"Tragedy isn't as powerful if there are too many different kinds of it in one story." That is very well said. I am not thrilled by the penchant to make everything as dark and bleak as possible; Christie's stories have their own integrity, with the tragic elements having their proper place in the whole.
Thank you for covering this one! My entire experience watching it was one long exclamation of "WHAT?!!!!" and "WHY?!!!!" from John Malkovich's casting to the priest backstory to Japp's death. It is, though, as you say, compelling. It's just an utterly bizarre adaptation.
'the choxolate box' about poirot going back to belgium and interaction with others from his policeman days and other people he knew in his pre-ww1 days
"My main takeaway is that although an adaptation doesn't have to be just like the book in order to be a good film. It's a shame whenever an adaptation throws away something of value." Louder for the people in the back. Too many adaptations of Christie or other books, seem to think that they need to change almost everything about a book to bring it to film. Which usually leads to the film being an empty shell that has only a flimsy foundation to stand on.
I agree. The new adabtation looked different and I was ready to give it a change. Because who knows, maybe it could be good as a grimm tale. But then they killed Japp and I had to walk away from it. You just don't disrespect Japp like that!
In that case just put Grint in the role of Japp. It might be weird but not as weird as killing off the main police contact. Like killing off Watson! or even Hastings (who eventually was retired to Argentina, I believe).
This gives me a greater appreciation for the Suchet version of ABC. Overall, I think it's solid, one of the finest of that era, but there are some creative choices I dislike; namely, the closeups and whispering used to demonstrate Cust's anxiety. It's meant to be disorienting and spooky but (like the singing in Hickory Dickory Dock or Buckle My Shoe) comes off as goofy and childish. Still, I'll take that over needlessly added misery. I still like And Then There Were None, but it's feeling more like Sarah Phelps is missing the point.
Suchet's ABC Murders is Agatha Christie comfort food. It's a superb production that's just really nice to have around. Everything the BBC has made has been needlessly depressing and yucky.
Excellent video! I think it's amazing to find someone who thinks as I do about Agatha Christie's novels! I remember reading this book as a teenager, before Anibal Lecter, Jack the Ripper was the only serial killer I had heard about. Agatha Christie invented a sub genre, in my little informed opinion. She fulled me yet again on this one. I loved the David Suchet version and I didn't like the John Malkovich one. Keneth Bragragh is a joke as Poirot, to say it bluntly. Again, congratulations on the video!
thank you for this review! I will watch any and all Christie adaptations, but I couldn't get halfway through this one. I don't mind artistic license, reinterpretation, etc., but I, personally, have issue with undoing the 'canon' of a character and expecting us to 'un-know' what we already know about that character. Playing Poirot goofy or serious is fine, adding details not in the books is also fine, but making his whole career a lie, Poirot as a liar, well that's not fine.
Miles, you are one heck of a narrator! Such inflections! Such pauses! Such sighs! And - such insights! I just love listening/watching your videos. 😍👏⭐️
Yeah, I was totally flummoxed when this one came out. Could've knocked me down with a feather when they got to E What exactly does Poirot being a priest with a tragic backstory add to anything? I liked Cust's condition making him more likely to question his own innocence but WTF with the shoes? Have you seen Sewell's Pale Horse? Not sure if it's Phelps but felt very much in the same line as this one.
I can kind of see what they're going for, but it sounds like a botched execution. One of the things I really admire about the Suchet version is the focus on Poirot's religion and how it impacts him. This is perhaps best showcased in the Suchet adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express. You get a perfect contrast between Poirot giving thanks to God for blessing him with the mind and talents to be a detective while another character prays for favors and protection. Then at the end, you see Poirot struggle to rationalize what is just with what is right. I recall an interview where Christie was asked about Poirot's spirituality and she gave kind of a mechanical response; something along the lines of "Well he's Belgian, so obviously he's a Catholic." As far as I remember, Christie just treated it as a matter of fact (the way one might say, "Well this character is from Texas, so obviously they wear boots.") and didn't dive very deeply into what it meant for Poirot to be a Catholic and how his faith might impact his life and work (which is understandable as she herself wouldn't know). It sounds a bit like the showrunners here were also trying to explore that aspect, but just didn't do a very convincing job.
