I can’t praise Hickson’s portrayal of Miss Marple highly enough! I once read that Joan Hickson played a role in Christie’s stage adaptation of “Appointment With Death,” and Christie said she’d love for Hickson to play Jane Marple some day. She got her wish, but alas it was not until about ten years after Christie had died.
I , unfortunately, sadly, saw the Kenneth Branagh adaption of Death on the Nile. The problems with the film are many; here are two examples. The spectacular overuse of obvious CGI and the fact that the boat seems to be the size of large luxury liner!!
I was also confused by the boat because it is a plot point that the boat is small so we know all the characters and Simon can move around freely. And the CGI was bad. I believe they filmed the entire movie in England which was an odd choice. I don't recall any other major adaptations doing that.
@@summationgathering I rewatched the older ones after current and BOI they didn't cut any corners, the panoramas and landscapes of Egypt in the version with Peter Ustinov, Lois Chiles, Olivia Hussey and Jane Birkin... of course they couldn't replicate a drunk Angela Lansbury in any other versions, but surprisingly, the TV version with Suchet and lesser known actors was also good, did this one change their route to fit more landmarks? I liked Emma Griffiths' Jaqueline (who was in Marple's They Do It with Mirrors) more in it than obviously psycho Mia Farrow. Casting kind of spoiled it... Why would you take a setting that's based on exploring Egypt and film it in some London studio, not even Morocco or other usual stand-ins (Libya, Tunis)?
I was also disappointed with how they changed the character of Salome. They could have made her and her daughter Black but kept her as she is in the book and other adaptations. You’re able to both see the humour and the tragedy in her character, particularly after Rosalie reveals she has fallen into depression with the decline of her book sales.
Also his Poirot seems so...lacking in grey cells. His mistaken deductions come across as a jumping to conclusions on his part rather than Poirot trying to lure the real culprit into a false sense of security.
I really like the Margret Rutherford Miss Marple films. . They have a certain charm. And it's a nice change from the overproduced and super expensive costume dramas. The one thing that really irritated me on the Branagh Death on the Nile was the music clearly based on Sister Rosetta Tharpe, but she got no mention in credits. In Appointment with Death (1988) the Qumran excavations did not take place until after the declaration of israel. So the setup is historically impossible,
@@summationgathering Enjoyable without being Christie, basically. And always roping in Rutherford's husband, Stringer Davis - an old English actor who couldn't find work on the basis of his own talent: which didn't make him a bad actor, but the parts he played in those films really weren't necessary.
The only Joan Hickson Marple adaptation I have issues with is "Pocketful of Rye". NOT because of Joan Hickson, but because they decided they needed to make the ending more formula "exciting". The later adaptation with Julia McKenzie leaves the original book ending in place, and it's very satisfying. Though not as satisfying as it would have been with Joan Hickson if they had stayed with the real ending, of course. :) There's just something so delicious about the murderer getting trapped by a photo his victim secretly snapped of him...rather than killed by a silly auto crash.
Oh I forgot about that ending! I don't know if it ruins the whole episode but its definitely bizarre. Reminds me a lot of those early Poirot episodes that always ended in a car chase.
I don't like it when they insert Poirot or Miss Marple into stories in which they didn't appear in the first place. Also when they try to stretch out a short story into a full-length show. I can read some stories faster than they can put them on the screen. Some of the old-time radio shows did them justice without adding extra previously non-existent flourishes.
Thaaaaaaank you for including Appointment with death. That was so painful to watch with the family being like "oh this book is really good, let's check out the ep"
@@summationgathering the book is really good? Tbh, I've not been able to read the book because I saw this horrible adaptation. I trust your judgement so I'll give it a shot. Btw, The Murderer is a Fox was amazing. What a twist!
@@nonadeplume1145 The book Appointment with Death is very different from the Suchet adaptation. And I'm glad you liked The Murderer is a Fox. SPOILER FOR ANYONE WHO HASNT READ THAT BOOK YET. But I am not bothered by the fact it wasn't murder. I know people get angry when the death isn't a murder but it doesn't bother me at all.
"Frank Stallone is not the best part of anything" genuinely made me burst out laughing. I think both Geraldine McEwan and Juliet McKenzie are terrible Miss Marples (maybe the shadow of Joan Hickson is just too deep for those like me who imprinted on those Marples), but I feel SORRY for Juliet McKenzie in a way I don't McEwan. Nemesis aside, it's just that McKenzie is given so much CRAP. I mean, what the hell is anyone to do with the "quality" of material she got? At least McEwan didn't get the tranche of "We're out of Marple stories, so let's just shoehorn her in to some of the standalones" McKenzie was burdened with. The Suchet Appointment with Death is just so nasty. Even Poirot is nasty and almost hateful at times. I really, really hated it.
David Suchet talks about how much he didn't like the Appointment with Death episode and it was apparently going to be the last episode before they decided that they could do the entire series. I understand why the ITV Marple is so different because the Joan Hickson ones were there so they had to do something different.
I recently tried to watch the Malkovich Hercule Poirot mini-series - truly appalling, misanthropic, slow-moving, 21st century rubbish with an 40s overcoat. NB: I usually love John Malkovich!
I didn't think Malkovich was that bad as Poirot but the miniseries is not good. It didn't make the list because there are worse adaptations of the ABC Murders.
@@summationgathering I agree, Malkovich did what he could with what he was given to work with. But it was just such a joyless exercise. Even the colour pallette was dreary. And, I confess, I only watched the first episode. I just didn't have the stomach for any more, so you will know better than me what it was like overall!
I like the Malkovich ABC Murders just because the changes made to up the GRIMNESS are so bizarre and overthetop, it becomes camp. The viewing experience is one long series of screaming "What?!" and "Why?!" at the screen.
@@vulpes82 You've summed the viewing experience up perfectly - except I didn't like it! 😁 Maybe it just wasn't what I was expecting. We've been getting grim, stilted Christie tv adaptions for decades, where more attention is paid to the costume and scenery than the script. I call them "Aspidistra productions".
@@Old_Scot Oh, I don't think anyone was expecting it! Heh. And I think grim worked so, so well with And Then There Were None that they keep chasing that high, and it just doesn't work. Christie is dark, or can be, but in just a completely different way.
I'm surprise that Roger Ackroyd adaptation was mention in the dishonorable one, mainly because the form in which they decided to narrate the story truly kill a lot of the mystery, or at least for me. Also the thing of making the sister discover everything and then try to help his brother was just strange for me. Also, I do agree with you that Sarah do tend to put to much "edgyness" in to her adaptation to a point were this movies just don't work anymore
The big problem I have with Suchet's *Appointment With Death* , despite REALLY enjoying it, is that the mystery aspect of the episode plays second fiddle to the drama. There are so few clues presented that could lead you to the correct answer that it feels like the episode CHEATS. Granted, its not the only adaptation with Suchet that does this. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, the book that arguibly elevated Christie to stardom, is also butchered in this version of Poirot. That said, Suchet's version of Poirot is still the most consistent. Especially with books/short stories that have relatively few or no adaptations where even the changes they made are sometimes an *upgrade* (Three Act Tragedy, The Clocks, Five Little Pigs, Dead Man's Mirror, Hallowe'en Party etc.)
It's even odder because at the time it was filmed, production thought there was a good chance Appointment with Death would be the final episode and they still did all this.
“Murder at the Gallop” is a blast! The energy, musical score, period charm and even the black and white cinematography are memorable. Unforgettable moment: Margaret Rutherford on the dance floor doing the Twist!
The Margaret Rutherford adaptations are eccentric, amusing, and delightful. i would rather watch Margaret Rutherford than Joan Hickson, not because of any fault in Hickson, who was a fine actress, but because her Miss Marple is so smug and annoying.
Great analysis! The only one of the films on your list that I've seen is the garbage Ordeal by Innocence adaptation. I was so frustrated by it and you are honestly much more forgiving than I was. Worse, I had watched it right after watching the *excellent* 2015 And Then There Were None series, and it really felt like that's what they were trying to make Ordeal by Innocence, but it just felt so flat. One of my funniest memories of that series is when they tried to make Mickey sexy so they could play up Tina's attraction to him, and they have him lifting his arm in slo-mo with this derpy look on his face 😂 But to me, changing the murderer is an absolute cardinal sin. You don't get to do that in an adaptation, period. The characters in this book and the overall story were written and portrayed perfectly in the book. There was no need to ruin basically every single one of them just because you wanted to make a twist. MAN did they do Gwenda dirty in this one!! I'm really surprised you didn't give the 2018 ABC Murders at least a Dishonorable Mention. The creepy sex stuff they did with Cust just grossed me out. 🤢 that's the only part of the whole thing I even remember: Lily stepping on Cust's back. They could have done so many interesting things, but no, they went dark and edgy like they always do, and it resulted in a mess that is 'meh' at best and abominable at worst.
I think I did give that ABC Murders a Dishonorable Mention. Yeah, that creepy sex stuff was really just awful and cringey. I still think Alphabet Murders is the worst adaptation of that story. In theory, I don't mind changing the murderer but I have yet to see an adaptation that does so well. I like the possibilities of seeing a new murderer but no one has done it well outside of video games but that's really a different medium. The ABC Murders game has both the original ending and then you can play through with different characters as the murderer. It's fun, not super fun.
