STILL LIFE: A THREE PINES MYSTERY DVD

A good adaptation of a well written novel. Part of a series. There should be more episodes.

I very much enjoyed the storyline and the acting. I read the reviews of those who had read the book, and most felt the movie was worthy of 4 and 5-star ratings.

What a shame this terrific ensemble didn't have more to work with. This film could have been so much better if the script hadn't been so weak. It really undermined the performances of a stellar cast. The director also failed to connect the pieces of the puzzle together seamlessly. It definitely felt like some scenes had been left out or mercilessly edited out with an axe in a rush to wrap up production. Little wonder no sequels were ever made in this fantastic series.

I love suspense movies. This one was relatable and the scenery, beautiful.

As another reviewer noted, some of the quirkiness (of people and place) and larger than life personalities have been muted significantly, but the acting is fine, and I give 5-stars for having a true-to-the story movie of one of these terrific books... Wish there were more!

I looked forward to this movie since I've completed all the books and I needed SOMETHING to get me through while poor Louise Penny has to hurry and write the next one. I think there are challenges when you have a bestselling/award winning series to keep up the pace and quality.I love the characters so much and I knew that there was no possibility they could ever be captured totally effectively because so much of Louise Penny's books are internal monologues, and very cerebral. However, Nathaniel Parker was excellent as Lindley, so I KNEW he could do it. What happened???But, even WITH Louise Penny contribution to the film (did they let her do ANYTHING toward the script? Was she so flattered that a film was being made that she didn't stand up for her people?), I was so surprised how few were ANYTHING like their literary counterparts.From here, I'll try not to create spoilers, but if you haven't read the books or seen the film tread carefully here! :0)First: in the books Gamache doesn't carry a gun. But in the movie he does. Seems like a small point, but tells you a lot about the man. I don't believe I've read that Armand Gamache wore jeans! Where are the tweedy jackets, and sweater that sort of define the man visually.Jean-Guy dress is not accurate, either. Jean Guy in the film is sloppy, although I am not sure who could have pulled off the intricacies of the character in manner and dress. But crisp dress would have helped.I agree with another reviewer who wondered what they'd done to Myrna. She's a large black woman who wears exotic clothing. WHO was that model thin and polished black woman who was not even introduced in the film, as who was the guy who played Gabri. Gabri is a gay man that roars with laughter, wears frilly aprons, and is devoted to his partner Olivier, the antique dealer. There is some attempt to show the bistro is also a antique SHOP with Gamache picking up a sales label on a table or lamp, but with no explanation, that was only for the readers who knew what that was all about.Clara, where was Louise PENNY'S CLARA? Clara is klutsy and ditsy and loveably unkempt. WHO was the model who played her? I believe they cast Clara's actress sdue to her star status, only! Where was the paint on her body, face and hair? Where is the FOOD she wears? THIS shows without telling who this woman is. She is attuned to internals and barely notices externals. Plus, she's not an external beauty but definitely INTERNALLY gorgeous! So many other actresses could have handled this role, but THIS actress was good enough, given a chance. I also didn't really care for the OVERT flirtation. Gamche doesn't flirt back. That compromises what we know about him. Gamache is married to the most beautiful talented woman he knows. He is KIND. Penny tells us this over and over. He may be sexy to other women, but other women are not sexy to HIM.Nichol was acceptable. The character is obnoxious and the actress who played her was annoying ENOUGH to be close enough for me. I didn't love her in the books, but I saw what Gamache saw in her, EVENTUALLY. That doesn't really happen in the movie, but at least you get the idea that she is there for a reason.I knew they'd never be able to portray the actual star of the books, the mythical village of 3 Pines. And I think the location team did an excellent job doing so. The one thing they did RIGHT to capture this important character in the books.I sort of can see WHY there area no other movies of Penny's books, but there COULD be with the right director/script-writer.Maybe this start is to show other screenwriters what NOT TO DO!

