@@michellerogers2996 He took too many liberties with his Poirot that it was unrecognizable. I could see that he's a big fan of Christie, though. He just had too much fun with it, which I could see that he enjoyed it to the fullest😂. And to be fair, his adaptation is enjoyable, but it is not Christie's Poirot.
@@tiararoxeanne1318I don’t really mind because I just like murder mysteries by Agatha Christie and I am not too concerned with liberties but I understand that you don’t like that
Despite Murder in the Mews presenting the clues flawed, I still love the music, camera angles, Hastings under the car. I love that they’re working it out. 👌🏻
I like Murder in the Mews (not “muse”). As you say, it is only a short story, and I think this adaptation works really well. I also like Death in the Clouds. Liberties were taken with the original text, true, but it’s still well done, and the clothes are gorgeous!
I would put Triangle at Rhodes on the list mostly because at only an hour long it seems rushed. With "Cards on the Table" I'm very happy with how they made it. Without spoiling anything I hated that Poirot "solved" the mystery by paying some guy to say Yes he was washing the windows to a woman's bedroom in the middle of the night and saw the killer. In the episode adaptation, I'm happy that they changed that to Poirot suggesting the photographs were the motive because it ties in with the photography angle in the episode.
What an interesting idea you have shared! FYI--the story of Triangle at Rhodes was a terribly thin story that needed much padding in order to have it make sense and last for 50 minutes or so. So as far as it seeming "rushed", that is incorrect. The entire story was lengthened long beyond what it should have been based on the source material. The Suchet adaptation added SO MUCH MATERIAL that didn't happen in the book, that it seemed to you that the story should have lasted longer. Good for the adapters. The story was flimsy and the writers did a great job of stretching it out!
@@kugelweg googling it now yeah I thought the version I listened to was at least two hours but I guess that's wrong. The joke in Hollywood is they make us all believe people can fall in love in 90 minutes. But this episode tried to do a love triangle in under 60. They could have taken their time more with going out to dinner on top of the hill, and sight seeing. The hotel they're in is supposed to have a restaurant with a full band playing and dancing but what we got in the episode didn't seem nice enough for that sort of thing. Someone gets poisoned there in the book, but in the episode it kind of looks they died in the lobby across from the front desk.
I'm a tennis fanatic and the tennis scene in Death in the Clouds is fascinating to me. It's a great recreation of the game in that time. I wish it was longer!
Since I started reading Agatha Christie as a young girl, I'm 81 now. I always have known who the murderer was when watching the shows. I am also the type of person who will read a mystery over and over. So, I have always looked forward to the adaptations of the Christie novels. I enjoy the Suchet versions very much because I truly believe he was the most perfect Poirot ever. I also appreciated the costumes. So well made and made out of beautiful material. and the sets and scenery are lovely also. Perhaps I am just superfiicial, but I just enjoy the journey that the Producers take me on. Albert Finny was good too as was the cast and movie. After Tony Randall I think the Kenneth Branagh adaptations were the worst. I'll take Suchet over him anytime.
Lol. I love Sad Cypress. Paul McGann is awesome. But I'd be cool to see it remade. The thing with One Two Buckle My Shoe that I find interesting is that that they have the impersonation right in plain sight from the beginning and then just leave the viewer guessing about what went on exactly.
Kenneth Branagh has always been up his own arse and he also married that awful woman. Pretentious and without talent. Hopefully he never makes another Poirot truly awful. You should be ashamed of yourself!!
It's definitely not the best one, but my favourite Poirot's episode is Double Sin. Not as a mystery, but as a comedy. I really appreciate humour of the series and this particular episode is the golden standard.
THAT'S WONDERFUL! Of course, the story of The Double Sin is very inflated for the episode, so let's not forget that. Once again, the adaptation writers needed to pad the original story to make a tale that lasted longer. In other words, the writers added details that weren't in the original story in order to get people to like the t.v. adaptation.
Personally, while I enjoyed the style of the Suchet Labours of Hercules I wished they were made as individual episodes and not combined and rather butchered into one - one excluding the Nemian Lion and some others except as passing references. And the set up is that Poirot has failed! Not he, no! Daniel Massey did a perfect audio book of the Labours of Hercules back in the 80s I think it was. His voice was the first Poirot I ever encountered. Thank you for the excellent videos!
Thank you so much for this. Much as I think Suchet is the best Poirot there has ever been, I used to wince watching the way some of Christie's novels were butchered in the making of the series. One of the worst is when an entirely different person is revealed as the murderer than in the book. What? It's like making Murder on the Orient Express and revealing the murderer was Princess Dragomirov. Branagh's productions and his portrayal of Poirot are just a travesty. How on earth the Christie estate allowed them to be released I have no idea. But I suppose money talks.
Yess, my thoughts exactly! When I found out her great grandson aproves of this travesty, it was clear to me it's a money thing... and I am sad that he chose Poirot for his egotrip...
My best friend BLEW the film for me before I had a chance to see it. He then said, "It came out 10 years ago! I assumed you MUST have seen it by now! Let that be a lesson. NEVER assume that. Always ask first, and if someone hasn't seen it, ask if it's OKAY to blow it for them. I'll NEVER know how I might have reacted that first time...
I would like to see a full analysis of why you think these aforementioned episodes are problematic. Like an in depth comparison between the books and the films. In particular, One, two, buckle my shoe is one of my favourite films as far as the directing is concerned. And in my opinion Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Poirots are bordering on being almost insufferable.
On the Kenneth Branaghs we agree. I didn't include them because, thanks to Albert Finney and Peter Ustinov, they don't need do-overs. As for the ones in the video, at this point I'm planning on covering at least five of them individually.
@@MysteryMiles That's good. I mean it's necessary to also include spoilers in a point to point comparison between the books and Suchet films. Since I have not read most of the books I may be ignoring why a particular adaptation is lacking comparing to the books. Of course even a not so faithful to the original story adaptation may be solid as a plot or have its own other artistic merits (like for example the directing).
@ The TV adaptations with Peter Davison were good, but the books by Margery Allingham are better. I wondered, because one of the Campion mysteries is called Mystery Mile and thought you were, perhaps, being clever and a little covert with your handle. 🥰
I really like Murder in Mesopotamia, mostly because it was the first Poirot I ever watched and what introduced me to Agatha Christie. I also watched it as a child while on vacation with my parents and it made me so suspicious of EVERYONE lol.
I long thought DEATH ON THE NILE was my introduction to Christie & Poirot. Saw it TWICE, 2 weeks apart. I remembered everything the 2nd time, so it was a completely-different experience! The best mysteries are like that... but, you do need to be able to see them "cold" the FIRST TIME. Sometime in the 80s, I was reminded NILE wasn't my 1st Christie. But the 1st one I did see on TV... was so INSANE... I had almost NO memory of it... except that guy going off the diving board at the beginning. (Yeah-- THAT one! My favorite part is the Margaret Rutherford cameo... heeheehee.)
I feel they really messed up The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. It is one of her best mysteries and best solutions. I love the quiet, contemplative tone the ending has. The adaptation turned the the final confrontation from a quiet conversation between two men to a shootout in a chemical factory. I cannot go more into it without spoiling it, but the shock of the solution’s twist was undercut by how they chose how to adapt it.
It's a decent enough adaptation until right before the ending. They botched the ending big time. Not only the shooting scenes were over the top, the way the culprit denied to mention the crime as what it was also seemed out of character. It's like they were afraid the original solemn ending would be too boring for the audience and force-fed some actions instead.
Agree 100%. I so looked forward to seeing “Ackroyd,” but from the minute the opening narration started, with Poirot doing the narration, my heart sank. (A small point perhaps, but I also despised the art deco nightmare that the Ackroyd family lived in.)
