The ABC Murders (TV Mini-Series 2018– ) Poster

(2018– )

User Reviews

Review this title
297 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Dark...and far from the original intent of the novel.
cpongracic10 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
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.
32 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Agatha Christie; not Poirot; not A.B.C. Murders
elitecara2 March 2019
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.
38 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
No, no, no
m-741546 January 2019
Hastings out. Japp out. Real story out.

Gore in. Sadomasochism in. Sexual elements in.

Story altered. Poirot altered. Characters altered.

Nonsense flashback. Dark. Boring.

What else do you want? Long praise David Suchet.
166 out of 193 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The deluded Phelps has done it again.
JaneBingley19 April 2019
Agatha Christie died in 1976; and her daughter in 2004. Soon afterwards, the detoriation of the adaptions began. As of now, the Christie estate is obviously run by someone who never met Agatha Christie, and who could not care less about her books. Their only concern seems to be hard cash.

Sarah Phelps has ruined every adaption she has ever laid her hands on. She thinks she can insert violence, racy pasts, left wing fantasies, disgusting sex fetishes and change the killers and characters background, because she knows better than Mrs Christie.

That this deluded woman is given the clear from the Christie estate to completely destroy the stories, says all about where their loyalty is.

I am fully aware that books can not transform into tv without a bit of change. Tv is a visual media, and some changes must be done. But ruining every single dialog, story, solution and character, by replacing Christie's fantastic stories with revolting scenery is not the way to do it.
15 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Sarah Phelps vanity project funded by BBC
andrewpeel-1106030 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
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.
201 out of 239 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Was it supposed to be Agatha Christie? Or am I missing something?
LordBarrett-522621 January 2019
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.
155 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Rubbish
Fairyprincess2231 December 2018
Terrible adaption. Terrible interpretation of Poirot nothing like him. Most of ABC story changed. Constant constant flashback to Poirot's time as a refugee. Malkovich's French accent is appalling Such a grim and depressing adaption
82 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not to be watched by Christie fans!
suzanne14031 January 2019
This adaptation contains very little essence of the Christie story or the quintessential hubris of Hercule Poirot. I feel I would have liked it more if it had not pretended to be an Agatha Christie.
80 out of 95 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a travesty !
phil-913311 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This dreadful production was advertised as "Agatha Christie's Poirot" - one thing os certain, it certainly wasn't much to do with Christie herself ! If you listen carefully, you can hear her spinning in her grave.

At kleast here in the UK, TV productions of Christie mysteries - whether MIss Marple or Poirot are deviating widely from the novels since the Christie family sold their rights to America.

Just a few of the failings of this production :-

No Inspector Japp - conveniently killed off in the first part of episode 1

No Captain Hastings at all

Severe doubts expressed by Scotland Yard as to whether Poirot had even been in the Belgian police - despite this beinmg made clear many times in the novels - he was, at one time, HEAD of the Belgian police

The mad suggestion that Poirot had oonce been a Catholic priest - he's certainly Catholic but there's no suggestiion anywhere that he had ever been a priest

A FIFTH murder ?

Since when does any true adaptation of a Christie story reqiuire warnings about 'adult themes' ? There were some apparently sadomasochistic scenes.

I, unwisely, watches all three episodes - and wished that I hadnt't. Thankfully, a few days later, I was able to enjoy the excellent Suchet version of The ABC Murders on UK TV.
95 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A victory for style over substance.
khunkrumark31 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!
74 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Complete rubbish
postbox-0510920 January 2019
I won't list the many ways in which this departs from the book. Suffice it to say that if you're going to play fast and loose with the text, the characters and common sense, call it something else.
70 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Where was the humor? And the acting? And the plot?
tim-137-55273530 December 2018
One of the great elements of Agatha Christie's writing is the black humour, accessed through her detectives, Poirot and Miss Marley. This series seems to misunderstand Miss Christie completely. Psychobabble, priests and religion as motivation, bizarre plotting then conjoined with direction that was so over the top that it left no room for dialogue and acting. Very bad, very silly, I'm owed three hours please!
76 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
So disappointing
jan-k-hopkins4 March 2019
A very dark interpretation. Depressing and oppressive. The gravitas of Poirot, without any of the charm. A waste of talent.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pretentious Rubbish!
jcurrie58-131 December 2018
I couldn't agree more with the majority of the entries. This series was slow, slow, and slow! And very pretentious. Why ditch the characters of Captain Hastings and Inspector Jupp? Not forgetting the unrelenting political correctness. Just what you would expect from the BBC in its anti-Brexit propoganda. The language used by some of the characters was more 21st Century than the 1930s. A disaster, except for the casting of Rupert Grint, who played Inspector Froome. Well done, Rupert! You've more than proved yourself in an adult role.
70 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a waste of time
chjxweijer30 December 2018
Please don't lose you time with this. Woeful program.
54 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Dreadful interpretation
ninamurphy28 December 2018
A dreadful interpretation of an Agatha Christie classic. I have given it 2 stars purely on the quality of the cinematography but the actual writing was utterly shocking.

I am totally fine with the fact that an adaptation will inevitably not be completely true to the original but this was taking it too far. Not only did they change aspects of the mystery (the story surrounding Cust's fellow residents) but they also erased Japp and Hastings from the storyline. And worse than this- Poirot's personality and background were completely fabricated - why do this?

