha Christie's books are not easy to transfer to the screen.The main problem lies in the fact that there's not much show and many many questionings ,deductions and explanations.
As always ,the director tries to make up for it by gathering an all-star cast (see yourself) :it sometimes worked in the past ("Death on the Nile" "Murder on the Orient Express"),it does not here.The film is much too short and we have not enough time to make acquaintance with the many-characters-who -had -a reason-and -an -opportunity-to -kill-Dunaway.However ,the very subject of the movie could have been interesting:an innocent was hanged and his family does not care when a witness claims that he was his alibi a couple of years later.
The ending is terribly disappointing,which is a shame .Dame Agatha Christie would turn in her grave.
As always ,the director tries to make up for it by gathering an all-star cast (see yourself) :it sometimes worked in the past ("Death on the Nile" "Murder on the Orient Express"),it does not here.The film is much too short and we have not enough time to make acquaintance with the many-characters-who -had -a reason-and -an -opportunity-to -kill-Dunaway.However ,the very subject of the movie could have been interesting:an innocent was hanged and his family does not care when a witness claims that he was his alibi a couple of years later.
The ending is terribly disappointing,which is a shame .Dame Agatha Christie would turn in her grave.
Poor adaptation
Kingslaay3 January 2022
A very disappointing adaptation. It was poorly told, badly put together and hard to follow to its conclusion. The strong cast was also underused. We didn't get to appreciate the motives behind the murders, we didn't even see how the murder itself happened. We saw meaningless scenes and flashbacks over and over that added little value.
Agatha Christie's own favorite book, but the movie... ?
Coventry13 September 2023
As a massive, in fact - borderline obsessive, Agatha Christie fanatic, I am particularly interested in reading the books and watching the film versions of the stories that she herself loved the most. "Crooked House" was a personal favorite of hers, and it was indeed a terrific book and got turned into a very enjoyable movie recently (in 2017). "Ordeal by Innocence" is another favorite of Mrs. Christie, and while the book is a masterpiece, this 1984 film-version was quite a disappointment.
The plot, of course, remains genius. The convoluted and twisted, but simultaneously highly original murder mystery is one that only could have come from the brilliant and practically inexhaustible mind of Agatha Christie. It's the tale of the noble Doctor Calgary who travels to a remote British island to return an address book to a young fella named Jacko Argyle whom he gave a lift two years earlier. When Calgary finds out Jacko got executed for the murder of his adoption mother, while he could have confirmed his alibi and save his life, Calgary insists on reopening the case. However, the rest of the entire family, as well as the local police inspector, are very much pleased how the case got resolved with Jacko's hanging, and Calgary's persistence and intrusion leads to new crimes.
Once more, the story is great and the denouement - albeit reasonably simple for a Christie mystery (which is perhaps why she loved it so much) - is marvelous, but the rest of the production is heavily flawed and poorly handled. The pacing is often too slow, the camerawork and editing are monotonous and dull, and then there's the misfit music. I'm glad to read I'm aligned with all my fellow reviewers around here who also state that the moody jazz-soundtrack (by Dave Brubeck) was a terribly wrong choice. The cast looks impressive, but notably the acclaimed names (Plummer, Dunaway, Sutherland) deliver the most underwhelming performances.
The plot, of course, remains genius. The convoluted and twisted, but simultaneously highly original murder mystery is one that only could have come from the brilliant and practically inexhaustible mind of Agatha Christie. It's the tale of the noble Doctor Calgary who travels to a remote British island to return an address book to a young fella named Jacko Argyle whom he gave a lift two years earlier. When Calgary finds out Jacko got executed for the murder of his adoption mother, while he could have confirmed his alibi and save his life, Calgary insists on reopening the case. However, the rest of the entire family, as well as the local police inspector, are very much pleased how the case got resolved with Jacko's hanging, and Calgary's persistence and intrusion leads to new crimes.