Thank you for explaining why I really dislike the new adaptations of Agatha Christie works. I had thought it was just because they strayed so far from the original. Now I realize it’s also the dark slant that’s putting me off.
The thing that bothered me the most about Phelps' adaptation is that she made it so political - it being developed in the midst of the nationwide debate about the Brexit. She played up the xenophobia in the UK during the 1930s, with everyone being a supporter of the British fascist movement - that in reality only ever won a small percentage (7-8% I believe). Thus making this adaptation a nasty bit of propaganda.
I was fascinated by the Malkovitch Poirot, and even wrote him a a fan letter telling him so, but he was not AC’s Poirot. Ac’s Poirot is a Bon vivant and not given to denial. Loved the advice M’s Poirot gave Betty’s sister - he gave her the exact attention and words she needed to hear. That scene made my day.
Seems the consensus I have seen of the adaptations by this writer is people wondering why not just write your own characters and stories if you will change the existing ones so much. Brannagh by comparison seems to be more faithful if a bit over the top. I do wonder how this one would be received if it had been anyone other than Malkovich in the role or indeed with completely original characters and just taking inspiration from the original story.
i was so disappoinetd with what this adaptation did to the killers motivation, much preferred christie's twist the darker tone was also not my speed, but that could have been tolerable if it maintained the motivation
Here’s what I hate about Sarah Phelps’ writing. She deliberately writes in stuff that is darker than midnight on a new moon, stuff that is not really authentic Christie or even remotely close to it. Christie did have some dark things in her books, but there was also an illusory air of gentlemanly well-being that existed in her mysteries that made it more interesting to watch as the investigation slowly unraveled the character’s many dark secrets. Some fairly innocent, some very dark. In all of Phelps’ adaptions, things are dark pretty much out of the gate and will continue to be that way for almost the entire run. I actually enjoyed Malkovich as Poirot, but I think his origin story would be better suited with an original character. It’s totally misplaced as Poirot. The worst Sarah Phelps adaption, to my mind, was The Pale Horse.
Rupert Grint! I am always surprised when I see him in anything, considering what everyone said about his acting in the You Know Who series. I always enjoy seeing him though. He looks really good and in character here!
I try to avoid having preset notions of what Christie should be like, as I like seeing how others see tjr stories. So for me, the big problem with this isn't the off-the-shelf 'darkness', which gets tedious but is a valid stylistic choicr. I liked Malkovich in the role he plays, even if it's a divergent version of the character. But the change in motivation... for heaven's sake. ABC is one of the finest Christies because it's a psychological thriller that turns out to be something quite different (which I can't reveal because spoilers innit). With this, the twist is... it really was a game of cat and mouse. Why? Why would you change the most memorably brilliant element? It's like doing Orient Express with the killer being a guy who broke into the train from outside. What you're left with is the stuff Christie deliberately cast aside and, as you note, lightly mocked. It's such a perverse decision.
Don’t forget that in this adaption Poirot’s neighbor has a pin that indicates she belongs to the British Union of Fascists (who were sympathizers with Mussolini and Hitler, from the group’s founding in 1931 until they were banned in the U.K. in 1940). But this doesn’t exist other than to let us know what is already clear. NEARLY EVERYONE hates Poirot in this film and is constantly reminding him of the fact.) Also, if any of Poirot’s mail was delivered to her address, her being a British Fascist, I have a feeling that it’s more believable that she would burn the letter rather than deliver it to him.
Hey, I saw you just did a Marple, but I was kinda hoping you make space to talk about that show's adaptation of Pale Horse or Endless Night as those are are two non-Marple stories that I think they managed to fit Marple into and are overall good episodes.
Thanks for the suggestions! Eventually I will cover both of those. I'm waiting till I see the new Pale Horse to decide whether to compare that one, the Miss Marple, or the 1997 version to the book. For Endless Night, I'll be comparing the Miss Marple, though fair warning, I'll probably have mixed things to say about it.