You kind of mentioned it but mostly in the context that it wasn't as bad as some others. But I admit I didn't notice it. Lol That does sound fun though. I like that idea. But like you said, it's a different medium. Changing fundamental aspects of the plot is usually a bad idea imo, and the murderer is basically the most fundamental aspect of any mystery plot.
I, for one, did enjoy the ITV Miss Marple adaptation of Nemesis, somehow 😅 Maybe it was seeing Raymond and his aunt partnering up for once? It's a cringey episode for sure, but it charmes me in a way. I really hate their adaptation of Murder is Easy, though. It feels unneccessarily hostile towards people with disabilities, sexual abuse victims and women in general. That being said, though I don't agree with everything, I genuinely enjoyed this video! :)
@@summationgathering _Nemesis_ and _Sleeping Murder_ (very similar books) should be easy adaptations, but they always want to mess it up. Let's get rid of Gwenda's husband. Let's bring in nuns. Let's kill off the innocent imprisoned guy instead of trying to clear a living person. I don't know what they're thinking. My one weird thing I'd like to see in an adaptation of _Sleeping Murder_ is to write Miss Marple out and replace her with the Beresfords, so you would have the younger couple and the older couple. (This seems only fair since Marple has horned in on at least one of their book adaptations.) Although it would be great to see someone do justice to it with Marple first.
It's never been done in English but I believe it has in some foreign languages. I haven't seen those, however, so I cannot give an opinion on their quality.
I just discovered your channel, and it looks like you have a lot of really fascinating videos, so I’m looking forward to watching them. I don’t think I’ve seen any of that adaptations on your bottom 10, but I still enjoyed your commentary. It’s kind of interesting to think about what makes an adaptation good or bad. However, I was disappointed that you included The Seven Dials Mystery and Why Didn’t They Ask Evans? in your dishonorable mentions. Back in the 80s, I was introduced to Agatha Christie adaptations through those two, and while I don’t say your criticism is completely off base, I enjoyed them a lot and thought the writing, casting, production, etc., were good. The ending of Why Didn’t They Ask Evans, though true to Christie, is disappointing, but it was fun getting there. The Seven Dials Mystery has a truly surprising ending, in which almost everything you believed turns out to be wrong, and the Earth almost seems to shift on its axis. Anyway, those are my opinions. Thanks again.
I'm definitely higher on the Seven Dials Mystery and Why Didn't They Ask Evans 80s adaptations now. I don't think they should be honorable mentions tbh. My issue with them is that they are almost too faithful and drag on a little bit. I maintain that is true but I would put a lot less focus on this now. I'm actually working on a big project on ranking every Christie adaptation ever and I did move those two up quite a bit on the list. They are out of dishonorable mention territory.
@@kkitao217 It is. It's going to be a while. I have to track down all these foreign language adaptations with subtitles. I've never seen Christie in Estonian before.
"Frank Stallone is the best part of nothing." 😂😂😂 Appreciate the list. Now I know which ones to avoid but I know me, I'd probably watch them anyway. It feels like you drank the glass of cyanide so we didn't have to. Great video.
My least favorite adaptation is and always will be 'Cards on the Table'. The novel is just brilliant, and the film- well, is just not, despite the cast, despite the very decent first act. But the ending killed everything for me, especially the fact that someone believed it was a good idea to add some more suspects thus killing THE THING of the book. ITV's 'Murder is Easy' is a close second, but mostly because I was really disgusted by the fact that they replaced a killed bird with a murdered boy.
Yeah, Cards on the Table is pretty bad as well. I forgot about that one but I don't think I'd put it in the top ten. Should have been a dishonorable mention.
I completely agree about “Murder is Easy!” The entire storyline about Lavinia’s brother was disturbing and horrifying, and for no seeming reason other than shock value! I remember feeling horrid after watching it when it first aired. I revisited it a couple years back, just to see if I felt any different about it. I still loathed the ending! And it’s a shame, because the cast was great (well, other than Bridget’s actress; she tried…).
I love the Margaret Rutherford films but I don't consider them adaptations. Perhaps "inspired by" is the best way to describe them. I think Margaret Rutherford's charm and bubbly personality saved the films from being horrible. The BBC Partners in Crime and Malkovich ABC murders were awful, and so was Branag's Orient Express which put me off watching any of his subsequent films. Your list is very good, i.e. I agree with it. :D What I don't understand about Nemesis is why they made it before The Caribbean Mystery (where Marple befriends the wealthy guy).
There was a rights issue with A Caribbean Mystery that also effected the Hickson versions. I believe the Christie estate owns the rights to it now but Christie's grandson sold it to other people at some point. I don't think the Malkovich ABC Murders is that bad. And I also like the Rutherford films but I wouldn't say they are good.
Thanks for the video. It's funny because I actually enjoyed Sparkling Cyanide, Why didn't they ask Evans? and Nemesis as stand alones if u ignore the books. I think any ones that change the murderer really get my goat though
I will say in Nemesis's favor, I can actually through it which I cannot say for some of the others. When adaptations change the murderer, I do get interested in seeing how they pull it off or what the story would be like if so-and-so did it but then the results are usually trainwrecks.
Another very entertaining and thought-provoking video. Thanks! All of my least favorite adaptions made the list, and I was reminded of a couple I had forgotten that I disliked. I gave up on the Tony Randall one after 10 minutes, so I can't really rate it. So, the one I most despise is "The White Horse." It changed all the parts of the novel I like best (it's not my favorite Christie, but some aspects are ingenious). It made me feel icky, and caused me to hate humanity. It was a waste of excellent production values, pretty actors, and my time. I give it negative 10 Frank Stallones.
Have you watched the early 1980s adaptations of Agatha Christie by UK LWT (London weekend Television and ITV)? They include: "Why Didn't They Ask Evans", "Secret Adversary", the short stories of "Partners in Crime". The actors were Francesca Annis and James Warwick.
Yes I have. I've started to like those more and more. I always loved Partners in Crime. They get a bit campy bit Annis and Warwick play their parts so well.
Completely agree about #6. I never watched part 2, that surprise sex scene was unnecessary and put me off the rest. Would love for this to be redone, or I will stick to the B&W and BBC radio adaptation. I feel like Sarah P. can push the shock and dark factor unnecessarily in many of her adaptations. Contrary to popular belief, Christie is not a cozy mystery author. She doesn't shy away from dark and touchy subjects. So no need to add to or embellish.
I love hearing "Christie is not cozy". Music to my ears. Sarah Phelps said an interview she makes the stories Christie wishes she could have written and no. Has she even read a Christie? (I actually dont think she did. I think she said this)
The actor on left side, when you speak of about 2001 Orient Express is Fritz Wepper. From 1969 to 1998 he acted as Harry ( Harald Klein) in tv shows ,Der Kommissar' and , Derrick ', then with his brother in ,Zwei Brüder' for a short time. So before 2001 he acted in three ,crime' tv shows as detective, and a kind of judge ( don' t know english word for Staatsanwalt). In late 2000s/2010s he acted in a fourth ,crime' tv show, as a psychology expert.
He's probably best known to US audiences from the film Cabaret. I wish the US had better access to foreign TV shows because they are very difficult to get here. You can't even pay for them.
Forgotten: His main success after the two TV shows Der Kommissar and Derrick (Fritz Wepper acted in both shows as detective Klein, but the actor who played Inspektor Keller in ,Der Kommissar got cancer, and a new TV show with Inspektor Derrick was created) was a commedy TV show , where he played a rural town mayor, who always tries to betray the nuns of a monastry. A strange thing was, that in very last episodes of ,Der Kommissar ' the character of Harald Klein disdappeared, declaring , in future working with lnspector Derrick, and as substitute, his brother will come. The actor, who was declared as Haralds brother, was also in real life his brother Elmar, who died a short time ago.
The "adaptation" of The Pale Horse was god awful! Not even "bad that is almost funny", like the Stalone movie, but just dry, nonsensical and completely off the mark.
Here’s a topic suggestion for a future video…. Why do you think the recent adaptations have been so mid? Suchet was a high point but with everything since it seems like the essence of Christie was lost; guilty pleasures at best. It’s not like we forgot how to make mysteries, original Horowitz books are quite good, and the mid-20th century setting is still popular (I’m partial to Stephen Spotswood). Arguably the best Christie adaptation recently was the meta-modern See How They Run, which of course she didn’t write.
That's a good idea. Without giving it too much thought, I would say its because Christie has been adapted so many times that new adaptations are forced to do something different. I also suspect we're at a point where filmmakers are just using the Christie name for monetary purposes and just want to make their own film no one would see otherwise. There is no point in remaking an adaptation and changing nothing if the original is so iconic. Of course there are many many Christies that have barely been touched (or not at all) where this shouldn't be an issue. See How They Run was good but its about Christie, not a Christie. The most recent adaptation that I thought was good was the Hugh Laurie Why Didn't They Ask Evans? which was fantastic. That might make my top ten best adaptations. The new Murder is Easy was fine. It didn't like or hate it. I also have high expectations for the recently announced Netflix version of The Seven Dials Mystery.