Once more, the story is great and the denouement - albeit reasonably simple for a Christie mystery (which is perhaps why she loved it so much) - is marvelous, but the rest of the production is heavily flawed and poorly handled. The pacing is often too slow, the camerawork and editing are monotonous and dull, and then there's the misfit music. I'm glad to read I'm aligned with all my fellow reviewers around here who also state that the moody jazz-soundtrack (by Dave Brubeck) was a terribly wrong choice. The cast looks impressive, but notably the acclaimed names (Plummer, Dunaway, Sutherland) deliver the most underwhelming performances.
Not priority viewing; for dedicated Agatha Christie fans only
gridoon202421 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
After watching the 2018 TV mini-series version of the same Agatha Christie story, I thought it was about time to revisit, after many years, the 1984 film. And it's not as bad as I remembered; there have been worse Christie adaptations for sure. Yes it's dreary, joyless, plodding, cold, cloudy, foggy - but all that just seems to fit the downbeat mood of the story itself; this is not one of the "fun" Christies by any means. As others have said, the biggest drawback is Dave Brubeck's overbearing score, which sometimes drowns out the dialogue; also annoying are the frequent voice-overs where we hear snippets of dialogue replayed - in some cases, only seconds after we had heard that same dialogue for the first time! ** out of 4.
Enjoyable but the godawful soundtrack is a mess
Rodrigo_Amaro15 April 2024
The real treat of "Ordeal by Innocence" is the absence of Agatha Christie's famous detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple trying to solve
another mysterious case. Our hero in this intricate journey is Dr. Calgary (played by Donald Sutherland), a geophysicist who returns to an English
county to simply return a lost wallet from a man he helped two years earlier. But when he gets there, to the Argyle estate, he discovers that the
young man was not only dead but was in fact executed by authorities after the brutal murder of his mother. Case closed for the family but not for
Dr. Calgary as he can prove he was the alibi for the man and that a killer may be on the loose and within that large rich family. It's time for him
to re-open the case, but not becoming himself a potential new victim but other people as well.
It's a nice little movie conducted by Desmond Davis, with fine performances from Sutherland, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Sarah Miles, Michael Elphick, Diana Quick, Michael Maloney, Annette Crosbie, and Ian McShane (who steals the show). The story has an adequate progression in slowly developing the mysteries and the suspense of it all is fun to watch, and I loved the fact that this doctor turned investigator wasn't so the spectacular man who knows everything beforehand as usually Dame Christie used to write, he's prone to mistakes and misjudgments yet his quest for justice is interesting to watch. The deeper he gets into the Argyle family secrets (from adoption to incest and a fight for heritage), the more intriguing and peculiar it gets - and dangerous too. I absolutely loved the ending, very satisfying and surprising.
It's fine and watchable except for one thing that may destroy the enjoyment to some viewers: the music score. Has to be the worst soundtrack ever given to a film - or at least very close to that effect. For absolute ridiculous reasons, the studio decided to replace the score provided by Pino Donaggio ("Dressed to Kill") and went instead with jazzman Dave Brubeck and compositions that were not made for the film, it's materials he already had released. It simply does not fit the movie in no possible way. It's laughable when you see Sutherland being chased by a car or some killing is about to happen and you have full jazz themes being played out, very loudly. It's not that the music is bad (Brubeck is a very talented musician) but it does not have to be in the picture. It's awfully distracting and almost ruin the experience - I couldn't help but laugh or shake my head time and again.
Obvious that more demanding viewers won't find much excitment or curiosity in it, but I still find it quite enjoyable, one of those things you watch on lazy nights when there's nothing better to do or maybe you don't want to rewatch anything and definitely needs to look back at some forgotten film. This one's quite right for those nights. 7/10.
It's a nice little movie conducted by Desmond Davis, with fine performances from Sutherland, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Sarah Miles, Michael Elphick, Diana Quick, Michael Maloney, Annette Crosbie, and Ian McShane (who steals the show). The story has an adequate progression in slowly developing the mysteries and the suspense of it all is fun to watch, and I loved the fact that this doctor turned investigator wasn't so the spectacular man who knows everything beforehand as usually Dame Christie used to write, he's prone to mistakes and misjudgments yet his quest for justice is interesting to watch. The deeper he gets into the Argyle family secrets (from adoption to incest and a fight for heritage), the more intriguing and peculiar it gets - and dangerous too. I absolutely loved the ending, very satisfying and surprising.