@@MysteryMiles honestly? I think I like Marple Pale Horse better thwn the miniseries if only because the miniseries went way off the deep end in in the last chunk. The Marple episodes at least kept the basics in tact. And JJ Field was really good as Osbourne IMO. As for Endless Night? We can all agree to disagree. I'm sure there's stuff there that wasn't great. But to me at least they got the feel of the story right.
I haven't really been much of a fan of these new, darker adaptations of Christie's works but I did enjoy this one and that is 100% because of John Malkovich. I wouldn't mind seeing him in the role again.
They lost me after And Then There Were None. It just wasn't fun. I kept hearing about the weird changes they made and... the whole series just died for me.
@@philipmonihan8222 I appreciate the miniseries version of And Then There Were None because it feels like the first version to take the source material seriously. The 40s version has this odd, almost comedic tone and the other versions deviated too far or focus too much on the manufactured romance. The novel is a grim story about justice and hypocrisy and though I feel like the Sarah Phelps version wallows in dark spectacle a bit too much to be called a 100% faithful adaptation, I appreciate that it goes in a direction the other English adaptations had not dared.
The 1940s version was based more on Christie’s stage play adaptation. I enjoyed it, but I also always wanted to do one with the novel’s ending. The Russian one is good. I didn’t like the change in the murders in the Phelps version, but it’s good enough.
Hey. You watched this one so I don't have to. Gotta be honest, I watched the first few minutes and my eyes rolled so hard I started vomiting casino tokens. I'm a comic book fan, so I've seen FAAAAAAR too many overly dark adaptations of superheroes and these adaptations felt like much the same thing. It doesn't seem AS bad as what I was afraid of... But still not GOOD. Not what I feel anyone was asking for from a Christie adaptation. Say what you want about Brannaugh, and I can say plenty. He nailed the TONE. Which, as Margaret Rutherford can attest, is actually more important than book accuracy
@@HuntingViolets To a point... Yeah. Like everything Branaugh has ever touched it feels like a neon lit carnival of ornate, bizarrely rich, madness. It works for Christie in that regard.
Hate the Tony Randall ALPHABET MURDERS. I own it on VHS and have only watched it once. I think he would have been a good Poirot with a better script. Strange enough Randall's version of THE MAN IN THE BROWN SUIT is pretty bad too, with him running around in drag. Hated the "surprise" ending about Poirot in this version. Overall did not like it.
I believe Agatha Christie is under-rated for her deeply cutting criticism of the worst aspects of human behavior. I have written elsewhere that a really major change in an adaptation is fine so long as it is justified, and one way to do that is to create an alternate version just as compelling. Or close to. I believe this version did exactly that. Does strike me odd that you kinda/sorta missed the whole point of that final scene. First, it establishes the murderer's real motives, namely that his soul (as Poirot puts it) is a charnel house. Yeah he wanted the money and the title but it seemed obvious he's aching to kill somebody for a long, long, long time. He may try to blame Poirot for "lighting a match" in his mind, but Poirot knows better. Which brings up the fact that last scene is the final confrontation between murderer and detective, between someone who is literally the single worst person in that entire film and the hurting hero who defeated him, and continues to fend off this sociopath's excuses. Poirot is a man who does not flinch when he sees evil, and he sees it all the damn time. He is a man who holds the world to a high standard, the one he himself embodies. That is why he in the end is so admirable, so very much the hero we should admire so much in this all too often dark, all too often cruel, all too often desperate and stupid world.
It would be nice yes. David Suchet is the only actor who even bothered to do a good accent whilst the rest of the actors who played Poirot their accents sounded fake and forced.
The terrible thing about this adaptation is that absolutely all the characters are presented as run-of-the-mill, pathetic people. Separately - everything looks dirty and ugly, including Poirot, who is a millionaire. I remember the explanation of the creators was that often in costume dramas things are idealized. What are they trying to say - that this is the world of ordinary people, presented realistically? I am an ordinary person and I am surrounded by ordinary people, and most of them are not nasty and disgusting (there are some, but they are a minority). So if the people who made this adaptation think this is the norm, they're probably disgusting themselves.
