User reviews

Only one Series, comprising two 3 part stories, firstly we had The Secret Adversary, and secondly we had N or M.

I thought they were rather fun productions, trouble is they seriously didn't feel like Agatha Christie, I thought the first part of The Secret Adversary was excellent, but after that it went downhill a little bit.

Jessica Raine was really well cast, she looked excellent in the part, fitting of the period. I think Walliams was the main issue for the failing, for anyone that has read the novels he just wasn't Tommy. Far from it, he was out of character, I couldn't relate him to the books.

Really great production values, they looked excellent, even though the time frame had been altered.

I don't think the series was given enough mileage, who knows, if it had continued maybe there would have been an improvement. There were only 5 Partners in Crime novels, the best one I think being 'by the Pricking of my thumbs' shame it won't be made.

6/10.

Twenty-four years ago London Weekend Television produced a series based on the Agatha Christie short stories with James Warwick and Francesca Annis in the leading roles, supported by a youthful Reece Dinsdale. Shot mostly on videotape, its principal focus centered on the relationship between the two amateur sleuths, Tommy and Tuppence, and their marital squabbles as they solved a variety of crimes.

In this more expensively mounted remake, director Edward Hall places far more emphasis on period externals - the fog-bound London streets, the fading Victorian glamor of a Norfolk seaside resort, the endless vista of a deserted beach. As with most BBC examples of the genre, there is a strong emphasis on period detail: antique cars (that almost look too shiny to be in regular use), Denby china, over-stuffed interiors, and oak-paneled pubs. The costumes are also well recreated, even down to the battered hats worn by Tommy (David Walliams) and his uncle Carter (James Fleet). In the "N or M" story, we even see a banner above the local town hall, telling us specifically that the action takes place in 1952.

The plots, as with most Christie adaptations, are preposterous - especially in "N or M" we ask ourselves why two part-time sleuths should be engaged on a vital mission to save Britain from destruction by a nuclear bomb. What is more important is to focus on how the adaptations build up suspense and deal with the resolution.

The plot unfolds at a leisurely pace, with plenty of establishing shots interspersed with comic interludes where Tommy and Tuppence banter with one another. They seem an ideally suited couple, their natural curiosity combining with a tendency to ignore everyone's sound advice and blunder on regardless. They end up in some difficult situations (forming a cliff-hanging coda to episodes one and two of each story), but their instinct for self-preservation carries them through.

Stylistically speaking, Hall's production contains strong visual echoes of the British "B" movie that flourished during the mid- twentieth century. There are chase-sequences making clever use of light and shade; sequences showing people getting into and out cars and driving out of shot; and interior sequences comprised of shot/reverse shot sequences. This is no bad thing: the detective thriller was a staple of the "B" Movie genre. The only real snag is that whereas most "B" movies lasted just over an hour, each one of these stories last nearly three hours. Some judicious pruning might have come in useful.

The dialogue sometimes veers towards the risible, but then it was never Christie's strong point. All in all, the adaptations are pleasantly watchable, even if they don't necessarily erase memories of the earlier version.

The tag line to this series – rather than "Sometimes a marriage needs an adventure" – should more rightly be "Sometimes a VIEWER needs an adventure" . . .

As this turgid new series is, simply, uninspired & uninspiring.

There is NO chemistry between the 2 leads. I think it was a case of miscasting, not just of the 2 actors individually, but as a pair. David Walliams seems lethargic almost to the point of depression. And as for Jessica Raine: I had never seen the actress before, but she plays the role like she is in a safe, pleasant, 'feel-good' little evening drama like 'The Royal' or 'Heartbeat'; concentrating upon her character being all cutesy twee 1950s prettiness rather than a real person. I gather Raine was in the 'Call The Midwife' before this; well, that explains her flat interpretation of what should be a winning Agatha Christie character.

Oh where, oh where!, are Francesca Annis & James Warwick – the leads from the last TV adaptation, in the 1980s – when we need them?! That series had it all: charisma, believable baddies, zipping plots, credible flirtation, effervescent fun, lovely 1920s period moments, and STYLE. It was only a few months ago that I was voicing to a friend that the tales were ripe for a new interpretation; especially as the canon of Christie's Poirot & Marple stories have just been completed, leaving a void on our TVs. So when I heard of this new series only a few weeks ago via a TV trailer, I waited, hopeful for entertainment . . . but it never emerged.

