Robert J. Maxwell I've been trying to figure out why Miss Marple's mysteries tend to be sluggish while Hercule Poirot's are more engaging. Of course, Poirot himself is a more interesting and quirky character, what with his vanity, his gastronomic delicacy, his mustache wax. Poor Miss Marple has only her knitting, and not much of that.That aside, it occurs to me that Miss Marple is more often a passive but keen observer, giving advice. She doesn't do much. And the mystery is dependent on history. With Poirot -- and even in some of Agatha Christie's stories in which there is no obvious protagonist -- the conundrum is not so much "why" but "how"? How, for instance, can an inaccessible house wind up with ten dead people in it and no murderer to be found anywhere? "Sleeping Murder" boasts some fetching scenery. It's talky and dull but at least the talk goes on in some beautiful English gardens. You have never seen so many flowers, or so little action taking place among them.A blond, fair newly married young woman from New Zealand runs across a vacant house in Devonshire and talks her husband into buying it, but she soon begins to have flashbacks involving the house as it was a generation ago -- a hidden door behind the wallpaper, buried steps leading to the sea, a dead body at the bottom of the stairs.It takes the entire movie to unravel all the narrative threads, which I won't bother to describe because they take the plot into the byzantine. The thing could have been written by Dickens in a wanton mood. People stroll around in those gardens, everyone seems to know or have heard of everyone else, each contributes a bit to the story, characters come and go, and when the Big Reveal appears at the climax it comes as a complete surprise to those who have been driven to a mad frenzy like me. Miss Marple explains everything to the young couple. When Miss Marple began to lay out the threads, my clock read 24 minutes past the hour. She was finished at 25 minutes past the hour. Don't miss that final minute.

pawebster The 1980s adaptations starring Joan Hickson are on the slow side by modern standards. This was in fact the last golden age of television before it was ruined by too many channels and the advent of the MTV attention span -- which has sadly affected us all, I fear. This version is lovingly crafted with delightful period details.Although, in its slowness, this version fails to build up the various suspects as sufficiently menacing, it is a good version which keeps quite faithful to the book. Geraldine Alexander is excellent as Gwenda and to my ears does a super New Zealand accent. John Moulder-Brown is a let-down as her unconvincing animatronic husband, beautifully dressed in the gent's outfitters styles of the period, but far too mannered in his perfect elocution. Joan Hickson does her stuff very well as usual.It is interesting (if depressing) to compare this with the travesty version starring Geraldine McEwan, where the plot has been mangled -- and garbled -- beyond recognition.

naughtyrubes I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It showed excitement and surprise all at the same time, and would I watch it again? Yes. Lots of times. My recommendation for this movie is VERY HIGH. Really - watch it. You'll enjoy it. Sit down with your favourite biscuits and drink and get ready to watch the movie, best watched with other people because I always love someone to laugh, smile and look shocked and surprised and puzzled with during movies! I recommend this film until I am red in the face, and let me say that Miss Marple is a very sweet and clever young lady! I am so happy to be recommending this movie to many people out there and then when you have watched it tell all your friends about it.

Dawnfrancis This is a little different from the normal Miss Marple and suffers a little because of it, I feel. We see less than usual of Jane Marple as the story concentrates on the newlyweds, so that although enjoyable in itself, this is not the best Miss Marple mystery.