I genuinely HATE that story. At one point, I was cnvinced it was a rough early draft for DEATH ON THE NILE... until I found out NILE was written decades earlier. They actually have THE SAME PLOT. Except, ENDLESS doesn't have Poirot in it.
I like your video and agree with much of what you say. But I can’t agree that Suchet’s performance was always spot on. He’s a fine actor, but there’s a large number of differences between Suchet’s Poirot and Christie’s. First- and admittedly least importantly- there are the differences in physical attributes and mannerisms. Suchet’s eyes are a different color than the Poirot of the books, he’s between two and three inches taller, his mustache doesn’t match Christie’s descriptions (“immense,” “gigantic”), his balding head is not consistent with a character who could fool Hastings with a wig (as he does in Curtain), and he never- even in the earlier stories- walks with the described limp. Of course, he can’t help several of these things, but they are part of the picture. Then, more significantly there are the attitudes and beliefs. The Poirot of the Suchet series rails on dramatically about the importance of the “rule of law,” while the Poirot of Christie’s novels frequently demonstrates that justice is most important to him, and that justice and the rule of law are often not aligned (in which cases he readily and without anguish chooses justice). The Roman Catholicism of Christie’s Poirot is mentioned in a few quiet references, whereas Suchet’s Poirot wears his Catholic faith like a great banner. I admit that some of these these distinctions are minor and individually insignificant. But if you remove the physical attributes, the mannerisms, the attitudes, and beliefs, what have you got left? You’ve got a man with a mustache, an accent, a passion for order, and deductive brilliance. And that does describe Suchet’s Poirot. But it also describes Finney’s, Ustinov’s, Branagh’s... even Molina’s! And in certain respects described above, some of the others are closer than Suchet. And, despite Suchet’s claims of painstaking fidelity and thorough research, his memoirs are filled with numerous compelling indications that he had but minimal knowledge of Christie’s novels, and was not only not distressed by the significant changes made to their plots in the series adaptations, he was not even aware of them. Against which we have only his own claims as evidence to the truth to those claims.
OH MY GOSH! I love this reply of yours. I am in total agreement with you on these points. It has always bothered me that Suchet made up his version of Poirot, and people who haven't read (or understood) the source material keep pretending that he did the "perfect" job. There are so many times that Suchet did his own thing, but people accepted it because they liked Suchet, even though it went against character. Even worse is the fact that the rabid Suchet fans keep pretending that they like his performance even though it was flawed, because, according to them, he hit the nail on the head! There are so many things I could say here about how unfairly inaccurate Suchet's portrayal is, but the one I want to point out the most is the fact that even his "Catholicism" is done incorrectly! At no point do we see him actually praying the rosary or anything he would have done as a Catholic. We see Suchet gripping a rosary lazily in his hands while staring into space or blankly reading a Bible. I realize I am only one Catholic person among many, but at no point have I cuddled a rosary while staring angrily into space, when I would have been better served by actually praying the rosary.
I saw a series of interviews that he did, all on the same day, where he gave four different, contrasting versions of how Christie's daughter told him how great he was, which ranged from "My mother would have loved your performance." to "I'm almost certain my mother would have liked you." In the same set of interviews, he stated that he read most of the books, all of the books, some of the books, a few of the books. Then there was the ridiculous interview he gave to a magazine or some such where he stated the Christie never described Poirot's mustache, so he et. al. felt free to give him the weird ones he wore in the show. You are right, he clearly didn't have knowledge of the source material, and clearly feels comfortable tooting his own dishonest horn. BTW, I just figured out who you are! We are in some Facebook groups together. I always appreciate when you join a conversation with your understanding of the character and text. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who has read any of the books. It gets lonely. lol
Murder In Mesopotamia is possibly my favourite from the show, finally got around to reading the book about a year or so ago and enjoyed that aswell, but I admit to not picking up on some of the changes. Cards On The Table on the other hand I did notice the changes more easily once I read the book, still enjoy though. I am curious as to what makes you suspect The Big Four for the next film adaptation and if correct do you think they will change the title this time or keep it?
Been a fan of Christie since 1978's Death on the Nile. David Suchet and Joan Hickson are my favorite versions of Poirot and Marple, respectively. But the one adaptation i want to seen done over is the classic And Then There Were None. Not that I have to tell you, but I want the actual ENDING to be shown in the next adaptation. I don't know why they always have to change it: and it's the same in EVERY version I've seen.
One reason is she wrote a different ending for And Then There Were None than the murderer reveal in Ten Little Indians. So are they adapting her tragic ending book or her happy ending screenplay?
Miles, there are two Poirot novel adaptations that I think were perfect. I have rewatched them and couldn't find any flaws, at least script-wise.and acting-wise. Even the location background, lighting, costumes, and camera angles are flawless to me. They are 'After The Funeral' and 'Curtain'. Both are played by Suchet. There might be some more, I haven't watched them all. Out of curiousity, did you find any flaws on those two?
I fell in love with my beloved egghead shape Belgian detective Poirot David Suchet! He's ready to start again & I'm ready to see him again! So what's the hold up???? 🇺🇸❤️
The hold up is that there are no more adaptations for Suchet to perform in. SMH. I am sad that you fell in love with Poirot based on Suchet's often flawed interpretation. I like Suchet, but he misses the mark in so many ways at so many times, that I wonder why people who have read the books and stories think Suchet did a great job! Suchet is adorable and entirely watchable, but he doesn't embody the Poirot that Christie wrote, which only people who read her works would understand.
I also didn't like the change they did at the end. especially since !!SPOILER ALERT!!! in the river scene, they switched the attempting killer (who ends up dying) with the attempted victim (who ends up surviving). This is especially annoying since the person they killed off here actually appears alive and well in a later book (the pale horse), and married to the man who saved her!
Have you considered doing a comparison of the two versions of Nemesis, the 1987 Joan Hickson one and the 2007 Geraldine McEwan one, and the original book?
My personal choice for “please do it better” is taken at the flood. I’ve never read the book (not much of a reader) but I listened to the radio play, and loved it. Loved it. So watching the tv version, which was nastier and flat out REMOVED THE MOST IMPORTANT MURDER IN THE BOOK, well, I’m a bit annoyed by it, to say the least
Cards on the table's changes were really unnecessary I thought. I really enjoyed reading it. When I watched the adaptation I had to go back and look at the book to see if I was remembering it wrong. Elephants Can Remember Had so many changes and added characters I think it's worth mentioning.
For whatever reason I more or less hated Poirots Christmas... I liked the bits with Japp and Poirot, but the other characters involved were so depressing and awful, everyone gave of this strange horrible vibe... I liked the "pig" bit though. But the characters, who were we to care for or root for, what were the stakes? Sure we don't always need to care for characters, but, I don't know, something felt off for me...
I can't say I disagree with any of your choices for re-release. I just wish there was a way for David Suchet to do them, as well. Because while I enjoy all the adaptations to some degree, there is only one Poirot, and that is Suchet! Everybody else is a pale copy.
I had the chance to read Cards on the Table and watched the movie. I like the movie for 2 reasons, 1. I like Alexander Siddig, if no one knows who that is he had played Dr. Bashir on star trek deep space 9. I don't know if he was in this movie after or before star reck but either way he was good. the other reason was I remember what happened at the end of the book and like the ending of the movie
I must be dumb I the suchet one two buckle my shoe SHOCKED ME I thought it was an amazing show of the power of suggestion I had no idea the actresses changed I just believed what I was shown and my brain filled it in
Nice vid, I am looking forward to your take on other AC adaptations, beyond Poirot. To me the absolute worst was By the Pricking of My Thumbs and its 2006 TV adaptation. I could have lived with the "hey, let's shoehorn Marple in this one too" attitude, if everything else was okay. But they managed to butcher the characters of Tommy and Tuppence horribly, making the likeable couple into a dysfunctional duo of an arrogant prick and an alcoholic tramp. I understand that you need to change things a bit when you make a movie based on a book, but they went too far with that one.
