advertisement


The ABC Murders

Well' I held off reading this until I caught up with it. So glad, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It may be nothing like Christie (thank gawd it was nowt like Fagenders either) but it was beautifully filmed and my family was engrossed from start to finish. We all loved the Suchet series as easy going entertainment, if people are going to take liberties it's good that they're better than Branagh.
Co-incidentally was browbeaten into watching the Railway Children again today. OK, some serious ham (esp at start with Scargill in drag) and period quality special effects, but I can't imagine this story ever being done better. Tryping this while avoiding Mrs Brown!
 
Not being a fan of AC normal I was less than enthusiastic when I sat down with Mrs. GF to watch this, but we have these things to do to maintain domestic bliss. I'd have to say I was surprised to find it as enjoyable as I did and a pleasant change from the usual "snobbery with violence" pap. A change is as good as a rest.:)
 
Bob McC said:
Stephen

For god’s sake chill.

You appear to be wound up by utter trivia.
Click to expand...
I'm not too bothered about him recreating the original character (this is for Stephen BTW, hit the wrong button) i felt Finney managed this quite well but the film was a bit of a bore, i enjoyed Malkovich's quiet, thoughtful approach to the character & preferred the darker feel of this adaption, had me engrossed from start to finish, something sadly lacking from recent outings.
 
Martyn Miles said:
If you look closely at one scene in ‘The Railway Children’ you can just make out an Austin Maxi on the
road in the background.
Click to expand...

Well, rail enthusiasts into preservation railways, etc, can probably also recognise the station not being as named. :) However I suspect the Maxi wasn't a deliberate change from the book.
 
I googled for the maxi but no-one has yet posted a screenshot, would be nice to see, along with Charlton Heston's watch in the chariot race.
As for ABC I liked it very much. Very dark and moody. Though I had to turn away when a large boil on the back of big bloke's neck was juxtaposed with a fried egg...uuuuuuuurgh!
Being of a certain age the missus and I forget plotlines and films so we can happily watch stuff we have seen before and still enjoy them.
I like Malkovitch in stuff...Ripley's Game is jolly good.
 
Apparently, if watch closely you can see a red car in the chariot race scene in Ben Hur.

170512100113-horse-vs-car-4-large-169.jpg
 
Big fan of John Malkovich, so I approached this with some enthusiasm. I enjoyed it, as a tale, but as somebody mentioned upthread, Poirot is very fastidious and somewhat cerebral by nature, and Malkovich didn't really bring either aspect out overmuch. I enjoyed the part he played, but you could have called it something other than Poirot. Not having read the book, or seen any other adaptation of this, I did wonder whether the back story was AC or an invention of this screenwriter, because it seems at odds with some of the stuff I've gleaned from other Poirot tales (not that I'm a big watcher, but like many people, I catch them from time to time).
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Big fan of John Malkovich, so I approached this with some enthusiasm. I enjoyed it, as a tale, but as somebody mentioned upthread, Poirot is very fastidious and somewhat cerebral by nature, and Malkovich didn't really bring either aspect out overmuch. I enjoyed the part he played, but you could have called it something other than Poirot. Not having read the book, or seen any other adaptation of this, I did wonder whether the back story was AC or an invention of this screenwriter, because it seems at odds with some of the stuff I've gleaned from other Poirot tales (not that I'm a big watcher, but like many people, I catch them from time to time).
Click to expand...

It was all by the screenwriter

The only thing Malkovich's character had in common with Christie's Poirot was his nationality and where he lived in London.

Stephen
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Big fan of John Malkovich, so I approached this with some enthusiasm. I enjoyed it, as a tale, but as somebody mentioned upthread, Poirot is very fastidious and somewhat cerebral by nature, and Malkovich didn't really bring either aspect out overmuch.
Click to expand...
If you have chance to watch the many actors who have played this role, it quickly becomes evident they all stamped their own authority onto the character of Poirot, this adaption is no different, this adaption was set in a time when Poirot was washed up, he was carrying out murder games for rich clients in their homes instead of setting the world alight with his magic, this was not the fastidious Poirot of yore, it was never meant to be & Malkovich handled this perfectly I felt, the character needed a boost of enthusiasm from somewhere, it came in the form of ABC.
I felt it both clever & brave to show Poirot at this stage of his career, it allowed for a more human Poirot, a deeper sense of his character was allowed to unfold, well done to the writers I say & especially Malkovich, I felt this adaption took us beyond Christie's novels & into a new era.
 
Ragaman said:
... this adaption is no different ...
Click to expand...

But it really is.

