The characters seem so different to the books it's really annoying. Walliams is awful as Tommy & there is such a lack of chemistry between the two leads.
I love the Agatha Christie stories & I've enjoyed lots of different adaptions for TV but this one stinks.
Although I don't dislike it perhaps as much as you do (just a guess), I must admit that Walliams doesn't seem to fit the role of Tommy that well. He does a good job of playing the straight man, but that's not the problem. The problem is that his character seems so incompetent and foolhardy that at times it's hard to envision him as a sleuth at all. His wife Tuppence seems to be doing everything for him, making all the big decisions, finding more important clues, encouraging him to stay on the case etc. At this point, 2 thirds of the way through this 3 part mini series, it's very hard to see how he is an equal to his wife. What does Tommy bring to the table that Tuppence doesn't already have? I'm waiting for him to have his hero moment where we see his strength: the sound logical reasoning that tempers his wife's more impulsive instincts. I'm still a fan of this series and there were things I liked about episode 2, but it feels a bit uneven at this point.
shareIf I recall correctly. Tommy Beresford is a strong, ex army character. The David Walliams depiction is very different.
shareShowing men as inferior to women is fairly common in contemporary culture, so it's not much of a surprise really that Tommy's character would be played like that.
'Monsters? We're British!'
But my big problem with it is that neither character is charismatic in this; neither seems to be 3 dimensional, and there is no chemistry. The characters in the book had to be charming and charismatic to get away with getting involved with all the plots they did. Times were different and the male/female roles were obviously different, and I do see that to not be banned sexist there is a reversal of gender roles but they always were a team together. Not like in this.
shareSadly, that's a very good point, hugh. No disrespect to David Walliams, but even the fact that he was cast as Tommy demonstrates that the character is meant to be seen as effete, emasculated and buffoonish.
I can't recall which one it was now, but one of the Marples had Miss Marple interpolated into what I assume was originally a Tommy & Tuppence story, where Tommy was played by Anthony Andrews. Much more the idea. But if they did such a character now, social politics dictates he'd have to be the secret Black Hat or somesuch. COuldn't possibly be an intelligent, positive man.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I know people didn't like putting Miss Marple into their story, but, I actually liked this version of Tommy and Tuppence and would have liked to see more of stories involving them. - with or without Miss Marple
shareThis travesty of a thriller comes across as a children's famous five style and a bad one at that.
Rubbish writing and as foe the acting well have seen village plays carried out for convincingly.
It's absolutely awful.
share