The very first one, that comes to my mind, is Appoinment with Death, because I found the Ustinov adaptation lackluster and the Suchet one terrible. That being said: It would be a welcome bonus, if they used the ending of the stage play, in which Christie herself changed the killr (and it's much less random than the book's culprit).
After the 3 CBS tv-movies, I was so thrilled Ustinov was doing one more theatrical film. It was... "okay". But a Ustinov Poirot movie should be WAYYYYYYYY better than "okay".
Please not Kenneth Branaugh!!!!!!!!!!! I read Murder in Mesopotamia many years ago so that when I watched it recently I dozed off more than once. I thought surely the book didn't cause me to nod off, so yes a remake that has more energy is in order.
The murder of Rodger Ackroyed for sure! The whole grateness of the book comes from an unexpected plot twist at the end, yet they didn't make a good use of it.
That's one of my favorite Poirot books! I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, since it doesn't involve the usual granny dies after sipping tea or heiress is murdered for her money. It strays far from known Poirot territory and makes Poirot an international man of mystery, dealing with huge, secret government conspiracies. The countess plays an interesting role in this one, also.
Was Death On The Nile adapted in the Suchet series and if so, did it remain faithful to the original book source? The Branagh version sucked IMO! And, although the Suchet series did have it's moments, the Christmas story did suffer due to it's omission of family members as well as the motivations of the remaining cast, over all 😮
The Suchet series did adapt Death on the Nile, and overall it was very strong. I think it's one of the series' best. The downside was that incorporating more elements from the novel into a 90-minute movie meant the pace was really rushed.
Oddly enough, if Kenneth Branagh does the Big 4 next, it must be the only book that actually would fit his version Poirot as he is nimble, runs, hikes, escapes death from an explosion, it's almost a Bond movie and when I first read it I was, and still am, convinced that Roald Dahl's screenplay for for 'You only live twice" integrated a lot of the Big 4 novel in the Bond movie, while nearly nothing remains of the Ian Fleming novel. Still, Kenneth will make a travesty of it, as usual. yet this time he can't use any exotic over the top set to make it extravagantly pseudo multiverse art deco nonsense to rely on camouflaging poor screenwriting and acting. Poirot is still poor in the Big 4, he still lives in rooms with his landlady, so his interior cannot be as extravagant as it should be. However, knowing Kenneth, it will be a lush and luxurious apartment, such as London has never seen, probably a penthouse with a huge terrace, double and triple height ceilings with a main hall big enough to fit in a normal house. That way the boom and the explosion can be captured magnificently on the 1930's skyline of London, much like Die Hard did, making sure everyone knows Poirot is probably dead and making everyone really wonder "Why aren't you dead yet?"
Murder in Mesopotamia .? Hmm.....the fact that she didn't recognise her ex husband didn't bother you then ? Really ?? Christie 's plot twists can be brilliant OR downright ludicrous . This was definitely the latter !
I haven't read the novels, but I can tell you that my least favourite episodes are Taken at the Flood, Roger Ackroyd, Sad Cypress, Five Little Pigs and Curtain. My absolute favourites are One Two Buckle My Shoe, Death in the Clouds, The Cheap Flat, Poirot's Christmas, Lord Edgeware Dies etc. I'm not one to castigate the producers for experimenting.
"Welcome to 'Nine Poirots That Need a Do-Over' or 'Preview of Upcoming Videos.'" Definitely not mad at you for Sad Cyprus; I normally love a serious/dramatic Poirot adaptation, but what a joyless sob-fest that one was. As for Buckle My Shoe or Hickory Dickory, I want a remake just so long as they lose the children's voices reciting the rhymes "spookily." If they were going for a scariness factor, boy did they miss the mark. Just plain goofy and annoying.
I'm so glad you said that about the "children's voices" being unnecessary. They were NOT children's voices at all, but adult lady's voices who were trying to sound childlike. I picked up on that right away and it has always bothered me. If children's voices had been used, the effect would have been much more meaningful. The fact that women lended their "silly kid voices" to the chanting makes me quite sad.
Unfortunately the solution in Murder in Mesopotamia was already laughable in Christie‘s novel. It‘s the hardest one to swallow. That‘s probably why I don‘t remember much of the rest of the novel. When I rewatched the series with a friend I skipped that one.
But it was appallingly miscast. There is no possibility of the murderer's face being forgotten as he has a half inch forehead and very distinctive nose, the murdered wife is not as gloriously gorgeous as essential to the story and as the women cast in many other stories in other stories, and on and on.
I cannot believe you didn't include Appointment with Death. That is probably the single worst adaptation...and that's saying something. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd completely missed the feeling of the novel and managed to turn Christie's groundbreaking sensation into a borefest. I don't think that The Big Four is salvageable. But if I had to pick 10 adaptations that I'd want remade, I'd pick the ten worst ones. Not ones that were perfectly adequate.
To be perfectly honest, the Suchet adaptation of Appointment with Death is one of my favorite... that being said, I do understand your reasoning. I've recently rewatched that one along with the 1988 Ustinov version and I've come to a revelation (SPOILERS AHEAD FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T READ THE NOVEL/SEEN THE FILMS, GO DO SO). I believe the Ustinov version is a better adaptation of the *mystery* the story ought to have while the Suchet version is a better adaptation of the *tone* it ought to have. The Suchet version rewrites the victim and the murderer's background and motivation to such a degree that the impact is lost. The scene where Mrs. Boynton says the line "I've never forgotten anything - not an action, not a name, not a face," never happens and we lose a great clue/moment of misdirection. The "suggestibility" element present in the original is played with, but not nearly as effectively. And perhaps most tragically, Lady Westholme's character is downgraded. There's no topping the legendary Lauren Bacall, however, I feel like Elizabeth McGovern gives an entrancing performance nonetheless. I particularly love revisiting her monologue to Poirot about the people and cultures of the world. So it's tragic that she seems to take a back seat (and less screen time) to John Hannah's Dr. Gerard who I don't think is nearly as interesting. Also frustrating is the ending: Westholme and Gerard work together to free their daughter from the abusive grip of Boynton only to commit suicide immediately after revealing themselves to be her real parents... thus traumatizing their child further. It's a poorly conceived element that really shows how the changed parent/child motivations don't fit inside the framework of this story. That being said, the Ustinov version is not perfect. It has what I'd call a SERIOUS tone problem starting in the first 5 minutes where the Boyntons' travelogue is played over the opening credits all set to a jaunty little instrumental number that makes them feel like a happy family seeing the sights... not a loose collection of abuse victims under the watch of a tyrant. The actors are well-chosen, but the poorly-conceived comedic tone continues (and the film has a bad case of "the 80s trying to look like the 30s.") The Suchet version meanwhile nails the period, creates an interesting theme/character analysis by delving into Poirot's religious beliefs about the healing abilities of faith, and ABSOLUTELY NAILS its tone. The discovery of the body set to the tune of Dido's Lament and the aria "When I am laid in earth" is one of the most moving moments in all of the Suchet adaptations. Similarly, the scene where Suchet and Curry (and later Goddard and Boyle) recount the tale of the man from Damascus meeting Death, is spellbinding and moody. So even with all it's unnecessarily added subplots and characters, even with its diminished mystery, and its changes, I still love the Suchet adaptation as a well-directed and intriguing piece of cinema. I only wish a new version could marry the excellent tone of the 2008 version with the superb mystery of the original.
