Witness for the Prosecution (TV Movie 1982) Poster

(1982 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
31 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A very worthy remake
TheLittleSongbird19 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The play is a lot of fun that keeps you guessing until the end, and Billy Wilder's film is one of the best Agatha Christie film adaptations in my opinion. So this TV film had much to live up to. And it did so in a worthy way, and generally compares favourably. The music score can be a little too obtrusive sometimes, but the biggest problem was Beau Bridges who is much too laid-lack, nowhere near shady enough and he doesn't have the slick charm, charisma or even handsome enough looks to have three women falling for him. Tyrone Power however did have those things. However, the film is very well photographed and looks evocative and wholly professional in how it was made. The direction is careful and meticulous but never resorting to stodginess. The dialogue is intelligent and sometimes funny, the courtroom scenes are well paced and compelling and while the chemistry between Richardson and Rigg is not quite as dynamic as Laughton and Dietrich and perhaps a little too teasing it is still sharp and intense.

The story keeps you guessing, no matter how familiar you are with the story or not, coming from somebody who's seen the play twice and the Wilder film at least seven times the story was suspensefully and grippingly told which was what I was looking for really. The flashbacks didn't harm anything at all. I also don't mind it being word for word, screen for screen as it is well made stuff and has a good cast to carry it. I can understand why people would be dubious though, as I admittedly was too, seeing as the remake of Psycho was also word for word screen for screen and even shot for shot and it was an awful film because it had no sense of suspense or terror and the cast was bad, which was not the case here. In fact, apart from Bridges, the cast were very good. Ralph Richardson gives a quieter and perhaps more subtle performance than Charles Laughton, and it was a convincing approach and he still gives an enigmatic and twitchy performance as a result.

Though admittedly I do prefer the more shrewd and gleeful performance of Laughton who made the already great dialogue even funnier by his comic delivery alone. Diana Rigg is also very good and delightfully wicked, probably the member of the cast that I remember. She isn't quite as successful as Marlene Dietrich with the Cockney-voiced lady but takes a very noble stab at it with some clever direction, with Dietrich she succeeded in using a completely different voice which compensated for the little attempt taken to disguise her distinctive nose. Deborah Kerr is in a different role, but does so in a fun and charming performance with good chemistry with Richardson, while Donald Pleasance's prosecutor is appropriately cunning and thoughtfully observed. Wendy Hiller is very sweet and dotty. All in all, of course there were times that weren't quite there but this Witness for the Prosecution is still very worthy and compares favourably.

8/10 Bethany Cox
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A fine adaptation.
Sleepin_Dragon17 April 2018
This is a fine adaptation of one of Christie's best known works. When people rate and compare this I wonewoif they're comparing the Dietrich film, or the text. Let's face it the text is so short that the play lends itself so well to development and interpretation. It is one of her most ingenious plots, and relies on convincing characters.

This features, for the most part excellent performances, Ralph Richardson steals the show, closely followed by Diana Right, who manages to make Christine as cold as ice. Pleasance and Hiller are also fine.

The problem for me comes from Beau Bridges, whom was wildly miscast, lacking the emotional depth required to make Leonard convincing. I would have loved to see Simon MacKorkindale in the role, he had so much charm.

Some great scenes, some wonderfully dramatic moments, particularly the theatrical finale. I'd rank it third after, firstly 1957's classic, and secondly the BBC's deliciously dark adaptation from 2016.

A very enjoyable watch, 8/10
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Compared quite favorably
nellybly-36 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I benefited by watching the 1957 version and this one within hours of each other.

Each has it's weaknesses and strengths. The major weakness IMO of this version was the music used. It intruded and didn't match the mood of the story. Though Ralph Richardson's portrayal doesn't have the bravado of Charles Laughton's, he brought a quiet conviction to the part. Beau Bridges was compared unfavorably to Tyrone Power but he (Bridges) showed the boyish charm that would take in a lonely older woman who would want to mother him or even marry him. Power came across as more mature and world weary though he did bring his own brand of charm to the part. Diana Rigg was very good but I felt Marlene Dietrich in the 1957 film was the better actress, especially, as a native German speaker, she was able to pull off a Cockney (or near enough) accent.

