Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

My reason for watching this Agatha Christie film is probably pretty unusual. I am NOT a huge fan of her stories but instead watched it simply because Olivia de Havilland was in the movie. Considering what a fan I am of this wonderful actress, it's not surprising I'd see "Murder is Easy".The film focuses on events that happen to an American professor and computer expert (Bill Bixby) on his visit to the UK. Soon after seeing an old friend, the friend is killed in a suspicious accident--and you know it COULDN'T have been an accident since it IS a mystery film! And, given the title of the film, you know they won't stop at just one! So, Bixby decides to investigate the crimes--after all, he IS a professor (now THAT's movie logic for you)! What follows is an amazingly ordinary film--with mostly second-rate actors (though Lesley Anne-Down was gorgeous), some serious logical errors and a mystery that never was all that involving. Helen Hayes (who played in some excellent Christie films) only makes a token appearance--so don't look for her to reprise her Miss Marple or have an active role in the movie despite her appearing at the beginning. Worth seeing if you are a die-hard Agatha Christie fan but otherwise very easy to skip--even if you adore Miss de Havilland.Here are a few stupid portions of the movie that made me laugh. A doctor tasted the white powder found next to body of dead woman to find out what it was!! What if it were laced with strychnine or arsenic?! What doctor would do this?! What a dumb scene! Also, the film was obviously written by someone with a very limited understanding of computers. You can't rely on a computer to solve a crime, as the computer is only as good as its programming. If you could program in all the possibilities and variables (which isn't possible), then you'd know the killer already--and such a program would take an eternity to create. Unless, of course, it was a very, very simple murder and the evidence was obvious. And finally, when one person is pretty sure they know who the murderer is, do they go to the police? Nope--instead they go to the killer's house to confront them...alone!! What follows is a hilarious cat-fight between a 28 year-old and a 68 year-old that is too dumb to be believed! And, when help arrives, the scene gets even funnier! You have to see this to believe it!Finally, while you won't believe it, Bixby and Timothy West (who play romantic rivals) are just about the same exact age in the movie--though they appear at least 10 years apart.

When Luke Williams meets an eccentric old English woman on the train and she tells him she knows of three murders and she is subsequently murdered, I felt that the film had started well and was likely to develop into a good whodunit. Unfortunately, it was down hill from there on.With one exception, the suspects are wooden, providing little other than simply having a list of suspects to consider. The exception is Bridget Conway, the object of the Luke Williams' desire. Attractive as she (Lesley-Anne Down) is though, there is a limit to how often I want to see close ups of her facial expressions.The plot - will Bridget Conway prove to be the murderer damming Luke Williams hopes or will it be someone else? - first stumbles along and then grinds its way to an inevitable slushy conclusion.

My heavens.One thing I like, absolutely find hypnotizing, is how the classic detective stories get munged around. Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie are the ones that I want to follow. Now that there is new twist — probably a whole rope walk — on Sherlock coming, I wanted to check this out. It had a comparatively big budget, and some named actors, but not in their finer phases. It is roughly based on Christie in terms of the setup and mystery. But there is no real mystery. How it messes up in this department is uninteresting.But it has a detective that is roughly placed between Poirot and Marple. This is the truly bizarre part. This detective is an MIT professor, presumably a genius, right? He follows the TeeVee version of mathematical logic, which is based on a simple notion of "calculating the probabilities." Its a bit of a hoot, because it takes the detecting, the narrative richness of projecting in the future, into other folks' minds, into a mechanical exercise.It is precisely the opposite of what advanced mathematical logic is all about. In fact, I've been thinking about Terrence Malick recently. I encountered him as an MIT professor, wondering about what the relationship of future is to past. It is, in a way an extension of the concerns of a detective. It has nothing to do with probability, instead about understanding causality instead of measurement.It means that for me this is a particularly disturbing version of the genre, a genre that has a particularly intelligent origin. I feel like I'm in bigfoot territory.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

This is a TV movie from 1981 featuring a starry (for it's day) Anglo-American cast and based on one of Christie's novels from the thirties. It has been updated to the early eighties but that seems to have done little harm as the 'English country village' setting could just as easily be from the thirties anyway (slow but sure policeman on a bike, tweedy middle aged ladies, tennis parties at the big house etc). The eighties only really intrude in some of the more bizarre outfits for heroine Lesley Anne Down and in the fact that Bill Bixby's character is supposedly a computer whizz. The whole 'computer' thing is actually quite poorly thought out and contributes very little and I never believed that Bixby was any kind of whizz at all in that particular field. Some of the music is good (the main theme, love theme for Miss Waynflete) and some of it is dreadful (the comic 'Carry On' moments and especially the 'sexy' sax for the main couple).There are plenty of positives though. The film is astonishingly faithful to the book and plays out almost to the letter. This actually has a slight downside as there are far too many characters and most of them are barely fleshed out. The whole thing is very well shot and there are some very good performances. I was pleasantly surprised by Lesley Anne Down as Bridget - a very good performance indeed. Olivia de Haviland is appropriately tweedy and sympathetic as Miss Waynflete and Timothy West puts in a good turn as Bridget's childish fiancée. Helen Hayes is lovely in the brief but memorable role of Miss Fullerton. Bill Bixby is OK but not much more as the leading man. The story plays out well but the final confrontation between two possible killers is rather unconvincing but, to be fair, I think it would be a difficult scene to carry off really well.Overall, this is a very worthy adaptation and worth a look if you can find it.