@@Unownshipper Appointment with Death is one of my favorite Christies and one I recommend to new readers for its mystery. A true whodunnit. I'm still waiting for a proper adaptation of it. Until then, I'll stick with the book.
03:09 The solution in particular made little or no sense to me in SAD CYPRESS. Not the actual identity of the murderer, but how Poirot caught them. Personally, I am a playwright and think I would be most intrigued by doing a version of FIVE LITTLE PIGS, one of my favorite Poirot films (not book). But on the other hand, why mess with something I love? PERIL AT END HOUSE on the other hand--the adaptation was good, but I'd like to a crack at retelling it.
I thought the Suchet version of Five Little Pigs was more interesting than the novel... the water garden was a better choice than the battery garden and the atmosphere of marital and household dysfunction was better conveyed.
Honestly, the worst one for me is Orient express simply because they completely change Poirot's attitude and reaction towards this murder. Throughout the books, we see that Poirot has a personal understanding of what is good and what is bad and which times he can oversee what is legal and what is not. Being obsessed with maintaining the law is not one of his OCD traits. He has his own sense of justice. The orient express completely misses the point.
This is so true! He allowed people to die without confessing, like in The Chocolate Box and other stories. He even helped people commit crimes and get away with them because he eschewed the "higher classes" and money. This was his nature. When he felt that some innocent person had been driven to bad decisions, he was totally understanding of that. The Suchet adaptation of MOTOE went against this (the book and the other adaptation didn't). Poirot was always on board with some "barnyard justice" and in the novel that Christie wrote, he was perfectly fine with the crime because he felt it was deserved and that the perpetrators needed some sense of justice. AT NO POINT did Poirot start screaming at people for not following the rule of law, needing to hold it up higher, etc. Nor did he sit lamely around holding a limp rosary in his hand whilst contemplating his godly choices. SMH
@@kugelwegOn which story does Poirot helped other people commit crime? Serious question. I might need to re-read that one. Appreciate if you could help 🙏🙏🙏
@@sb6678 Two reasons. Because even though we don't want to say it, we still want to *allude* to the word f*cking to underscore the emphasis. And because the extra syllable in annoying takes some of the edge off. The intonation carries the impact and the two syllable freaking is more direct.
The only details we know so far on the third Branagh Poirot film is that it's going to be set in Venice and takes place after the War. While The Big Four would be interesting, maybe Branagh will be tackling Taken at the Flood (with the setting moved to Venice)? In my mind, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd would've the best possible choice for the next one, on account of it being one of the few Suchet Poirot films that really got mangled, and following from the last one, Poirot would've been at the perfect spot for the events of that story. We'll have to wait and see. Btw, I don't actually mind Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. I think he's doing a fine job, especially since he would never have been able to top David Suchet as a faithful Poirot, I think going for a completely different take was the way to go.
I want a remake for "The Mystery of The Blue Train" I actually enjoyed this book. It's one of my favorites. They changed way too much for the adaptation. They completely changed the character of Morel, who in the book was a dangerous scheming temptrous, into a very boring character
I think next Branagh adaptation will be The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, cause he literally said in the last movie that he is going to retire and grow vegetable marrows. Either way, he is going to butcher yet another of my favourite Poirot novels... To me, his versions of the stories and Poirot himself are atrocious!! 🤮💔
I disagree with you on a lot of this. It's probably a generational problem. It watch these David Suchet Poirots about once a year or so and I love most of them. Except, of course (and you didn't mention it), his terrible, idiotic version of Murder on the Orient Express.
I'm forgiving of Hickory Dickory Dock's character cutting because the mostly cut out Christie really bad exaggerated "foreigner" students. Like I was uncomfortable at times when reading the book 😬. Of course that left the movie very white as a result and perhaps it would have been better if the writer has just completely rewritten those characters ground up to be better, more fleshed out people.
When they do a great adaptation, I re-watch it many times. Evil Under the Sun is my favorite! I re-watch these poor adaptations for the acting, costumes/sets. It's a great feeling to see beloved books acted out. That said, I will never watch Appt with Death again.🤮
Suchet's EUTS sticks close to the books in terms of some characters and details, but I don't think the addition of Japp and Hastings was necessary, nor were the silly jokes about Poirot's weight and his strict diet. Poirot being put in a steam cabinet was silly.
It's nice to finally have a channel dedicated to Poirot. Good stuff. Looking forward for more.
Your message to Kenneth Branagh is so spot on!😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Boo Kenneth Branagh hater
@@michellerogers2996 He took too many liberties with his Poirot that it was unrecognizable. I could see that he's a big fan of Christie, though. He just had too much fun with it, which I could see that he enjoyed it to the fullest😂. And to be fair, his adaptation is enjoyable, but it is not Christie's Poirot.
@@tiararoxeanne1318I don’t really mind because I just like murder mysteries by Agatha Christie and I am not too concerned with liberties but I understand that you don’t like that
"Kenneth Branagh, he does not LISTEN! It is Kenneth BRANAGH who speaks, so that OTHERS might listen."
Seconded. The boy had talent but now hams it up too much.
Despite Murder in the Mews presenting the clues flawed, I still love the music, camera angles, Hastings under the car. I love that they’re working it out. 👌🏻
I love that episode for the sequence where Poirot is on the golf course.
One of my favourites. Filmed so quirkily. And it has Rumpole jnr!
I like Murder in the Mews (not “muse”). As you say, it is only a short story, and I think this adaptation works really well. I also like Death in the Clouds. Liberties were taken with the original text, true, but it’s still well done, and the clothes are gorgeous!
David Suchet is so underrated, under-appreciated, and so amazing.
David Suchet IS poirot
I would put Triangle at Rhodes on the list mostly because at only an hour long it seems rushed.
With "Cards on the Table" I'm very happy with how they made it. Without spoiling anything I hated that Poirot "solved" the mystery by paying some guy to say Yes he was washing the windows to a woman's bedroom in the middle of the night and saw the killer. In the episode adaptation, I'm happy that they changed that to Poirot suggesting the photographs were the motive because it ties in with the photography angle in the episode.
What an interesting idea you have shared!
FYI--the story of Triangle at Rhodes was a terribly thin story that needed much padding in order to have it make sense and last for 50 minutes or so. So as far as it seeming "rushed", that is incorrect. The entire story was lengthened long beyond what it should have been based on the source material. The Suchet adaptation added SO MUCH MATERIAL that didn't happen in the book, that it seemed to you that the story should have lasted longer. Good for the adapters. The story was flimsy and the writers did a great job of stretching it out!
@@kugelweg googling it now yeah I thought the version I listened to was at least two hours but I guess that's wrong. The joke in Hollywood is they make us all believe people can fall in love in 90 minutes. But this episode tried to do a love triangle in under 60.
They could have taken their time more with going out to dinner on top of the hill, and sight seeing. The hotel they're in is supposed to have a restaurant with a full band playing and dancing but what we got in the episode didn't seem nice enough for that sort of thing. Someone gets poisoned there in the book, but in the episode it kind of looks they died in the lobby across from the front desk.
@@mrilovetheants Triangle at Rhodes is one of my favorite adaptations, so I am in agreement with you.
I'm a tennis fanatic and the tennis scene in Death in the Clouds is fascinating to me. It's a great recreation of the game in that time. I wish it was longer!
The tennis scene is not original. It comes from Hitchcock´s Strangers on a Train.
