Ordeal by Innocence

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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!

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.