This Poirot had nothing in common with the character in the books. It was totally different. All other adaptations have tried to incorporate the things about Poirot that made him interesting—and why Christie sold so many books featuring the character.

It may the that Malcovich's character was some of the things you say, but he wasn't Poirot.

He was never 'washed up' and his moral compass was intact right up to Curtain.

This is my point.

Why do this? Why not write something new? Because Christie's name sells and a 'Phelps original' would remain unwatched.

But it sells because of how she wrote and her plots—which were often original and much copied.

Some of Christie's works are now out of copyright. 2019 is going to be a bad year for lots of reasons ...

Stephen

 
stephen bennett said:
This Poirot had nothing in common with the character in the books.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the portrayal reflected the mood as Is usually the case with Poirot films but the core character was still in tact, the ability to see what others are blind to, I felt it showed us that Poirot's character had a human side, we usually only get to see his superhuman qualities, this allowed through a vulnerability rarely seen with this character, Malkovich was mesmerising throughout.
 
Well the feeling I got was that of being bored... maybe that was because I was 'mesmerised' and got drowsy. :)

Having since re-watched the Ustinov "Evil under the Sun" I'm slightly puzzled by the idea that it only showed his "superhuman qualities"! It was humourous, lighter than Suchet, but enjoyable. Even the music was better.
 
Ragaman said:
I disagree, the portrayal reflected the mood as Is usually the case with Poirot films but the core character was still in tact, the ability to see what others are blind to, I felt it showed us that Poirot's character had a human side, we usually only get to see his superhuman qualities, this allowed through a vulnerability rarely seen with this character, Malkovich was mesmerising throughout.
Click to expand...

Raga—how many Poirot novels have you read? Poirot doesn't have any vulnerabilities!

Perhaps you could point me to the novels that have Poirot not being a detective, pouring coffee everywhere, dropping letters on the floor, being hated by the police and not being 'mistaken for a hairdresser' because I must have missed those ones.


Stephen
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Well the feeling I got was that of being bored... maybe that was because I was 'mesmerised' and got drowsy. :)

Having since re-watched the Ustinov "Evil under the Sun" I'm slightly puzzled by the idea that it only showed his "superhuman qualities"! It was humourous, lighter than Suchet, but enjoyable. Even the music was better.
Click to expand...

Ustinov was too big to be Poirot, really. See also: Stephen Fry as Jeeves.
 
Jim Audiomisc said:
Well the feeling I got was that of being bored... maybe that was because I was 'mesmerised' and got drowsy. :)

Having since re-watched the Ustinov "Evil under the Sun" I'm slightly puzzled by the idea that it only showed his "superhuman qualities"! It was humourous, lighter than Suchet, but enjoyable. Even the music was better.
Click to expand...
Superhuman in the context of solving every crime he investigates without breaking sweat or even carrying out any real investigation, it's just fiction folks, we all see it differently, I seem to be more in line with the general consensus, which for me is a little off kilter.
 
stephen bennett said:
Raga—how many Poirot novels have you read? Poirot doesn't have any vulnerabilities!

Perhaps you could point me to the novels that have Poirot not being a detective, pouring coffee everywhere, dropping letters on the floor, being hated by the police and not being 'mistaken for a hairdresser' because I must have missed those ones.


Stephen
Click to expand...
I feel you may have missed the point or not followed the plot of this adaption.
This wasn't Poirot of old, this was Poirot at his lowest ebb, it's an adaption, not a copy. A reawakening of both the genre & lead Character.
I imagine the producers felt, after 20 years of remakes it was time for a new direction, some enjoyed it, some didn't, not worth having a coronary over.
 
Ragaman said:
I feel you may have missed the point or not followed the plot of this adaption.
This wasn't Poirot of old, this was Poirot at his lowest ebb, it's an adaption, not a copy. A reawakening of both the genre & lead Character.
I imagine the producers felt, after 20 years of remakes it was time for a new direction, some enjoyed it, some didn't, not worth having a coronary over.
Click to expand...

I feel you have missed the point of what an adaptation is—it should contain at least some of the characteristics of the the original. Most adaptations do this, even the risible ITV Marples

I suspect that you've never read a Poirot novel as your understanding of the nature of the literary character appears somewhat limited.

I imagine the producers thought they would use the popularity of Christie to do whatever the hell they liked with her work.

Anyhow, you're right. Why care about art? It's just art.

Stephen
 
stephen bennett said:
I imagine the producers thought they would use the popularity of Christie to do whatever the hell they liked with her work.
Click to expand...
As have all of them to date, this is just another version of a popular novel, the last time around they changed the killer if you remember. I would advise not to watch Les Mis, it may cause irreparable damage to your nervous system ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top