I’m so shocked you think McKenzie is the better Marple. I feel like she is far too dour and captures none of Marple’s unassuming twinkle. She gives school ma’am and book Marple is NEVER that imo.
I think Geraldine McEwan gets a bit carried away sometimes. I understand what you mean about Julie McKenzie though. I will say when I read Miss Marple I usually picture Geraldine McEwan or Joan Hickson but never Julia McKenzie.
McEwan wildly overacts as Miss Marple. What on earth was she thinking? Though to be fair, she matches the sometimes bizarre scripts. But as you say, McKenzie is dour, schoolmarmish, and unmemorable. Both actresses were miscast. Neither comes to mind as a gently bred, upper-middle class spinster. Maybe McEwan is a little closer.
The problem I have with Julia McKenzie’s Miss Marple is that she’s too fit and active! I know the Miss Marple of the books practically just sat in a chair knitting all the time, and that would be boring in the extreme on TV, but she still has to be an elderly lady! Joan Hickson was perfect.
I might have put the Anthony Andrews Sparkling Cyanide on the list (terrible choice of Rosemary) and have long held that the worst thing Angela Lansbury ever did was when Miss Marple smoked a cigarette. A DM for The Pale Horse feels about right; Pauline Collins might have been just enough to save it. Of all the novels into which Miss Marple was inserted, why did they leave out Crooked House, which would have been a nearly seamless fit making Miss de Haviland an old gardening chum? I wondered whether it would be Sleeping Murder or Nemesis on the list as soon as you mentioned The Secret of Chimneys. Maybe having both would have been overkill.
I wavered a lot on which Sparkling Cyanide to include. I completely forgot about Miss Marple smoking a cigarette. I wish I mentioned that. Crooked House would have been a good one to insert Miss Marple into and it had not yet been adapted when the show was running. I never understood why they didn't do more of the short stories because the two they did were actually very good.
@@El-Hugger They did the Blue Geranium and Greenshaw's Folly (which they combined with the Thumbmark of St. Peter). Technically the Endless Night adaptation is the short story The Case of the Caretaker which was a lost short story Christie expanded into Endless Night.
Lol, and all this time I thought it was a JOINT that Miss Marple was sucking on in that movie, especially coz of how she holds it and how she sucks on it. The first time I saw her doing this, I laughed so hard I choked on my tea.
There have been some truly dreadful Christie "adaptations" - usually featuring horribly miscast actors, struggling with leaden scripts: neither Geraldine McEwan nor Julia Mackenzie (spelling almost certainly wrong) were anything like the Marple of the books - and the former didn't even seem to be trying. The Poirots have been fairly bad - I hadn't seen Tony Randall in the part, and he'd be about the last actor I'd have chosen to play him. Ustinov was far too big, lumbering, and played Ustinov with a cod French accent. In this, he was like Margaret Rutherford, who also played herself, sometimes amusingly, but never convincingly - you could like the two characters as people, without thinking they had any place in a Christie film. When you throw in poor editing and script decisions - I agree with your criticisms of all of these films - you get a disastrous mish-mash. It has to be said that Christie wrote too much, and the quality varied; her best was very good, her worst was probably unfilmable (not that this stopped people from trying to film it). She couldn't do international spy type novels - they were without exception dross, and the films made from them (I think I have The Secret Adversary in mind) were bad beyond comprehension. Since Joan Hickson and David Suchet (apart from the one disaster you mention) were uniformly good, I wonder if the actors themselves didn't have some pull with the script writers, stopping them from making egregiously stupid mistakes - though Albert Finney, Branagh, and Cumberbatch weren't able to rescue their performances from the liberties directors seemed determined to take. The thing is, as actors or writers, you have to take Christie seriously - not as a fly-by-night trifle in which you try to inject humour, of a kind, or deep philosophical meanings, which are rarely that deep, which Christie didn't offer herself. She's just not suited to the blockbuster approach, the star vehicle, the would-be comedy: her speciality was the domestic, the eccentric in a genuine sense, not wide-eyed bonkers; the puzzle of the books was the important thing - the characters were there to carry it. When directors didn't understand that, they invariably produced complete turkeys.
I've long suspected Geraldine McEwan got cast precisely because the production wanted these zany and ridiculous plots and McEwan was someone who would just go along with it. Her bad performance is a symptom of production. I think Ustinov and Rutherford bring an inaccurate and crazy approach that I think makes them enjoyable but not particularly faithful. I don't think Christie is that difficult to adapt - generally speaking certainly some books are - but many people do not understand Christie. She goes beyond just a murder mystery writer and I think when filmmakers take that approach, they miss out. In particular, the characterization is very off which causes a lot of issues even if the actual plot is faithful.
I actually liked the Peter Ustinov versions of Poirot. A little bit cheesy but pretty true to the books compared to what's come out since. I watched all the David Suchet versions but wouldn't rave. They change a whole lot, but at least the original stories were still recognisable. Re Miss Marple, the old originals with Margaret Rutherford were fun, and I saw somewhere that Agetha Christie liked her. I'm open to correction on that though. I liked Joan Hickson best. McKeown just came across as sinister Muss Marple. A bit creepy. Julia McKenzie was ok but forgettable.
Yeah, I'd have to double check but I think the story is that Christie liked Margaret Rutherford but hated the films. Christie dedicated the Mirror Crack'd to her.
I like how your reaction to Branagh's Poirot isn't hostile but "oh it exists... and has... good production value", my friend watched those movies and I made them see Death on the Nile with Ustinov, and he's going through entire series with Suchet now, but a lot of people wouldn't know these stories if not for modern "reboot" of sorts, so I am glad it exists, even if Gal Gadot made me psychically cringe and it was the worst adaptation of DotN I've seen (Express was okay if only for Michelle Pfeiffer chewing the scenery).
I'm also glad for any new adaptations because they still work to get people into Christie, even if people are buying books called A Haunting in Venice and wind up confused. And I will always watch any Christie adaptation.
@@summationgathering absolutely! I remember when Orient Express was remade, I had people message me "hey have you seen that movie, it has such a twist", and I was like, no, but I know the story it had many adaptations before.
I will forever stand by the opinion, that Michelle Pfeiffer was the best Mrs Hubbard. The only one, who managed to capture both the humour and the tragedy of the character that's in the text. I can forgive Branagh's Orient Express a lot, if only it gave us Michelle Pfeiffer's Mrs Hubbard.
I was trying to limit the number of Marple adaptations on the list. I dont think By the Pricking of My Thumbs is that bad. I hate what they did to Tommy/Tuppence though.
My guess is that filmmakers go all in on the weirdness of it which I think is missing the forest for the trees. There are 3 adaptations of this in English and none of them are good. I haven't seen the French adaptation yet.
It should be fairly straightforward. I notice adapters don't want to adapt closely even when they can easily do so -- they aren't being "creative" then, I guess.
What hubris! People who think they can write Agatha Christie stories. I despise the two later Marples, they are mostly not Christie stories at all. The Joan Hickson films were the best.
To be honest, I haven't seen or read many on this list so I will defer to your judgment, but I do have to say I have a soft spot in my heart for the Angela Lansbury version of The Mirror Crack'd. I thoroughly hated the Alfred Molina version of MOTOE, and you completely right about Ten little Indians at number 3. It's one of my favorite books but nearly every time when it's adapted they change the ending. I can think of 1 exception but that's all.
TBH, I feel like maybe I should have put that MOTOE on the list. I thought it would make but then I rewatched it and I thought it was alright. It was better than I remembered so that may have done it.
About Appointment with Death, this is one that I wish would be remade because both major adaptations totally miss the mark. I find the 1988 film to be a pretty faithful depiction of the mystery, but a wreck in most other ways. Tonally it's bizarre the opening plays like a travelogue with the Boynton family on a jolly holiday through Europe all with a plodding, sappy soundtrack sounds off in the background. Does the movie not realize this is an abusive woman who keeps her children in a prison-like web? There's a recurring feeling of a humorous tone being jammed into this mystery; several of the Ustinov Poirot films are humorous, but I feel like this is the movie where it's least appropriate. The cast is impressive, but it doesn't amount to much; most of them are either directionless or don't match their characters. I have to disagree with you pretty thoroughly about the lack of production value in the Suchet adaptation. Not only are the sets, costuming, and camerawork all extremely well-done, the use of music in this version is just spectacular. The Middle Eastern incidental music sets the atmosphere throughout wonderfully and the use of Dido's Lament when the body is found might just be the most dramatic in the whole series! There's a sense of mystery, intrigue, and solemnity throughout. Where it fails, as you mentioned, is the mystery and the motive for the murder. The "I've never forgotten anything" line and its meaning was the most interesting element from the source material and without it, the story loses something. The callback to the pregnant servant from the book is cool, but by keeping the resolution (the guilty party commits suicide), the adaptation spoils the psychology of the murderer: "Our darling daughter, we couldn't bear to let the woman who physically scarred you live. So now that that's done, we're going to emotionally scar your by killing ourselves in front of you rather than face a life sentence in prison where you could potentially interact with and create a relationship with us. Yep, this is better." What parent would do this to their child?! Let's be real: they weren't motivated by love for Ginevra, they were motivated by revenge against Boynton. I can understand you being vexxed by the character changes; they don't add much of anything. The false nun is used as a counter to Poirot's Catholicism, I suppose. Ms. Pierce's suggestibility, is kept in a way in the form of Dr. Gerard drugging Nanny Taylor and then planting the idea that she drown herself. However, it's not as interesting this way. As for the actors, it's certainly not the best use of Tim Currey, but I still don't think he's wasted. His scene in the tomb discussing John the Baptist with Poirot is compelling; I love how it was shot, I love both him and Suchet exchanging stories in whispered tones. Elizabeth McGovern is not Lauren Bacall, but then again, no one is. Despite that, she holds her own in this role and gives a ranged performance. Her speech about the local human element in any destination might be my favorite part in the whole movie. So here we are: one adaptation that is faithful to the mystery but spoils the tone, and another with high production values and a lushly created tone that stumbles with the mystery. Maybe a new adaptation could someday get both elements right.