Since I started reading Agatha Christie as a young girl, I'm 81 now. I always have known who the murderer was when watching the shows. I am also the type of person who will read a mystery over and over. So, I have always looked forward to the adaptations of the Christie novels. I enjoy the Suchet versions very much because I truly believe he was the most perfect Poirot ever. I also appreciated the costumes. So well made and made out of beautiful material. and the sets and scenery are lovely also. Perhaps I am just superfiicial, but I just enjoy the journey that the Producers take me on. Albert Finny was good too as was the cast and movie. After Tony Randall I think the Kenneth Branagh adaptations were the worst. I'll take Suchet over him anytime.
Lol. I love Sad Cypress. Paul McGann is awesome. But I'd be cool to see it remade.
The thing with One Two Buckle My Shoe that I find interesting is that that they have the impersonation right in plain sight from the beginning and then just leave the viewer guessing about what went on exactly.
NO MORE KENNETH BRANAGH INTERPRETATIONS!
I second that 🙋🏼♀️
Kenneth Branagh has always been up his own arse and he also married that awful woman. Pretentious and without talent. Hopefully he never makes another Poirot truly awful. You should be ashamed of yourself!!
I third that! 🙋🏻♂️
I’ll fourth it!
I fifth that 😅 He's a shocker 😂😂
It's definitely not the best one, but my favourite Poirot's episode is Double Sin. Not as a mystery, but as a comedy. I really appreciate humour of the series and this particular episode is the golden standard.
THAT'S WONDERFUL! Of course, the story of The Double Sin is very inflated for the episode, so let's not forget that. Once again, the adaptation writers needed to pad the original story to make a tale that lasted longer. In other words, the writers added details that weren't in the original story in order to get people to like the t.v. adaptation.
Personally, while I enjoyed the style of the Suchet Labours of Hercules I wished they were made as individual episodes and not combined and rather butchered into one - one excluding the Nemian Lion and some others except as passing references. And the set up is that Poirot has failed! Not he, no!
Daniel Massey did a perfect audio book of the Labours of Hercules back in the 80s I think it was. His voice was the first Poirot I ever encountered.
Thank you for the excellent videos!
I agree I hoped that each labour's would be its own story.
Thank you so much for this. Much as I think Suchet is the best Poirot there has ever been, I used to wince watching the way some of Christie's novels were butchered in the making of the series. One of the worst is when an entirely different person is revealed as the murderer than in the book. What? It's like making Murder on the Orient Express and revealing the murderer was Princess Dragomirov.
Branagh's productions and his portrayal of Poirot are just a travesty. How on earth the Christie estate allowed them to be released I have no idea. But I suppose money talks.
Yess, my thoughts exactly! When I found out her great grandson aproves of this travesty, it was clear to me it's a money thing... and I am sad that he chose Poirot for his egotrip...
Agree completely. Changes are inevitable but bad judgment is not. These are stains on the great body of work that Suchet has left us.
My best friend BLEW the film for me before I had a chance to see it. He then said, "It came out 10 years ago! I assumed you MUST have seen it by now! Let that be a lesson. NEVER assume that. Always ask first, and if someone hasn't seen it, ask if it's OKAY to blow it for them. I'll NEVER know how I might have reacted that first time...
I would like to see a full analysis of why you think these aforementioned episodes are problematic. Like an in depth comparison between the books and the films. In particular, One, two, buckle my shoe is one of my favourite films as far as the directing is concerned. And in my opinion Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Poirots are bordering on being almost insufferable.
On the Kenneth Branaghs we agree. I didn't include them because, thanks to Albert Finney and Peter Ustinov, they don't need do-overs. As for the ones in the video, at this point I'm planning on covering at least five of them individually.
@@MysteryMiles That's good. I mean it's necessary to also include spoilers in a point to point comparison between the books and Suchet films. Since I have not read most of the books I may be ignoring why a particular adaptation is lacking comparing to the books. Of course even a not so faithful to the original story adaptation may be solid as a plot or have its own other artistic merits (like for example the directing).
@@MysteryMiles Just wondering, are you a Campion fan by any chance?
@ I have a very, very vague memory of maybe having seen an episode on PBS Mystery in the '90s, but if so, I've forgotten it. Should I try it?
@ The TV adaptations with Peter Davison were good, but the books by Margery Allingham are better. I wondered, because one of the Campion mysteries is called Mystery Mile and thought you were, perhaps, being clever and a little covert with your handle. 🥰
I need more details about all of these films! Please make more videos, they're great!
I really like Murder in Mesopotamia, mostly because it was the first Poirot I ever watched and what introduced me to Agatha Christie. I also watched it as a child while on vacation with my parents and it made me so suspicious of EVERYONE lol.
I long thought DEATH ON THE NILE was my introduction to Christie & Poirot. Saw it TWICE, 2 weeks apart. I remembered everything the 2nd time, so it was a completely-different experience! The best mysteries are like that... but, you do need to be able to see them "cold" the FIRST TIME.
Sometime in the 80s, I was reminded NILE wasn't my 1st Christie. But the 1st one I did see on TV... was so INSANE... I had almost NO memory of it... except that guy going off the diving board at the beginning. (Yeah-- THAT one! My favorite part is the Margaret Rutherford cameo... heeheehee.)
I feel they really messed up The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. It is one of her best mysteries and best solutions. I love the quiet, contemplative tone the ending has. The adaptation turned the the final confrontation from a quiet conversation between two men to a shootout in a chemical factory. I cannot go more into it without spoiling it, but the shock of the solution’s twist was undercut by how they chose how to adapt it.
Yes, definitely the biggest sin of the show. Hard to adapt for obvious reasons, but that's no excuse to what has been done.
The BBC Radio version with John Moffat as Poirot was far superior .! Moffat was a brilliant Poirot .!
It's a decent enough adaptation until right before the ending. They botched the ending big time. Not only the shooting scenes were over the top, the way the culprit denied to mention the crime as what it was also seemed out of character. It's like they were afraid the original solemn ending would be too boring for the audience and force-fed some actions instead.
Agree 100%. I so looked forward to seeing “Ackroyd,” but from the minute the opening narration started, with Poirot doing the narration, my heart sank. (A small point perhaps, but I also despised the art deco nightmare that the Ackroyd family lived in.)
Alright, you've done it. You've convinced me into watching the Poirot-Marple anime.
It was quite good
@@LE-zy2od it was! Too bad it was discontinued, leaving a lot of Poirot and Marple stories unadapted (mostly the ones that take place abroad)
It's apparent you're into the Poirot stories, and you do you. But I'd be interested in some of Christie's other works, and their adaptations.
3:38 Yes! Endless Night was *THAT* red herring story for me. A masterpiece.
I genuinely HATE that story. At one point, I was cnvinced it was a rough early draft for DEATH ON THE NILE... until I found out NILE was written decades earlier. They actually have THE SAME PLOT. Except, ENDLESS doesn't have Poirot in it.
I like your video and agree with much of what you say. But I can’t agree that Suchet’s performance was always spot on. He’s a fine actor, but there’s a large number of differences between Suchet’s Poirot and Christie’s.
First- and admittedly least importantly- there are the differences in physical attributes and mannerisms. Suchet’s eyes are a different color than the Poirot of the books, he’s between two and three inches taller, his mustache doesn’t match Christie’s descriptions (“immense,” “gigantic”), his balding head is not consistent with a character who could fool Hastings with a wig (as he does in Curtain), and he never- even in the earlier stories- walks with the described limp. Of course, he can’t help several of these things, but they are part of the picture.
Then, more significantly there are the attitudes and beliefs. The Poirot of the Suchet series rails on dramatically about the importance of the “rule of law,” while the Poirot of Christie’s novels frequently demonstrates that justice is most important to him, and that justice and the rule of law are often not aligned (in which cases he readily and without anguish chooses justice). The Roman Catholicism of Christie’s Poirot is mentioned in a few quiet references, whereas Suchet’s Poirot wears his Catholic faith like a great banner.
I admit that some of these these distinctions are minor and individually insignificant. But if you remove the physical attributes, the mannerisms, the attitudes, and beliefs, what have you got left? You’ve got a man with a mustache, an accent, a passion for order, and deductive brilliance. And that does describe Suchet’s Poirot. But it also describes Finney’s, Ustinov’s, Branagh’s... even Molina’s! And in certain respects described above, some of the others are closer than Suchet.
And, despite Suchet’s claims of painstaking fidelity and thorough research, his memoirs are filled with numerous compelling indications that he had but minimal knowledge of Christie’s novels, and was not only not distressed by the significant changes made to their plots in the series adaptations, he was not even aware of them. Against which we have only his own claims as evidence to the truth to those claims.
OH MY GOSH! I love this reply of yours. I am in total agreement with you on these points. It has always bothered me that Suchet made up his version of Poirot, and people who haven't read (or understood) the source material keep pretending that he did the "perfect" job. There are so many times that Suchet did his own thing, but people accepted it because they liked Suchet, even though it went against character. Even worse is the fact that the rabid Suchet fans keep pretending that they like his performance even though it was flawed, because, according to them, he hit the nail on the head!
There are so many things I could say here about how unfairly inaccurate Suchet's portrayal is, but the one I want to point out the most is the fact that even his "Catholicism" is done incorrectly! At no point do we see him actually praying the rosary or anything he would have done as a Catholic. We see Suchet gripping a rosary lazily in his hands while staring into space or blankly reading a Bible. I realize I am only one Catholic person among many, but at no point have I cuddled a rosary while staring angrily into space, when I would have been better served by actually praying the rosary.
@@kugelweg yes. I have no problem with people loving his portrayal. It’s the claims of accuracy and fidelity to Christie that annoy me.
I saw a series of interviews that he did, all on the same day, where he gave four different, contrasting versions of how Christie's daughter told him how great he was, which ranged from "My mother would have loved your performance." to "I'm almost certain my mother would have liked you."
In the same set of interviews, he stated that he read most of the books, all of the books, some of the books, a few of the books.
Then there was the ridiculous interview he gave to a magazine or some such where he stated the Christie never described Poirot's mustache, so he et. al. felt free to give him the weird ones he wore in the show.
You are right, he clearly didn't have knowledge of the source material, and clearly feels comfortable tooting his own dishonest horn.
BTW, I just figured out who you are! We are in some Facebook groups together. I always appreciate when you join a conversation with your understanding of the character and text. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who has read any of the books. It gets lonely. lol
Murder In Mesopotamia is possibly my favourite from the show, finally got around to reading the book about a year or so ago and enjoyed that aswell, but I admit to not picking up on some of the changes. Cards On The Table on the other hand I did notice the changes more easily once I read the book, still enjoy though. I am curious as to what makes you suspect The Big Four for the next film adaptation and if correct do you think they will change the title this time or keep it?
Been a fan of Christie since 1978's Death on the Nile. David Suchet and Joan Hickson are my favorite versions of Poirot and Marple, respectively. But the one adaptation i want to seen done over is the classic And Then There Were None. Not that I have to tell you, but I want the actual ENDING to be shown in the next adaptation. I don't know why they always have to change it: and it's the same in EVERY version I've seen.
Have you seen the 2015 mini-series?
@@MysteryMiles Was that faithful to the book? Then I guess I HAVEN'T seen all versions. lol
@@d-phil8585 Faithful to the original to an almost bleak extent. 😁 The cast is pretty solid, with a lot of recognizable faces.
One reason is she wrote a different ending for And Then There Were None than the murderer reveal in Ten Little Indians. So are they adapting her tragic ending book or her happy ending screenplay?
I really enjoy the 2015 version. There are some differences, but it is fun to see.
Miles, there are two Poirot novel adaptations that I think were perfect. I have rewatched them and couldn't find any flaws, at least script-wise.and acting-wise. Even the location background, lighting, costumes, and camera angles are flawless to me. They are 'After The Funeral' and 'Curtain'. Both are played by Suchet. There might be some more, I haven't watched them all. Out of curiousity, did you find any flaws on those two?
You'll have to wait till I get to those! :) (Coincidentally, I just started writing the script for the After the Funeral video.)
@@MysteryMiles Oh, I'll watch your After The Funeral analysis for sure. Keep the good work!👍👍👍
I fell in love with my beloved egghead shape Belgian detective Poirot David Suchet! He's ready to start again & I'm ready to see him again! So what's the hold up???? 🇺🇸❤️
The hold up is that there are no more adaptations for Suchet to perform in. SMH. I am sad that you fell in love with Poirot based on Suchet's often flawed interpretation. I like Suchet, but he misses the mark in so many ways at so many times, that I wonder why people who have read the books and stories think Suchet did a great job! Suchet is adorable and entirely watchable, but he doesn't embody the Poirot that Christie wrote, which only people who read her works would understand.
I watch them on ITVX 😉
RE: Hickory Dickory Dock. I used to live next to the cemetery in the final scene, and I've been inside the chapel shown.
The great thing about this list is that I now know which novels to read.
Mesopotamia was probably the first of these I genuinely thought was just awful.
The mouse never killed anyone,but there's one scene where one sees the true killer
I also didn't like the change they did at the end. especially since
!!SPOILER ALERT!!!
in the river scene, they switched the attempting killer (who ends up dying) with the attempted victim (who ends up surviving). This is especially annoying since the person they killed off here actually appears alive and well in a later book (the pale horse), and married to the man who saved her!
Have you considered doing a comparison of the two versions of Nemesis, the 1987 Joan Hickson one and the 2007 Geraldine McEwan one, and the original book?
Yes...but that would involve watching the McEwan one again. I'll put the request on the list, though.
I liked Geraldine McEwan and her take on Marple but half of the things she was in changed the plot far too much. Nemesis was probably the worst....
Would have expected Appointment with Death popping up here.
Well - Kenneth Branagh is not going to fire himself. So you'd better start a petition.
My personal choice for “please do it better” is taken at the flood. I’ve never read the book (not much of a reader) but I listened to the radio play, and loved it. Loved it.
So watching the tv version, which was nastier and flat out REMOVED THE MOST IMPORTANT MURDER IN THE BOOK, well, I’m a bit annoyed by it, to say the least
Same here. I actually made a video about Taken at the Flood, but it was one of the ones TH-cam blocked for copyright reasons.
Oh, shame, I would have watched that@@MysteryMiles
Cards on the table's changes were really unnecessary I thought. I really enjoyed reading it. When I watched the adaptation I had to go back and look at the book to see if I was remembering it wrong. Elephants Can Remember Had so many changes and added characters I think it's worth mentioning.
I agrée that sad cypress was more of a drama than a classic detective mystery solving case ✅
For whatever reason I more or less hated Poirots Christmas... I liked the bits with Japp and Poirot, but the other characters involved were so depressing and awful, everyone gave of this strange horrible vibe... I liked the "pig" bit though. But the characters, who were we to care for or root for, what were the stakes? Sure we don't always need to care for characters, but, I don't know, something felt off for me...
I can't say I hated "Sad Cypress", but this adaptation gets both Mary and Eleanor wrong, so I would like to see another version A LOT.
I can't say I disagree with any of your choices for re-release. I just wish there was a way for David Suchet to do them, as well. Because while I enjoy all the adaptations to some degree, there is only one Poirot, and that is Suchet! Everybody else is a pale copy.