People have said the scene where Sir Wilfred meets the "Cockney" woman differed and that the 1957 version was the correct and superior one have got it wrong. This version's meeting is the one in the short story the movies were based on. Never having seen the play or read a copy I can't say which meeting was used in it but I do own the book that contains the short story and have recently read it.

There are complaints that they followed almost word for word and scene for scene the Wilder version but I don't have a problem with that. A good story is a good story and they wouldn't be the first nor the last to do such a thing.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
God Bless Sir Ralph Richardson
borsch28 December 2002
This remake of the Laughton/Power/Dietrich film is quite enjoyable, owing to skillful casting, top production values, and, of course, Dame Christie's cracking good story. Sadly, the only liability is the performance of Sir Ralph Richardson (It's almost unspeakable to say this; I feel like Brutus plunging the knife into his Caesar). This was one of his last performances, and his immense skill simply cannot overcome his advanced age. (Granted, his character is supposed to be aged and ill, but Sir Ralph is unable to act intrigued and energized by his last case the way Laughton was in the original.) Still, his presence alone delivers barrels full of audience goodwill, and the piece is anchored by fine performances from Diana Rigg in the Dietrich role, Deborah Kerr in Elsa Lanchester's part (a fun bit of off-casting!) and by Beau Bridges, who stretches himself beyond his normal nice-guy blandness and convinces in the Ty Power role. A nice movie for a rainy afternoon or a boring holiday!
21 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Why remakes sometimes fail
theowinthrop7 March 2006
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.
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fine version of a good story
jjnxn-112 April 2012
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.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Good Remake of a Great Story
claudio_carvalho26 September 2010
In 1954, when the efficient but bitter and stubborn barrister Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Ralph Richardson) returns to his office in London recovering from a heart attack, he is invited to defend Leonard Stephen Vole (Beau Bridges), who is the prime suspect in a murder case. Leonard is a former soldier that fought in World War II and is married with his beloved German wife Christine Helm Vole (Diana Rigg). He is unemployed and accused of seducing and murdering the wealthy middle-aged single woman Emily French (Patricia Leslie) to inherit 80,000 pounds. His unique alibi would be the testimony of Christine, which would not be accepted by the court, since she is his wife. Along the trial, Christine is surprisingly called to testify in court by the prosecution, when secrets about their lives are disclosed.

"Witness for the Prosecution" (1957) is another remarkable movie of Billy Wilder and one of the best about trial. Based on the play of Agatha Christie, the plot is perfectly tied-up without any flaw in the screenplay, which has many plot points and witty lines in a perfect combination of the caustic and sarcastic "British humor" with crime, drama and mystery. Despite being a good remake with great cast and performances, I do not understand the purpose of shooting frame-by-frame the masterpiece of Billy Wilder. The last time I had seen this film was on 14 June 2003. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Testemunha de Acusação" ("Witness for the Prosecution")
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Greatest Trial on Screen
igorlongo4 October 2009
The better version of Witness For The Prosecution,starring a very remarkable Diana Rigg as a frosty and yet highly intense dark lady,and presenting the most compelling courtroom drama ever seen on the screen,with a duel to death among an ambitious and insinuating prosecutor played with his usual malicious glint by a wonderful Donald Pleasance and a dying and cunning barrister played with vulnerable naughtiness by a titanic Ralph Richardson.The stellar cast is completed by the Gotha of beloved English character actors:Wendy Hiller,Richard Vernon,David Langton,Peter Sallis...even Deborah Kerr in an endearing role of comic relief.A major success,highly deserving a DVD edition,and very curiously far superior to the Billy Wilder version,exceedingly verging on glamor and comedy.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The perfect cozy mystery for a dark & stormy night
gridoon202413 January 2020
Enormously enjoyable courtroom murder mystery. Agatha Christie's simple yet ingenious concept (which has been copied many, many times by other writers, e.g. Joe Eszterhas) is brought to life by a terrific cast, headed by the impeccable Ralph Richardson. Diana Rigg and Donald Pleasence (old James Bond veterans!) are also superb. Only Beau Bridges seems a little out of his league in this company, but he comes through at the end. One of the better made-for-TV Christie movies, and perfect for a night-in with a cup of hot cocoa (or anything else you might prefer). *** out of 4.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good casting
The_Rook10 January 2003
Sorry but I find the original a bit slow. The original court case is probably more dramatic. However, I like the cast better in this newer rendition and wish it was available on DVD. Diana Rigg as always is great. Deborah Kerr and Donald Pleasance also turn in good performances.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Entertaining Murder Story.
rmax3048236 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
It's impossible to watch this TV program without comparing it to Billy Wilder's 1957 version, and both are of professional caliber.