To me, the Peter Ustinov one is better but that is not saying much. I always felt the Ustinov one was just sort of phoning it as if they lost interest.
@@summationgathering He captured Poirot's trademark avuncular nature, but of all the ones he was in, really I only find "Death on the Nile" to be worth a watch.
While I have lots of contenders for the this list, there isn't an adaptation on here that I would remove. There really are a lot of stinkers out there. And as far as your number one goes, I could not agree more. I grew up watching Tony Randall on "The Odd Couple" and have always loved him, so when I saw he was in an adaptation of the 'ABC Murders' I just had to watch it. Wow, what a disappointment. Thanks for the list, I really enjoyed the video.
The fact that Christie was warned not to watch Alphabet Murders because it would be too upsetting for her, I think goes a long way my decision to put that one first.
Murder is Easy is HORRIBLE. Miss Marple tells a man that a young woman who has just found out she's got a 75% matching DNA with a serial killer and a 75% match with a mentally damaged sex criminal will get over the shock and (it's implied) marry him in time. Uh, no. With this DNA, she's going to spend her whole life wondering when she's going to turn violent killer. And, birth control being what it was in the 50's, marriage means passing these genes on. So, NO. NEVER happening. By the way, if I could take this at all seriously, this show would be making the strongest argument ever made against sex ed. Apparently, if you explain it to people, you risk them going out the next day and applying their newfound knowledge. Violently. Without consent. And . . . I kind of doubt women in the 50's went around mocking an unmarried woman for never having had sex. Wasn't that kind of the societal expectation? And, even if not everybody lived up to it, that was the behavior they made rude comments about. Especially if they were talking about women. By changing it to the 50's, they set it in a time when penicillin was available and antibiotic resistant diseases were not yet a thing. Try to kill the doctor by infecting his wound and see him recover with a miracle drug--unless you decide to have him forget it's the 50's and that penicillin is now a thing because that would mess up the plot. Also, I'm sorry, but Miss Marple would have had the whole thing figured out in time for tea.
Enjoyed your video very much and agree with your views. The worst adaption of one of Agatha Christies books was to my mind was " The Sign Of The Four"" this ITV version was so far out from the book. David Suchet must have been embarrassed playing this role. By the way David Suchet was Poirot the very best.👍
Thanks! I think you mean the Big Four. Sign of Four is a Sherlock Holmes. But yeah, I didn't like the ITV version but they really were working with a mess to begin with. Suchet - very politely - details how much he didn't really want to make certain episodes but was dedicated to doing them all.
I watched Murder Is Easy before I read it, and had to keep reminding myself that they were supposed to be the same story. There seems to be a strong pull towards incest in the modern adaptations. That's totally unnecessary in my opinion. Agatha Christie can obviously stand the test of time, without modern screenwriters adding their own twisted plots.
A few of the modern produces/writers/etc who adapted Christie have this false idea that Christie would have written about all this stuff if she could have which is just completely ridiculous. Christie wrote what she wanted to.
Thankfully I haven't seen most of these adaptations, except Appointment With Death. It really annoyed me that they totally changed who the murderer was...I mean why on earth? In the novel it was Lady Something Or Other, who Mrs. Boynton remembered was once a convicted prisoner when she (Boynton) had been a wardress. She blackmailed & tormented her so Lady S killed her. But as you pointed out, in this adaptation it was a doctor and a woman who together were the actual parents of one of Boyntons daughters. All very dramatic but totally different to Christie's novel. I'm of the opinion that any movie which claims to be an adaptation of Christie's novels should be as faithful to the original plot as possible. Otherwise what's the point? 🤔
The series had its own rule that it would never change the murderer nor change the means of murder, both of which it failed here. I suppose you could say they didn't change the murderer since its the same (though very different character) but it also added a new murderer as well.
@@summationgathering Yes good point. I'd forgotten that Lady Whatshername was still the murderer...I kept thinking she was different character. But as you say, her personality and motives were totally different from the novel, plus they brought in an extra murderer. It was certainly a plot twist but I do wish they'd stick to the original Agatha Christie endings! Before I go, thank you for your excellent summations...I've been watching your channel for a while now and you are so good at what you do. Your summations are always fair, balanced, clear and concise. Here's to your reaching 1000 subscribers and beyond! 😊💐
Precisely! A couple of these I saw the movie first Then read the book. Could not believe they had the hubris to rewrite Christie to the point they changed the murderer.
I didn't even know #1 existed, so that came out of left field for me! Would you say it's so bad that it's good? Or is it just unwatchable? Also, I think the adaptations I would call the most egregious are the ones that change the character of the detectives - making Miss Marple unkind or too liberally-minded; and I think the ITV episodes gave her some kind of sordid background that I don't clearly remember... and I recall the Branagh Orient Express had Poirot climbing and running all over the place as if he was, like, James Bond or something. Just dumb.
Yes, Miss Marple had a married lover who died in the war, and Branagh's Poirot had a lost love whose photo he moons over. If you're going to give Poirot a love interest, the Countess Rossakoff is right there. (Although that wasn't good either in the Alfred Molina one.)
It's done by the same production company, which made the Rutherford Marples and it has a similar comedic style. Robert Morley from Murder at the Gallop plays Hastings in here. Franklin Clarke is played by one of the suspects from Murder at the Gallop as well (Rosamund's husband). Except it's missing all the charm of the Rutherford movies and the humor doesn't work here at all. Margaret Rutherford and Stringer Davis actually have a cameo appearance in it as Miss Marple and Mr Stringer, and it's the best minute of the entire film. It's not good, but it could have been much worse. According to Mark Aldrige's Poirot book, we almost had what basically seems to be a soft porn version of the ABC Murders and Poirot's character. Instead the randall movie was made, and we dodged a bullet.
Somehow, although I've managed to see many of the Dishonorable Mentions, I've only seen a couple of the Top 10. So, speaking only for the ones I've seen, I was disappointed not to see Endless Night on the list. Also, the David Suchet version of Murder on the Orient Express.
I recognize the problems with the 2001 Alfred Molina Poirot, but it has a certain charm that makes me come back to it. The number of characters being reduced actually makes it easier to understand, they did a great job adapting the setting to the 21st Century and Alfred Molina is actually very good as a younger, less eccentric Poirot - if only he wasn't so tall and imposing!
@@summationgathering I'm glad to. For me it's the kind of film you watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I liked the cast especially Pamela Bellwood. It was sloppy in places admittedly especially when Tony re-enacted the table scene with just the three of them. Would never had worked.
I do understand that and the film is a lot of fun. It's definitely more watchable than some of the others on the list but I just couldn't. Not with the high-diving clown.
You are right about "The Alphabet Murders". I wondered if it would make your list or if it had already slid into obscurity. A 1960 horrid attempt to mix Christie with humor, Hollywood version of sixty mentality and Pink Panther stylistics.
@@summationgathering Older people look at it differently as we know what they were trying for. They were hoping for a series of films like the Margret Rutherford series. She has a very short cameo in the movie to let us know this was to be a successor.
I have to disagree about the worst "Marple" episode. It has to be Sleeping Murder! That was a complete travesty of the original novel. Thank goodness for the Joan Hickson version. Apart from that one omission, I agree with your choices.
Joan Hickson has to be the definitive Miss Marple, she’s the embodiment of what you picture in your head when you read the book. Same for Suchet as Poirot - simply impossible to improve upon in my opinion.
Okay, so when that bizarre Sparkling Cyanide "adaptation" came out, Britain was having a Cultural Moment/tabloid obsession about the wives and girlfriends of Footballers. This was partially fuelled by ITV's own drama series Footballers' Wives which was melodramatic as all hell. (Example: The mistress and the wife of a footballer have a baby at the same time. The mistress' baby dies and passes off the corpse as the wife's child). So, Sparkling Cyanide was a very transparent attempt at ITV trying to keep their Footballer's Wives audience when it wasn't airing.
Indeed - Sarah Ph fundamentally misunderstands AC. They chose her as ‘they’ meant - misguidedly - to add an ‘edge’ to AC - they imagined that’s what modern audiences wanted - and she was thought to fit the bill. And what a dreadful woman -listen to Phelps pontificating!
She has outright stated that she never read Christie before her first adaptation (which was the excellent And Then There Were None). She also stated she writes the way Christie wishes she could have. First of all, how would she know that when she never read Christie. Second, Christie wrote what she wanted and if she didn't write something it was because she didn't want to.
