User Reviews

If you do not know anything about Poirot and Agatha Christie this is enjoyable. But if you are a purist you will be disappointed and maybe even angry.

OK here's my problem with this series. First it is an excellent mystery but they should not have made that an Agatha Christie mystery. The backstory of Hercule Poirot is a complete fabrication. The actor does an excellent job portraying the role given him. The problem is it is a complete variance with the true Agatha Christie character.

An excellent production in terms of photography and direction but it wavers in the overall writing and what ends up being stunt casting. Malkovich is barely trying to play Poirot as we know the character because he knows better than to imitate Ustinov or Suchet. So if this wasn't billed as Christie or Poirot it would probably have gotten a better response although it probably wouldn't have been made then.

Since I am not familiar with this particular Christie story I came into it with a different viewpoint. The three episodes are very well thought out until the last episode where it gets all muddled and it seems sort of pointless. Malkovich is mostly playing Malkovich which can be interpreted as acting laziness but he is so good at it, it could be forgiven if this wasn't supposed to be an older Poirot. If this was a PBS Masterpiece Theater mystery offering with a new character it would be all very entertaining but that's it.

Firstly this is certainly mostly watchable.

Secondly I guess I will be downvoted by some since this is likely an adaption that will create a divide between people who love it or hate it, or at least those who like it a lot or not at all, and I am in the middle.

In short some of the lower reviews are because this is great material, and the lead is a great actor, and yet this is a just a passable say a "fair to good" or what we stateside would call a "C+" to "B-"

Really does Christie portray the police so badly? (Correct Answer: No.) Would she have so many anachronistic behaviors and character attributes? No. Would she have native Francophone Belgian Poirot speak lousy French? No and Malkovich has impeccable French and seems to have been directed to speak French badly.

It isn't so much that that the series is terrible, it isn't. It is a) expectations should be high and the end product is mediocre, and b) one senses an intentional distancing from the source material -- which is often ok, but in this case the distancing does not work. This adaption doesn't just have condensations of the material -- it has added quirks and elements that not only are not in the Christie story, but detract from it. They create a different Poirot. Not different as in Suchet vs Malkovich portrayals, but the director/screenwriter vs Christie. EG, the bizarre overlay of immigration themes/controversy is a pointless attempt to score points and doesn't belong in this story. Adding a grittiness, and a literal darkness is not needed either. It seems a fashionable trope now, but there is no need when the original material already has its own texture that the adaptor obfuscates or fundamentally distracts from with their own vision. It is over the top.

Look I am all for adapting major literary/cultural archetypes, even subverting them -- in what they do and what the moral tale is. It is perfectly OK to tell two completely different morals with Prometheus, Daedalus or Electra and Orestes. Byron can subvert Mill on the former. Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Graves and Williams can use the latter to very different conclusions. But you don't just take a relatively contemporary character, created by another artist and change their characteristics to the point where they are unrecognizable and their actions are not credible.

Again, it s a C+ to B-, bring on the downvotes if you must. Oh and turn up the brightness on your screen, for some reason the adaptors think making everything actually dark equals a figurative darkness.

I have very mixed feelings - on one side I like the very dark Scandinavian-mystery-like tone of the movie, but the epic fail with the impersonation of Poirot (or the casting of John Malkovich maybe?) is just ridiculous. Hercules Poirot is literally the most known character with his special moustache, egg like head and snobby posh behaviour I have seen none of that. RUpert Grint being here is completely unneccessary - such a bland character. Um, no.

Rightly or wrongly this was a story inspired by the original Agatha Christie novel rather than the story itself. Yes it was very different BUT I still found it very watchable. I watched it over 3 consecutive nights and wanted to watch to the end despite knowing 'who dunnit'. I was intrigued to find out about the demons Poirot was wrestling with from his past. It was a tad overlong though, I think two episodes with less padding might have been better, and why they didn't just make something similar with a new detective we didn't know is unfathomable as they made it almost unrecognisable anyway. It would have worked just as well as I thought John Malkovich was very good.