I didn't want to watch it at first, I usually dislike inaccurate adaptations, but I quite liked it. it's a good series & even a decent adaptation, if one doesn't expect OUR regular Poirot. I enjoyed most characters, even the new Poirot, who works for the story. The show kept the key elements whilst feeling fresh & memorable. What I disliked the most was the rushed final reveal & the reason Poirot finds the killer (fingerprints?! 🤔 in Poirot, come on!). I didn't mind that Franklin was a bit unhinged in the end. Someone who invented a serial killer to mask the murder of his own brother must be antisocial & narcissistic anyway. I actually prefer ABC to And Then There Were None,which would've been perfect, had they not turned an indirect guilt into very direct murders. The genius and the philosophical question of the book lied it the fact that these ppl were a lot like us. It seems the writers missed the point & made it less uncomfortable bcs they wanted to do the opposite.
I enjoyed the mini-series, which I stumbled across while surfing Amazon Prime a few days ago. I'm not an Agatha Christie purist, so I had no knowledge of the changes in the adaptation from book to series. The last Agatha Christie novel that I read was _And Then There Were None_ which was an assignment for Jr. High School English class. I recently learned the original title of the novel...look it up. My main problem with the mini series was the flashbacks. They made the choice for John Malkovich to play the younger version of the main character, Hercule Poirot. To me, this was a bad choice and took me out of the flow of the story. Maybe it was vanity on Malkovich's part, but I always find it to be disorienting when a flashback requires the actor to be considerably younger. Cast a younger actor or de-age him with CGI.
I tried to watch it, really I did. But finally switched channels after about 20 min. Won't ever bother finishing it. Malkovich seemed to be replaying his character from In the Line of Fire. Completely unlikable Poirot.
Another fun watch.😊 Thank you 🎉 PS….sorry, but I enjoy Kenneth Branagh’s adaptations, but then, I am a thoroughly devoted Christie fan, no matter who plays the lead. 😂😂😂
Malkovich is the worst Poirot I've ever watched - he's truly awful and completely wrong for the part. This version of the ABC Murders is my absolute lest favorite, regardless of who is playing Poirot.
“He goes to Japp who gives him friendly advice then has a heart attack and dies”
*the fact you said that with no hesitation makes me laugh so hard* 😂
it's all in the delivery!
"Tragedy isn't as powerful if there are too many different kinds of it in one story." That is very well said. I am not thrilled by the penchant to make everything as dark and bleak as possible; Christie's stories have their own integrity, with the tragic elements having their proper place in the whole.
thanks for saying it so well
Thank you for covering this one! My entire experience watching it was one long exclamation of "WHAT?!!!!" and "WHY?!!!!" from John Malkovich's casting to the priest backstory to Japp's death. It is, though, as you say, compelling. It's just an utterly bizarre adaptation.
Thanks....Christie's ABC Murders tight package........bizarre adaptation.
“It makes no damn sense. Compels me, though.” -Benoit Blanc
'the choxolate box' about poirot going back to belgium and interaction with others from his policeman days and other people he knew in his pre-ww1 days
"My main takeaway is that although an adaptation doesn't have to be just like the book in order to be a good film. It's a shame whenever an adaptation throws away something of value." Louder for the people in the back. Too many adaptations of Christie or other books, seem to think that they need to change almost everything about a book to bring it to film. Which usually leads to the film being an empty shell that has only a flimsy foundation to stand on.
Yeah, I remember when they were promoting this. It looked yucky. I wanted to show support to Rupert Grint but... you just don't kill Japp. You don't.
I agree. The new adabtation looked different and I was ready to give it a change. Because who knows, maybe it could be good as a grimm tale. But then they killed Japp and I had to walk away from it. You just don't disrespect Japp like that!
@@92Mutu Poirot's entire posse is very precious to my family
In that case just put Grint in the role of Japp. It might be weird but not as weird as killing off the main police contact. Like killing off Watson! or even Hastings (who eventually was retired to Argentina, I believe).