If Wilder's is the better iteration (out of a total of five or so) it's partly because of its bigger budget. This sticks closer to the play or so I'd guess. There are only three fully developed sets, whereas Wilder could take us to a knockabout pub, a wreck of Hamburg, and the murder victim's kitchen where a nervous Tyrone Power demonstrated a double egg beater.

The 1957 version was also chipper, which this one isn't. Wilder put more emphasis on Sir Wilfred Brimley's preadolescent naughtiness, sneaking cigars and brandy like a child. Ralph Richardson, as Sir Wilfred, who handles the defense of Leonard Vole (Beau Bridges) is sly enough but slow and some of the energy is drained from the narrative. Nor is Diana Rigg, with whom I was deeply in love, quite as authentically nasty as Marlene Dietrich, and her German accent is almost bleached out. Even Wendy Hiller, superb actress, isn't the equal of Una O'Connor as the housekeeper, Mrs. Jackson. Just compare their delivery of one word in response to a judge's inquiry: "Why?" O'Connor snaps it fiercely back as a challenge at His Honor, while Hiller's sounds like a puzzled query.

None of this is to put down this presentation. It's all done smoothly, despite Beau Bridges not being the actor Tyrone Power was, and not being allowed by the director to ham it up quite so deliciously. You may think me an insensitive bulb for preferring Power's operatic performance. Well, I am but that's not the point.

The ending is the weakest part. I don't mind the surprise involving Vole and his wife Christine. But the "honey blond" pops out of nowhere like a Jill in the Box and is clearly only there to see that justice is served.

No reason to miss it though. It's a damned good story.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The film belongs to Diana Rigg
gelman@attglobal.net6 September 2011
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.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Torpedoed by one piece of gross miscasting!
tbrittreid10 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I am amazed at the number of comments here faulting Sir Ralph Richardson's performance here and praising Dame Diana Rigg's. The situation is, if anything, the reverse. Admittedly, I hadn't seen the Billy Wilder cinema version for some years when I watched this, and therefore couldn't compare Sir Ralph's work to that of Charles Laughton (I haven't viewed this one since, either), but that isn't necessary to evaluate Rigg. She is totally miscast, in a way that is fatal to the twist ending (note the spoiler warning above, please). Unlike Marlene Dietrich, for Rigg the German accent is a complete affectation, while the cockney isn't that far from her own British speech pattern: vocally, she is quite recognizable as the other woman, at least to anyone familiar with her from other work--the fact that Rigg is kept in shadows in this scene (something that was unnecessary with Dietrich) would raise some vague suspicions of any uninitiated but reasonably intelligent viewer as well, even if her voice didn't give her away. But it does.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A poor copy of the original
electrictroy23 January 2009
I watched Witness for the Prosecution on the "This" movie channel hoping it would be just as good as the original, but unfortunately not.

It plays like a TV episode instead of a movie, and the acting is very stilted. Even the way they move feels like watching robots in motion rather than a natural performance. I don't know who to blame - the directors or the actors - but in either case the actors look like actors, not real people experiencing real events.