There is no wit, no sparkle. The stories are disjointed, with gaping holes in the plot. Parts of the episodes quite literally make no sense at all.

The camera persistently floats over the faces of the 2 chief characters as if we ADORE just watching them in their lovely little lives. No, we don't; Agatha Christie stories are fine mysteries, with great plots, and that's what we need to see. But we never do.

The series comes across as just an excuse to languish in retro enjoyment of the 1950s. Instead of being what it should: the telling of a great tale, with a clever plot & the full-bodied characters with which Christie stories are loaded. I made myself watch all 3 parts of the first episode, before I passed judgement (wink!) in writing, in order to be able to fairly critique a complete story. But, sadly, the 2nd & 3rd parts were no improvement upon the 1st. I even made myself start watching episode 2 . . . after which I knew for sure I'd have had more entertainment spending that hour rewatching a well-loved (however well-known) episode of 'Poirot'.

The story is slow-moving to the point of dullsville. There is NO passion between Walliams & Raine; the one scene where they appear in bed, even just cosying up in a demure manner, looks completely unbelievable. And when at one point in a taxi "Tommy" tries to get a bit saucy & suggestive with his "Tuppence", it's about as believable as a librarian suddenly doing a strip dance in the middle of the non-fiction section. And I really was willing this series to be good, as I know TV can adapt Christie so effectively. So the word let-down does not suffice.

The script has great lengths that are unnecessary. Things aren't explained that should be; other things best left out are laboured upon. Overall the story is so badly put together that it often fails to tell a cohesive tale at all.

As for the characterisation: Bah! I have seen more believable 'baddies' written into an Enid Blyton 'Famous Five' novel.

And WHY did they reset this series in the 1950s?! Yes, the "Beresfords" are the only Christie characters she let age throughout her stories, so although the first "T&T" story was written & set in the 1920s they did go grey with the times, right up to the last story of the 1970s. But as the '50s have been well documented on TV in both sets of Christie's 'Marple' adaptations, why not use the opportunity to portray the young "T&T" in their 1920s' heyday? The previous TV version of "Partners In Crime" saw fit to set it in that decade, and did a sterling job in their adaptation. So why the 1950s on TV, yet again?! Surely a case by the production department of being too safe . . . but unwisely so!

Excitement? None. Gripping stories? Nil. Likable leads? No way. Great characters? Nope. And just good drama? WHAT drama?!

Admittedly, I haven't read any of Christie's "T&T" stories, so can't speak of this series as an adaptation of the original format. But in comparison to any TV depictions of Christie – including the 1980s' 'The Agatha Christie Hour' – this series is completely unwatchable.

In all honesty I blame the production team, rather than the actors. Good actors, such as Roy Marsden and Alice Krige, have guest roles in this series. But, without exception, NONE of the actor's depictions seem to work. Even reliable James Fleet can't spin out his regular character in any believable way. Over-lingering camera-work on these secondary actors doesn't help with this, just as it didn't with the lead actors Walliams & Raine. In my (humble!) opinion what this means is that the result we see on-screen is not the fault of the actors as much as the people behind the scenes, who put the production together.

Sadly a case of too much humdrum saccharine pleasantness, more suited to a safe 8pm timeslot than a prime time programme. We need sparkling – not flat – entertainment.

Advice: get out a DVD of any other Agatha Christie series, or the 3 'big' film adaptations of the 1970s & 1980s, and your time will have been more enjoyably spent.

This has been a wonderful series, its great to have a story stretched over 2-4 episodes rather than 12-30 which seems to be the norm now. Of course this was a 3-parter so it was perfect.

I am not at all familiar with this story, as I imagine most others aren't either, but it was a thrilling little adventure, though I have to admit certain plot twists weren't entirely surprising it was still gripping and fast moving.

JR was fabulous and very believable in her role, the energy and feistiness she brought was great. And I just adored her outfits too. I look forward to seeing more of her in this role, and others. She thrives in the 1950s it seems.