@@summationgathering A deliberate misconception. They suddenly decided Agatha Christie needed ‘roughing up’ as well as ‘sexing up’. As that’s what modern audiences wanted - which is more nonsense.
@@58christiansful Agreed. Modern audiences don't always want that and certainly when when adapting something that didn't contain that in the first place. And Christie isn't as sexless as I think people apparently believe.
Your #2 "Agatha Christie: Nemeis" was directed by, of all people, Nicholas Winding Refn. NOT somebody I would have ever expected to direct a Christie adaptation.
I have always been surpries of how bad and strange many ITV Marple adaptions are, like even with the Poirot one they didn't get so over the top with their changes, with the exeption of Appointment with death and Cards on the table, the other ones are generaly more loyal to the original stories. Like they were obsess in the marple series to add to much to the stories to the point they just don't work anymore. Also, I do think it would be interesting if you make a list of some adaptation that did work better that their original stories.
I do love the ITV adaptations of A Murder Is Announced, Ordeal by Innocence, and At Bertram’s Hotel. With the last one the tacked-on subplot (Nazis fleeing justice) actually works, or at least it did for me.
@@CanadianMonarchist I like the Ordeal by Innocence one for sure and I think At Bertram's Hotel is fine with the Nazi subplot. It needed to be changed around quite a bit. I'm not sure I needed the twins thing tho.
Appointment with Death is a great Christie story, but the adaptation is extremely disappointing. In my opinion, they could’ve found a way to merge the ending from the book and the ending from the play. The film adaptation changed so much that I could only watch it once and I’ll never watch it again.
Great list, sometimes I feel ITV Marple is given a pass just because Miss Marple was played by famous actresses, but you didnt and thank god for that. Secret of Chimneys, really felt such waste because they had a great cast but they really murdered the plot(even my 5year old nephew could see what was going on)
I shudder to think what the next Miss Marple adaptations will look like because I actually think they have the potential to be much worse than the ITV version.
@@summationgathering yea i am a bit conflicted about that on one hand, like you I shudder that a new series would be more bowlderized but also I think Miss Marple is due a new adaption.
@@Jassa_9393 I do think Miss Marple is due for a new adaptation but I fear they will probably make her younger and "sexier". She's a commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted detective already and I think the potential to go way off is there. The recent adaptations of Christie have not been restrained in any way.
@@summationgathering you are so right when you say Miss Marple is the most understood. The most common example of it being the continuing belief on part of majority of the public that Jessica Fletcher is the American Miss Marple.(She clearly isnt as you so aptly point out in your recent video)
@@Jassa_9393 There are similarities but they are mostly surface level (their age, their nieces and nephews, their home towns). Personality wise, they couldn't be more different. The public largely identifies Miss Marple as that old lady who solved mysteries. And this sort of gets transformed into a grandmotherly figure. They totally miss character work at play. I can always tell who has read Miss Marple and who hasn't.
I don't think it's worse than Appointment with Death but it is bad. I actually had like #29 I think when I ranked all the novel adaptations from the series. I have since lowered it to second to last just above Appointment with Death. I actually forgot how bad it is.
@@summationgathering And it is a shame because Cards starts well and all the characters look right. They could have made it work had they had a good script writer.
Oddly enough imho - if one hasn’t read the novel, which is not one of Christie’s masterpieces - there is a kind of gothic horror which unifies some of the weaknesses of the original. As such, to me, it stands on its own. And surprisingly modern for 2009. The world around us today shows that it’s not inconceivable that the grim elements have a contemporary resonance.
Why Didn’t They Ask Evans was an atrocity. I had to watch it three times to figure out what happened and then when I re-read the book, I wondered why they bothered. A waste of some really good actors, including Samantha Bond.
Many of these I had the pleasure not to see. 🙄 Unfortunately I was exposed to Sara Phelps’ adaptations. They were literally too gross for me. What makes Christie’s novels work is her suggestion of darkness lurking under. I read Christie voraciously in the 70s and 80s and quite enjoyed the big films of Peter Ustinov and Albert Finney even though Ustinov admitted he didn’t play Poirot as written. The screenplays were solid and relatively faithful to the novels (except for a couple of movies being set in contemporary times) and the acting was good. In the 80s I enjoyed Partners in Crimes and Why didn’t they ask Evans because of the wonderful chemistry between Francesca Annie and James Warwick. David Suchet and Joan Hickson are my favorite Poirot and Marple but I had to stop watching them because the producers changed too much. Endings like A Pocketful of Rye were deeply unsatisfying and they shoehorned every Poirot episode in the 1930s when some of them very definitely didn’t belong. They butchered the 1950s novel Hickory Dickory Death and removed any traces of where Christie had attempted to address racial politics in Britain in the 50s. I don’t mind some adaptations being moved to the present-day but moving them to another historical period makes for weird plot gaps. . Suchet and Hickson were marvelous but in the end, they weren’t enough.
Sarah Phelps claimed that she makes her adaptations in the way Christie wishes she could have but couldn't because of the time in which she lived. This is such nonsense. Imagine saying you know more about what the author wanted than the author herself. And I understand why the Suchet series set all the episodes in the 1930s because they wanted continuity especially since they didn't film the books in order. I think Taken at the Flood is the one most adversely effected by the change in time.
There are very few adaptations of Christie novels that I actually like. The most recent ones seem pretentious to me and overlong. I hate McEwan as Marple. I like Suchet but many of the Poirot movies are too long - I like the early one hour episodes better. I love Rutherford. I enjoyed Ustinov. I liked the USSR version of None… Recently, I did enjoy watching the very flawed mordernized version of Murder is Easy with the likeable Bill Bixby. I liked the TV movies with Helen Hayes. Thank you for the video!
I have not been a fan of many of the recent adaptations either. I thought the Murder is Easy one was fine. I have high hopes for the upcoming Seven Dials Mystery and Towards Zero adaptations.
Sittaford Mystery was absolute trash.. Have never seen anything so bad. Murder is Easy was also awful. Hated all the Branagh garbage and everything Sarah Phelps does. What is wrong with her?? I actually liked the Marple Pale Horse. And I liked the Murder is Easy campy Olivia de Havilland Bill.Bixby version.
The Olivia de Havilland Murder is Easy is the best adaptation of that story and I think it's okay at best. In retrospect, I do wish I put the Sittaford Mystery on this list. I stand by not doing so because I refuse to consider that an adaptation of the book but its definitely worse than Alphabet Murders.
I think _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_ adaptation with Suchet is pretty bad. I'm going to go against the common wisdom in that I think doing it more like the book would have been fine.
@@summationgathering I hate it so much, although I admit I'm influenced by my love of the book and that I feel it gives the ending away without taking you down the road to it, essentially "spoiling" the book but not allowing the viewer the chance to solve the mystery.
The best miss marple was Joan hickson
Absolutely! Hickson is the epitome of the character.
Oh for sure. Not even close.
The best Miss Marple was June Whitfield.
I like Geraldine McEwan best.
I can’t praise Hickson’s portrayal of Miss Marple highly enough! I once read that Joan Hickson played a role in Christie’s stage adaptation of “Appointment With Death,” and Christie said she’d love for Hickson to play Jane Marple some day. She got her wish, but alas it was not until about ten years after Christie had died.
………Joan Hickson’s portrayal of Marple was spot on, in every film/series’………loved her acting!
An icon!
I , unfortunately, sadly, saw the Kenneth Branagh adaption of Death on the Nile. The problems with the film are many; here are two examples. The spectacular overuse of obvious CGI and the fact that the boat seems to be the size of large luxury liner!!
I was also confused by the boat because it is a plot point that the boat is small so we know all the characters and Simon can move around freely. And the CGI was bad. I believe they filmed the entire movie in England which was an odd choice. I don't recall any other major adaptations doing that.
@@summationgathering I rewatched the older ones after current and BOI they didn't cut any corners, the panoramas and landscapes of Egypt in the version with Peter Ustinov, Lois Chiles, Olivia Hussey and Jane Birkin... of course they couldn't replicate a drunk Angela Lansbury in any other versions, but surprisingly, the TV version with Suchet and lesser known actors was also good, did this one change their route to fit more landmarks? I liked Emma Griffiths' Jaqueline (who was in Marple's They Do It with Mirrors) more in it than obviously psycho Mia Farrow. Casting kind of spoiled it...
Why would you take a setting that's based on exploring Egypt and film it in some London studio, not even Morocco or other usual stand-ins (Libya, Tunis)?
I was also disappointed with how they changed the character of Salome. They could have made her and her daughter Black but kept her as she is in the book and other adaptations. You’re able to both see the humour and the tragedy in her character, particularly after Rosalie reveals she has fallen into depression with the decline of her book sales.
Also his Poirot seems so...lacking in grey cells. His mistaken deductions come across as a jumping to conclusions on his part rather than Poirot trying to lure the real culprit into a false sense of security.
Agree. That movie was horrid.
I really like the Margret Rutherford Miss Marple films. . They have a certain charm. And it's a nice change from the overproduced and super expensive costume dramas. The one thing that really irritated me on the Branagh Death on the Nile was the music clearly based on Sister Rosetta Tharpe, but she got no mention in credits. In Appointment with Death (1988) the Qumran excavations did not take place until after the declaration of israel. So the setup is historically impossible,
I also like the Rutherford films because they are charming. I don't necessarily think they are "good" films but definitely enjoyable.