@@1234cheerful Exactly!
This gives me a greater appreciation for the Suchet version of ABC. Overall, I think it's solid, one of the finest of that era, but there are some creative choices I dislike; namely, the closeups and whispering used to demonstrate Cust's anxiety. It's meant to be disorienting and spooky but (like the singing in Hickory Dickory Dock or Buckle My Shoe) comes off as goofy and childish. Still, I'll take that over needlessly added misery. I still like And Then There Were None, but it's feeling more like Sarah Phelps is missing the point.
Suchet's ABC Murders is Agatha Christie comfort food. It's a superb production that's just really nice to have around. Everything the BBC has made has been needlessly depressing and yucky.
Which idiot thought it was a good idea to get rid of Japp….? He/she should be sacked….!!
@@Anita-pf1hySomeone must name and shame this person!
Excellent video! I think it's amazing to find someone who thinks as I do about Agatha Christie's novels! I remember reading this book as a teenager, before Anibal Lecter, Jack the Ripper was the only serial killer I had heard about. Agatha Christie invented a sub genre, in my little informed opinion. She fulled me yet again on this one. I loved the David Suchet version and I didn't like the John Malkovich one. Keneth Bragragh is a joke as Poirot, to say it bluntly. Again, congratulations on the video!
thank you for this review! I will watch any and all Christie adaptations, but I couldn't get halfway through this one. I don't mind artistic license, reinterpretation, etc., but I, personally, have issue with undoing the 'canon' of a character and expecting us to 'un-know' what we already know about that character. Playing Poirot goofy or serious is fine, adding details not in the books is also fine, but making his whole career a lie, Poirot as a liar, well that's not fine.
that is NOT fine.......thanks
Agreed, we all know he was a police man in the Belgian police force in Brussels which is explained in the episode The Chocolate Box.
@@suzie_lovescats His being from Belgium was even explained in The Mysterious Affair At Styles.
@@1234cheerfulYes I know 😉
Miles, you are one heck of a narrator! Such inflections! Such pauses! Such sighs!
And - such insights!
I just love listening/watching your videos. 😍👏⭐️
Yeah, I was totally flummoxed when this one came out.
Could've knocked me down with a feather when they got to E
What exactly does Poirot being a priest with a tragic backstory add to anything?
I liked Cust's condition making him more likely to question his own innocence but WTF with the shoes?
Have you seen Sewell's Pale Horse?
Not sure if it's Phelps but felt very much in the same line as this one.
I can kind of see what they're going for, but it sounds like a botched execution.
One of the things I really admire about the Suchet version is the focus on Poirot's religion and how it impacts him. This is perhaps best showcased in the Suchet adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express. You get a perfect contrast between Poirot giving thanks to God for blessing him with the mind and talents to be a detective while another character prays for favors and protection. Then at the end, you see Poirot struggle to rationalize what is just with what is right.
I recall an interview where Christie was asked about Poirot's spirituality and she gave kind of a mechanical response; something along the lines of "Well he's Belgian, so obviously he's a Catholic." As far as I remember, Christie just treated it as a matter of fact (the way one might say, "Well this character is from Texas, so obviously they wear boots.") and didn't dive very deeply into what it meant for Poirot to be a Catholic and how his faith might impact his life and work (which is understandable as she herself wouldn't know). It sounds a bit like the showrunners here were also trying to explore that aspect, but just didn't do a very convincing job.
Totally agree, Miles!! Sir Kenneth is absolutely horrible. Blech! Who keeps giving him money to produce his awful adaptations?? That's a real mystery.
Branagh is a legend in his own mind.
Branagh strikes me like a man who is the self-styled President of his own fan club.
Thank you for explaining why I really dislike the new adaptations of Agatha Christie works. I had thought it was just because they strayed so far from the original. Now I realize it’s also the dark slant that’s putting me off.