David Walliams, in my opinion, was entirely miscast. I could count the number of times his facial expression changed on one hand. He just appeared stunned/frozen all the way through, even in the parts where you would expect a deeply strong emotional reaction to someone you love being in danger or a facial-flutter when your own life threatened or you are caught out by someone.

He just came across as unenthused, lacking energy and uncaring like he couldn't be bothered to act. If that is how the character is MEANT to be then that's a different matter, but I think he was going OTT on the old fashioned 'stiff upper lip' quiet, introvert and calm etc etc.

And frankly I didn't think the chemistry between them was zinging.

This aside I will watch the next story and hopefully this will improve. Overall it is a wonderful show, just let down by the lead male.

The Good: the sets, the clothes, the cars, the cinematography, the fun moments The Bad: poor interpretation of Tommy, poor adaptation of post-war 20s to cold war 50s. The Ugly: no dramatic integrity - impossible juxtaposition of fun-loving adventure chasing, and brutal murder. Tuppence cannot lightly enjoy chasing down criminals under the threat to life and limb of her child and her husband - it does not make sense. The original Tommy and Tuppence series (books and BBC) present a light-hearted version of adventure and this is the only one that makes sense for them. We watched the first story, The Secret Adversary (3 episodes), but will not be watching "N or M" because of our disappointment. However, I will restate that visually it is very stimulating and satisfying - beautiful sets, scenery and atmospheric camera work.

The series title is misleading as it has little to do with Agatha Christie if you are a purist, but it is entertaining enough for a quick break from reality. I love the sets and costumes in general; the setting is just post WW2. They did not have Botox and filler back then. A number of the female characters are pumped full of the stuff as their eyebrows are situated so high and arched on their foreheads and their cheeks so round and full, they have that all too common permanently surprised or even pained clown look that many celebrities have today. Unfortunately, the art of acting with a natural expression that includes facial expressions is becoming a lost art.

Disappointing. Too much just in time escaping. Pretty decent cast but it's overacted. I don't think that it was the actors' fault.

The negative reviews of this series are laughable. Is it spot-on Agatha Christie? No. Is it fun? Yes. Suspenseful and enjoyable. Jessica Raine is not attractive? Oh, please. Yes, David Wallaims' character is a bit of a dolt, but that's part of the charm of the series. The acting is fine; the script is fine; and the stories are engaging. The episodes each ended with engaging cliff-hangers, and the resolution of each was believable. The series also captures a post-war '50s feel quite nicely. Some of the folks who reviewed this seemed determined not to like it, and it might not be your cup of tea. But I found plenty to like here, and wish that they had made more.

Although Agatha Christie is one of my favourite authors, adaptations of her work have always personally been judged on how good they are on their own merits, regardless of how good or bad an adaptation it is.

The Tommy and Tuppence books/stories are entertaining reads, though none of them are among my favourites from Christie, and the 80s Partners in Crime series is not only true in details and spirit to the stories but charming, suspenseful, light-hearted entertainment in its own right. But when advertised I surprisingly didn't find myself desperate in seeing this, which is highly unusual for an Agatha Christie adaptation. Despite looking good visually, the casting just seemed off and even when advertised the writing seemed clunky.

Finally giving it the benefit of the doubt, and without comparison to the source material and the previous Partners in Crime series, as someone who loves Agatha Christie and who has enjoyed a large amount of adaptations of her work this was disappointing. It has a few plus points, with the best thing about it being the production values. The 1950s setting is evoked beautifully, the scenery is positively sumptuous and at times effectively mysterious and a lot of work clearly went into evoking the period, because the attention to detail is great. It is also very stylishly filmed and atmospherically lit. While the acting is a vast majority really not very good, a couple of performances are decent, with particular mention going to an effectively menacing Jonny Phillips in The Secret Adversary, who shows that you don't have to do an awful lot to make one feel uneasy, and Christina Cole as a seemingly vulnerable Mrs Sprot, which Cole handles affectingly without being passive.

However, that is pretty much it for the good things. One of the main things that ruins Partners in Crime is the woeful miscasting of David Walliams as Tommy, have nothing personal against Walliams but there was the fear that he would be out of place and stick out like a sore thumb and that fear was proved correct. Walliams even when playing straight often looks vacant and doesn't seem to have a clue as to whether to camp it up as Tommy or underplay, his performance here is a mess of both and he never looks comfortable doing either, he acts jarringly buffoonish when camping it up, the dramatic scenes being very overwroughtly played, and when underplaying he is incredibly wooden.

