sol- 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.

Maziun 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.

gridoon 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)

jsaari I only watched the movie to see Ian McShane. My only negative comment on the movie is that he wasn't in it "enough". Waste of talent. Otherwise, I actually enjoyed the movie, even though it was very predictable. I loved the scenery. I wish I could live at a place like that, but then again, I'd like to live anywhere in England.