ABC Murders -Poirot

If this had been a drama about Joe Bloggs, a policeman with a disturbed past, coming out of retirement to solve a string of murders I would have thought it was a jolly good plot.

Poirot? No way!

I read the reviews on here, watched about 5 minutes of the first episode - some weird over-acting I thought. Have deleted remainder.

I heard the producer explaining an bad reviews as being because she challenged viewers ideas about who Poirot was.
Which means we were to old and stuck in our ways and used to David Suchet.

I do love the way writers, producers and directors blame the viewer when what they produce rubbish. Their job is to provide television content that viewers enjoy and if a series like this isn't liked and loses viewers then they have not done their job properly. Don't try and blame the viewer for their bad errors of judgment.

DD worked in the television industry for 20 years, until 6 months ago. Her opinion of many of the people on the creative side of the industry is excoriating, and always has been.

But there is a feast of classic vintage Poirot on ITV3 in the afternooon.Beautifully filmed and acted.

I don't think I'll ever fancy a poached egg for breakfast again.

In this adaptation the murder plot comes second. Its really exploring Poirot himself.

I think the thing about Christie novels is the contrast between the lovely country houses, the idyllic villages, genteel lives and the dark under-currents of strained relationships and ultimately murder.

The screen writer seems oblivious to these nuances.

The only thing The ABC Murders has going for it are the period details, cars, streets, clothes.
The language used by various character does jar now and then though.
It was meant to be a dark film, and it is......the question is why ? Murder is always dark but Christie glosses over things , both murders and sexual matters, this adaptation revels in them.It’s different I suppose.
Malkovitch is a very poor Poirot though.

AC wouldnt have had the freedom to write dialogue like that.

I'm sure Agatha Christie didn't write "
K
"Don't sit there on your skinny arse.." or that anybody used those terms back in the 1930s.... and in episode 1 a character was advised to "go and play with himself".

IMO the move away from "BBC English" makes it much more believable.

There was plenty of flowery language back then. Romanticising the era too much does it no favours

In the past adaptations have changed whodunnit so even though I know the killer from the book - it may not be the same in this programme.

I don't care 'whodunnit' they are all unbelievable and foul.

I know whodunnit so may not bother any more, watching Malkovic just makes me uncomfortable.

In fact, if I didn't know whodidit I would think it was him.

Certainly no 'twinkly green eyes' there. They look dead.

Well I tried with it as well but I have given up. It's just too disjointed and I have a feeling they just shot 2 episodes then used some of the scenes repeatedly so they finished up with 3. Please send her back to Eastenders, it's where she belongs.

Didn't enjoy first episode at all and cancelled recording the rest. Quite recently I watched this story with David Suchet as Poirot and it was far better.

I want people to look at Crome and think ‘you ain’t a brilliant young man but you reckon yourself’. He’s likely been fast-tracked and we see that because everyone around him is older. I’ve even got one of the policemen saying ‘you don’t want him to get his big boy pants in a twist

Inane, unintelligent and typical of what constitutes some of the talentless generation at the BBC today.
Sarah Phelps is a British television screenwriter, radio writer, playwright and television producer. She is best known for her work on EastEnders,

Says it all, really.

John Malkovich is using the same accent as he has in Johnny English, French/Belgian, it's all the same to him! It's neither French or Belgian to my ears!
However, in the book, Poirot has coloured his hair with 'Revivit', so maybe his moustache is dyed too!
They've messed around with the story far too much though, as always.
Japp is very much alive, and the story is narrated in part by Hastings.
If they change the ending I shall not be responsible for my actions!
Maggiemaybe
The murderer is.......... No, I won't ruin it for you!

Why do those responsible for these adaptations think they need to change things - these books have been successful for years - they don't need to be messed about with by those far less talented than AC
Those were exactly my thoughts this morning OldWoman

Whoever adapted this excruciating version for tv has no understanding whatsoever of Christie's novels. They have missed the whole point.

I don't think that Malkovich is right in the head----my personal view. Some of his acting parts have bordered on the insane.

Dreary and dire.
Compare that with The Mysterious Affair at Styles or even Poirot’s Last Case - no contest

I’ll still be watching the last episode though, to see who Sarah thinks the murderer should have been. Though to be honest I can’t remember who did it in the original.

Don’t tell me!

Well I didn’t hate episode 1, but found the crudity and anachronisms of episode 2 set my teeth on edge. I’m surprised that those in charge of protecting AC’s legacy have approved this. After a bit of googling about the adaptation, I found what is apparently part of an exclusive interview in the Daily Express, with Sarah Phelps, described as executive producer and writer (gasp) of the ABC Murders:

I want people to look at Crome and think ‘you ain’t a brilliant young man but you reckon yourself’. He’s likely been fast-tracked and we see that because everyone around him is older. I’ve even got one of the policemen saying ‘you don’t want him to get his big boy pants in a twist.’

Oh, good grief.

This is one of my favourite AC books. I watched about 20 mins of this "adaptation" before giving up. Where is Hastings? If Poirot has been forgotten by everyone why would he be receiving the letters? Even in the very last book when Poirot dies he is still very particular about his appearance.

Why do those responsible for these adaptations think they need to change things - these books have been successful for years - they don't need to be messed about with by those far less talented than AC

It's no good .... I've tried, I've really tried .... but I can't watch any more of it. I gave up after about 10 minutes of part 2 and went to bed with a good book.

I'm sure Agatha Christie didn't write "Don't sit there on your skinny arse.." or that anybody used those terms back in the 1930s.... and in episode 1 a character was advised to "go and play with himself".

It's not Christie at all, and not even updated in a good way.

I find Malkovich's portrayal malevolent rather than eccentric.

I don't love it but ...
It is set beyond Poirot's glory days. He is struggling with aging and with the changing times.
He is not supposed to be the dapper character in this. He is supposed to be a man who doesn't fit in a changing modernising world. A bit like Grizabella from cats: was once glamorous and respected... now a bit sad and dated.

I like the scene setting. The plot however hasn't grabbed me, the episodes keep ending just as it promises to get going...