Malkovich version was depressing, mocking Poirot, I'll never watch it again
The thing that bothered me the most about Phelps' adaptation is that she made it so political - it being developed in the midst of the nationwide debate about the Brexit. She played up the xenophobia in the UK during the 1930s, with everyone being a supporter of the British fascist movement - that in reality only ever won a small percentage (7-8% I believe). Thus making this adaptation a nasty bit of propaganda.
I was fascinated by the Malkovitch Poirot, and even wrote him a a fan letter telling him so, but he was not AC’s Poirot. Ac’s Poirot is a Bon vivant and not given to denial. Loved the advice M’s Poirot gave Betty’s sister - he gave her the exact attention and words she needed to hear. That scene made my day.
Seems the consensus I have seen of the adaptations by this writer is people wondering why not just write your own characters and stories if you will change the existing ones so much. Brannagh by comparison seems to be more faithful if a bit over the top. I do wonder how this one would be received if it had been anyone other than Malkovich in the role or indeed with completely original characters and just taking inspiration from the original story.
I never finished watching this series. I tried to ignore the fact that Malkovich didn't even have a french accent, but I just couldn't.
😆😆
i was so disappoinetd with what this adaptation did to the killers motivation, much preferred christie's twist
the darker tone was also not my speed, but that could have been tolerable if it maintained the motivation
Here’s what I hate about Sarah Phelps’ writing. She deliberately writes in stuff that is darker than midnight on a new moon, stuff that is not really authentic Christie or even remotely close to it. Christie did have some dark things in her books, but there was also an illusory air of gentlemanly well-being that existed in her mysteries that made it more interesting to watch as the investigation slowly unraveled the character’s many dark secrets. Some fairly innocent, some very dark. In all of Phelps’ adaptions, things are dark pretty much out of the gate and will continue to be that way for almost the entire run. I actually enjoyed Malkovich as Poirot, but I think his origin story would be better suited with an original character. It’s totally misplaced as Poirot. The worst Sarah Phelps adaption, to my mind, was The Pale Horse.
Interesting. I still have to watch Pale Horse.
Rupert Grint! I am always surprised when I see him in anything, considering what everyone said about his acting in the You Know Who series. I always enjoy seeing him though. He looks really good and in character here!
I try to avoid having preset notions of what Christie should be like, as I like seeing how others see tjr stories. So for me, the big problem with this isn't the off-the-shelf 'darkness', which gets tedious but is a valid stylistic choicr. I liked Malkovich in the role he plays, even if it's a divergent version of the character.
But the change in motivation... for heaven's sake. ABC is one of the finest Christies because it's a psychological thriller that turns out to be something quite different (which I can't reveal because spoilers innit). With this, the twist is... it really was a game of cat and mouse.
Why? Why would you change the most memorably brilliant element? It's like doing Orient Express with the killer being a guy who broke into the train from outside. What you're left with is the stuff Christie deliberately cast aside and, as you note, lightly mocked. It's such a perverse decision.
The Malkovich version is a great adaptation, but the Suchet version will always be #1 for me. 🍿🍿🍿
Don’t forget that in this adaption Poirot’s neighbor has a pin that indicates she belongs to the British Union of Fascists (who were sympathizers with Mussolini and Hitler, from the group’s founding in 1931 until they were banned in the U.K. in 1940). But this doesn’t exist other than to let us know what is already clear. NEARLY EVERYONE hates Poirot in this film and is constantly reminding him of the fact.) Also, if any of Poirot’s mail was delivered to her address, her being a British Fascist, I have a feeling that it’s more believable that she would burn the letter rather than deliver it to him.
love your work
I detested this version of the "The ABC Murders"! Sorry, it just didn't work for me. And I'm not strictly a Christie purest. YUCK!
Hey, I saw you just did a Marple, but I was kinda hoping you make space to talk about that show's adaptation of Pale Horse or Endless Night as those are are two non-Marple stories that I think they managed to fit Marple into and are overall good episodes.
Thanks for the suggestions! Eventually I will cover both of those. I'm waiting till I see the new Pale Horse to decide whether to compare that one, the Miss Marple, or the 1997 version to the book. For Endless Night, I'll be comparing the Miss Marple, though fair warning, I'll probably have mixed things to say about it.