@@summationgathering Enjoyable without being Christie, basically. And always roping in Rutherford's husband, Stringer Davis - an old English actor who couldn't find work on the basis of his own talent: which didn't make him a bad actor, but the parts he played in those films really weren't necessary.
@@summationgatheringTo me if they’re enjoyable, they are good.
The only Joan Hickson Marple adaptation I have issues with is "Pocketful of Rye". NOT because of Joan Hickson, but because they decided they needed to make the ending more formula "exciting".
The later adaptation with Julia McKenzie leaves the original book ending in place, and it's very satisfying. Though not as satisfying as it would have been with Joan Hickson if they had stayed with the real ending, of course. :)
There's just something so delicious about the murderer getting trapped by a photo his victim secretly snapped of him...rather than killed by a silly auto crash.
I just wish there were less sex in the Julia McKenzie Pocket Full of Rye.
Oh I forgot about that ending! I don't know if it ruins the whole episode but its definitely bizarre. Reminds me a lot of those early Poirot episodes that always ended in a car chase.
I don't like it when they insert Poirot or Miss Marple into stories in which they didn't appear in the first place. Also when they try to stretch out a short story into a full-length show. I can read some stories faster than they can put them on the screen. Some of the old-time radio shows did them justice without adding extra previously non-existent flourishes.
The radio shows are underrated as a medium. I enjoy them.
Same here. I kept feeling something was off on one of Suchet'sshows and then I realized it was because
Thaaaaaaank you for including Appointment with death. That was so painful to watch with the family being like "oh this book is really good, let's check out the ep"
The book is really good. I'll never understand how the show wound up with this product from what they had to work with.
@@summationgathering the book is really good? Tbh, I've not been able to read the book because I saw this horrible adaptation. I trust your judgement so I'll give it a shot.
Btw, The Murderer is a Fox was amazing. What a twist!
@@nonadeplume1145 The book Appointment with Death is very different from the Suchet adaptation. And I'm glad you liked The Murderer is a Fox. SPOILER FOR ANYONE WHO HASNT READ THAT BOOK YET. But I am not bothered by the fact it wasn't murder. I know people get angry when the death isn't a murder but it doesn't bother me at all.
I’m a bit aghast that at least the Branagh version of Death in the Nile didn’t make the list. I hated that adaptation with every fibre of my being.
I don't think that's even the worst Branagh film. It's not good though.
I can’t stand Branagh. He acts like he is consciously trying to be the new Olivier. He ain’t!
@@nativevirginian8344How I agree! He shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near Agatha Christie's novels - he destroys them.
As do I.
@@nativevirginian8344 Agreed, fervently.
The Margaret Rutherford versions are some of my favorites. She is fabulous. And Mr. Stringer is a gem!
"Frank Stallone is not the best part of anything" genuinely made me burst out laughing.
I think both Geraldine McEwan and Juliet McKenzie are terrible Miss Marples (maybe the shadow of Joan Hickson is just too deep for those like me who imprinted on those Marples), but I feel SORRY for Juliet McKenzie in a way I don't McEwan. Nemesis aside, it's just that McKenzie is given so much CRAP. I mean, what the hell is anyone to do with the "quality" of material she got? At least McEwan didn't get the tranche of "We're out of Marple stories, so let's just shoehorn her in to some of the standalones" McKenzie was burdened with.
The Suchet Appointment with Death is just so nasty. Even Poirot is nasty and almost hateful at times. I really, really hated it.
David Suchet talks about how much he didn't like the Appointment with Death episode and it was apparently going to be the last episode before they decided that they could do the entire series. I understand why the ITV Marple is so different because the Joan Hickson ones were there so they had to do something different.
I recently tried to watch the Malkovich Hercule Poirot mini-series - truly appalling, misanthropic, slow-moving, 21st century rubbish with an 40s overcoat.
NB: I usually love John Malkovich!
I didn't think Malkovich was that bad as Poirot but the miniseries is not good. It didn't make the list because there are worse adaptations of the ABC Murders.
@@summationgathering I agree, Malkovich did what he could with what he was given to work with. But it was just such a joyless exercise. Even the colour pallette was dreary. And, I confess, I only watched the first episode. I just didn't have the stomach for any more, so you will know better than me what it was like overall!
I like the Malkovich ABC Murders just because the changes made to up the GRIMNESS are so bizarre and overthetop, it becomes camp. The viewing experience is one long series of screaming "What?!" and "Why?!" at the screen.
@@vulpes82 You've summed the viewing experience up perfectly - except I didn't like it! 😁 Maybe it just wasn't what I was expecting.
We've been getting grim, stilted Christie tv adaptions for decades, where more attention is paid to the costume and scenery than the script. I call them "Aspidistra productions".
@@Old_Scot Oh, I don't think anyone was expecting it! Heh. And I think grim worked so, so well with And Then There Were None that they keep chasing that high, and it just doesn't work. Christie is dark, or can be, but in just a completely different way.
Wonderful analysis. Insightful and thoughtful. So appreciated. Such fun.
Thanks!
Kenneth Branaugh is Poirot in name only , makes him so different than the wonderful stories !
I'm surprise that Roger Ackroyd adaptation was mention in the dishonorable one, mainly because the form in which they decided to narrate the story truly kill a lot of the mystery, or at least for me. Also the thing of making the sister discover everything and then try to help his brother was just strange for me.
Also, I do agree with you that Sarah do tend to put to much "edgyness" in to her adaptation to a point were this movies just don't work anymore
I'm a little more forgiving of Roger Ackroyd adaptations because of the difficulty in adapting it but you are absolutely correct.
The big problem I have with Suchet's *Appointment With Death* , despite REALLY enjoying it, is that the mystery aspect of the episode plays second fiddle to the drama. There are so few clues presented that could lead you to the correct answer that it feels like the episode CHEATS.
Granted, its not the only adaptation with Suchet that does this. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, the book that arguibly elevated Christie to stardom, is also butchered in this version of Poirot.
That said, Suchet's version of Poirot is still the most consistent. Especially with books/short stories that have relatively few or no adaptations where even the changes they made are sometimes an *upgrade* (Three Act Tragedy, The Clocks, Five Little Pigs, Dead Man's Mirror, Hallowe'en Party etc.)
It's even odder because at the time it was filmed, production thought there was a good chance Appointment with Death would be the final episode and they still did all this.
The plot twist in Murder in Mesopotamia. ??
I'm actually too embarrassed to reveal what
it is... 😳 !
I adore the Margaret Rutherford films!
I also adore them but I think they get pretty whacky at times. But I do love them.
“Murder at the Gallop” is a blast! The energy, musical score, period charm and even the black and white cinematography are memorable. Unforgettable moment: Margaret Rutherford on the dance floor doing the Twist!
😅 I do, too. I just separate them from Christie's works. They get the biggest pass because of Rutherford. Love her.
The Margaret Rutherford adaptations are eccentric, amusing, and delightful. i would rather watch Margaret Rutherford than Joan Hickson, not because of any fault in Hickson, who was a fine actress, but because her Miss Marple is so smug and annoying.
Same.q
Great analysis! The only one of the films on your list that I've seen is the garbage Ordeal by Innocence adaptation. I was so frustrated by it and you are honestly much more forgiving than I was. Worse, I had watched it right after watching the *excellent* 2015 And Then There Were None series, and it really felt like that's what they were trying to make Ordeal by Innocence, but it just felt so flat. One of my funniest memories of that series is when they tried to make Mickey sexy so they could play up Tina's attraction to him, and they have him lifting his arm in slo-mo with this derpy look on his face 😂
But to me, changing the murderer is an absolute cardinal sin. You don't get to do that in an adaptation, period. The characters in this book and the overall story were written and portrayed perfectly in the book. There was no need to ruin basically every single one of them just because you wanted to make a twist. MAN did they do Gwenda dirty in this one!!
I'm really surprised you didn't give the 2018 ABC Murders at least a Dishonorable Mention. The creepy sex stuff they did with Cust just grossed me out. 🤢 that's the only part of the whole thing I even remember: Lily stepping on Cust's back. They could have done so many interesting things, but no, they went dark and edgy like they always do, and it resulted in a mess that is 'meh' at best and abominable at worst.
I think I did give that ABC Murders a Dishonorable Mention. Yeah, that creepy sex stuff was really just awful and cringey. I still think Alphabet Murders is the worst adaptation of that story. In theory, I don't mind changing the murderer but I have yet to see an adaptation that does so well. I like the possibilities of seeing a new murderer but no one has done it well outside of video games but that's really a different medium. The ABC Murders game has both the original ending and then you can play through with different characters as the murderer. It's fun, not super fun.
You kind of mentioned it but mostly in the context that it wasn't as bad as some others. But I admit I didn't notice it. Lol
That does sound fun though. I like that idea. But like you said, it's a different medium. Changing fundamental aspects of the plot is usually a bad idea imo, and the murderer is basically the most fundamental aspect of any mystery plot.
I mean, Christie has changed the murderer in adapting a play before, but it is jarring when someone else does it.
I so agree!
I, for one, did enjoy the ITV Miss Marple adaptation of Nemesis, somehow 😅 Maybe it was seeing Raymond and his aunt partnering up for once? It's a cringey episode for sure, but it charmes me in a way. I really hate their adaptation of Murder is Easy, though. It feels unneccessarily hostile towards people with disabilities, sexual abuse victims and women in general.
That being said, though I don't agree with everything, I genuinely enjoyed this video! :)
Thanks! Always glad to hear differing opinions!
@@summationgathering _Nemesis_ and _Sleeping Murder_ (very similar books) should be easy adaptations, but they always want to mess it up. Let's get rid of Gwenda's husband. Let's bring in nuns. Let's kill off the innocent imprisoned guy instead of trying to clear a living person. I don't know what they're thinking. My one weird thing I'd like to see in an adaptation of _Sleeping Murder_ is to write Miss Marple out and replace her with the Beresfords, so you would have the younger couple and the older couple. (This seems only fair since Marple has horned in on at least one of their book adaptations.) Although it would be great to see someone do justice to it with Marple first.
Very happy with your take on The Sittaford Mystery. I wish that one would be done in keeping with the original story.
It's never been done in English but I believe it has in some foreign languages. I haven't seen those, however, so I cannot give an opinion on their quality.
I just discovered your channel, and it looks like you have a lot of really fascinating videos, so I’m looking forward to watching them.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of that adaptations on your bottom 10, but I still enjoyed your commentary. It’s kind of interesting to think about what makes an adaptation good or bad.
However, I was disappointed that you included The Seven Dials Mystery and Why Didn’t They Ask Evans? in your dishonorable mentions. Back in the 80s, I was introduced to Agatha Christie adaptations through those two, and while I don’t say your criticism is completely off base, I enjoyed them a lot and thought the writing, casting, production, etc., were good. The ending of Why Didn’t They Ask Evans, though true to Christie, is disappointing, but it was fun getting there. The Seven Dials Mystery has a truly surprising ending, in which almost everything you believed turns out to be wrong, and the Earth almost seems to shift on its axis. Anyway, those are my opinions.
Thanks again.
I'm definitely higher on the Seven Dials Mystery and Why Didn't They Ask Evans 80s adaptations now. I don't think they should be honorable mentions tbh. My issue with them is that they are almost too faithful and drag on a little bit. I maintain that is true but I would put a lot less focus on this now. I'm actually working on a big project on ranking every Christie adaptation ever and I did move those two up quite a bit on the list. They are out of dishonorable mention territory.
I’m glad you’ve reconsidered your opinion, and I look forward to seeing your list. That’s a HUGE undertaking!
@@kkitao217 It is. It's going to be a while. I have to track down all these foreign language adaptations with subtitles. I've never seen Christie in Estonian before.
"Frank Stallone is the best part of nothing." 😂😂😂
Appreciate the list. Now I know which ones to avoid but I know me, I'd probably watch them anyway. It feels like you drank the glass of cyanide so we didn't have to. Great video.
Thank you! Some of these are still fun to watch and comment on but they are not good.
My least favorite adaptation is and always will be 'Cards on the Table'. The novel is just brilliant, and the film- well, is just not, despite the cast, despite the very decent first act. But the ending killed everything for me, especially the fact that someone believed it was a good idea to add some more suspects thus killing THE THING of the book. ITV's 'Murder is Easy' is a close second, but mostly because I was really disgusted by the fact that they replaced a killed bird with a murdered boy.
Yeah, Cards on the Table is pretty bad as well. I forgot about that one but I don't think I'd put it in the top ten. Should have been a dishonorable mention.
Also the switch in . . . [redacted] annoyed me.
@@HuntingViolets ah, yes. If I'm getting it right, it annoyed me to no end.
@@lefuetthebaron1483 You probably are.
I completely agree about “Murder is Easy!” The entire storyline about Lavinia’s brother was disturbing and horrifying, and for no seeming reason other than shock value! I remember feeling horrid after watching it when it first aired. I revisited it a couple years back, just to see if I felt any different about it. I still loathed the ending! And it’s a shame, because the cast was great (well, other than Bridget’s actress; she tried…).
I love the Margaret Rutherford films but I don't consider them adaptations. Perhaps "inspired by" is the best way to describe them. I think Margaret Rutherford's charm and bubbly personality saved the films from being horrible.
The BBC Partners in Crime and Malkovich ABC murders were awful, and so was Branag's Orient Express which put me off watching any of his subsequent films.
Your list is very good, i.e. I agree with it. :D What I don't understand about Nemesis is why they made it before The Caribbean Mystery (where Marple befriends the wealthy guy).
There was a rights issue with A Caribbean Mystery that also effected the Hickson versions. I believe the Christie estate owns the rights to it now but Christie's grandson sold it to other people at some point. I don't think the Malkovich ABC Murders is that bad. And I also like the Rutherford films but I wouldn't say they are good.
Thanks for the video. It's funny because I actually enjoyed Sparkling Cyanide, Why didn't they ask Evans? and Nemesis as stand alones if u ignore the books. I think any ones that change the murderer really get my goat though
I will say in Nemesis's favor, I can actually through it which I cannot say for some of the others. When adaptations change the murderer, I do get interested in seeing how they pull it off or what the story would be like if so-and-so did it but then the results are usually trainwrecks.
"Frank Stallone is the best part of nothing." Ouch.
Another very entertaining and thought-provoking video. Thanks! All of my least favorite adaptions made the list, and I was reminded of a couple I had forgotten that I disliked.
I gave up on the Tony Randall one after 10 minutes, so I can't really rate it. So, the one I most despise is "The White Horse." It changed all the parts of the novel I like best (it's not my favorite Christie, but some aspects are ingenious). It made me feel icky, and caused me to hate humanity. It was a waste of excellent production values, pretty actors, and my time. I give it negative 10 Frank Stallones.
I'm glad all your least favorites made the list. I'm surprised at how much of consensus there is.
The more recent versions are just abysmal.
Have you watched the early 1980s adaptations of Agatha Christie by UK LWT (London weekend Television and ITV)? They include: "Why Didn't They Ask Evans", "Secret Adversary", the short stories of "Partners in Crime". The actors were Francesca Annis and James Warwick.
Yes I have. I've started to like those more and more. I always loved Partners in Crime. They get a bit campy bit Annis and Warwick play their parts so well.
Completely agree about #6. I never watched part 2, that surprise sex scene was unnecessary and put me off the rest. Would love for this to be redone, or I will stick to the B&W and BBC radio adaptation.
I feel like Sarah P. can push the shock and dark factor unnecessarily in many of her adaptations. Contrary to popular belief, Christie is not a cozy mystery author. She doesn't shy away from dark and touchy subjects. So no need to add to or embellish.
I love hearing "Christie is not cozy". Music to my ears. Sarah Phelps said an interview she makes the stories Christie wishes she could have written and no. Has she even read a Christie? (I actually dont think she did. I think she said this)
The actor on left side, when you speak of about 2001 Orient Express is Fritz Wepper. From 1969 to 1998 he acted as Harry ( Harald Klein) in tv shows ,Der Kommissar' and , Derrick ', then with his brother in ,Zwei Brüder' for a short time. So before 2001 he acted in three ,crime' tv shows as detective, and a kind of judge ( don' t know english word for Staatsanwalt). In late 2000s/2010s he acted in a fourth ,crime' tv show, as a psychology expert.
He's probably best known to US audiences from the film Cabaret. I wish the US had better access to foreign TV shows because they are very difficult to get here. You can't even pay for them.
Forgotten: His main success after the two TV shows Der Kommissar and Derrick (Fritz Wepper acted in both shows as detective Klein, but the actor who played Inspektor Keller in ,Der Kommissar got cancer, and a new TV show with Inspektor Derrick was created) was a commedy TV show , where he played a rural town mayor, who always tries to betray the nuns of a monastry. A strange thing was, that in very last episodes of ,Der Kommissar ' the character of Harald Klein disdappeared, declaring , in future working with lnspector Derrick, and as substitute, his brother will come. The actor, who was declared as Haralds brother, was also in real life his brother Elmar, who died a short time ago.
The "adaptation" of The Pale Horse was god awful! Not even "bad that is almost funny", like the Stalone movie, but just dry, nonsensical and completely off the mark.
I enjoy bad films that are fun to mock. To me the worst ones are the ones that aren't even that.
Here’s a topic suggestion for a future video…. Why do you think the recent adaptations have been so mid? Suchet was a high point but with everything since it seems like the essence of Christie was lost; guilty pleasures at best. It’s not like we forgot how to make mysteries, original Horowitz books are quite good, and the mid-20th century setting is still popular (I’m partial to Stephen Spotswood). Arguably the best Christie adaptation recently was the meta-modern See How They Run, which of course she didn’t write.
That's a good idea. Without giving it too much thought, I would say its because Christie has been adapted so many times that new adaptations are forced to do something different. I also suspect we're at a point where filmmakers are just using the Christie name for monetary purposes and just want to make their own film no one would see otherwise. There is no point in remaking an adaptation and changing nothing if the original is so iconic. Of course there are many many Christies that have barely been touched (or not at all) where this shouldn't be an issue. See How They Run was good but its about Christie, not a Christie. The most recent adaptation that I thought was good was the Hugh Laurie Why Didn't They Ask Evans? which was fantastic. That might make my top ten best adaptations. The new Murder is Easy was fine. It didn't like or hate it. I also have high expectations for the recently announced Netflix version of The Seven Dials Mystery.