While Jessica Raine is not as badly affected, this viewer is in the camp of not finding her that much better, she doesn't look very engaged as Tuppence (as if she didn't want to be there), a very charming and authoritative role, and comes over as rather too forceful in the more dramatic scenes, although this is more to do with how the character is written here Raine seems and acts too modern for the 50s, at least in this series. The two have no obvious chemistry together, while it may not have been the case at all it was like they didn't get along, or maybe it was how the roles were written because Tuppence looked more annoyed with rather in love with Tommy. Both manage to do something seemingly impossible and make Tommy and Tuppence annoying. The rest of the acting is not good either, the lack of chemistry also applies to the supporting cast which severely undermines the tension and pacing of the stories and few seem sure of how to play their roles.

As good as the production values are, the effort put into them doesn't translate in the music, script and storytelling. The music is too loud, too much, too constant and too intrusive, not to mention very one-note mood-wise, even in scenes that would have benefited from more understated scoring or none at all. The script-writing is clunky and instead of being suspenseful and light-hearted it's like trudging and struggling through very thick mud, and it never feels like it belongs in the 1950s, constantly I felt like I was yanked back to 21st century. The dialogue, complete with comic elements in serious need of a toning down, dramatic elements that are talky and overwrought and mystery elements that feel under-explained and as long a way from tense as one can get, is rather stilted and lacks pulse and urgency, especially in the talkier scenes.

Sadly, the storytelling in both The Secret Adversary and N or M, but in particularly the former, is near-disastrous. Even if both as stories in book-form are slow going at times, both are pretty diverting in their own right, but the storytelling in the series rambles on ponderously as a result of far too much padding (the first part of The Secret Adversary in particular is a real slog), with a lot of the 'tense' or 'suspenseful' scenes instead bordering on the laboured, and there are additions that are either silly (some of N or M did get ridiculous in places), pointless or confuse the story, sometimes even all three. Even when episodes gain some momentum (the second part of The Secret Adversary did pick up slightly) they are spoilt by being confused or getting too ridiculous. Regarding the direction, while it fares well visually and does a good job bringing a sense of period it does poorly in the direction of the actors, most of whom look lost at sea with what to do, and with the storytelling.

In conclusion, while some viewers may have felt that Partners in Crime had a slow start but got better, for me and other viewers, the series never really ignited fire. This is a real shame, as this is coming from a viewer who tries to find merit in even the weakest adaptations of her work. Not the worst Agatha Christie adaptation ever, but one of the most of the most disappointing (even on its own terms), in spite of my initial intrepidation. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I'm disappointed that so many did not enjoy this series. I love Walliams and wish he were in more dramas. (Remember his great supporting character in The Body in the Library; Agatha Christie's Miss Marple?). I'm not that familiar with Raine but I thought she sparkled in this comedy/mystery. Along with Steer as the handless chemist they make a great ensemble. It appears some were disappointed because this was not a serious, grim show. Granted it was not Tinker, Tailor Soldier but I can't believe it as supposed to be. I gave it a 9 because the plots could be better but as a vehicle for these wonderful characters it worked.

Maybe it is because I read the books or saw the (1983) (TV Mini-Series with Francesca Annis and James Warwick), that it takes some time to accept the characters in this (2015) (TV Mini-Series with Jessica Rain and David Williams.) then when you think about it the characters are what they are supposed to be and not particularly what you would have written them as.

This is a 1950's period piece and the characters, clothing, cars, etc. Are quite convincing.

We follow the partners as they move from their mundane life as beekeepers to quasi investigators of spies and other despicable characters. With the help of friends and relatives, they foil evil plots against man, king, and country.

Agatha Christie was not smothered up by the TV scriptwriting. There are of course changes for the different media. It took a bit of time to get used to as I would not have given a good rating until well into the story.