Murder in Mesopotamia is my favorite both Poirot tv show & radio drama.
I had the chance to read Cards on the Table and watched the movie. I like the movie for 2 reasons, 1. I like Alexander Siddig, if no one knows who that is he had played Dr. Bashir on star trek deep space 9. I don't know if he was in this movie after or before star reck but either way he was good. the other reason was I remember what happened at the end of the book and like the ending of the movie
I must be dumb I the suchet one two buckle my shoe SHOCKED ME I thought it was an amazing show of the power of suggestion I had no idea the actresses changed I just believed what I was shown and my brain filled it in
Nice vid, I am looking forward to your take on other AC adaptations, beyond Poirot. To me the absolute worst was By the Pricking of My Thumbs and its 2006 TV adaptation. I could have lived with the "hey, let's shoehorn Marple in this one too" attitude, if everything else was okay. But they managed to butcher the characters of Tommy and Tuppence horribly, making the likeable couple into a dysfunctional duo of an arrogant prick and an alcoholic tramp. I understand that you need to change things a bit when you make a movie based on a book, but they went too far with that one.
The very first one, that comes to my mind, is Appoinment with Death, because I found the Ustinov adaptation lackluster and the Suchet one terrible. That being said: It would be a welcome bonus, if they used the ending of the stage play, in which Christie herself changed the killr (and it's much less random than the book's culprit).
After the 3 CBS tv-movies, I was so thrilled Ustinov was doing one more theatrical film. It was... "okay". But a Ustinov Poirot movie should be WAYYYYYYYY better than "okay".
Sad Cypress has always bothered me
The Muder of Roger Ackroyd fell short for me too, completely losing the impact of THAT twist.
Please not Kenneth Branaugh!!!!!!!!!!! I read Murder in Mesopotamia many years ago so that when I watched it recently I dozed off more than once. I thought surely the book didn't cause me to nod off, so yes a remake that has more energy is in order.
Please do an entire video on Cards on the Table. I was not alright with all the changes, especially at the reveal.
The murder of Rodger Ackroyed for sure! The whole grateness of the book comes from an unexpected plot twist at the end, yet they didn't make a good use of it.
I hope you’re wrong about the next Branagh adaptation: I absolutely hated The Big Four!!
Well you’re in luck, cause some theorists believe the third movie is Dumb Witness
@@lukacunningham342 I would be ok with Dumb Witness but I would prefer Appointment with Death
I liked the novel the adaptation not very much at all!
That's one of my favorite Poirot books! I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, since it doesn't involve the usual granny dies after sipping tea or heiress is murdered for her money. It strays far from known Poirot territory and makes Poirot an international man of mystery, dealing with huge, secret government conspiracies. The countess plays an interesting role in this one, also.
After seeing Why didn't they ask Evans, I want Hugh Laurie to do more Christie adaptations.
Same!
Was Death On The Nile adapted in the Suchet series and if so, did it remain faithful to the original book source? The Branagh version sucked IMO! And, although the Suchet series did have it's moments, the Christmas story did suffer due to it's omission of family members as well as the motivations of the remaining cast, over all 😮
The Suchet series did adapt Death on the Nile, and overall it was very strong. I think it's one of the series' best. The downside was that incorporating more elements from the novel into a 90-minute movie meant the pace was really rushed.
@@MysteryMiles the novel had a huge cast of characters which, I guess for the sake of air time, some had to be cut in the TV adaptation?
@@furryfriend43if memory serves, the Poirot episode cut less characters out than the Ustinov film did.
Oddly enough, if Kenneth Branagh does the Big 4 next, it must be the only book that actually would fit his version Poirot as he is nimble, runs, hikes, escapes death from an explosion, it's almost a Bond movie and when I first read it I was, and still am, convinced that Roald Dahl's screenplay for for 'You only live twice" integrated a lot of the Big 4 novel in the Bond movie, while nearly nothing remains of the Ian Fleming novel. Still, Kenneth will make a travesty of it, as usual. yet this time he can't use any exotic over the top set to make it extravagantly pseudo multiverse art deco nonsense to rely on camouflaging poor screenwriting and acting. Poirot is still poor in the Big 4, he still lives in rooms with his landlady, so his interior cannot be as extravagant as it should be. However, knowing Kenneth, it will be a lush and luxurious apartment, such as London has never seen, probably a penthouse with a huge terrace, double and triple height ceilings with a main hall big enough to fit in a normal house. That way the boom and the explosion can be captured magnificently on the 1930's skyline of London, much like Die Hard did, making sure everyone knows Poirot is probably dead and making everyone really wonder "Why aren't you dead yet?"
Murder in Mesopotamia .? Hmm.....the fact that she didn't
recognise her ex husband didn't bother you then ? Really ??
Christie 's plot twists can be brilliant OR downright ludicrous . This was definitely the latter !
I haven't read the novels, but I can tell you that my least favourite episodes are Taken at the Flood, Roger Ackroyd, Sad Cypress, Five Little Pigs and Curtain. My absolute favourites are One Two Buckle My Shoe, Death in the Clouds, The Cheap Flat, Poirot's Christmas, Lord Edgeware Dies etc. I'm not one to castigate the producers for experimenting.
Five Little Pigs is possibly my favorite. I think the episode is incredible in it's own right, but as an adaptation it's chef's kiss.
@@ChildOfDarkDefiance I think five Little Pigs is my fave too.
My favourite too, I absolutely adore it.
Why did Suchet change his mustache in the latter films? It just doesn’t work as well.
"Welcome to 'Nine Poirots That Need a Do-Over' or 'Preview of Upcoming Videos.'"
Definitely not mad at you for Sad Cyprus; I normally love a serious/dramatic Poirot adaptation, but what a joyless sob-fest that one was. As for Buckle My Shoe or Hickory Dickory, I want a remake just so long as they lose the children's voices reciting the rhymes "spookily." If they were going for a scariness factor, boy did they miss the mark. Just plain goofy and annoying.
I'm so glad you said that about the "children's voices" being unnecessary. They were NOT children's voices at all, but adult lady's voices who were trying to sound childlike. I picked up on that right away and it has always bothered me. If children's voices had been used, the effect would have been much more meaningful. The fact that women lended their "silly kid voices" to the chanting makes me quite sad.
Unfortunately the solution in Murder in Mesopotamia was already laughable in Christie‘s novel. It‘s the hardest one to swallow. That‘s probably why I don‘t remember much of the rest of the novel. When I rewatched the series with a friend I skipped that one.
But it was appallingly miscast. There is no possibility of the murderer's face being forgotten as he has a half inch forehead and very distinctive nose, the murdered wife is not as gloriously gorgeous as essential to the story and as the women cast in many other stories in other stories, and on and on.
I cannot believe you didn't include Appointment with Death. That is probably the single worst adaptation...and that's saying something.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd completely missed the feeling of the novel and managed to turn Christie's groundbreaking sensation into a borefest.
I don't think that The Big Four is salvageable. But if I had to pick 10 adaptations that I'd want remade, I'd pick the ten worst ones. Not ones that were perfectly adequate.
To be perfectly honest, the Suchet adaptation of Appointment with Death is one of my favorite... that being said, I do understand your reasoning. I've recently rewatched that one along with the 1988 Ustinov version and I've come to a revelation (SPOILERS AHEAD FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T READ THE NOVEL/SEEN THE FILMS, GO DO SO).
