User Reviews

"Taken at the Flood" stars David Suchet in his familiar, popular role of Hercule Poirot in this 2006 adaptation of an Agatha Christie story.

When Gordon Cloade dies, he leaves behind a young wife, Rosaleen who seems to be under the control of her brother, David Hunter. Therefore, certain obligations met by Gordon to the rest of his family are not met, nor is his generosity. Members of the Cloade family are bound and determined to prove that Rosaleen's first husband isn't dead as rumored. For this, they bring in Hercule Poirot.

Before Poirot can delve too deeply into whether or not the first husband is dead, he shows up. Murder follows on his heels, and Poirot is caught up in a far bigger mystery.

This is a very good story with Suchet excellent as the fastidious Poirot, here also endeavoring to help out a good friend, Lynn (Amanda Douge). There's just one small problem. Part of the story was changed for reasons unbeknownst to the viewers, and this change defeats the title "taken at the flood" completely. The title is from Julius Caesar and means grabbing something or taking a risk when the opportunity presents itself. In this story, that "taken at the floor" opportunity in Agatha Christie's story is actually an event the perpetrator plans.

It may seem like a small thing, but in fact, it shows a lack of integrity on the part of the producers to respect the actual story and also their complete lack of knowledge. That in turn makes the whole thing suspect.

So while I enjoyed this, I submit that Christie's original work is better -- and true to the title.

I have just seen "Taken at the Flood" on DVD. I agree that those episodes produced after Japp, Hastings and Lemon were no longer in the story line are not near as entertaining. Poirot is portrayed as almost a different character. He is more harsh and sometimes rude. This is not the Poirot of old. One thing I have noticed about these last four is the transition from one scene to another, especially the scene changes at obvious "commercial breaks". It seems that the episode is so poorly edited that we are missing parts of the presentation. It is as though these DVD's contain copies of the same ones edited for television. If this true, we seem to be cheated. One more thing, The cast shown on IMDb for "Taken at the Flood" includes Hugh Fraser as Hastings and Philip Jackson as Japp. My wife and were excited to see this but alas, they were nowhere to be found in the episode.

As with Mystery of the Blue Train, earlier in the series, the writer felt to make this work for TV, they needed to make several changes, personally, I thought the changes worked rather well, the ending is a bit of a stretch.

The story is very good, it's so bleak, and whilst the characters were decidedly off in the Blue Train, here I thought they were terrific. The standout performance came from Elliot Cowan, he is captivating as David Hunter, he's sinister, commanding, a real standout performance, I can't think of a character in the series I've hated more. Eva Birthistle, Celia Imrie and Jenny Agutter all shine also.

Good special effects, the usual slick production values, and another terrific performance from Suchet make for a very good episode.

"Taken at the flood" is in my opinion the best, and indeed the most dark and haunting, of this year's films from the Poirot team. Based on yet another cleverly structured murder mystery from Agatha Christie, this dramatisation is absolutely crammed with webs within webs, lovely scenery, and many fine acting performances from a large, enormously star-studded, cast. Apart from the always brilliant David Suchet in the leading role, Elliot Cowan in particular made an impression amongst the supporting actors, giving a delightfully menacing and genuinely haunting performance as David Hunter. This adaptation might not always be completely true to Christie's original novel, but still a truly recommended hour and a half of well-made television!

"Poirot sees things, madame; it is a habit he cannot change"

The last "Poirot" episode available for viewing up to this point (May 2008), though apparently at least 4 more are on the way. And in my opinion, a very good one. It is a fascinating mix of the new and the old: the story is told in a somewhat offbeat way, but there are also some light moments (Mrs. Leadbetter and her dog, for instance) of a kind that had been almost completely eliminated from, say, "Five Little Pigs" or "Sad Cypress". Plus, just like in "Cards on the Table", we get to see Poirot back in his London apartment - actually, a different apartment, but still on the same building, Whitehaven Mansions. The locations are not as visually striking as those in many other episodes of the series, but there are some interesting experiments with red filters for the flashbacks.

David Suchet gives an outstanding performance in this one - he can be subtly funny ("There is an unresolved indigo in your aura", a flaky lady tells him. "Yes, I know, it is a problem", he replies) or dead serious ("If God should deprive anyone of His mercy, it surely will be you"); whichever the situation calls for. The rest of the cast is typically good, with top honors going to Elliot Cowan, who gives a truly creepy edge to David Hunter.