I recommend you get the original movie which DOES feel natural. Charles Laughton does a brilliant job as the lawyer.

Even if you have to rent it, the original movie is better than this "free" TV version and worth the expenditure. PBS sometimes runs the original on weekends, so maybe you can catch it then.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not up to the original, but it's got Diana Rigg!!!
wrk653922 January 2002
While this TV remake of the classic 1957 Billy Wilder film can't hold a candle to the original, it's fun if taken on its own. It's well cast and has a beautiful period feel. And let's face it, any chance to see Diana Rigg is a welcome one!!
12 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
More than acceptable version of a classic tale of nefarious scheming.
mark.waltz20 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I recall seeing this on TV back in 1982 long before I got to see the original 1957 film version of Agatha Christie's short story, eager to see after a long absence the ageless Deborah Kerr and the exquisitely beautiful Diana Rigg, whom I had just seen on the big screen in the Agatha Christie murder mystery "Evil Under the Sun". Those who are huge fans of the 1957 Billy Wilder film will be either hugely disappointed or impressed by the subtle changes, where characterizations of the major players are quite different than they were 25 years before. Sir Ralph Richardson isn't as doddering as Charles Laughton's barrister, perhaps more fragile yet equally determined to remain vital in his beloved profession years after most people retire from it. I find that added more of a quality of me rooting for him more, because with Laughton, you know he was already crafty, where with Richardson, it's somewhere beneath the surface and must come out gradually as points of the murder case are revealed to him and everything comes together. Deborah Kerr, second billed in the supporting role of the nurse that Elsa Lanchaster played, is feisty and no-nonsense, but she's not as flighty in her line delivery as the former Bride of Frankenstein was.

The film starts with the legendary Wendy Hiller (a co-star of Kerr's from "Love on the Dole" and "Separate Tables") walking down a dark London street, and it is assumed that she will be the victim. But her walk is merely filmed to set up the atmosphere, as she walks into the home of her employer's, sees her laughing with an unseen visitor, and goes upstairs. A sudden crash and only the tiniest hint of a scream gives the indication that something nefarious has occurred, and indeed, when Hiller goes downstairs, she finds her employer dead and the room a ramshackled mess. Beau Bridges comes to see Richardson, certain he will be accused of her murder because of extenuating circumstances (he's been left the dead woman's estate), and over Kerr's objections, Richardson decides to take on his case when the arrest does finally occur. But the presence of Bridges' wife (Diana Rigg) puts a damper on Richardson's defense, especially when she is outed on the witness stand for being a liar and a bigamist. A surprise phone call to Richardson promises to turn the case around, and that of course, leads to some delightful twists and turns where another case becomes imminent for the energetic Richardson, revitalized after such a complex case.

I see my original rating, prior to writing this review , was a "10", and as good as this is, it is not perfect. I could have sworn it was multi-nominated for several acting Emmy's or Golden Globes, but found that not to be the case. Perhaps 25 years later after the film, there really were few surprises to discover in this Christie short story, even though the cast (particularly Rigg) is excellent. TV movies in the early 1980's also re-did a lot of the classic tales movie audiences were familiar with, coming around the time of another "Scarlet Pimpernel", "A Christmas Carol", "Oliver Twist" and various other classics of literature and the theater. Still, every detail in this TV version is letter perfect, with the mid 50's atmosphere so luscious, and location footage of the historical landmarks of London making me wish I was there right now. Rarely are remakes better than the original, and rarely are they just as good or even memorable. The aspect of that alone makes this worth seeking out, even if you are, like several friends of mine, major fans of the Laughton/Dietrich/Power version that is considered one of the great mind blowing mysteries of all time.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Your Lordship, I would like to question the reliability of the Monocle Method!
Coventry21 February 2024
This is a TV-remake, and a truly magnificent one I should add, of the awesome 1957 film directed and written-for-the-screen by Billy Wilder. "Witness for the Prosecution" is arguably the greatest courtroom story ever told, or at least on par with only a selected few other landmarks (like "12 Angry Men" or "To Kill a Mockingbird"), but it was originally created as a stay play by the most brilliant writer who ever lived - and that is inarguable, as far as I'm concerned - Agatha Christie.