One thing needs to be said at the beginning: the mini-series is not for everyone. It's a kind of production one either loves or hates, and even though I'm in the former group, I completely understand people from the latter.

The thing that divides the viewers is the way Poirot was portrayed in the series, which is very different from what we are used to. Here we get a much darker and grittier version of this beloved character, and the whole world of the show is much more brutal as well. This is not the cozy, quite light story shown in the classic vesion with David Suchet.

I really enjoyed this new approach to the classic character. Otherwise it would be the same story with different actors, and I don't see the point in doing that, especially considering how good the Suchet version is.

The actors fit perfectly into this new "dark Poirot". John Malkovich is brilliant as the shunned, half-forgotten detective dealing with past trauma, Eamon Farren is perfect as the confused Cust, I even liked Rupert Grint even though I wasn't sure about him at the beginning, The sets and cinematography help build the dark, gritty atmosphere. It feels quite heavy and oppressive, which I really liked.

To sum up, the series is not for everyone. It's definitely not for the purists, who want the adaptations to stay truthful to the novels. It's not for people looking for a cozy show to watch for pure entertainment. But for people like me, who enjoy new tales about classic characters and who love dark and gritty stories, it is perfect.

Thanks to David Suchet, people have a specific ideal for Hercule Poirot. He must be arrogant and suave. He must be calm and unruffled, like a deaf partridge. And he must be above all of the petty little squabbles around him. Because he is Poirot.

To be fair, this is also the Hercule Poirot that Agatha Christie designed.

But this is not the Hercule Poirot that Sarah Phelps wrote. If she had gotten the character of Poirot right, I could have overlooked the unfortunate hyper-sexuality, but she didn't, she got him wrong. There has never been a more depressed, morose, or tragic incarnation of Poirot than the one in this miniseries. Now, I could blame John Malkovich, but he did not write the screenplay. Therefore, not his fault. It's not his fault that Sarah Phelps decided to rewrite Poirot's history and turn him into a decades old liar. That offended me the most. The very idea of Poirot lying about his history is even more preposterous than the fabricated background she created for him.

So no. Alas, no. If she'd gotten Poirot right, like I said, the other millstones could have been overlooked and I might have rated a 7 or 8. But when the screenplay writer shows no respect for the origins of a literary character and its creator, that's when I get off the boat.

I am fully aware that this adaptation isn't going to be for everyone. People had written this off on forums, in discussions before it had even aired. I was told he would be called Hercule, he would have an English accent, so many other things, that were in fact wrong.

Sarah Phelps has a very definite style, she's clearly not looked at the Suchet version, she;s based her screenplay on the text, and once again given her interpretation of the text, changing elements, arguably elements that didn't need changing, but we have the Suchet version, so this is something new.

For me, it was wonderfully dark and twisted, a totally different version to the Suchet masterpiece, was it as good, no, but it's still an engrossing drama.

Malkovich was excellent as Poirot, other fine performances from Rupert Grint, Tara Fitzgerald and Eamon Farren.

It just wouldn't be Christmas without Agatha Christie.

It does well to portray an older less respected Poirot. Might not be as good as the original and they have changed his personality somewhat, but the cinematography is very well done. And the backdrop interestingly includes a darker more right wing pre WW2 England. If you like Poirot I can't guarantee you'll enjoy it, but I don't think it's half as bad as some of the reviews on here and recommend watching to make your own opinion.

Dear Sarah Phelps, please provide me with details of where to send you a copy of THE ABC Murders, as it was clear that you didn't read the text, perhaps you read the Wikipedia page, and got the idea for the story from a few lines. Why put the name of Agatha Christie on something, and give us a Detective that isn't Hercule Poirot, instead of Poirot, we had Officer Crabtree. I studied The ABC Murders at College some years back, and the flavour of the story was simply not there, I would love to know what your thinking was. Where was Captain Hastings? Agatha Christie, I'm sure you are turning in your grave.

It has been a few years since the most famous representation of Poirot took his bow, so credit to the BBC for thinking it is worth a shot to return to the character. The obvious challenge is how to do something with a character so familiar - one who has been mined for darkness just as much as he has for comedy. In taking this on this miniseries plunges into the darkness, putting the main character into a dark place while doing the same for the murders and suspect. It is three hours of television and mostly it seems to be spent wallowing in this aspect. It is professionally enough made to find some value in this though, and there are elements of it that work well, but too often it seems to be deliberately grim for the sake of it, and deduction, or any thrill of a chase, are very much left out in the cold.

Malkovich seems to have divided opinion, but I think he did a good job with what he was asked to deliver. His accent wanders but he convinces as a man with his best days behind him, and a lot of weight on his shoulders. The material behind that performance is not as good, but he is not at fault for that. 'Opposite' him is Farren, who is very strong in an odd and tortured role - he brings with him the same weird threat that he did so well in Twin Peaks. Beyond these two the cast features well-known faces who do well without threatening to take the limelight - Grint, Henderson, and the upcoming Chalotra to name a few.

Overall though, this miniseries was a bit too grim and focused on the morbid to engage - even in the way it seemed to want us to. There are high points and strengths, but mostly it felt a bit like work.

The plot bears very little resemblance to Christie's work but once you get over that fact, it's actually a pretty good series. Cinematography is excellent, production values are great, performances are better than average. The plot is very dark, brooding, nastier than anything Dame Agatha would have written. Watch it if you like dark suspenseful British movies (I do). Don't watch it if you are a dyed in the wool Christie fan.

I am no Agatha Christie fan and have never really been taken in by any of the Hercule Poirot tv series or what have you. I have read other reviews though about this being an extreme and revisionist adaptation without any trademark humor. I wouldn't know but yes I think this mini series is ponderous and tends towards the bleak in a tried and droning way. I came to this miniseries because of a recent interest in crime shows and because of John Malkovich who usually is allowed to be entertaining. However this Agatha Christie adaptation seems to be about the dangers of being entertaining and sometimes comments about how foreigners use entertainment to fit in. I get the feeling that much of the adaptation was turned to be most relevant to today's themes of violence consumption (one character has a murder-themed birthday party) and inner erosion vs outer quality. These themes were both scantily present and heavy handed and there was an overall lack of luster and conviction and enjoyment to this mini series. There was not even a great deal of detective work, and Poirot was not even the series' central character as he was billed to be. He was somewhat of a case study among other equal persons of interest.

I am giving this miniseries a 6/10 because despite what I wrote I did finish it and I did enjoy the actors and their acting. I liked seeing that actress who played the toilet ghost in Harry Potter and then that actor who played the sad dad in Broadchurch. Btw Broadchurch is also a crime drama and much more engaging-it is both darker because more genuine and more lighthearted.

The crime wasn't engaging because you are given all of the pieces before you want them although there is a satisfying twist by the end which does throw a greater light on the mystery you think you've solved. Three episodes is about perfect for the amount of investment I am willing to give most characters here although the dynamic between Poirot and the police captain played by Harry Potter's Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) is engaging and yes I agree with others that I would be along for that ride.

I did think the talent was wasted in this drama, I didn't see John Malkovich shine although I liked the authorian part Rupert Grint got to play because it is a type of role unusual to him.

Overall average but slightly satisfying. Often belabored but at other times, it connects. Probably mostly because of Malkovich and the way he can turn his lines, although his ever present back story was unfortunate filler. Like his character everything was a touch overexplained which is particularly damaging to a detective story where viewers are meant to collude with the director and the actors on subtle cues.

Slightly recommended, but I would personally go with Broadchurch. If you want something 1930s era crime there are probably many other movies and tv series to fit the bill too.

If you are stuck on David Suchet as Poirot and the old BBC series, you wont like this mini series. However, I ask to keep an open mind. I am a huge Christie fan for a very long time and have seen all the Christie movie adaptations going back to 1960's Alphabet Murders and Murder Ahoy etc. This interpretation, although not very true to the earlier novels, it does ring true to older Poirot stories. His character changes and becomes more cynical and darker in his older age. This is more inline with the later stages of Poirot which is accurate. Secondly, Malkovich has done an outstanding job brining the nuances of his character to the forefront. Something that was missing in David Suchet's series of more flamboyant Poirot. Although I do like the later seasons in that Poirot series.