I noticed that the script was written by Guy Andrews, the same man who adapted "The Mystery of the Blue Train" for the screen. In both cases, Agatha Christie purists have complained about changes from the original text. But I (who had read neither novel) was able to appreciate the stories for what they were: multi-character, multi-layered mysteries that are structured a bit like Chinese boxes - you unlock one and there is another one inside. In other words, I'm already interested in his next AC adaptation, which according to IMDb will be "Hallowe'en Party" (also, I find it quite funny that some people complain about lack of faithfulness to the novels BUT want Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon back in the movies, even if these characters did not appear in those novels at all!). Another point to consider is that David Suchet himself, who has read all the books in preparation for the role, has now been promoted to co-producer status and he has said that he reads and approves the scripts before filming begins.

Overall, "Taken at the Flood" may not be among the Top 5 Poirot episodes so far, but it's still better food for the brain than most of what is available out there. (***)

(Read also pajak3's excellent IMDb comment on this movie - the sentence "there is no such thing as a lighter side of crime" is particularly spot-on, especially when we're talking about murder)

A young woman, Rosaleen Cloade, seems to be rather unlucky when it comes to marriage. Her first husband, Robert Underhay, was declared dead after disappearing in the African jungle. Now her wealthy second husband, Gordon Cloade, and 12 guests have been killed in a gas explosion at their house. She inherits Mr Cloade's fortune but other members of the family are continuously trying to undermine her and view her as a gold digger. One of them is even making anonymous calls, threatening her. All this time her life and finances are protected by her faithful, aggressive brother, David Hunter. Then one day a man appears who claims that Robert Underhay is alive and well, and demands money from David Hunter in order to keep it a secret. The man is soon found dead.

Quite intriguing. There is an obvious suspect for the murder but he is too obvious. Even when the murderer is found, things aren't over, in fact, there's much more to come.

The revealing of the chain of events does show, however, that picking the murderer would have been quite difficult. The preceding events are quite imaginative, making it all feel a bit too far-fetched and contrived.

Still quite entertaining and a decent brain workout though.

I will say, that my overview of the entire Poirot series is that it is absolutely wonderful, so well made and acted. Taken At the Flood isn't terrible, as there are some good things, but as an adaptation it doesn't work. Out of Season 10, this is the episode that I was most disappointed with. I was disappointed as well with Cards on the Table which started off so well with great acting but the ending spoilt it completely, but After the Funeral was absolutely phenomenal and one of my favourite Poirots to date. As far as Poirot episodes go, while there are some undeniably good things this is for me the weakest Poirot, and this was after I saw the Murder of Roger Ackroyd, which despite the good performances and production values made a mess of what I consider one of Miss Christie's best books. Speaking of the book Taken At The Flood, I agree it is one of the lesser works by the Queen of Crime, but it is still a compelling enough read.

There are some outstanding things here. First and foremost, David Suchet; by far the best thing of the adaptation, for he was absolutely outstanding here as Poirot. Here he acquired a perfect mix of the comical Poirot, which he does so effectively and the serious which he does even better. Second, the production values. The photography is excellent, the effects are well done and the scenery and costumes as is always the case with this series is top notch. Thirdly, the music is very good, beautiful in some places and haunting in others. Fourth, the direction from Andy Wilson is excellent in general. Out of the supporting performances, Elizabeth Spriggs and Tim Piggott Smith are the most impressive, and I love Jenny Agutter and she does a good job. Also Amanda Douge is stunning.

Some other things were merely acceptable. The quality of the script is not as good as it is in an adaptation like Five Little Pigs or After the Funeral, but Poirot does have some truly funny and even moving parts that Suchet, the great actor that he is, delivers brilliantly. Everything else ranges from acceptable to rather uncharacteristic of Agatha Christie. Eva Birthistle as Rosaleen does well, she performs effectively in some scenes, but Rosaleen isn't quite the same as she is in the book in terms of looks. The pacing is not exactly fast paced, as a matter of fact this is an example of an adaptation that starts quite slowly, but it does pick up.

However, there were other things that didn't work at all. I for one, didn't like the portrayal of David Hunter. Instead of the cynical, calculating and lecherous jerk he is in the book, he is as one reviewer summed up a cold blooded lunatic and I for one found it obvious that he was a villain in some way. Plus Elliot Cowan overacts so wildly, I found it hard to relate to his character at all, it was like Robert Hardy in the Inspector Morse episode Twilight of the Gods all over again. Some of the plot changes were baffling and implausible too, Rosaleen's drug addiction was a head scratcher, and the German air raid idea was implausible. Don't get me started also on the suicide of Major Porter, whose idea was it for him to do it right next to someone, it made no sense. But the biggest flaw, and the weakest scene of the whole adaptation was the ending, what a let down. I can watch it for Suchet's denouncement speech, which is a revelation in terms of delivery, but the plot changes like Cards on the Table and Murder of Roger Ackroyd ruined it, and it misses the point of the book completely.

All in all, some good things, but there are things that just didn't work. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I have seen at least 4/5 of all the Poirot-episodes, and "Taken at the flood" is the darkest, most sinister, best acted and most intriguing of the series. Poirots toughness matches well the heartlessness he is up against. The cast, especially Eva Birthistle, Elliot Cowan and Amanda Douge, have such intensity and nerve in their acting, the director must have had a field day. The unraveling of the mystery at the end is far more intense and realistic than any I have seen of Poirot. Enjoy this movie, together with less complex and much lighter, earlier Poirots, such as "The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim" and "Double Sin", both series highlights.

I am a big fan of the series "Poirot". "Taken at the Flood "is not the best episode of" Poirot", but it is still quite worthy. The episode is well shot and I like the production, Andy Wilson did a decent job. The music is unsettling and mesmerizing, and the episode is brilliantly suspenseful. Nicholas Le Prevost, Elizabeth Spriggs, Tim Pigott-Smith, Elliot Cowan and Celia Imrie are fine, strong acting performances, and David Suchet is as wonderful as ever as Poirot. The plot is quite dynamic and the final decision is one of the most unexpected in "Poirot". My main complaint about the episode is that it doesn't follow the book at all in terms of atmosphere, for some reason making it too tense, hard and dark. In fact, all the characters here are unpleasant, and Lynn, who in the novel simply did not cause sympathy, and here is just disgusting, and Hunter, and in fact the entire Clode family. However, I can't help but love this episode, as it also has a lot of good things in it. In my opinion, it should be considered separately from the original novel by lady Agatha, and then it will be perceived more easily. All in all, a pretty good episode, although not a great one. In season 10, I prefer "After of the Funeral" and "Cards on the Table". 9/10

This is by far the best Poirot of late.

The fast-paced, complex plot and exciting cinematography make Taken a far more interesting film than preceding ones which were overly naturalistic and dialogue heavy. Who wants to hear the Hollow's Henrietta discuss what a complex person she is when action and interaction speak louder than words? The actors of Taken are well cast and the characters are great fun to watch. Also, the murder-hook followed by the long question-and-answer routine in many of the previous ones was too linear and formulaic, which makes you question why they were adapted from the book at all. This film mixes it up very nicely, there are no lulls or boring parts that last longer than a couple minutes. This is a film you can watch more than once.

The few changes that were made from the book are for the better, especially if you remember how disappointing the very end of the book was. My favorite things about this film is the dramatic flair of the characters and the camera movements as I stated above. A good director can make all the difference.

One minor thing that bothers me is that the home version of this film seems to be shortened. For one, the scene with Lynn and Rowley in the kitchen is missing.

Yes if history was always portrayed accurately (if people could decide what was the actual truth) and every book or story was filmed verbatim; life would be almost perfect?! NOT. Sometimes I crave for the original story to be honoured but like some song the cover version is better than the original. As is this, not better but as good. In this case the acting and staging carries the revised version along admirably. The pedants (which is a mental health condition) and the purists will whine and belly ache and point out the flaws. Anyway they don't matter.. Very enjoyable episode, tension, mystery, jokes, baddies and goodies wonderfully produced and acted.

From IMDb: "Hercule Poirot finds himself trying to solve the mystery of the Cloade family. Rosaleen is the young widow of Gordon Cloade who was killed in a gas explosion in his London home. Rosaleen has inherited her late husband's substantial fortune and she and her brother David Hunter are refusing to share it with other members of Gordon Cloade's family. There have been persistent rumors that Rosaleen's first husband, an intrepid explorer, is still alive and as such would nullify her marriage to Gordon. What Poirot learns however is of a far greater deception that will alter everyone's perception of what they believe to their reality."

Taken at the Flood has to be one of my very least favorite of the entire Poirot series (I disliked it so much that I didn't even bother to write my own plot synopsis). I was never a huge fan of the book, but this adaptation has some real weaknesses and problems that I just can't get past. Chief among them is that it never "feels" like an Agatha Christie story. Who decided to sauce up Christie's work with all the sex and talk of abortion? I suppose it was done in an attempt to attract the more modern viewer. What about those of us who watch these movies because they aren't filled with the same garbage you can find in every other modern movie? Beyond the bastardization of Chirsite's novel, the denouement is terribly disappointing. Poirot brings up things about a murder that happened years ago that, not only would Poirot have had no way of knowing, the audience couldn't begin to come up with the solution. Kreskin couldn't have come up with half the things Poirot reveals. And it's not as much fun when you can't play along. I realize that Christie would often spring a surprise or two during one of Poirot's final monologues, but here Poirot offers no proof. Based on the evidence, his accusations seems to be little more than wild speculation.