Luckily, two adaptations later, the story still contains all the brilliant trademarks that are so typically Agatha Christie. Strong women, unreliable people all around, and a couple of unpredictable but beyond intelligent plot twists. It's the story of a stubborn and self-assured senior barrister who, despite his age and ailing health, accepts a seemingly impossible case to defend a charming young man accused of murdering an old spinster for the inheritance. The beautiful wife he adores can provide him with an alibi, but her testimony of a loving wife doesn't carry much weight. When the allegedly loving wife unforeseeably turns against her unsuspecting husband, she suddenly does become a very credible witness... although for the prosecution.

Compelling and full of surprises, even when you already know the story and remember how it ends, that's how I would describe "Witness for the Prosecution". The original landmark starred a few bona fide acting monuments, like Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich, but this prestigious TV-remake has an impressive cast as well. There's Ralph Richardson, Beau Bridges, Deborah Kerr, and two of my personal heroes as well, namely Donald Pleasance and Michael Gough. Once again, though, my main admiration goes out to the originally penned down plot by dame Agatha Christie. What a lesson in pure misleading! When you first experience "Witness for the Prosecution" it's simply impossible to predict what'll happen. When you think you have it figured out, you're being deceived, like Sir Wilfred gets deceived by his "monocle method".
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
shadow of the original
didi-59 February 2005
Based on the same script and set-up as the famous Billy Wilder version, which starred Tyrone Power, Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, and Elsa Lanchester, this TV version tries to impress but doesn't quite make it.

This time around the possible murderer is Beau Bridges, Ralph Richardson is the lawyer, Diana Rigg is the mysterious wife, and Deborah Kerr the nurse. Although they are all good, they can't hold a candle to the classic performances.

This Agatha Christie tale was always on the clunky side - too much going on and an unrealistic conclusion. For a TV movie it works well, perhaps more successfully than a new theatrical remake. It just doesn't remove memories of the superior original.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Very Entertaining
chadwick-8695515 July 2022
Ralph Richardson steals the show, as well as Diana Rigg (Mrs. Emma Peel from The Avengers), gorgeous as ever.

The Richardson's delivery is so humorous, so articulate, so entertaining. A++++

Diana Rigg's performance was not on par with Richardson's (her German accent was terrible), nor as Mrs. Emma Peel, but that just might be my own issues ... The Avengers (TV series, 60s) was in a class of its own, and I first watched it when I was a boy. Mrs. Emma Peel broke new ground as one of the first kickass women crime-fighters. Later, as a parent, I would watch it with my kids, including my daughter ... good role model for her. Diana Rigg is awesome; what class, intelligence, energy, and beauty.

Beau Bridges' performance was lackluster, they should have found someone else for his role, anyone else.

There were many famous British actors in the movie, such as Michael Gough, Wendy Hiller (acted in Murder on the Orient Express, another Christie classic), and Donald Pleasence.

This is a movie I would watch again. For me, this is a high compliment.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
OK, although I prefer the 1957 adaptation
znatokdetectiva23 September 2020
The story "Witness for the Prosecution" is one of the most shocking and brain - washing in the work of Agatha Christie, because it was just great to explain everything in this way! The 1957 film adaptation is great, I really liked that adaptation, but this one is also quite good. Of course, the lawyer and the nurse and their arguments and bickering are much better (a hundredfold) in the earlier adaptation, but this is not the main disadvantage. This film is actually a complete remake of the 1957 film, which is exactly what it loses, since it retells the old film almost verbatim, while not introducing anything new and removing some good old things. But still, This movie is a good way to spend time if, for example, you don't like old/off - color movies, or if You want to see a shorter adaptation - the 1982 version is at Your service. 7/10
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Excellent Remake
boblipton8 April 2023
Beau Bridges is accused of murdering an older woman who left him money in her will. Can even the great Ralph Richardson, almost sidelined by a heart attack, get him declared not guilty when his wife, Diana Rigg, is testifying against him?