The ABC murders plot foundation is not very unique especially in the old mysteries in the 1930's and 40's. Like Charlie Chan, Sherlock Holmes, Philo Vance etc. But the trick is the ambiance and the characters that make this story very intriguing. I do have some reservations about a few issues with the story. But all in all, enjoyed it and didn't get too bothered but some of the artistic licenses the writer has taken to make the story more engaging.

Full disclosure, I never read the source material so I went into this with no expectations. Good acting and a plot that keeps you guessing. Nice see Rupert Grint again after his time in HP. If you want a truly faithful book adaptation I am told you need to look elsewhere. But if you want a fun and slightly dark murder mystery this is worth a watch!

I have only watched the first of 3 parts. The story was not adapted, a new story inspired by the old one was written. That's a very different thing. The new story I think is a good one considered on it's own. If the prior work did not exist, people would like it. Nonetheless the story can well be considered an insult to both Agatha Christie and what many consider her greatest creation, Hercule Poirot. God help me I enjoyed it and was disgusted by it at the same time. This is not a Christie style story. Everything that made it so has been changed. This is NOT a Poirot story. The character here has been re-imagined to the point that it is a very different man, who has led a very different life. Without spoiling it, I'll just say the police reveal in the first episode they have discovered something so shocking so shattering to who Christie's Poirot was that it changes everything. It's a barbaric horrible thing to do and I HATE THE WRITER for doing it. But I will watch the rest like a person trapped in a cycle of cutting their own flesh, unable to stop the self harm, finding relief from their inner pain in destructive way, but in my case thankfully with a clear end in sight. (If any reader is in that literal situation, there is help, seek it out, the pain really can end.)

I have mixed feelings so far, but I'll give my fairest review -

Likes:

• The cinematography is beautiful & perfectly done for the storyline.

• The cast really seem to "fit" their characters as they were portrayed in the book (which is a rare find).

• SOME of the adjustments from book to screen make sense for keeping the story succinct.

Dislikes:

• WHERE IS HASTINGS?! Ugh. I know oftentimes narrators/characters are left out of adaptations but the dialogue between Poriot and his sidekick Hastings MAKES the book.

• The tone is way too dark. Yes, it's a murder mystery but Poriot is meant to be a somewhat peculiar & humorous character. The tone of Poriot & Hastings dialogue is much like that of Sherlock & Watson. So without Hastings, there's just a lot of deep, unexplained thinking done by Poriot.

• ABC's character is a little too creepy & not insecure enough. I won't get into too much on this to avoid spoilers, but this is important for the storyline.

OVERALL: worth watching! If you've read the book, try to go into it with an open mind bc the story is told very differently.

As someone who is watching Poirot for the first time I find it hard to understand where the disapproval is coming from, but I do accept it. I understand what it's like for an old book/film to be taken from you and smashed against a wall, only for the pieces to be picked up and replaced in in the wrong order.

I found Poirot fascinating, as well as all of the other characters, however, Rupert Grint's portrayal of a respectable detective was very far fetched, and the melodramatic Moaning Myrtle from Harry Potter was hard to watch.

I'm a big fan of AG and loved Ustinov and Suchet. Malkovich is brilliant and offers a new and refreshing version of the loveable Poirot.

It's a bit gloomy, but also more realistic and has a new and interesting insight to Poirots past and retirement life. It's a bit like the James Bond reboot starring Craig.

Only negative is the way Poirot arrives at his conclussion, which came a bit sudden. The wonderfull twist in the novel should been given more debth.

Definately worth watching

The director and/or wrters of this travesty have never read an Agatha Christie mystery and certainly not A.B.C. Murders.

All of the characters and their relationships have been changed, n mangled. Everything has been changed except thevtitle.

We watched half of the first episode, to the point where acidic Inspector Crome declares Poirot to be a SUSPECT!

I thought I could watch John Malcovich in anything. Turns out I was wrong.