Murder with Mirrors (1985)

From my favorite movies..

Best movie ever!

Admirable film.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

. . . who murdered lots of pinned-down insects with sunlight and a magnifying glass, so I streamed this flick in order to discover how you could assassinate someone with mirrors. It turns out that this title constitutes False Advertising. THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI features far more mirror mayhem than this Made-for-TV offering. So why was Warner Bros. seeking a Mass Boob Tube audience for such seemingly quaint (if not stale) Agatha Christie parlor games? Exactly of what did Warner Bros. wish to warn America about when they produced MURDER WITH MIRRORS? The answer should be crystal clear to 2017 viewers. Which historical figure is most associated with mirrors? Narcissus, of course. Narcissism, or Mirror Obsession, gets its name from Narcissus. His obsession with himself and his reflection led to widespread Doom. Who just rigged Our Sacred National Election by selling out to the Red Commie KGB as he ran on a Platform of the Big Me? Our widely-diagnosed Pathological Narcissist-in-Chief Don Juan Rump, of course. KGB Fresh Recruit Rump was just beginning his Presidential Campaign in the 1980s--as documented then by Doonesbury cartoonist Gary Trudeau--when Warner Bros. tried to provide us with this more serious warning against the Coming Putin\Rump Crowd with this movie, but Red State Confederate America proved too dense to avoid being MURDERED BY MIRRORS now focusing the harsh Red Commie KGB Sun-like glare on ALL of their frail and elderly loved ones to burn them away, providing tax cuts to the Fat Cat Billionaire Oligarchs, eight of whom live in Russia!

This is a decent and reasonably faithful dramatisation of one of Christie's less compelling stories. It is not nearly as good as the roughly contemporary Joan Hickson version or the more recent re-write with Julia Mckenzie, but is still an enjoyable ninety minutes. However, I have one major reservation that other reviewers have all mentioned but have tended to gloss over: the deeply upsetting appearance of Bette Davis.TV movies are one-off productions so have no audience recognition or audience loyalty to guarantee the ratings. As a result, they commonly stuff their casts with ageing 'names' in an attempt to attract the attention of the viewers. In this case it was Bette Davis that was drafted in, but the producers should have had the good taste to realise that she was not well enough to appear on screen at that time and deserved better than to be used as a cynical marketing ploy.She was clearly ill and still recovering from a serious stroke. She looked at least ten years older than Helen Hayes (though actually younger) and tottered around as if she was in pain. Her deadpan face was inches deep in make-up (by her own make-up woman) and she looked terrible. She was struggling to speak clearly and her slow, expressionless line delivery was reminiscent of the careful enunciation of drunks trying not to slur their words.It was not a performance: it was an embarrassing and distressing mockery of one of the best and most iconic actresses of all time.All too obviously, Bette Davis thought she could disguise the ravages that time and sickness had wrought on her face and her talent and sparkle on screen just one last time. She should never have been encouraged in this delusion.Shame on you, Hajeno Productions and shame on you, Warner Brothers!

In the last role of her career, Helen Hayes gives a fine performance as Jane Marple, in this Agatha Christie whodunit, set mostly at an English estate. Although not one of my favorite Christie puzzles, the story is still pretty good, and worth watching, once. Character relationships are a bit complex, but the suspect pool is still manageable at seven or eight people.With breaks where the commercials would be, and cheap, nondescript background music, the film has a very made-for-TV look and feel. Some of the dialogue in the first ten minutes can be easily misinterpreted, so you must listen carefully or you will be led astray. As usual, clues are pleasantly subtle. Once you figure out the main clue, identifying the killer is easy.In addition to Helen Hayes, actor Leo McKern, as the gruff inspector, also gives a nice performance; he seems like he's enjoying his role. Other performances tend to be perfunctory or stagy. Bette Davis, looking embalmed, has little to do; mostly she just sits or stands, as she mouths her few lines, and makes facial expressions suitable to the scene. I suspect she was brought in only for her star power, to draw in viewers."Murder With Mirrors" will appeal mostly to viewers who like whodunits, especially Agatha Christie whodunits. Although the story is a somewhat generic murder mystery, it does have entertainment value.

I saw this videotape because I am a rabid Bette Davis fan and I am trying to see all her films (I'm actually getting pretty close). However, in hindsight, I really wish I hadn't seen this dreary film. Despite having Miss Davis and Helen Hayes in the lead as Miss Marple, the film had almost no energy and had so many logical flaws it could hardly be considered a mystery at all.Helen Hayes perhaps comes off best in the movie, as she is a competent though less than inspired Miss Marple. Leo McKern as the chief inspector just looks awfully old and immobile (though in one silly scene they make it look like he is running after a suspect). And Bette Davis is pretty depressing to look at, as she was in horrible health at the time the film was made and looked like death warmed over,...but this didn't impair her since her character was supposed to be old and frail. It's too bad, though, that this part was so small and insignificant. John Mills is just okay as Davis' husband--he was a terrific actor and it's a shame his role was so dumb. As for the rest of the cast, they were complete unknowns and deserve to remain that way! Their acting was very amateurish and shrill for the most part.Now despite my complaints about some of the acting, my real problem with the movie was the script. I am not an Agatha Christie reader, though I doubt if the blame for this bilge could be dumped on her but instead on some screen writer. Many of the characters were completely one-dimensional caricatures and seemed so unbelievable (such as the hot-headed American, his histrionic and confusing wife, etc.). Also, again and again, logic seemed to go out the window and characters did the most impossible and stupid things--particularly when two of them died in the most ridiculous ways. First, the doctor (whose role was completely ill-defined and vague) tried to escape by driving through the gate surrounding the mansion. The car SHOULD have been able to plow through it, but instead explodes! Second, the young man who tries to escape by paddling across a small pond. The boat begins to sink (who would keep a leaky boat at the lake--especially one that leaky?) and he drowns even though he appears to be only about 50 feet from shore! And, when this hapless fool is drowning, the young cop tries to save him but first starts to undo his coat and his tie and puts up the most pathetic attempt at rescue I have seen since the Three Stooges films! As for the mystery itself, I really lost interest in who did what or why. By the time the movie was over, I was begging for it to stop. Rotten acting and a terrible script made this an endurance contest!Considering just how BAD this film was, I can imagine that poor Dame Agatha is spinning in her grave like a rotisserie! She deserved better.