The ABC Murders (2018) User Reviews

If you are a purist, do not watch

[gaetanbac · 7/10 · 13 October 2019]

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.

If this wasn't called Christie or Poirot it would be much better.

[ChungMo · 8/10 · 17 April 2021]

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.

Strays Far Afield

[jmahon-48518 · 6/10 · 2 March 2020]

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.

Agatha Christie plus John Malkovich should be a "10" but there are too many flaws

[VoyagerMN1986 · 27 December 2018]

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.

Worst Poirot, waist of time

[impressivesgirl-37857 · 6/10 · 17 July 2021]

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.

Different and obviously not for hardcore Poirot fans

[narsilion001 · 7/10 · 23 March 2019]

It is a grim approach to one of the most famous Poirot stories. First of all Poirot is nothing like we've used to. Portraited by John Malkovich it brings a completly different style to the famous detective. Poirot is now a depressed retired detective far from his glory days of old. The police doesn't respect him and his manners are far less delicate than all of the other adaptations of the character. Gone are the trademark moustache and the jolly personality of David Suchet or Peter Ustinov. This is John Malkovich and it is his adaptation of the character. Not for everyone as hardcore Christie's fans probably won't like his style.

Not Poirot as we have previously known him, but...

[fyrmonkey-299-683456 · 7/10 · 28 December 2018]

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.

Too many changes to the original

[whistlestop · 6/10 · 29 December 2018]

I can't understand why the writer has changed so many things in this dark, brooding adaptation of Christie's book. No Hastings, Japp inexplicably killed off, the fourth murder is completely different, and Poirot himself portrayed as tired and discredited, not to mention the surprising discovery that he was never a policeman in Belgium, but a priest. Why? The original book not good enough? I watched with people who didn't know the story and they found it gripping, but to me it was irritating, as a lover of Agatha Christie and Poirot who has been superbly portrayed by David Suchet over 25 years.

Dark!! Deliciously so.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 26 December 2018]

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.

Decent cast and pretty good

[Hallelujah289 · 6/10 · 4 February 2019]

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.

A victory for style over substance.

[khunkrumark · 1/10 · 31 December 2018]

Visually, this is a masterpiece. The scenery, the clothes, the props, the awesome English countryside: all wonderful to look at. Everything else is an abomination.

Malcovich is himself with a funny voice. The three hour long episodes are slow and empty. All the characters mumble incoherently through their lines, requiring the use of subtitles. The story isn't a story at all... just a long drawn out single act of revenge. The achingly painful sound effects and appallingly inappropriate music serve only to confuse and annoy.

A forgettable steaming pile of poo!

A much, much darker Poirot. Definitely not for everyone.

[Evil_Herbivore · 9/10 · 8 January 2019]

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.

a darker and more subdued Poirot yet very intriguing

[maragachi · 7/10 · 1 February 2019]

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.

Sarah Phelps vanity project funded by BBC

[andrewpeel-11060 · 1/10 · 30 December 2018]

This is the second Christie novel the BBC have allowed Sarah Phelps to mangle. Adapting a novel as iconic as this means you at least have to stick to the the basic story and characters. But not Phelps, it's like she's in some fugue and just throws the novel out of the window. And no it's not OK for the BBC to do this and still pass it off as an adaptation just to try to get new new fans too lazy to have read the book.

How can you call it an adaptation when a major character Captain Hastings is just cut out completely? Oh and Inspector Japp dies of a heart attack which never happens in the book because he leads the investigation. Rupert Grints character is really a minor character suddenly given centre stage. Then we have the ridiculous scene of a search warrant against Poirot's house!

The BBC should from now on warm viewers all future adaptations have nothing to do with Christie's work apart from their titles and are attempts to attract Millennials in as viewers.

Professionally made, and credit for taking on Poirot, but this is overly grim and its focus is mostly in the morbid than the engaging

[bob the moo · 9 March 2019]

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.

Good but with some major faults

[michele_h2011 · 7/10 · 13 January 2019]

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.

A tad confused and not an 'Agatha Christie' mystery, but a decent enough arty-farty film for all that

[pfgpowell-1 · 6/10 · 15 January 2019]

This latest adaptation of Agatha Christie's The ABC Murders is a strange fish, at once both confused and stylish. In fact, I suspect that had it been presented not as an Agatha Christie Hercule Poirot mystery but as a slightly left-field arthouse film, it might well have fared a great deal better with some of the reviewers here and in Britain.

As it is the Agatha Christie fans complain that it's 'not Agatha Christie' and for a nation brought up on David Suchet's rather dapper and rather camp sleuth, John Malkovich's Poirot, a dour rather depressed man apparently on the skids, doesn't press the right button. Result? The film (well, three-part series) loses out and attracts rather low ratings from many, which is a little unfair.

If, on the other hand, it had been played, not as a mystery, but as a somewhat obscure character piece about a foreigner nearing the end of his life in a country not his own and haunted by memories, I suggest it would have won more fans. Such a film would also have justified several otherwise inexplicable elements which seem, for no reason I can guess at, grafted on.

There are, for example, the ongoing references to some English fascist movement which has it in for foreigners. These references are not developed in any way and have no relevance to the story, let alone the central mystery and are generally a mystery all of their own. Then there are the flashbacks to Poirot's experiences in World War I when Belgium was invaded by Germany: what purpose do they serve? Perhaps there is one but I am too stupid to spot it. Who knows?

