ABC Murders -Poirot

Spent 9.00pm - 10.0-pm this evening chatting with DS and DDiL who had just arrived from the north. A much more useful and enjoyable use of our time than last night.

Apparently the reviews in the papers have been good which must mean it is dreadful.

I'm sorry, but it is just bloody awful.

I'm sure the book had Captain Hastings and Inspector Japp teaming up with Poirot to solve the ABC murders; however, it's so long since I read it I could be imagining that.

I hope whoever devised this version is never allowed near an Agatha Christie adaptation again.

Oh dear. I'm recording it so I can watch it in a oner. Maybe I'll not bother. I did so like David Suchet in the role.

It's so slow.

Very disappointing, and if the performance given by Malkovitch is acting, well, our Oliver Sprout can walk about looking vacant "enigmatic" and at least his whiskers are real!

Oh dear, come back David Suchet!

This is Agatha Christie a la Scandi Noir. Even the opening credits and music and style of filming is very Scandi.

And I didn't recognise Grint at all.

Good grief...
Over dramatic twaddle

Moaning Myrtle (Harry Potter) as the over the top landlady.

David Suchet is Hercule Poirot.
Fastidious little Belgian with a waxed moustache.

Poirot did not have a black boot polished beard!!
And would never walk around in dirty grey vest!
Seesh

There does seem to be a bit of an uneasy undercurrent, Jalima - there was a poster up at one of the stations promoting a March for England, and at least one disparaging comment about immigrants (from the seedy landlady). But I think there’s more to it than that, something Poirot’s done or said that we haven’t been told about yet.

I managed to watch about 10 minutes at two sittings but I don’t think I’ll bother again. Too much like pulling teeth.

Thank you Maggiemaybe.
Jack always seems to play baddies but I underswtand he is lovely in RL.

I think that even today, the way he spoke to Poirot would be considered unacceptable, in the general public civility of the 1930s it would have been considered completely beyond the pale.
I did wonder if it was set in the era of Mosley's fascists, therefore there could have been a general air of suspicion about 'foreigners'.

I did not like it - too pretentious and very much missed the point of the books. AC's characters were stereotypes (and intended to be so) and her whole output was like a party game to see if you could work out who the killer was. This adaptation is too dark and takes itself too seriously.

George/Jack was Betty B’s chap, Jalima. The one that had cast her sister so callously aside.

Jalima exactly, the David Suchet interpretation was close to this description, Poirot is a caricature in the books and that is how it should be when played on screen. Of course that description as open to interpretation, but Malkovitch doesn't provide us with an interpretation. He provides a provides a totally different caricature of his own making.

I think the script made the inspector quite gratuitously offensive in the way he spoke to Poirot, A man we are told he could only know by reputation and I think that even today, the way he spoke to Poirot would be considered unacceptable, in the general public civility of the 1930s it would have been considered completely beyond the pale.

Did you notice that to indicate the first victim was a slattern she is shown cutting a loaf. Its age being indicated by a green mould on the top, at least that is what it looked like, but in the 1930s, bread was all baked bread, it would have gone stale not mouldy. Only modern steam cooked bread goes mouldy.

Poirot was an extraordinary-looking little man. He was hardly more than five feet four inches, but carried himself with great dignity. His head was exactly the shape of an egg, and he always perched it a little on one side. His moustache was very stiff and military. The neatness of his attire was almost incredible, I believe a speck of dust would have caused him more pain than a bullet wound.
Arthur Hastings, The Mysterious Affair at Styles

eyes that shine green when he’s excited. He dresses very precisely, and takes the utmost pride in his appearance.

I find Malkovich's portrayal malevolent rather than eccentric.

Which one was George?

Oh damn, I may have to watch the second episode now. I do like Jack Farthing!!

I knew Grint was in it but didn't recognise him as Insp. Crome.
Could that be because the whole thing is so porly lit again

Nope, didn't like it. Won't be bothering to watch the other episodes.
I haven't found anything to watch on telly over the last few days, thought this might be ok but was wrong.

Well I didn’t recognise George Warleggan! Once a cad, always a cad....

I agree that Rupert Grint is good as the Inspector, he's come a long way since Ron Weasley.
Thank you! I didn't recognise him

Malkovitch is a good actor but for me he did not fit Christie's description of Poroit enough to convince me. It was otherwise a good interpretation of the story of Poirot's last stand!

Poirot was miscast! John Malkovich is no Belgian detective! The whole thing is being dragged out into three episodes, for one book that is just too long. One feature length film would have been better.
I agree that Rupert Grint is good as the Inspector, he's come a long way since Ron Weasley.

Truly dreadful.
I have never understood why John Malkovitch is regarded as a 'great actor' (DT review) who apparently made the pre-eminent character entirely his own. I tired very quickly of far too many shots of his expressionless face staring into the middle distance, and his awful transatlantic/euro accent. Very boring.
Rupert Grint, as the unpleasant Inspector Crome, was impressive, however.

I quite enjoyed it (I do love a bit of atmospheric brooding). I can’t see how they’re going to fill another two hours though.