In this remake of the 1957 Billy Wilder movie based on Agatha Christie's stage play, matters proceed pretty much as they did in the original. John Gay and Lawrence Marcus did a brush-up of Wilder's script, while still setting it in 1957. The cast is, of course, very different. Deborah Kerr the nurse. Other distinguished and very able performers appear, including Donald Pleasance, Wendy Hiller, Michael Gough, and Peter Sallis.

Able farceurs all, which makes the decision to focus less on the comedy in Wilder's script an interesting choice. Oh, the bits are still there, with the cigars and brandy and the Bermuda shorts, but they are more amusing distractions from the serious business at hand. They're chuckles, and then back to work. This version concentrates more on Richardson's team than earlier versions, with Richardson's relationship with his clerk, Sallis, in focus.

Because this is based on a play, remakes don't bother me. Certainly, this Hallmark Hall of Fame version has much to recommend it. But then, for my taste, anything with Richardson is wonderful.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Witness for the Prosecution
CinemaSerf8 June 2023
The 1957 version of this story is certainly one of my favourite films, so any remake was always going to be a tough ask. This one is, however, a decent and characterful effort with Sir Ralph Richardson as curmudgeonly barrister "Sir Wilfred" who is charged with the seemingly impossible task of defending "Leonard Vole" (Beau Bridges) from a charge that he murdered an older lady with whom he was friends - and who had left him great deal of money! The ensuing courtroom drama is tense and with strong supporting performances from Donald Pleasence as opposing counsel ("Mr Myers") and Dame Wendy Hiller as her maid "Janet Mackenzie" well paced. Sadly, though, neither Beau Bridges nor Diana Rigg manage to raise their game as the accused "Vole" and his highly duplicitous wife "Christine". Their performances lack the grit and sophistication required to keep the tension going and although Sir Ralph is certainly in his element as the formidable barrister, he hasn't quite enough strength to carry the others as Laughton managed to 25 years earlier. That said, it's still a good watch and as TV movies go, certainly one of the better of this genre with good attention to detail and a rather lovely old Rolls Royce.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Weak, stagey version
Marlburian28 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Stodgy remake
CutUncut202118 December 2021
The emeritus Richardson slurring his words, and nearly every other member of the cast wasted on this somewhat stodgy remake of Wilder's simmering masterpiece of 1957. Why bother? However good the intentions, the result is expendable. For a start, Bridges and Rigg are ghastly and inept, not to mention poor Kerr relegated to this tawdry role after such a fantastic career, and the brilliant Pleasance stuck with pouting and a handful of lines. But bills must be paid and food put upon the table, and all those involved were complicit in this ham-fisted travesty, some perhaps reluctant. Gibson did plenty of admirably solid TV work, he but never really got off the ground as a film director.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oh, Agatha how could you????
jaybabb8 February 2003
This is Dame Agatha at her best. I also have the 1957 original, but I gotta tell you this version is far better! Credit Diana Rigg for that, she steals the show and gives a towering performance.

The film starts when Janet is on her way back to the house(Wendy Hiller)She hears two people-she sees one of them-but can't see the other-it's a man. She goes upstairs-then she hears screams and crashing about. She goes down stairs to find a middle aged woman dead.

That's the set up. What follows is a series of plot twists. Leonard Vole(Beau Bridges) Is arrested for the crime and is brought to trial. The Barrister Sir Wilford Robarts(Ralph Richardson)is asked to take the case.

Is Leonard Vole Guilty? Be prepared for one of the most surprising endings in a mystery! It's shot in the arm from Agatha Christie! Oh, Agatha How could you?
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed