Here Agatha Christie nearly becomes Gothic. A young couple comes back to England and buys a house on a fancy from the wife. And it so happens it is the house where she lived when very young before being sent to New Zealand where she spent her whole life. But it is also the house where her stepmother was assassinated just before she left. She is having strange recollections that are rather disturbing. So she decides to find out about her past in spite of the advice given to her by several people, including Miss Marple that the past should not be meddled with. And sure enough that will cost one more life and the capture of a criminal (once again at the cost of some staging). This story is special because these old Tudor houses are known to be built on strange layouts due to the practice in the past to have secret corridors and secret hiding places for religious difficult times that lasted up to the end of the 18th century, if not even later. But no matter how hard Agatha Christie hints at such a possibility in this Hillside house she manages to keep us away from the secret passage to some all the more secret dungeon with or without skeletons. But a body there is for sure, even if we do not see it.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Let's see, this is an Agatha Christie murder mystery (which teases you with the supernatural at the start, but of course AC did not believe in the supernatural). There is a major character, who is of the right age to have committed the murder, had the motive and the opportunity, but NEVER gets implicated in the investigation, while several other minor characters are considered as the definitive suspects. Do you by any chance suppose that he or she will turn out to be the real killer? I don't know if Christie's story was so obvious on paper, but on the screen I spotted the killer as soon as he appeared, never changed my mind until the end, and I was actually right - something which happens in only about 10% of the mysteries I watch! Otherwise, this film is well-made, with an engaging performance by the lovely Geraldine Alexander, and a tense climax. Miss Marple herself is not the central character is this one, which works out fine. (**1/2)

'Sleeping Murder' keeps rolling around on afternoon BBC television, and I have been drawn into the story twice so far. I don't like Miss Marple, so perhaps that is why I find this a decent story - I can't compare it to the books, and the world's oldest detective only crops up every now and again to explain the plot to the newlywed couple. I love the idea of Gwenda subconsciously buying a house from her past, and the details she uncovers, such as the pattern of the wallpaper in the cupboard and the steps in the garden. The history in the house, and the subsequent family tree research, had me hooked. The 'whodunnit' wasn't exactly taxing - just look for the most dubious character, battling with a bad case of pantomime villain - but the unravelling of the clues kept me interested (just about - at times this felt like an epic, instead of an installment of a detective series). The setting, period detail, and characters were all evocative of a storybook version of an era gone by. Perfect Sunday afternoon fodder.

Spoilers herein.These Marple films are driving me crazy! The books are so clever, so experimental and adventurous. These film versions are so ignorant of how the books are put together it leaves me breathless. In this case, the idea is that the house (including the grounds) is itself a witness, a character. The competing realities in this mystery are all triggered by that space. There are films that use architecture as characters, and do it well. But not here. What a waste.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.