Well, actually now that I think of it, 'Ordeal by innocence' was equally crappy as this new Poirot. They both seemed follow the same path of showing endless and ultimately pointless and utterly boring flashbacks to no one's intererest. John Malkovich seemed miscast and out of place in this - he doesn't hijack a single airplane in this or murder anyone! The "twist" in the end seems rather ridiculous as well when they reveal he was never a detective/policeman, but a priest. So how does that work....he uses his priest superpowers to solve crimes? Well if that's the case someone better get Pope Francis on the Jimmy Hoffa case - it's about time that case got cracked open!
Can't find a movie or TV show? Login to create it.
Want to rate or add this item to a list?
Not a member?
Reply by Strange Bedfellows
on December 28, 2019 at 6:31 AM
This was probably the worst adaptation of any Christie work - done by an EastEnders writer - Sara Phelps - which explains a lot. The Christie Foundation is supposed to protect and respect the works of Agatha Christie - but it seems like cash wins out over honour every time. They have allowed all kinds of mutilations to Christie's works - including changing the identity of the villain - changing male parts into female parts - making characters black or gay where they weren't in the original work - they became so politically correct as to become laughable. This will be the last adaptation by Sara Phelps - for which we must be eternally grateful.
Reply by wonder2wonder
on December 28, 2019 at 10:30 AM
Making Poirot a priest, who posed as a police man, later becoming a detective, to solve crimes, is so unoriginal.
There are already men with a religious background, who solve crimes, e.g. " Father Brown (2013-)", "Father Dowling Mysteries (1989-1991)", "Il nome della rosa (2019)".
As things go, next the BBC will have it be revealed that Father Brown is really a detective constable who's working undercover as a priest.
Reply by aholejones
on December 28, 2019 at 10:44 AM
Yeah, and as far as exposition or "twists" go it was completely pointless. At least I sure as heck didn't give a damn about those flashbacks or his origin story. Hell, the whole thing was so obtuse I'm not even sure whether we were supposed to infer that Hercule Poirot the priest got his super deductive skills from the blow to the head he received in the flashback. I know it wasn't directly implied, but the whole thing was so stupid it wouldn't surprise to find out that was the angle they were going for.
Reply by aholejones
on December 28, 2019 at 10:45 AM
While this is bad, I think 'Ordeal by innocence' is even worse. It goes even more overboard with the pointless and incessant flashbacks. Seems like Sara Phelps is behind both of them.
Reply by Strange Bedfellows
on December 28, 2019 at 11:16 AM
My whole vibe about these adaptations was that they were done for the money - there was no interest shown in the time or mood of the stories - there was no respect or affection for a very revered writer. In fact it seems to me that there was a certain irritation, contempt and resentment obvious throughout all of them.