The title of this series alone should qualify it for prosecution under the Trade Description's Act. Agatha Christie had nothing to do with what passes for a plot in this pathetic pastiche of a whodunnit. It is the latest entrant to a long line of programmes which use Christie titles and the names of Christie characters and then throw away everything else. "The Secret Adversary" has already been done once on British TV in a form which stuck pretty closely to the original plot. It is quite a silly plot but has a certain logic. There is even a sort of balance in the character relations and a bit of romantic mystery over where Tuppence will fix her affections. None of that has survived into the BBC version. For no apparent reason it is moved from the 1920's to the 1950's. The mystery plot is drastically downgraded, the dialogue dreadful and the acting shows how much stress the cast must have been under. The BBC seems to like doing remakes of well known classics, for example "The Lady Vanishes" and "The Thirty Nine Steps." It usually does them pretty badly and "Partners in Crime" is no exception.

I am enjoying "Partners in Crime" very much. Tommy(played by David Williams) is a naive stumbler, but his wife Tuppence(played by Jessica Raine) is bright, sharp and determined to get to the bottom of an evolving mystery. We are starved for British TV (here in the colonies)and are inundated with American shows. To discover this gem is terrific. Although Jessica Raine is excellent as usual, David Williams could be replaced by a lump of bread dough! He was the wrong choice for this part, he needs to be wittier, funnier, more charming and thinner. The other actors are good, but without the acting abilities of Jessica Raine, this show would be mediocre. Where is David Niven when you need him?

Good acting, entertaining. Were it being rated on faithfulness to original it'd have a much lower rating though. Just finished reading the novel, then watched this. I was upset until I told myself this isn't Agatha Christie. Then all went much better.

For the BBC scriptwriters however, they ought to be ashamed of themselves, riding on a famous author's coattails like that! And yes, faithfulness to the original is quite important as it purports to be "N or M", eh?

I can imagine the BBC llloking at the Christie canon and thinking what have we got left? Tommy and Tuppence Beresford fit the bill: younger, amateur, way out of their depths with mystery solving, sleuthing and espionage etc. Unlike Poirot or Marple, they fell into it through necessity to pay bills. Now the four books are fun, lightweight and boys own style of story. These adaptations are well produced, adapted and directed . Great cast bar David Walliams whose acting is pretty dreadful, amateur ironically. I've concluded he can only act in things he himself has written. The plot slows to a snails pace when his wet persona is on screen. Miss Marple has more dynamism than Tommy. I'm convinced they didn't make anymore because he was poor. Anyway, it's not totally his fault. The directing does encourage a sluggishness. Dragging the stories over multiple parts needlessly. Jessica Raine is well cast and is a good actress, so deals effortlessly with the script. The support actors are all solid and sharp. Needed a shake and bucket of cold water to get some energy into it. Walliams was the albatross sadly.

I thought all the shows were delightful! Not to be taken too seriously, yet with enough suspense to keep one watching...the clothing, cars, homes...all the "sets" were lovely, authentic enough to keep the viewer in the nuances of the time, a lot of fun... The Tommy and Tuppence stories were the same informative enjoyment to read, and I thought these episodes were as good as the reading, although not the same...I really enjoyed them, and I'm hoping there are more! The actors couldn't have been better suited to their roles...and although Tuppence was, at times, little more independent than usual for the time, I found it refreshing and humorous, and Mr. Walliams played her opposite to perfection. The final episode, was grim enough, surely, to forgive any unduly perceived frivolousness previously...I'm thinking Ms Christie would have enjoyed these shows!

Back in the mists of time, Francesca Annis and James Warwick, with excellent support from Reece Dinsdale, played the parts of Tommy and Tuppence in 11 episodes of 'Partners in Crime'. It was an amusing, clever and beautifully acted series and did real justice to the stories of Agatha Christie and the characters which she created.

Now we have a plastic imitation which is so poor it's almost unbelievable. David Walliams wanders around looking vacant and completely lost while demonstrating a total inability to act. Jessica Raine, so good in 'Call the Midwife', demonstrates how acting is often as much about the casting as the actor's ability. Her 'Tuppence' seems disconnected from reality and she speaks her lines as if reading from an autocue. She appears awkward and uncomfortable in her role, nothing like the enthusiastic and wonderfully likable character portrayed by Annis way back in 1983. The other characters are like cardboard cut outs, with little presence and no memorability. The dialogue is, to say the least, 'clunky' and, overall, this adaptation is awful.

Why oh why do programme makers feel the need to remake wonderful classic series and films with today's latest 'names' in leading roles ? It rarely works and the results are frequently dreadful, as here.

I realize that Partner's in Crime has been "done" before.... but at least this time they filmed outside the sound stage! We found the series entertaining. It was filmed in this century and although the stories are not "true" to Miss Christie's original books, written in oh, 1929, they are fun, suspenseful, and do make you ask yourself the question... "who done it?" We have watched both sets of Partner's in Crime running on Acorn TV, and although we started watching the older set first, we actually did prefer this production better. It was a disappointment when we reached the last show for the year. We would like to see the series continue. For those that gave poor reviews, remain living in the past and continue to re-read your paperbacks, and stay away from the "telly" No point kicking and screaming into this century when you are so comfortable reliving your past. One final rant, if BBC didn't remake something what ever would you watch? It seems all the good programing we stream from the UK tends to have a life span of two years at most. Evidently you prefer to watch and rewatch tired old programs from the last century! Bravo BBC carry on! We here in "the colonies" love your new programs, and would be thrilled to find season, two, three, four, five.....Partner's in Crime!

This Partners in Crime script is so slow, tedious and forced in every way - it is painful. It is hard to believe this level of drivel of the BBC. The dialogue is neither the way people speak now nor how they spoke then and the character of Tommy, while he should be a slightly diffident Englishman of the period, is so backward he seems to have got a serious case of Asperger's. There isn't anything much better to say about Jessica Raine's Tuppence. She is supposed to be a bit zany and charming, not completely off her head and as graceless as a baboon in a miniature shop. She is not attractive as a person, and manages no appealing qualities, coming across as too grating and out of place with her surroundings however stylish her hats. In any case, the two leads have absolutely NO chemistry between them as they bumble through scene after scene and one wonders how they ever might have married or if they did, how they manage to stay that way. I normally love period pieces like this and will cut them quite a bit of slack if they have some wit about them. But this out of the way piece is actually embarrassing to watch and Agatha Christie, who wrote wonderful stories that invited you to suspend disbelief for a time with great style is, I fear, with episode 3, turning once again in her grave.

I admit to liking Agatha Christie, and have watched other versions of Tommy and Tuppence, but I really enjoyed this version. Too bad it only lasted one season. Interesting casting. I'd love to see them do more.

Very entertaining series, full of suspense and fun… my friends, family and I do hope it will be continued. We find that both Jessica Raine and David Walliams are ideal for their respective roles, and that they interpret their relation wife-husband with absolute brio! Tuppence is always sparkling with energy, wit and charm, and Tommy is like a big teddy bear: warm, cuddly, devoted, reliable, reassuring, caring and courageous… exactly as in A. Christie's book. Both actors are an ideally suited couple on screen and they play their parts perfectly, with a lot of subtlety… it is a real pleasure to watch them face new adventures. Very well shot. The clothing, the furniture, cars... all is very well chosen and authentic enough to make the viewer happy. Good idea of splitting one novel into two parts. Short – thank you, BBC! for this unforgettable enjoyment. We are impatiently awaiting the continuation of Partner's in Crime.

I admit that I could only tolerate about 30 minutes of this awful show before turning it off and hitting delete. For a reason I have never comprehended, some screenwriters think they can construct better stories and plots than the woman who has sold more murder mysteries and thrillers than any other author. For no good reason, the story was set 30 years later than in the book and in that era it makes no sense. Even in the brief part I watched, the original story was mangled, again for no good reason, beyond recognition. Tommy and Tuppence are my favourite Agatha Christie characters but they are completely unrecognisable in this terrible attempt at a TV 'adaptation'. The character playing Tommy is badly miscast and portrays him as a bumbling idiot: in the books, he was a twice wounded WWI veteran, intelligent (often solving the mystery before Tuppence) but reluctant to jump to conclusions. The portrayal of Tuppence, and her relationship with Tommy (or lack of it, in the show), was poor beyond belief.

Agatha Christie can be done well and is done well when those involved respect the plots, the period and the characters. I have recently bought, and watched yet again, the wonderful Miss Marple adaptations starring Joan Hickson. Hickson portrays Miss Marple brilliantly and the plots have only those changes needed to turn a novel into a TV show.