When an old school friend contacts Lynley about a missing schoolboy, the inspector soon has to launch a murder inquiry.When an old school friend contacts Lynley about a missing schoolboy, the inspector soon has to launch a murder inquiry.When an old school friend contacts Lynley about a missing schoolboy, the inspector soon has to launch a murder inquiry.
Photos
Lisa Stevenson
- Patsy Whateley
- (as Lise Stevenson)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- GoofsThe murder was set in an all boys school but when Havers was pinning up a map of the school to allow her to mark the places searched the notice board clearly had "Girls Games" above it.
- Quotes
Barbara Havers: [Exiting her father's hospital room] Ah, how'd you know I was here?
Thomas Lynley: It's the only place you ever turn off your mobile.
- ConnectionsFollowed by The Inspector Lynley Mysteries: Payment in Blood (2002)
Featured review
Unschooled
I see a lot of movies, and many of them are mysteries, or advertise themselves so.
I'm particularly attracted to these because I believe they are a sort of sketchpad for experiments in storytelling, how narrative can be boogered around to challenge and engage us. Those that adapt Christie and the Holmes stories particularly interest because they are film adaptations of something that works. How the adapters succeed or fail in working with the narrative tricks, tells me a lot about film works, how my mind works, and to some extent how I make stories about how the world works.
If the project is a BBC production, I am universally disappointed. And that's not just mysteries. If they start with a book that has depth, they trammel all the important achievements of the author. "Bleak House," "Middlemarch," "Pride and Prejudice" are all successful entertainments in their TeeVee incarnations with amusing characters. But these were born with souls and the BBC production factory rips that soul out and replaces it with what they believe is modern storytelling that works or at least brings viewers back.
I don't get so upset when the original book is by a secondary talent, as is George. But she IS a talent. Her mysteries use the form as the merest of familiar skeletons on which to hang all sorts of internal thoughts. The secrets in her stories aren't who did the murder. There's some revelation in why, of course. But the main secrets are those carried by her two detectives and how they "uncover" them using the detective form of discovery and encounter. Its a worthy thing.
Now this. It is the first I have seen of the series. It has that once-ironically lovely, now dreadful, dreadful woman introducing it, to tell us what it is "all about." As if it were about characters.
So okay, we plod through the story: a murder, procedurals, disclosure. The lives of the detectives hardly matter. The working class woman partner does have her challenge with her folks. But its shoehorned in as a background issue. Its story, you see and they couldn't jettison it even though they ripped out all the connection to discovery.
My. We celebrate that we have publicly funded broadcasting that respects intelligent material in the face of vulgar market needs and general dumbness. Oh yeah?
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
I'm particularly attracted to these because I believe they are a sort of sketchpad for experiments in storytelling, how narrative can be boogered around to challenge and engage us. Those that adapt Christie and the Holmes stories particularly interest because they are film adaptations of something that works. How the adapters succeed or fail in working with the narrative tricks, tells me a lot about film works, how my mind works, and to some extent how I make stories about how the world works.
If the project is a BBC production, I am universally disappointed. And that's not just mysteries. If they start with a book that has depth, they trammel all the important achievements of the author. "Bleak House," "Middlemarch," "Pride and Prejudice" are all successful entertainments in their TeeVee incarnations with amusing characters. But these were born with souls and the BBC production factory rips that soul out and replaces it with what they believe is modern storytelling that works or at least brings viewers back.
I don't get so upset when the original book is by a secondary talent, as is George. But she IS a talent. Her mysteries use the form as the merest of familiar skeletons on which to hang all sorts of internal thoughts. The secrets in her stories aren't who did the murder. There's some revelation in why, of course. But the main secrets are those carried by her two detectives and how they "uncover" them using the detective form of discovery and encounter. Its a worthy thing.
Now this. It is the first I have seen of the series. It has that once-ironically lovely, now dreadful, dreadful woman introducing it, to tell us what it is "all about." As if it were about characters.
So okay, we plod through the story: a murder, procedurals, disclosure. The lives of the detectives hardly matter. The working class woman partner does have her challenge with her folks. But its shoehorned in as a background issue. Its story, you see and they couldn't jettison it even though they ripped out all the connection to discovery.
My. We celebrate that we have publicly funded broadcasting that respects intelligent material in the face of vulgar market needs and general dumbness. Oh yeah?
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
helpful•631
- tedg
- Aug 7, 2006
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content