User Reviews

First episode down, and I'm counting down to the next, Phelps once again uses the text as inspiration, as opposed to a strict plot outline. She's decided to add her own flavour, making Poirot less warm then Suchet, a thorn in Scotland Yard's side.

The text is one I've read multiple times, the Suchet adaptation I've seen hundreds of times, I wanted something different. This certainly was that, intensely dark, and sour, the matter is quite grizzly and savage when you think about it, the tone seemed in keeping with the nature of the novel.

Malkovich was terrific, I didn't particularly love the Japp element, seemed unnecessary.

Very good start. 8/10

There are more actors who have played Poirot running about than actors who have played James Bond.

John Malkovich is an inspired choice on paper. He is both an Anglophile and a Francophile. He is also an actor who makes others raise their game.

The bad news is I very much liked David Suchet's version of The ABC Murders. Sara Phelps left me underwhelmed with her adaptation of Witness for the Prosecution, so there were doubts if this three part story could succeed.

This Poirot is older and greyer, he dyes his beard black and it runs. Set in the 1930s there is a disliking of foreigners in Britain and this includes Poirot. No longer welcome in Scotland Yard like in the old days of Inspector Japp who has retired.

In fact this upstart Belgian has been investigated and been found wanting. Japp's replacement Inspector Crome wants Poirot to prove his existence like he was some sort of modern day Windrush immigrant who needs to find his papers from 60 years ago.

Gone is the art deco look of Suchet's Poirot. This is a grimy, dirty Britain of the 1930s. A landlady is pimping out her own daughter.

Poirot is receiving letters, Scotland Yard are not taking him seriously. When the murders start, it is Poirot who is accused of withholding evidence.

This is a curious and fascinating new take. Christie wrote about a Belgian who came to Britain as a refugee but never delved much on how difficult life would had been for him.

I liked it, maybe it was a bit slow to get going. There was never any doubt that Malkovich would rise to the challenge. A thoughtful, reflective, even a troubled man who had seen better days. Rupert Grint is unrecognisable as Crome.

Yes, as it has been said by others, it is slow moving at the beginning. We are introduced to two principle characters. First, John Malkovich's rendition of Hercule Poroit. He is an aging man who is discounted because he is foreigner living in London. The man who he comes to see about some letters he has received has a heart attack. This puts him in contact with the man who replaced him. This man despises him. The other character is the cold blooded guy who seems to be following the victims. Let me say, I've read most of Agatha Christie's books, so...... Of course, this is the book where victims follow an ABC pattern, not just their names, but the places the murders take place. I think things are really set up nicely. But it will depend on Malkovich's (one of our superior actor's) portrayal of the Belgian detective and how he is able to deal with the obstacles.

Sarah Phelps wrote the screenplay of the brilliant adaptation of "and then there were none" , three years ago;although sometimes overblown (a lesbian, a cocaine party) ,it was the first time ,with the exception of the 1982 Russian version,that the world all-time best seller murder mystery had been based on the novel (and not the play) and thus had thoroughly justified its title -which,as anybody knows ,was not the original title .So we could expect much of her treatment of "the ABC murders ", one of the best Christie works.

My feelings are mixed ;the cinematography is splendid indeed and offers a wonderful vision of England of the thirties ; the Poirot we meet is not the middle-age refugee of "Stiles" but almost the aging one of "curtain" ;some prefer David Suchet or Peter Ustinov as Poirot ,but in this gloomy atmosphere,why not John Malkovich?Both Suchet and Ustinov has /had too much joie de vivre and were too bons vivants to fit the bill in this context.

Mister Alexander-Bonaparte (no foreign name in our country) is smartly introduced ,but one can wonder why Mrs Phelps made him a sick terminally-man whereas a mere sexually-repressed character would have done the trick;one can understand Japp's hatred ,but why is he dead and replaced by a jealous hateful ill-tempered little runt?

The first murder retains a certain sense of suspense but Phelps's defects begin to appear:why a connection with Poirot's past ?

Christie's books are hard to transfer to the screen because they are not generally action-packed ; a "seven " ("seven" had "and then there were none " echoes anyway )treatment, in several respects , was not such a bad idea.

Very disappointing start, i'm very disappointed. There is no good story and no murder scenes no investigations after the murder!! they just let it pass no story about how the killer gets to his victims and we don't know what happens between them when they meet before the killing. It's a show with a lot of holes I don't want to continue this show.

Obvious, it is a not comfortable serie. For the fans of Agatha Christie, for the admirers of Peter Ustinov and David Suchet, for the connaiseurs of the adaptation and book. For me, the episode has two lead virtues : John Malkovich and the atmosphere. In same measure, the interesting portrait of the immigrant as source of suspicions and the realistic sketch of the portrait of possible murderer. The result is decent , the dialogue is good and , after the end of episode , it is easy to say than John Malkovich deserves his Hercule Porot , created in his manner.