User Reviews

I was taken in by Luke Treadaway's nervy Dr Arthur Calgary in the first episode, the man with an alibi for Jack Argyll.

However you are still left doubting him, Arthur said he was in a research expedition in the Arctic. In the second episode he reveals he had escaped from an asylum when he gave Jack a lift and was then caught and sent back to the asylum. Arthur was left shaken with his role in the development of nuclear weapons that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yet Arthur's story exposes him to danger as the policeman who investigated Rachel Argyll's murder tries to mow him down.

Of course the rest of the Argyll's realise that if Arthur's story is true then suspicion falls on them and they act like a nest of vipers.

Matthew Goode also gives an intriguing performance as Philip Durrant, he oozes vindictiveness, I enjoyed the nasty spat between him and Mickey Argyll.

Ordeal by Innocence opened with an episode which was intriguing, deep and very stylish, the second instalment manages to be all that and more. This part was certainly intriguing, but managed to be both gripping and suspenseful. The subtle changes made by Sarah Phelps for my money enhance the production for dramatic effect. The character of Arthur Calgary is transformed into a fascinating, intriguing character, hats off to Luke Treadaway, giving a brilliant performance, making the character sympathetic and dogged. I thought the acting in general was first rate, Bill Nighy, Eleanor Tomlinson shone once again, but standout had to be Matthew Goode, who was simply incredible, making Philip both sinister and vulnerable, remarkable.

I cannot wait to see the concluding episode, it will be fascinating to see if Phelps has kept to the original plot, or has altered it. On previous evidence I have total faith in her interpretations of Christie's texts. She has managed to make the story so much darker then Christie wrote it, there were shades of And then there were none, a definite claustrophobia. Visually dazzling once again.

I'm not sure how friendly Arthur's train conductor was, but I've never met one that would let me hop off a train at any given point. I'm not too sure even then it would have been the case, but I can forgive it for dramatic purposes.

Once again I'd say being made to wait three weeks from start to finish was a poor decision, this could easily have been transmitted over three consecutive nights during the Easter weekend.

I have read most of the Agatha Christie books. I am not familiar with this one, but plan to read it. The sickness continues in the bit house where all this takes place. After the deaths of mother and son, there are two more that take place. The siblings are hiding something, a conspiracy of some sort and this will be sorted out in the third episode. The man who comes with the news that no one wants to hear, has his own baggage, which is revealed here. Who are the worst liars? Who are the most ambitious? What can the future hold for these characters?

Am a huge Agatha Christie fan. Have been since the age of 11 after reading 'And Then There Were None', one of my favourites to this day, and watching the Joan Hickson and David Suchet adaptations of 'A Murder is Announced' and 'Sad Cypress'. 'Ordeal By Innocence' may not be one of her very best, but it is expertly and splendidly crafted with an unexpected and very clever ending. One can see why she herself apparently thought highly of it.

Certainly there are worse Agatha Christie adaptations around. Examples being the 'Partners in Crime' series from a few years ago, 'The Alphabet Murders', the 1989 'Ten Little Indians' and the worst ITV Marple adaptations, (so 'At Bertram's Hotel', 'A Sittaford Mystery' and 'Why Didn't They Ask Evans'). That doesn't stop 'Ordeal By Innocence' from being a disappointment though . It is the weakest of Sarah Phelps' Agatha Christie adaptations. Loved 'And Then There Were None' and was mixed on 'Witness for the Prosecution'. None of the adaptations do 'Ordeal by Innocence', a great book, justice. Judging it by which one's best and worst (a hard choice), at a guess the ITV adaptation for best and the 1984 film worst.

That it is a poor adaptation of the book is not where my disappointment with 'Ordeal By Innocence' lay, not completely at least. It for me had far more issues on its own terms, which for me has always been a fairer way to judge. The first part of the three episodes is definitely the best though it's still heavily flawed. This second part feels like a step down, but is the second best. At least it didn't have a disappointing ending that badly marred the final episode but it doesn't have as memorable or attention-grabbing a scene as the opening sequence in the first one.

There are good things. The best thing again is the production values. Gorgeously shot, sometimes imaginatively edited, sumptuously costumed, atmospherically lit and evocative in period detail with well chosen locations, visually it is exceptional.

Parts of the story do intrigue and there is enough to keep one guessing with nothing being too obvious.

Acting is an improvement here than in the first part. Bill Nighy does underplay with dignity and is sometimes affecting, he is the character that one feels most for in the source material so this was an ideal way to approach him. It may come over as phoning it in to some but that is only when comparing it to the rest of the acting, which was quite broad, someone had to take things seriously as ought and Nighy does that. Morven Christie, looking luminous, and Luke Treadaway, quietly understated, also do very well. Do have to agree too that Matthew Goode's vindictive Phillip comes off very well, his acting in the role actually on reflection has grown on me.

On the other hand, the rest of the cast are still either too broad or bland. Instead of feeling much empathy for the characters and what they go through which one is meant to considering that in the book there is more emphasis on the family ordeal, one is irritated by that most of them do not come over as real people and more stale archetypes.

Unfortunately, the mystery continues to be unengaging. Tonally, it is little more than overblown melodrama too often and there is a lack of tension and suspense. Some of the episode feels padded out by overlong scenes, not all of them necessary, and repetition, making the not very long running time of the episode feel further over-stretched.

Like the first part, the dialogue has too much soap, camp and ham, also not doing a particularly good job fitting the period (much of it takes one out of it). The music again is too brash and intrusive. Anything included to seemingly bring more grit or appeal to a wider audience instead comes over as mean-spirited and out of kilter as well as unnecessary.

In conclusion, didn't do it for me and this is being said with a heavy heart. 4/10 Bethany Cox