It's fine and watchable except for one thing that may destroy the enjoyment to some viewers: the music score. Has to be the worst soundtrack ever given to a film - or at least very close to that effect. For absolute ridiculous reasons, the studio decided to replace the score provided by Pino Donaggio ("Dressed to Kill") and went instead with jazzman Dave Brubeck and compositions that were not made for the film, it's materials he already had released. It simply does not fit the movie in no possible way. It's laughable when you see Sutherland being chased by a car or some killing is about to happen and you have full jazz themes being played out, very loudly. It's not that the music is bad (Brubeck is a very talented musician) but it does not have to be in the picture. It's awfully distracting and almost ruin the experience - I couldn't help but laugh or shake my head time and again.
Obvious that more demanding viewers won't find much excitment or curiosity in it, but I still find it quite enjoyable, one of those things you watch on lazy nights when there's nothing better to do or maybe you don't want to rewatch anything and definitely needs to look back at some forgotten film. This one's quite right for those nights. 7/10.
Not a good Agatha Christie
BandSAboutMovies10 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Cannon made three Agatha Christie movies - Ten Little Indians and Appointment with Death are the other ones - this movie was said to be no fun at all, as Donald Sutherland refused to be filmed from low angles and was given to barging off the set, while Faye Dunaway insisted on being lit from the front to hide blemishes. Meanwhile, Pino Donaggio was replaced on the soundtrack by Dave Brubeck, which makes this even harder to like.
Paleontologist Dr. Arthur Calgary (Sutherland) is visiting the Argyle family to return the address book of executed murderer Jack Argyle, who murdered the mother of the family just two years ago. Yet the doctor believes that Jack was innocent, which means that murder is once again afoot, as it were.
This was the last movie directed by Desmond Davis, who is probably best known for Clash of the Titans, plus some uncredited directing by Alan Birkinshaw, who also made Killer's Moon and the Cannon Ten Little Indians.
There's a good cast - Christopher Plummer, Sarah Miles and Ian McShane are here - but the results are a movie that just seems to slowly, ever so slowly play out. Maybe I'm spoiled by giallo, hmm?
Paleontologist Dr. Arthur Calgary (Sutherland) is visiting the Argyle family to return the address book of executed murderer Jack Argyle, who murdered the mother of the family just two years ago. Yet the doctor believes that Jack was innocent, which means that murder is once again afoot, as it were.
This was the last movie directed by Desmond Davis, who is probably best known for Clash of the Titans, plus some uncredited directing by Alan Birkinshaw, who also made Killer's Moon and the Cannon Ten Little Indians.
There's a good cast - Christopher Plummer, Sarah Miles and Ian McShane are here - but the results are a movie that just seems to slowly, ever so slowly play out. Maybe I'm spoiled by giallo, hmm?
Prima Donna Expensive Actors, Nickels and Dimes on the SCRIPTING
poetcomic129 June 2020
Faye Dunaway and Donald Sutherland spent all their time worrying about flattering light placement as the entire movie crumbled around them into idiocy. The lighting director has some nasty bits in an interview on what it was like. The producers spent all the money on big money stars and grandiose sets and any loose change that was left over on the SCRIPT. With Christie, the script is the most difficult and challenging thing of all. they finished the movie and found it was a few minutes short of minimum playing time for a feature film! So they got a crew together and shot a few more minutes if padded drivel.
An underrated Christie thriller with transatlantic cast
blackman_80629 April 2011
I had heard about this film for a while due to the many international faces that appear in it and also the bad reviews the film has attracted due to the inappropriate music score.
I finally got my hands on a DVD this week. First of all, the story is most compelling and i really enjoyed Donald Sutherland's lead performance as the doctor who wants to solve the mystery.