If they writers wanted something new and original, why not write something new and original rather than piggybacking on the back of Agatha Christie's popularity and ruining a classic?
129 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Worst Poirot rendition I've ever seen
shanx242 February 2019
David Suchet set the bar so high that not many have been able to match his immaculate take on Poirot. But Malkovich hits a new low. As much as I like him as an actor, his Belgian/French accent is missing entirely and comes across just as an idiotic affectation. The style of the show is needlessly over-stylized for the young crowds who might have enjoyed the new Sherlock (I quite liked the first season too before style took over any semblance of substance.) This is a sorry excuse of a drawn out three episode series. The David Suchet episode is available on YouTube and still stands head and shoulders above any other version of ABC Murders.
37 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Made Poirot a different person, a miserable person
treeves-0982718 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
A depressing, distractingly voyeuristic, and antagonistic new story which misses the playful writing that Christie was able to bring from her pages.

Poirot is made in another image than Christie created. Not a former police officer, unhappy, disillusioned with his faith, no friends, a pariah in the police force, and a witness to a horrific war crime. It is almost like the purpose of the mini-series was to suck all the life, humanity, and optimism from any of her original writing.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
WORST EVER Agatha Christie adaptation
binapiraeus28 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??
159 out of 216 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The trick here is that to most it looks artistic, but really it's pretension
edramsey49627 December 2018
There are many things to fault here: Malkovich's Poirot is tiresome. Not once yet has he managed to pronounce the French correctly, and his performance otherwise- whilst intriguing- doesn't really suit the role well enough. Sarah Phelps is up herself. 'And Then There Were None' was really good, but everything she has done since is painful. This entire screenplay screams "written by someone who's terrified of writing dialogue" which any writer will know, is not a good situation to be in. This results in a director/writer duo who are so obsessed with making every shot artsy and pretty (which they are to be fair) that they forget to actually have anything happen in them. This results in an incredibly dreary and excruciatingly slow drama (if you can call it that). Everyone knows by now about all the changes Phelps has made (some kind of make sense but feel unnecessary, others are potentially very problematic, and the rest are simply outright ridiculous). The trick here is that to most it looks artistic, but really it's pretension. Please Sarah. Please just stop. We'll give you the invasion plans, they're on my desk, I'll just go and get them.
126 out of 175 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
In Search of Agatha Christie
bob-bernet13 February 2019
The only thing missing from this Agatha Christie mystery is Agatha Christie. I hope the late author's estate was paid well for the use of her title since it bears no resemblance to the book. With an added subplot about an anti-immigrant wave marching through England, the tired political agenda of this production is embarrassingly transparent. There is nothing in this film for Christie fans. If anything, it is an insult to her legacy.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Everything made deliberately crude
elaines-4509828 December 2018
In order to appear artsy and "edgy" the director filmed everything as if through a dirty lens. Every place was dark and dreary, people are filthy or creepy or both. There doesn't seem to be one redeeming feature anywhere.

Also, the so-called back story for Poirot is completely unnecessary and in bad taste. What's that?! Is it Dame Agatha spinning in her grave?
60 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
misery, misery, misery - and yet more misery
myriamlenys30 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Imagine a deluge of misery. (Take any kind of misery you can think of : financial, moral, intellectual, emotional, medical.) Imagine storms, winds and tides creating a giant surge up the Thames. Now imagine a titanic flood swallowing a large part of the landscape, population included. Screaming people are swept along, battered, drowned by misery. Desperate mothers clutching their babies try to climb into trees, but to no avail : even the trees are swept along. Everywhere there are cataracts of misery, rivers of misery, waterfalls of misery.

Welcome to "The ABC Murders", which provides the viewer with enough doom and gloom to last him a lifetime.

This is not what Mrs. Christie intended : her novel contains darkness, yes, but not to the point where one meets a pauper, a prostitute, an unnatural mother, a proto-Fascist agitator or an evil-minded journalist on every page. But then, this is the kind of adaptation which cares very little for the original tone and nature of the source novel.

By way of Exhibit A I show you the character of Hercule Poirot, which has become nearly unrecognisable. Poirot is given a tragic life history of the kind which would stun even the most sunny or heroic of souls. Gone is the self-confident, brilliant, though sometimes slightly ridiculous detective with the little grey cells. We now get an innocent man scarred for life by wartime inhumanity and cruelty ; an innocent man, too, who has been pushed into a career of deceit, contradiction and subterfuge. Yes, that's our little Hercule there !

I'm still throwing the series some stars because, in some regards, it is well-crafted : the costumes, for instance, are excellent. There are also fine performances to enjoy, although one gets the impression that the actors (and especially Mr. Malkovich, who is riveting) are seriously wasted on this kind of misbegotten material.
50 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
PS : Don't listen to those who write off Christie fans as nostalgia bores.
cpongracic10 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
No one - NO ONE - wrote Christie better than Christie. Furthermore, it is virtually sacrilegious to change the entire backstory to one of her - HER - most famous characters. Wanna write a story? Then, be my guest! But to change brilliance is horrifying, to say the least.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Rubbish from start to finish
blakedw29 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
It is extraordinary just how bad the BBC is at doing remakes. Something seems to obsess them with a need to throw away the reasons an original was popular and replace it with drivel. So in this travesty Hercules Poirot is old and ignored. Not just that, but he is a con man who never served in the Belgian police. This is strange, because when he first appeared, in "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" Captain Hastings tells us that they met in Belgium where he was a leading member of the force. It is not clear why Poirot is supposed to have lied about his true identity or why this is brought in at all. But it is an excuse for the British police to be nasty to him and thus give a trendy warning about xenophobia. The basic concept, that one specific murder is being concealed by a chain of murders, is at least maintained. And for those who like steam trains there are some nice locomotive shots. But John Malkovit h's Poirot is a poor thing. Maybe the BBC was intimidated by the existence of a perfectly good version of this already starring David Suchet. But if that is so, why not save the money? This programme alone justifies scrapping the licence fee.
84 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed