scribe-27 I was hooked by Francesca Annis and James Warwick when they played Tommy and Tuppence in Agatha Christie's Partners in Crime, and as an avid Christie fan have always wanted to see them again in Why Didn't They Ask Evans? Although its plot is very picaresque, and suffers from some of the careless crafting found in Agatha Christie's earlier work, it is, in fact, an enjoyable book, and has no doubt been adapted adequately for television. Infuriatingly, the DVD is not available in the UK, or in the entire Region 2! I don't suppose it ever will be. Odd, isn't it? I believe that American viewers have similar difficulties obtaining English films and television programmes in Region 1 format, Perhaps, one day, there will be a single standard for all of us.

boomcoach This BBC version of an Agatha Christie book shows the pitfalls of following a book too closely. Christie's books tend to move at a gentle, sometimes even sedate pace, and "Evans" is one that certainly does. It also has a solid school of red herrings to confuse the plot. This version is extremely faithful to the book, which results in a very slow, involved story. As a Christie fan, I gave it 7 stars, but it takes 3 hours to make its way through a relatively action-free story. I appreciate some of the tightening of plots that the BBC did for its later Christie productions much more.In the end, this movie is a leisurely pleasure, highlighted by the breathy waif Francesca Annis who brings considerable charisma to her role and plays off James Warwick very well.

theowinthrop I saw this television version of a Christie mystery story when it was shown back on Channel 5 in New York City in 1980. At the time I was surprised it was not shown on Channel 13, the Public Television Station that showed most of the Masterpiece Theater programs, but (aside from some Dorothy Sayers "Lord Peter Wimsey" stores, and THE MOONSTONE) the BBC productions rarely dealt with British detective stories. Another series, THE RIVALS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had dealt with stories set in the Victorian and Edwardian period, so a period charm was involved in getting those stories onto Channel 13.The plot of WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS? dealt with a young couple stumbling upon a dying man who's only last words are the question of the title of the story (the novel was originally called WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK EVANS?, but subsequently was retitled THE BOOMERANG CLUE). The young couple start investigating the murder, and trace the crime to a set of people who surround a questionable doctor (Eric Porter). Despite the warnings of the father of the hero (John Gielgud), the hero (James Warwick) and the heroine (Francesca Annis) pursue their investigation - even as it gets murkier and more dangerous. The death of another suspect by suicide increases the apparent dangers as the killer starts looking into silencing the two amateur detectives.It's not a bad film, although I agree it was a bit too long for a single night's entertainment (if it had been done like later Miss Marple episodes with Joan Hickson, or the Hercule Poirot episodes, in two parts it would have been better). But it has it's strengths. One is the proper use of Porter as chief suspect, and a clever scene later in the film where he appears to be spying on the young couple who are investigating the mystery. If you stick to the film, you will be in for a fair surprise later on.But it has one failing. When dealing with a Christie novel the figures in the story have to be in a rigid schedule of movements so that the reader might be able to figure out what the secret of the plot is. I will only add that if you hear the dialog at one point, and how a little boy was almost killed (but wasn't), then you will find all the parts of the story coming together, and what the villain's motivations were.Except for that and the lengthy time the telefilm takes to tell it's story, it is quite a good film, and worthy as one of the best programs based on a Christie story in the period when their was a sudden renaissance in films based on her novels.

tedg Spoilers herein.I make a habit out of examining film adaptations of classic mystery novels for clues. I'm looking for clues about why the narrative works. There is a reason Christie is the best selling writer in history, even now as print runs are huge.I think I understand the primary mechanisms, how she engages the reader in a contest of wills. Usually, these don't translate well to film and we are given instead some puzzles with a surprise answer at the end.One approach is what was attempted here, just work through the book more or less as it is written. But that doesn't work either because the infrastructure of the imagination differs so between reading and viewing.Here the stretch of the mystery is too long for the reward. We'll know who the villain is soon enough just because of the theatrical mannerisms of the actors, and the rest comes across as `Hardy Boys' stuff. Add in some unbelievable coincidences (even for Christie), a Miss Moriarty Morphia and a little too pert Frankie and you'll see why this series wasn't continued.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.