The film is beautifully shot; very moody night scenes and the stars are flatteringly shot. The film has all the hallmarks of a good British thriller.
The only criticism i can give the film is the music score. I agree with the masses; i do not know how they could have allowed it to be in the film. It's actually not that distracting. It's quiet most of the time and not throughout the entire film like most reviews led me to believe.
Faye Dunaway, who was living in England at the time, weaves in and out of the story. I don't think i've seen her more beautiful or restrained. She plays an ominous part of the film. The supporting cast of players were also on top form with a surprisingly stand out performance by Annette Crosbie (better known for One Foot In A Grave on TV).
Give the film a chance; it is fairly fast paced, beautiful cinematography, top notch cast... just don't plod on the music aspect!
I finally got my hands on a DVD this week. First of all, the story is most compelling and i really enjoyed Donald Sutherland's lead performance as the doctor who wants to solve the mystery.
The film is beautifully shot; very moody night scenes and the stars are flatteringly shot. The film has all the hallmarks of a good British thriller.
The only criticism i can give the film is the music score. I agree with the masses; i do not know how they could have allowed it to be in the film. It's actually not that distracting. It's quiet most of the time and not throughout the entire film like most reviews led me to believe.
Faye Dunaway, who was living in England at the time, weaves in and out of the story. I don't think i've seen her more beautiful or restrained. She plays an ominous part of the film. The supporting cast of players were also on top form with a surprisingly stand out performance by Annette Crosbie (better known for One Foot In A Grave on TV).
Give the film a chance; it is fairly fast paced, beautiful cinematography, top notch cast... just don't plod on the music aspect!
Worst Christie Ever!
MFH12 August 1999
This is really & truly the absolute worst Agatha Christie movie ever!! (And I've seen 10 little Indians with Frank Stallone!!!) Sutherland & Plummer are greatly wasted in a go no where "mystery". You could also say that Faye Dunnaway's appearance was little more than a cameo. Her scenes total about 2 minutes of the movie. I'd keep it short too if I were in this film. The movie doesn't even have a climactic climax, and the murderer is revealed half way through the movie. (To the viewers that is.) I'm sure Agatha rolled in her grave when this came out. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!
Subtly evocative adult mystery
john-169521 February 2010
I'm quite amazed at the level of vitriol that this film seems to evoke. It's actually one of my favorite movies.
I find that Donald Sutherland's performance compelling and subtle and the visuals gorgeous. The choice of Dave Brubeck's music as a soundtrack, while challenging at times presents an fascinating counterpoint to the visual narrative.
Undoubtedly the film is unfaithful to the novel. I guess I've been around too long to care that much. Although I enjoy Christie, her *own* work was quite uneven (I can't even begin to count the holes in Mousetrap) so somehow I can't see her work as being as sacred as other reviewers.
I find that Donald Sutherland's performance compelling and subtle and the visuals gorgeous. The choice of Dave Brubeck's music as a soundtrack, while challenging at times presents an fascinating counterpoint to the visual narrative.
Undoubtedly the film is unfaithful to the novel. I guess I've been around too long to care that much. Although I enjoy Christie, her *own* work was quite uneven (I can't even begin to count the holes in Mousetrap) so somehow I can't see her work as being as sacred as other reviewers.
I wouldn't even watch it if it had Olivia Hussey!
daniel_clancy20015 April 2004
It is difficult to describe this film without profanity. The rights to the book were clearly bought because of the title. I am a purist Agatha Christie fan, so I dislike adaptations which spoil her work. Normally, after the first three or four viewings, they grow on me (It happened with "Appointment with Death", it happened with the remake of "Murder on the Orient Express" and it happened with the remake of "Sparkling Cyanide"). I still hate this film. The cast are talented, but wasted - especially Faye Dunaway, who has about three words. The music is completely out of place. I expected them to start playing "The Merry Old Land of Oz" at the hanging. The story is unraveled ploddingly; a fiasco. I didn't understand it until I read the book. This is a pure waste of film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