@@MysteryMiles honestly? I think I like Marple Pale Horse better thwn the miniseries if only because the miniseries went way off the deep end in in the last chunk. The Marple episodes at least kept the basics in tact. And JJ Field was really good as Osbourne IMO.
As for Endless Night? We can all agree to disagree. I'm sure there's stuff there that wasn't great. But to me at least they got the feel of the story right.
I haven't really been much of a fan of these new, darker adaptations of Christie's works but I did enjoy this one and that is 100% because of John Malkovich. I wouldn't mind seeing him in the role again.
They lost me after And Then There Were None. It just wasn't fun. I kept hearing about the weird changes they made and... the whole series just died for me.
@@philipmonihan8222 I appreciate the miniseries version of And Then There Were None because it feels like the first version to take the source material seriously. The 40s version has this odd, almost comedic tone and the other versions deviated too far or focus too much on the manufactured romance.
The novel is a grim story about justice and hypocrisy and though I feel like the Sarah Phelps version wallows in dark spectacle a bit too much to be called a 100% faithful adaptation, I appreciate that it goes in a direction the other English adaptations had not dared.
@@Unownshipper I reckon that's a fair assessment.
The 1940s version was based more on Christie’s stage play adaptation. I enjoyed it, but I also always wanted to do one with the novel’s ending. The Russian one is good. I didn’t like the change in the murders in the Phelps version, but it’s good enough.
I so enjoyed this movie. It was so interesting. I never guessed the ending.
Why did I turn off Malkovich's Poirot Movie? He didn't have a French accent.
Yeah, he talks like some old Valmont
Loved David Suchet, hated Malkovitch's, I watched about 15 minutes, couldn't watch anymore.
One of my favourites.
Being a priest suited this Poirot, but not Agatha’s Poirot.
Sorry but when John Malkovich pulls that French accent (Belgian!), all I can think of is his role in Johny English.
Sarah Phelps=Bad Christie
Hey. You watched this one so I don't have to. Gotta be honest, I watched the first few minutes and my eyes rolled so hard I started vomiting casino tokens. I'm a comic book fan, so I've seen FAAAAAAR too many overly dark adaptations of superheroes and these adaptations felt like much the same thing. It doesn't seem AS bad as what I was afraid of... But still not GOOD. Not what I feel anyone was asking for from a Christie adaptation.
Say what you want about Brannaugh, and I can say plenty. He nailed the TONE. Which, as Margaret Rutherford can attest, is actually more important than book accuracy
Do you think he nailed the tone?
@@HuntingViolets To a point... Yeah. Like everything Branaugh has ever touched it feels like a neon lit carnival of ornate, bizarrely rich, madness. It works for Christie in that regard.
Hate the Tony Randall ALPHABET MURDERS. I own it on VHS and have only watched it once. I think he would have been a good Poirot with a better script. Strange enough Randall's version of THE MAN IN THE BROWN SUIT is pretty bad too, with him running around in drag. Hated the "surprise" ending about Poirot in this version. Overall did not like it.
I believe Agatha Christie is under-rated for her deeply cutting criticism of the worst aspects of human behavior.
I have written elsewhere that a really major change in an adaptation is fine so long as it is justified, and one way to do that is to create an alternate version just as compelling. Or close to. I believe this version did exactly that.
Does strike me odd that you kinda/sorta missed the whole point of that final scene. First, it establishes the murderer's real motives, namely that his soul (as Poirot puts it) is a charnel house. Yeah he wanted the money and the title but it seemed obvious he's aching to kill somebody for a long, long, long time. He may try to blame Poirot for "lighting a match" in his mind, but Poirot knows better. Which brings up the fact that last scene is the final confrontation between murderer and detective, between someone who is literally the single worst person in that entire film and the hurting hero who defeated him, and continues to fend off this sociopath's excuses. Poirot is a man who does not flinch when he sees evil, and he sees it all the damn time. He is a man who holds the world to a high standard, the one he himself embodies. That is why he in the end is so admirable, so very much the hero we should admire so much in this all too often dark, all too often cruel, all too often desperate and stupid world.