As it stands these two elements stand out high and dry and are irrelevant. In an arthouse movie, though, the kind we are quite happy to be baffled by if, for example as here, the cinematography is good to excellent and interesting in its own right, we wouldn't complain at all, telling ourselves 'some things aren't meant to be completely understand in 'art' such as this'. Or something like that - we've all met the 'buff' who can come out with such trite.

In fact, the filming , direction, the stylised characterisations and the general feel of the film goes a hell of a long way towards saving an otherwise rather uninspiring 'mystery' which is only a mystery because, to be blunt, Agatha Christie cheated (or I'm assuming it was her fault if it followed her plotting). So there you have it: pretend the BBC's The ABC murders is not what it was presented as and enjoy a halfway decent series. Just don't expect to understand it all.

By the way: some reviewers have accused the film of being pretentious. Well, I am happy to report that whatever its minor faults pretentiousness is not one of them, and I pride myself on a keen nose for that kind of thing. You can rest easy.

Not like the original, but still a fun mystery

[aprilsfriendorin · 6/10 · 27 January 2021]

I'm surprised by all of the negative reviews here. I didn't think it was amazing, but it certainly wasn't bad either. It lacks the charm of the original Poirot, but ultimately I still enjoyed it. It's a solid mystery and you're kept wondering what's going to happen next, which is what a mystery should do. Also, seeing Rupert Grint was fun.

My main issue is that the ending is rushed. They could have condensed the first two episodes and spent more time fleshing out the third one.

We enjoyed it!

[sliphstream · 7/10 · 10 June 2019]

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!

Well . . . I really enjoyed it

[untilnow99 · 9/10 · 7 January 2020]

Okay. I put off watching this because, yes-----I LOVE David Suchet as Poirot. And YES------I have read all of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot mysteries.

But, guess what? This series isn't at all bad. In fact, it is quite entertaining. Up until the very end I wasn't sure whodunit. Isn't that what a good murder mystery is all about?

The cast, the production, the storyline----it's all great.Some of the women's dresses were absolutely fabulous. And I don't care that Poirot's backhistory was reworked. I just enjoyed the story for what it was and didn't get myself all worked up over how this wasn't the Poirot I knew from before.

A rather slow adaption of a classic story

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 1 January 2019]

In 1930s England a serial killer is working his way through the alphabet. He starts with Alice Asher of Andover before continuing with Betty Barnard in Bexhill. It is clear that he wants the killings to be linked... he leaves an ABC railway guide are each murder site and writes to the now retired detective Hercule Poirot. Poirot is no longer the famous detective is somewhat disgraced; certainly not somebody the police want to work with. He decides to investigate on his own. Intertwined with his we see troubled travelling salesman Alexander Bonaparte Cust travelling to the various towns and meeting each of the victims.

In theory this should have been great; John Malkovich really impresses as Poirot, bringing a world-weariness to the role and the rest of the cast are pretty solid. Unfortunately it was all rather slow; it would have been much better if the extraneous material had been excised and presented as a two hour film. While the central story is taken from the original book other material is invented for this story; most notably flashback scenes that show Poirot's experiences in Belgium in the Great War and hints at growing nationalism; the latter didn't really add anything to the story. On the plus side it was at least better than last year's 'Ordeal by Innocence' and it did look good. Overall I'd say it wasn't bad; just not as good as I'd hoped and changes and additions may not please Christie purists.

Dark...and far from the original intent of the novel.

[cpongracic · 1/10 · 10 February 2019]

As an ardent admirer of everything Agatha Christie, having begun reading her vast library of great works at the tender age of 10, I am deeply saddened by the recent adaptations to her novels. This is one of the most distressing. Among numerous unnecessary alterations, we are now supposed to accept that the brilliant detective lied about his past profession as a member of the Belgian police force? That he was, instead, a priest? That, at 60 years of age, as a recent refugee in England, he suddenly decided to detect? If Christie were not already dead, this would kill her. It is heart-breaking to at least one life long fan.

New Poirot Viewer

[JMaddocks96 · 8/10 · 29 December 2018]

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.

Reasonably entertaining but nothing special

[muamba_eats_toast · 7/10 · 24 May 2019]

Passes the time felt engaged with most of the program and was interesting at times but brought nothing particularly new to the table either. Mildly above average mystery drama.

WORST EVER Agatha Christie adaptation

[binapiraeus · 1/10 · 28 December 2018]

After the adaptation of "Ordeal by Innocence" earlier this year, we thought things couldn't get any worse concerning the on-screen rape of Agatha Christie's novels - but, since Sarah Phelps was AGAIN commissioned to write the screenplay for a new adaptation of Dame Agatha's classic "The ABC Murders", we could have guessed... Portentous, pathetic, perverted from beginning to end - and believe it or not, even boring as well! Half of the goings-on were never in the book, least of all the gloomy flashbacks into Poirot's war experiences back in Belgium; the actors are unbelievably bad, the atmosphere is dreary, dark and seedy (in other words, just about everything Agatha's novels never were) - is that supposed to be holiday entertainment?? For HOW LONG is the BBC going to keep allowing Sarah Phelps to violate Agatha Christie's novels and ruin their viewers' Christmas holidays??