I have long been a fan of Agatha Christie we have boxed sets of Poirot and Miss Marple boxed sets, i thought the 2009 version of Why Didn't They Ask Evans was awful, nothing like the book, in the book someone was playing golf on the cliffs the ball went over and a man was found on the cliffs below, not in the 2009 version, to me if a film is being made of a book, keep to the book, i have found this on many occasions. I am in no way a prude but I have never known in an Agatha Christie film with Margaret Rutherford or Joan Hickson the words "bloody" "bugger" or "bastard" being used and I didn't see the need here in the 2009 version of Why Didn't They Ask Evans. Sue Davies

I'm not proud. I rented this 90-minute drama so I could catch up with the actress Hannah Murray, who played the lovely Cassie from Skins, a girl any bloke could fall in love with! She hasn't been in much since.As if anticipating said sad sackness, Ms Murray has had something of a reverse makeover and no longer has the blonde flower child look. Her hair is black or dark brunette, pinned up on her head, and she has horn-rimmed spectacles. Murray has a touch of the jolie-laird about her, here's she's more laird. She plays a noisy, assertive, sometimes charming and maybe perverse daughter of an aristocratic family with a secret to hide. If you've seen Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train, there's a character similar in it.Murray isn't in it until the half hour mark, but just about holds her own with the others, her diction is a bit garbled though - is it too late to straighten those teeth? One senses that, unlike Skins, her heart isn't really in it and unlike the other actors she doesn't know how to hit her marks and turn in a damage-limitation performance in a drama that clearly is going to be a bit naff. Her brand of charisma isn't required in a part where she is required to seem innocent/suspect by turns, but not much more.There's an all-star cast: Samantha Bond (Miss Moneypenny), Rik Mayall, Richard Briers, Ralf Little from The Fast Show, Doctor Who's Georgia Moffet,Warren Clarke, even the teacher in the first two series of Skins shows up too (Siwan Morris). But it all has a touch of amateur dramatics about it and only the two former comedians pull it off. Bond, when she isn't turning into her former boss Judi Dench, has a tough time of it.There's a certain charm about the young couple investigating a crime, even if having Marple tag along is a bit contrived (she wasn't in the Christie story at all). Generally it just doesn't work because it's not credible; in no way can you believe a family would take Ms Moffett into their bosom and let her stay for a few days, this sort of story would have been more credible in a 1940s-50s adaptation, but this is shot through with a modern sassiness. Ms Moffett is polished but just doesn't have the charm to make it likely, in fact Ms Murray might have been more persuasive, having that blend of flakiness and sneakiness to see her through. It gets more ludicrous as it goes on, with dead-hand exposition and characters turning up just to deliver information so the viewers can get from A-B, but as for Why Didn't They Ask Evans, I couldn't tell you much if I wanted to, the explanation is so long-winded and convoluted. The final scene, where a murder is held off just so Marple can finish her exposition for the viewers in fairness has some intentioned comedy but is beyond farce.As for McKenzie's Marple, she's not so bad but has a touch of the Mrs Doubtfire about her. She has a hawkish way about her, if she asked you what you had for tea, you'd be reluctant to tell her. As least Margaret Rutherford had a bumbling manner that disarmed the opposition.

One of Miss Marple's friends has a son (Bobby) who was on a Cliffside walk when he discovered a dying man who said the words "why didn't they ask Evans?" before passing away. The official enquiry into the death appears to have done a poor job of investigating anything so Bobby and rather impetuous and attractive friend Frankie take matters into their own hands. Enlisting the help of Miss Marple (whose methods vary greatly from her young charges) they trace the man back as having been at Castle Savage – home to a family as wealthy as they are dysfunctional – where they find the head of the family recently dead with money to be inherited, wills being questioned and relationships strained. It certainly appears something is wrong in connection to the man's death and key to solving it is understanding his final words.It must be boring to read (it is certainly boring to write) but again I will say that it personally doesn't bother me that this is a poor adaptation of the book or that it was never a Miss Marple story or any of these things. I can totally understand why this would be the key thing to those that love the book and wider works of the writer but for me it is about the film, not the book. All I am looking for is the film to work. Things are generally good from the start – the cliff-side opening makes for a good hook – and the tone is generally better than films from the last batch. The title panel is the only thing that appears not to have gotten the memo that we're not doing the "slightly OTT light-entertainment" thing anymore because, beyond the "matinee adventure" style font, the rest of the film is quickly sturdy and enjoyably serious without being overly serious or dry in the way some of the 1980's BBC Marple's could be. So in terms of tone and potential I was sold.The cast mostly add to this well because, although full of recognisable faces none of them overplay and because there isn't one clear "guest star", it prevents you assuming that the star is either the murderer or a red herring. Marple may not be in the original story but McKenzie continues to be the main character. Sadly she also continues to do little for me. It is not that she is "bad" but she doesn't do anything with the role of note and doesn't do anything to make enough of a character to make me be able to decide if she fits the character or not. The main thing she does is a bit (slightly gormless) smile and widening her eyes – an effect that I guess is supposed to make her look friendly and thus get people to talk but to me only has the effect of making her look more like Jim Broadbent than ever. Biggerstaff is not great but Moffett is better and the two together do add a bit of fun to the trio investigating the crime. Bond, Briers, Spall, Williams, Mayall and Dormer all do good work in support matching the tone and making for a good cast.So why is it not that great a film then? Well, simply put the writing gets worse the more you watch. The Marple films have never really been ones where the viewer can be ahead of the mystery particularly easily but this is one of the worst ones for this. Not only does it not make a lot of sense as it goes along but the "solution" is a real crock, with it not making sense and not being clear how Marple was able to make any of the massive leaps she had to make to get there. It is annoying to be engaged in a mystery just to have it suddenly solved out of thin air – deeply unsatisfying. Of course it doesn't help that the poor development of the solution often means that the scenes between the start of the film and then were already feeling a bit pointless and lacking direction – I didn't understand why up till that point but at the end I realised this feeling was because a lot of what had gone before was unconnected to the solution. Suddenly a minor character that was barely on screen became the most important character in the story and even then their part in it didn't really scan. Even the conclusion manages to have one of the people in the room kill one of the murderers in cold blood (not self defence) but yet we get nobody saying anything about what happens to that character as a result – again just adding to the viewer's feeling of being unsatisfied with how it ended.It is a shame because, while I am not taken by McKenzie, I am enjoying the more steady and serious tone that the recent Marple films have had. None of them have been brilliant though – at best they are OK but this one blows the potential of the mystery by making the solution come out of nowhere and be full of so many things that are unsatisfactory, confusing or just make no sense that it spoils a lot of the positive qualities that it had. I'm not too bothered by the writers changing the source material but if they are going to do it then they must make sure that it works – here it most certainly does not.

Like her predecessor Geraldine McEwan, the new Miss Marple, Julia McKenzie, has a great deal to overcome. The main issue is the skewed adaptation of Agatha Christie's original. While I do love Christie and Miss Marple, I'm actually getting a great deal of enjoyment out of this series. Yes, it's NOT Miss Marple to the word, and "Evans" never was a Marple Story. I read the book a few months ago and in my opinion, that book wasn't one of Christie's best. It's not a biggie with me that they've placed Miss Marple in it or they've made changes to the story. I simply enjoy watching mysteries made in England and set in other time periods. There's murder without buckets of blood and tons of gore on the screen, like we get here in the states. They murder each other while being beautifully dressed and serving tea and scones. Miss Marple cuts below the facade and gets her man.....or woman. She does't drop a stitch either. All in a day's work.