I believe the Ustinov version is a better adaptation of the *mystery* the story ought to have while the Suchet version is a better adaptation of the *tone* it ought to have. The Suchet version rewrites the victim and the murderer's background and motivation to such a degree that the impact is lost. The scene where Mrs. Boynton says the line "I've never forgotten anything - not an action, not a name, not a face," never happens and we lose a great clue/moment of misdirection. The "suggestibility" element present in the original is played with, but not nearly as effectively. And perhaps most tragically, Lady Westholme's character is downgraded.
There's no topping the legendary Lauren Bacall, however, I feel like Elizabeth McGovern gives an entrancing performance nonetheless. I particularly love revisiting her monologue to Poirot about the people and cultures of the world. So it's tragic that she seems to take a back seat (and less screen time) to John Hannah's Dr. Gerard who I don't think is nearly as interesting. Also frustrating is the ending: Westholme and Gerard work together to free their daughter from the abusive grip of Boynton only to commit suicide immediately after revealing themselves to be her real parents... thus traumatizing their child further. It's a poorly conceived element that really shows how the changed parent/child motivations don't fit inside the framework of this story.
That being said, the Ustinov version is not perfect. It has what I'd call a SERIOUS tone problem starting in the first 5 minutes where the Boyntons' travelogue is played over the opening credits all set to a jaunty little instrumental number that makes them feel like a happy family seeing the sights... not a loose collection of abuse victims under the watch of a tyrant. The actors are well-chosen, but the poorly-conceived comedic tone continues (and the film has a bad case of "the 80s trying to look like the 30s.")
The Suchet version meanwhile nails the period, creates an interesting theme/character analysis by delving into Poirot's religious beliefs about the healing abilities of faith, and ABSOLUTELY NAILS its tone. The discovery of the body set to the tune of Dido's Lament and the aria "When I am laid in earth" is one of the most moving moments in all of the Suchet adaptations. Similarly, the scene where Suchet and Curry (and later Goddard and Boyle) recount the tale of the man from Damascus meeting Death, is spellbinding and moody.
So even with all it's unnecessarily added subplots and characters, even with its diminished mystery, and its changes, I still love the Suchet adaptation as a well-directed and intriguing piece of cinema. I only wish a new version could marry the excellent tone of the 2008 version with the superb mystery of the original.
I'm with you about Appointment with Death. An absolute waste of Tim Curry.
@@Unownshipper Appointment with Death is one of my favorite Christies and one I recommend to new readers for its mystery. A true whodunnit.
I'm still waiting for a proper adaptation of it. Until then, I'll stick with the book.
03:09 The solution in particular made little or no sense to me in SAD CYPRESS. Not the actual identity of the murderer, but how Poirot caught them.
Personally, I am a playwright and think I would be most intrigued by doing a version of FIVE LITTLE PIGS, one of my favorite Poirot films (not book). But on the other hand, why mess with something I love? PERIL AT END HOUSE on the other hand--the adaptation was good, but I'd like to a crack at retelling it.
There actually is a stage play version of Five Little Pigs! It's called Go Back For Murder.
I thought the Suchet version of Five Little Pigs was more interesting than the novel... the water garden was a better choice than the battery garden and the atmosphere of marital and household dysfunction was better conveyed.
Honestly, the worst one for me is Orient express simply because they completely change Poirot's attitude and reaction towards this murder. Throughout the books, we see that Poirot has a personal understanding of what is good and what is bad and which times he can oversee what is legal and what is not. Being obsessed with maintaining the law is not one of his OCD traits. He has his own sense of justice. The orient express completely misses the point.
This is so true! He allowed people to die without confessing, like in The Chocolate Box and other stories. He even helped people commit crimes and get away with them because he eschewed the "higher classes" and money. This was his nature. When he felt that some innocent person had been driven to bad decisions, he was totally understanding of that. The Suchet adaptation of MOTOE went against this (the book and the other adaptation didn't). Poirot was always on board with some "barnyard justice" and in the novel that Christie wrote, he was perfectly fine with the crime because he felt it was deserved and that the perpetrators needed some sense of justice. AT NO POINT did Poirot start screaming at people for not following the rule of law, needing to hold it up higher, etc. Nor did he sit lamely around holding a limp rosary in his hand whilst contemplating his godly choices. SMH
You are right, I've never thought of it that way. I remember now on 'Appointment with Death' Poirot also let the culprit took their own life.
@@kugelwegOn which story does Poirot helped other people commit crime? Serious question. I might need to re-read that one. Appreciate if you could help 🙏🙏🙏
@@tiararoxeanne1318One could be in the end of death in the nile, where he lets one of the culprits kill the other and then take his own life
@@El-Hugger Oh, I see. Thank you🙏
Why do yanks always have to use the word freaking?
Because one shouldn’t say the ef word in polite company.
@@lpetitoiseau9146 so why do they have to resort to using freaking when the word annoying is far more polite?
@@sb6678 Two reasons. Because even though we don't want to say it, we still want to *allude* to the word f*cking to underscore the emphasis. And because the extra syllable in annoying takes some of the edge off. The intonation carries the impact and the two syllable freaking is more direct.
The only details we know so far on the third Branagh Poirot film is that it's going to be set in Venice and takes place after the War. While The Big Four would be interesting, maybe Branagh will be tackling Taken at the Flood (with the setting moved to Venice)? In my mind, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd would've the best possible choice for the next one, on account of it being one of the few Suchet Poirot films that really got mangled, and following from the last one, Poirot would've been at the perfect spot for the events of that story. We'll have to wait and see.
Btw, I don't actually mind Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. I think he's doing a fine job, especially since he would never have been able to top David Suchet as a faithful Poirot, I think going for a completely different take was the way to go.
David Suchet is Poirot! No one else!
I want a remake for "The Mystery of The Blue Train" I actually enjoyed this book. It's one of my favorites. They changed way too much for the adaptation. They completely changed the character of Morel, who in the book was a dangerous scheming temptrous, into a very boring character
I think next Branagh adaptation will be The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, cause he literally said in the last movie that he is going to retire and grow vegetable marrows. Either way, he is going to butcher yet another of my favourite Poirot novels... To me, his versions of the stories and Poirot himself are atrocious!! 🤮💔
So, Murder on the Orient Express was good? They changed too much that didn’t make sense
I figured it doesn't need a do-over because we already have the Albert Finney version.
shocked to see Sad Cypress. It’s is one of my favorites. However I haven’t read the original source material.
Suchet was wonderful in Sad Cypress but the tv series adaptation didn’t touch the book’s quality.
For me the worst Poirot adaptation by far is Appointment with Death. This one has little to do with the source material.
David Suchet was the best Hercule Poirot 🙂😊🤩👍👍👍
I disagree with you on a lot of this. It's probably a generational problem. It watch these David Suchet Poirots about once a year or so and I love most of them. Except, of course (and you didn't mention it), his terrible, idiotic version of Murder on the Orient Express.
I'm forgiving of Hickory Dickory Dock's character cutting because the mostly cut out Christie really bad exaggerated "foreigner" students. Like I was uncomfortable at times when reading the book 😬. Of course that left the movie very white as a result and perhaps it would have been better if the writer has just completely rewritten those characters ground up to be better, more fleshed out people.
The Mystery of the Blue Train - the adaptation is dark and boring and the book is rather cheerful.
Branagh is incompetent. MOTOE was just dreadful.
When they do a great adaptation, I re-watch it many times. Evil Under the Sun is my favorite! I re-watch these poor adaptations for the acting, costumes/sets. It's a great feeling to see beloved books acted out. That said, I will never watch Appt with Death again.🤮
Suchet's EUTS sticks close to the books in terms of some characters and details, but I don't think the addition of Japp and Hastings was necessary, nor were the silly jokes about Poirot's weight and his strict diet. Poirot being put in a steam cabinet was silly.