Messages

There's no knowing where we're going...

I will have a look 

The boys.

I haven't seen it yet either, but I've heard a lot of good things about it.

Correct

I never saw it, but is it that TV show ‘Heroes’?

Νο 

Anyway, this will be the final pic 

I personally like the use of believable misdirection, and don't focus on the more debatable part of "couldn't identify person x was the same as y".
In the case of 4.50 from Paddington (and After the Funeral) :

Spoiler

A known fact, which is coincidental, is used to misdirect the police into thinking the murder has to do with a specific location and family. In Paddington the victim could have been a person whose looks the family wasn't really aware of, but knew she existed, and in After the aunt hasn't been seen in years. But in both plots this element (mistaken identity) is secondary to the trick, which is about implicating a location/group of people in something they have nothing to do with.
It may seem artificial to you, but I don't agree and in my view it is elegant and self-supporting; it creates developments naturally, instead of forcing them (which is what happens with convenient/inconvenient inputs in shows where very visible x is inserted to bring about y). Compare to things in tv-written shows, that don't even bother to aspire to elegance and rely blatantly on favorable coincidence - a good example would be the Cassavetes episode in Columbo, where Cassavetes not only makes a series of mistakes, but somehow isn't seen while moving in and out of a car garage because his raincoat and sunglasses make him invisible.
But even worse than that is how he got caught, because he was too stupid to prepare a story about how he got the flower back, despite Columbo very clearly asking him about it and in the meantime being a pest and suspecting him 

[close]

They are both superheroes, but you need to name the show 
(and no, it's not Supergirl  )

(Vague spoilers for various Agatha Christie mysteries.)

I sometimes wonder if Agatha Christie suffered from face blindness or something, because a disturbing number of her plots depend on people failing to recognize people they meet. (Most infamously in one novel where a woman has married the same man twice without recognizing him.) This is also a problem in adaptations, where you can always see where things are going as soon as the outrageous theater disguises show up. Though as Ali has pointed out on Twitter, in the 1957 Witness for the Prosecution they actually do a great job with Marlene Dietrich's makeup; it's the cockney accent that's the problem.

Which is to say that I don't quite agree that the plots of (at least one of) the mysteries you mention are entirely solid and believable, Kyriakos.

(In fact, Christie's obsession with this theme goes back to a Capgras-like recurring nightmare she used to have as a child, of a monster she called "the Gunman," who could transform and impersonate anyone she lovedâ€"like her mother or sisterâ€"and would only be recognizable by his pale blue eyes. As she writes in Crooked House: "Because this is just what a nightmare is. Walking about among people you know, looking in their facesâ€"and suddenly the faces changeâ€"and it's not someone you know any longerâ€"it's a strangerâ€"a cruel stranger.")

Interesting quote!

Hm, yes, in Witness the make-up act isn't ruining the film at all, as you said they did a great job. And the fact that it was originally a story (then play) means the writer wouldn't be to blame for lack of realism in such a case (and yes, that motif is there in other works, which I won't refer to so as to avoid spoilers). But even in Witness, it isn't very important since the heroine is a stage actress/performer in the first place.

I don't agree that (at least the ones I mentioned) Christie's plots are as artificial as one tends to see in tv shows. At least Christie doesn't have the "killer made a stupid mistake/miscalculation" all that often (it does happen, but isn't central/things spiral down by that point). Compare to something as ridiculous as the 7-season The Mentalist, where essentially half the episodes are solved by "instant hypnotism" 

Come on, I am sure many here know the series 

Everyone is happy:

[Dirk Gently]

While Falk is a very sympathetic character, the plots in Columbo tend to be resting on convenient errors and are rather forced.

If you're ever interested in the epitome of forced convenient errors, may I recommend Dirk Gently. It was originally a pair of books by Douglas Adams (known for making Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) that manages to tie together a series of completely random and unrelated events into somewhat compelling mysteries with brilliant humour to boot. It even got two TV shows, one by BBC 4 (which I thoroughly enjoyed) and another one by BBC America (which I didn't enjoy as much).

But as for proper head scratching mysteries that can be legitimately solved by the viewer without trying to anticipate the inevitable twists that the writer will shoehorn in. Those are unfortunately quite rare.
May I recommend Veronica Mars though. It had three seasons, followed by a movie, followed by another season. I found the individual mysteries to be quite engaging, and the overarching mystery to be solvable in my opinion. Although I'm probably not the best judge for those kind of things. 

I will have a look at that too
Regarding believable plots, at least the overarching plot (not all parts of the films, and I haven't read the original stories) is solid in Christie's (similar to each other) 4.50 from Paddington and After the Funeral. The second one is much more famous and had a decent film adaptation (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057334/) which is ok as far as the main plot/diversion goes. The tv series with Suchet also has an episode on this, but imo they made the family needlessly convoluted.
The trick used in 4.50 from Paddington is imo a parallelism to that used in After the Funeral, and could work to fool the police/authorities.

A good adaptation of a story (then play, with some ending changes, which this movie uses) by Agatha Christie is this one:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051201/

Due to how old it is, you should easily be able to find it online (possibly also on youtube)

The two main actors are good, and the plot is imo very elegant 

The gfx could use some work 

If Helten doesn't mind, here is a very easy one to get us going 

 

Hm, I will try to find An Inspector Calls...

Thanks again, you rule 

Thank you, arjOn!
I will check out those I haven't already watched... Which of these would you say is the "most serious"? I don't mind some lightheartedness, but not at the expense of believability 

In general I avoid them, because the plots in most of them just aren't realistic and so wouldn't play out that way irl. A good example of that would be, imo, Columbo.



(that's Johnny Cash, by the way)

While Falk is a very sympathetic character, the plots in Columbo tend to be resting on convenient errors and are rather forced. That's certainly not only a trait of Columbo, which at least has redeeming elements (tone, entertainment value), for example it is much worse in that Mentalist tv series where (in my impression) really everything is artificial.

I found that some of Agatha Christie's works are a little more serious and believable, though even in her case (despite the higher level when compared to tv writers) convenience and forced action/mistakes also exist. It's just that those coexist with good ideas for diversions/misleading of the police, which might actually work, so are more authentic in that sense.

Anyway, enough with the intro If you have any suggestions for good detective shows, I am interested to read!

Possible. I never was into the evil dead; trying watching one of the movies but the cinematography was imo just bad 

Is that Jodie Foster?

Unless it is from season 3 of Westworld (which I haven't watched nor do I plan to), I doubt it's from that series...

I think it's one of those American Horror Story things. The first episode (amputated hand scene) of the only season I tried to watch (and gave up)