How can a movie be so terribly miscast? Not one character even remotely resembled the characters in the books. How could Ms. Penny allow such a travesty? Maybe she should influence a movie like J.K. Rowling, who most certainly can give her a lesson on influence casting and bringing characters to life. Why does a movie like that need to look as it was just made for the Lifetime channel? I was truly hoping for getting to know the book characters, however they were just pretty people (except for Ruth Zardo, who was the only one I would say OK) speaking to stiff and to flat. There was no life in any of them. Nathaniel Parker, I really liked in the Inspector Linley series, is just not a French Canadian inspector. This would have (with the right cast) been better as a mini series, where all the quirkiness of the Three Pines Characters could be better flushed out.

As other reviewers have already mentioned the glaring casting errors, accent and general acting (or lack there of), I can't believe the production mistakes that got through. 1. Jane was clearly shot in through the left side of her chest, not through the heart as Nicholl stated. 2. When Beauvoir requested Gamache's weapon and badge, Gamache handed him the gun with the barrel pointing right at him. Procedure would have been to turn the gun and hand it over by the grip. 3. Ruth and Jane hardly looked like they could have been classmates. Ruth was at least well-cast even if poorly written. If there is ever a 2nd film I hope they do better in every aspect.

I have read all the books. Louise Penney has created a fascinating subculture in Quebec. The characters, starting with Inspector Gamache, are as well developed as any that I have read in this genre. It's sad that the first effort to dramatize this author's work is such a weak effort. Let's start with the fact that books and movies are different media. To compare them isn't always fair, but good movies made from good books are quite possible. History shows that (e.g. "To Kill a Mockingbird"). To start with, the movie is just plain dull. The script has no sparkle, no oomph. It seems like nothing ever comes to a point. Penney's characters are marvelous. Not only do they not look the part (bad casting) but the lines they deliver are lacking in breadth. Ruth is one of the most precious, almost frightening of the residents of Three Pines. She would never let Gamache push her around like he does in this film. There is no tension at all. Even when they go to the archer's house, the discovery is ho hum. I hope at some point, this author who has found herself atop the New York Times best seller list will get her due.

I've been eagerly awaiting the release of this in the US, and I was certainly not disappointed by the result. I'm a huge fan of mysteries, both in books and film, so I've sampled a wide array of material, some great, some terrible. Given that experience, I really don't know why some other reviewers didn't enjoy it.I absolutely love Louise Penny's novels, and it was great to see the characters brought to life so believably (particularly by Nathaniel Parker, who's one of my favorites). Like many others, I would certainly have enjoyed to see more scenes involving characters like Ruth and Myrna, but I understand that only so much could be fit into one TV movie, and so some sacrifices had to be made. Also, it's worth noting that some of these characters really began to develop more in the ensuing novels anyway, so there's still time.What I would respectfully ask of everyone who didn't enjoy this film is to reserve full judgement in hopes that a sequel or two can be made, giving the writers and actors more time to fully draw out the depths of the story. After all, many shows have improved significantly after the pilot episode, and I see no reason why that couldn't be the case here. All in all, I consider this a very successful adaptation of a great novel, and I sincerely hope we'll see more from this cast and crew in the world of Three Pines!