Marlburian Having just watched the 2016 version on BBC TV in Britain, I found the 1982 version on Youtube. The central character is the defence council, here Sir Wilfred Robarts, even frailer than the 2016 Mayhew, with some perhaps unnecessary light relief provided by his attempts to outwit his full-time nurse.It could almost have been a filmed stage play, with nearly all the dialogue being in the court-room or in Sir Wilfred's chambers. This version was reasonable enough until after the verdict, when one person has to boast how clever they've been, thus giving the game away, and there's a final, unconvincing twist.

jjnxn-1 Excellent TV version of the Agatha Christie classic with an amazing array of talent for this type of enterprise. This is the sort of high quality fare that was standard on American television in the 70s & 80s and is sadly missing today. Bridges is okay but miscast. Leonard Vole needs to be played by someone with a slick charm as it was by Tyrone Power in the original, a persona like George Clooney projects now and Bridges while a capable actor doesn't have that quality. Therefore he is easily put in the shade by the powerhouse team of Sir Ralph Richardson and Diana Rigg. Both give exceptional performances, Richardson sly, knowing and wise while Diana Rigg is perfect as the determined if misguided Christine. Deborah Kerr provides a nice light touch as Richardson nurse. Good fun all around.

[email protected] Those who know Diana Rigg mainly for a famous TV series are probably unaware of his classical training and her distinguished stage career. in this Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, Dame Diana is "the witness" and she carries the story from beginning to end. Sir Ralph Richardson, as the lead barrister for the defense, is also elegant. Deborah Kerr is unfortunately miscast as the hovering nurse to Sir Ralph's character and Beau Bridges is completely out of his so-limited depth as the accused murderer. I haven't ever seen the original 1957 film so I can't justly compare them but the sexy, mysterious Marlene Dietrich was simply not in Rigg' s league as an actress.

theowinthrop In 1958 Billy Wilder made one of the best film adaptations of an Agatha Christie story when he directed WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, with Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, Elsa Lanchester, and Una O'Connor. It is one of those mystery films that, even when you understand the trick, does not fail to remain entertaining. But it has to be done in a certain way, with a sense of decorum and tradition (personified by Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts - brilliant defense barrister but guardian of England's precious laws and sense of justice). It is infectious. Even Power as the seemingly helpless Leonard Vole is desperately hoping that the system of justice will save him.But along comes this version of 1982. One would have thought it could not fail with a star like Sir Ralph Richardson as Robarts and Diana Rigg as Christine Vole. But it does fail. Even with Dame Deborah Kerr as Nurse Plimsoll and Dame Wendy Hiller as Janet Mackenzie (the Una O'Connor role)it fails. Richardson is too laid back for Sir Wilfrid. When Rigg testifies against her husband, after having previously given him an alibi for the murder, Richardson almost seems to tease her about her behavior. In the same situation in the Wilder film, Laughton's justifiable anger at this turnabout leads to a peroration point where he shouts out that she is a perpetual liar. It was far more affective with Laughton, although Richardson was (traditionally) a greater actor.Similarly, Tyrone Power's Leonard Vole was (as I said when reviewing the 1958 film version)playing Leonard for all the part is worth, and created the most sinister part he played after his best performance in NIGHTMARE ALLEY as Stanton Carlyle. The last ten minutes of the film show what a totally amoral and vicious louse Power's Vole really is. Beau Bridges was as laid back as Richardson, making the mistake of making Vole seem a nice guy. Vole can be helpless in the arms of the British judicial system or he can be a louse. He can't be a guy you want to take out for a fishing expedition.I give this film a "6" - barely because the cast tried. Their ideas were wrong in Richardson and Bridges' interpretations.