If you have read Louise Penney's Inspector Gamache series, you may enjoy see it come to life through the plot of the first book STILL LIFE. Watched it last night and here's what I appreciated about it in no particular order:* village looked as described in the book* interior of the Bed and Breakfast is alone worth seeing this film for* Inspector Gamache, as portrayed by Nathaniel Parker, has the depth and gravitas that he does in the books* Ruth is a tad less curmudgeonly in this film than in the book but actress did a splendid job with the character* scenery of the area was exquisite filmed at the peak of the fall colors* plot seemed a tad choppy in this film* wish Myrna, the bookstore owner, and some of the other characters had more linesThe action centered more on Gamache and his team than the villagers. For the first in a series, it was a good effort. Would have liked to have heard more from the villagers that we love. Usually after several shows, the series and characters hit their stride. I hope more films are made based upon the books in this series. It's a good start with Nathaniel Parker as Gamache, the scenic town, and the main characters. Any issues with this first film are fixable I think. I enjoyed viewing it as it was a creative act to bring this beloved village and its characters to life.

I was more excited than a six year on Christmas morning when I received this DVD. However this excitement turned to massive disappointment when it started playing. Jane Neal's murder wasn't the only crime committed.I understand that it must be difficult to cast people who are similar to how they appear in books and I know it's "on trend" to cast people differently from how they are written in a book or play and producers like to put their own "stamp" on things - but for me it just doesn't work. The writer describes a character as they are for a reason. Therefore it just doesn't work when someone is written as being middle aged yet the producer casts them as someone younger etc.I know there has been criticism of Nathaniel Parker being cast as Gamache. I don't think he was an ideal choice although I think he did a reasonable job - plus of course Gamache is supposed to sound like a "hereditary peer" (as described in one of the LP books) as he spent time at Cambridge University. I agree with a previous reviewer in that Gamache is a thoughtful Quebecois gourmet and that didn't particularly come across in the film.Leaving many bits out of the book made the film appear rushed and one dimensional. I think maybe the book should have been made into a mini series (as they did with The Killing) - perhaps that may have been better than rushing things and squeezing everything into a film. Tbh the film itself had the feel of "Murder she wrote" and I half expected Angela Lansbury to burst in at any moment.The absolute worst mis-castings (bordering on the unforgivable) in this film were of Clara, Myrna and Reine-Marie. Myrna in the book is a large, middle aged black lady who wears colourful kaftans and scarves etc. The actress in the film is a super skinny younger model (in her late 20s) with nary a hair out of place, wears conservative/bland clothes and barely has 2 words to say at all. She looks as though she's just stepped out from the Stepford Wives. It was wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. In fact it took me a while to realise she was Myrna and not just a background extra. Myrna's bookshop didn't even make an appearance in the film. Clara was cast as a younger blonde person which didn't do justice to the character at all and all credibility was lost. Reine-Marie in the film was a statuesque long haired brunette whereas in the books she is short and grey haired. Even poor Lucy, Jane Neal's Golden Retriever, morphed into Hooch and was even acted by a male dog. How difficult can it be to get a female Golden Retriever that can act - it's a fairly common breed ?To be fair many of the castings were very good (or at least passable) as the characters in the book including Jean-Guy, Agent Nichol, Isabelle Lacoste, Matthew and Suzanne Croft, Gabri and Ruth.I also felt that Three Pines in the film didn't have a cosy village feel. The impression you got was of a small town where bits of filming were taking place in the suburbs. Hadley House which is described as creepy looking in the book just looked like an average home in the film. Surely they could have found a large, eerie (perhaps gothic) house somewhere? The one major plus was that the scenery was stunning throughout.It's the sort of film you can watch on a cold winter's afternoon or evening. It's OK but doesn't do justice to the book. Louise Penny is described as being in tears when she saw the film being made. So did I - but for a very different reason.

I have read all the Gamache novels and whilst it was relatively close to the book, it did not capture the magic of Three Pines well at all. I also felt that Nathaniel Parker was totally wrong for the part - Gamache is more laid back, a Quebecois gourmet but Parker just played him as a straight english detective transplanted to Canada.

Having read the book, l was disappointed by the film. Nat Parker did not fit my image of Gamache. He was far too young, not French enough, too slim and not sufficiently gentle and kind. Other characters were generally OK. Also the quiet isolated and calm mood of the village of 3 Pines did not come through in the film. A decent detective story, but nothing to write home about.

Don't expect film to compare to the book. Would probably have enjoyed it more had I not read and reread the book. Characters not well cast and little hidden village surrounded by hills and trees suddenly is depicted as an easily accessed small town with a flat landscape and tarmacadam roads.

I really wanted to like this because I loved the book but it just wasn't a great adaptation. The casting was all fine, but the story didn't hang together nicely. It felt really disjointed. Read the book instead!