Wouldn’t it be nice if a Belgium actor played Poirot?
I Googled "Well Known Belgian Actors" and the first result I got was Jean Claude Van Damme.
Now I want to see that movie and ONLY that movie.
@@gregdeandrea1450 You've made my day.
It would be nice.
It would be nice yes. David Suchet is the only actor who even bothered to do a good accent whilst the rest of the actors who played Poirot their accents sounded fake and forced.
The terrible thing about this adaptation is that absolutely all the characters are presented as run-of-the-mill, pathetic people.
Separately - everything looks dirty and ugly, including Poirot, who is a millionaire.
I remember the explanation of the creators was that often in costume dramas things are idealized. What are they trying to say - that this is the world of ordinary people, presented realistically? I am an ordinary person and I am surrounded by ordinary people, and most of them are not nasty and disgusting (there are some, but they are a minority). So if the people who made this adaptation think this is the norm, they're probably disgusting themselves.
I didn't want to watch it at first, I usually dislike inaccurate adaptations, but I quite liked it. it's a good series & even a decent adaptation, if one doesn't expect OUR regular Poirot. I enjoyed most characters, even the new Poirot, who works for the story. The show kept the key elements whilst feeling fresh & memorable. What I disliked the most was the rushed final reveal & the reason Poirot finds the killer (fingerprints?! 🤔 in Poirot, come on!). I didn't mind that Franklin was a bit unhinged in the end. Someone who invented a serial killer to mask the murder of his own brother must be antisocial & narcissistic anyway.
I actually prefer ABC to And Then There Were None,which would've been perfect, had they not turned an indirect guilt into very direct murders. The genius and the philosophical question of the book lied it the fact that these ppl were a lot like us. It seems the writers missed the point & made it less uncomfortable bcs they wanted to do the opposite.
Phelps's adaptations always get eye rolls from me, and this one is a 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
I enjoyed the mini-series, which I stumbled across while surfing Amazon Prime a few days ago. I'm not an Agatha Christie purist, so I had no knowledge of the changes in the adaptation from book to series. The last Agatha Christie novel that I read was _And Then There Were None_ which was an assignment for Jr. High School English class. I recently learned the original title of the novel...look it up.
My main problem with the mini series was the flashbacks. They made the choice for John Malkovich to play the younger version of the main character, Hercule Poirot. To me, this was a bad choice and took me out of the flow of the story. Maybe it was vanity on Malkovich's part, but I always find it to be disorienting when a flashback requires the actor to be considerably younger. Cast a younger actor or de-age him with CGI.
you have not advanced in your reading, I can tell.
Kenneth Branagh is horrible
TullaRask,
Except in Wallander, He is excellent.
@@judithmargret5972 Maybe. I have developed a torn in my soul. It hurts when I see him somehow :).
@@judithmargret5972Not nearly as great as the original series.
The only Poirot I never watched.
I tried to watch it, really I did. But finally switched channels after about 20 min.
Won't ever bother finishing it. Malkovich seemed to be replaying his character from In the Line of Fire. Completely unlikable Poirot.
TV version Cusp is perfect
I think this adaptation was absolutely superb. Dark, menacing and fresh.
You have a very low bar. This was pure trash
It's frustrating because Malkovich is a great actor, but so wrong for Poirot
Another fun watch.😊 Thank you 🎉 PS….sorry, but I enjoy Kenneth Branagh’s adaptations, but then, I am a thoroughly devoted Christie fan, no matter who plays the lead. 😂😂😂
I enjoyed the Malkovich one from the moment I decided it was not cannon. As a story, it was very moving.
I love Malkovich but I just couldn't get past his terrible attempt at a Belgian accent.
After I finished watching this 💩 from the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) I thought to myself, thank God for David Suchet 😆
Malkovich is the worst Poirot I've ever watched - he's truly awful and completely wrong for the part. This version of the ABC Murders is my absolute lest favorite, regardless of who is playing Poirot.