I actually dig the Margaret Rutherford Marple movies.
I like them too but I'm not sure they are "good" but I could watch them again and again.
They are completely out of character though. She was playing herself, not Miss Marple.
Excellent and fun! The other version of “Why Didn’t They Ask Evans” (with James Warwick and John Gielgud) is excellent imho.
Have you seen the new Hugh Laurie one? I thought it was great too!
The Hugh Laurie one was spectacular.
I think it's a little dry tbh but certainly not bad.
I love it too. It is a background movie I put on now and then. Need to see latest Why Didn't They...
I’m so shocked you think McKenzie is the better Marple. I feel like she is far too dour and captures none of Marple’s unassuming twinkle. She gives school ma’am and book Marple is NEVER that imo.
I think Geraldine McEwan gets a bit carried away sometimes. I understand what you mean about Julie McKenzie though. I will say when I read Miss Marple I usually picture Geraldine McEwan or Joan Hickson but never Julia McKenzie.
McEwan wildly overacts as Miss Marple. What on earth was she thinking? Though to be fair, she matches the sometimes bizarre scripts.
But as you say, McKenzie is dour, schoolmarmish, and unmemorable. Both actresses were miscast. Neither comes to mind as a gently bred, upper-middle class spinster. Maybe McEwan is a little closer.
The problem I have with Julia McKenzie’s Miss Marple is that she’s too fit and active! I know the Miss Marple of the books practically just sat in a chair knitting all the time, and that would be boring in the extreme on TV, but she still has to be an elderly lady! Joan Hickson was perfect.
She was the worst by far.
It’s nice to see the list topper isn’t one of the recent adaptations. Never seen it but if it’s worse than Nemesis I’ll take a pass.
I think Alphabet Murders is more watchable than Nemesis tbh. It's definitely more ridiculous and outrageous
I might have put the Anthony Andrews Sparkling Cyanide on the list (terrible choice of Rosemary) and have long held that the worst thing Angela Lansbury ever did was when Miss Marple smoked a cigarette. A DM for The Pale Horse feels about right; Pauline Collins might have been just enough to save it.
Of all the novels into which Miss Marple was inserted, why did they leave out Crooked House, which would have been a nearly seamless fit making Miss de Haviland an old gardening chum?
I wondered whether it would be Sleeping Murder or Nemesis on the list as soon as you mentioned The Secret of Chimneys. Maybe having both would have been overkill.
I wavered a lot on which Sparkling Cyanide to include. I completely forgot about Miss Marple smoking a cigarette. I wish I mentioned that. Crooked House would have been a good one to insert Miss Marple into and it had not yet been adapted when the show was running. I never understood why they didn't do more of the short stories because the two they did were actually very good.
@@summationgathering Which short shories they did adapted?
@@El-Hugger They did the Blue Geranium and Greenshaw's Folly (which they combined with the Thumbmark of St. Peter). Technically the Endless Night adaptation is the short story The Case of the Caretaker which was a lost short story Christie expanded into Endless Night.
Lol, and all this time I thought it was a JOINT that Miss Marple was sucking on in that movie, especially coz of how she holds it and how she sucks on it. The first time I saw her doing this, I laughed so hard I choked on my tea.
There have been some truly dreadful Christie "adaptations" - usually featuring horribly miscast actors, struggling with leaden scripts: neither Geraldine McEwan nor Julia Mackenzie (spelling almost certainly wrong) were anything like the Marple of the books - and the former didn't even seem to be trying. The Poirots have been fairly bad - I hadn't seen Tony Randall in the part, and he'd be about the last actor I'd have chosen to play him. Ustinov was far too big, lumbering, and played Ustinov with a cod French accent. In this, he was like Margaret Rutherford, who also played herself, sometimes amusingly, but never convincingly - you could like the two characters as people, without thinking they had any place in a Christie film.
When you throw in poor editing and script decisions - I agree with your criticisms of all of these films - you get a disastrous mish-mash. It has to be said that Christie wrote too much, and the quality varied; her best was very good, her worst was probably unfilmable (not that this stopped people from trying to film it). She couldn't do international spy type novels - they were without exception dross, and the films made from them (I think I have The Secret Adversary in mind) were bad beyond comprehension. Since Joan Hickson and David Suchet (apart from the one disaster you mention) were uniformly good, I wonder if the actors themselves didn't have some pull with the script writers, stopping them from making egregiously stupid mistakes - though Albert Finney, Branagh, and Cumberbatch weren't able to rescue their performances from the liberties directors seemed determined to take.
The thing is, as actors or writers, you have to take Christie seriously - not as a fly-by-night trifle in which you try to inject humour, of a kind, or deep philosophical meanings, which are rarely that deep, which Christie didn't offer herself. She's just not suited to the blockbuster approach, the star vehicle, the would-be comedy: her speciality was the domestic, the eccentric in a genuine sense, not wide-eyed bonkers; the puzzle of the books was the important thing - the characters were there to carry it. When directors didn't understand that, they invariably produced complete turkeys.
I've long suspected Geraldine McEwan got cast precisely because the production wanted these zany and ridiculous plots and McEwan was someone who would just go along with it. Her bad performance is a symptom of production. I think Ustinov and Rutherford bring an inaccurate and crazy approach that I think makes them enjoyable but not particularly faithful. I don't think Christie is that difficult to adapt - generally speaking certainly some books are - but many people do not understand Christie. She goes beyond just a murder mystery writer and I think when filmmakers take that approach, they miss out. In particular, the characterization is very off which causes a lot of issues even if the actual plot is faithful.
I actually liked the Peter Ustinov versions of Poirot. A little bit cheesy but pretty true to the books compared to what's come out since. I watched all the David Suchet versions but wouldn't rave. They change a whole lot, but at least the original stories were still recognisable. Re Miss Marple, the old originals with Margaret Rutherford were fun, and I saw somewhere that Agetha Christie liked her. I'm open to correction on that though. I liked Joan Hickson best. McKeown just came across as sinister Muss Marple. A bit creepy. Julia McKenzie was ok but forgettable.
Yeah, I'd have to double check but I think the story is that Christie liked Margaret Rutherford but hated the films. Christie dedicated the Mirror Crack'd to her.
Hello was waiting for this!😊
Hope you enjoyed it!
How many times have Ordeal By Innocence been filmed?
I think it's 1 film from the 80s. The Marple adaptation, the 2018 miniseries and the French TV series version. The French one is the best.
I like how your reaction to Branagh's Poirot isn't hostile but "oh it exists... and has... good production value", my friend watched those movies and I made them see Death on the Nile with Ustinov, and he's going through entire series with Suchet now, but a lot of people wouldn't know these stories if not for modern "reboot" of sorts, so I am glad it exists, even if Gal Gadot made me psychically cringe and it was the worst adaptation of DotN I've seen (Express was okay if only for Michelle Pfeiffer chewing the scenery).
I'm also glad for any new adaptations because they still work to get people into Christie, even if people are buying books called A Haunting in Venice and wind up confused. And I will always watch any Christie adaptation.
@@summationgathering absolutely! I remember when Orient Express was remade, I had people message me "hey have you seen that movie, it has such a twist", and I was like, no, but I know the story it had many adaptations before.
I will forever stand by the opinion, that Michelle Pfeiffer was the best Mrs Hubbard. The only one, who managed to capture both the humour and the tragedy of the character that's in the text. I can forgive Branagh's Orient Express a lot, if only it gave us Michelle Pfeiffer's Mrs Hubbard.
@@Sebastian-lw5qb The performances are not the problem with Kenneth Branagh films. I find the acting to be pretty good actually.
@@Sebastian-lw5qb Miaou! ♥ She is ALWAYS the cattiest out there.
The ‘89 /Ten Little Indians/ was my introduction to that plot. Saw it first when I was … thirteen? I will probably always have a soft spot for it.
Excellent video.
I'd have included the appalling adaptation of By the Pricking of my Thumbs.
I was trying to limit the number of Marple adaptations on the list. I dont think By the Pricking of My Thumbs is that bad. I hate what they did to Tommy/Tuppence though.
Why is it so hard to adapt The Pale Horse? 😢
My guess is that filmmakers go all in on the weirdness of it which I think is missing the forest for the trees. There are 3 adaptations of this in English and none of them are good. I haven't seen the French adaptation yet.
It should be fairly straightforward. I notice adapters don't want to adapt closely even when they can easily do so -- they aren't being "creative" then, I guess.
It's a dark book, maybe that's the difficulty. It's been years since I read it, it left me with a very unsettling feeling.
What hubris! People who think they can write Agatha Christie stories. I despise the two later Marples, they are mostly not Christie stories at all. The Joan Hickson films were the best.
Joan Hickson is absolutely the best Miss Marple and it's not even close tbh.
To be honest, I haven't seen or read many on this list so I will defer to your judgment, but I do have to say I have a soft spot in my heart for the Angela Lansbury version of The Mirror Crack'd. I thoroughly hated the Alfred Molina version of MOTOE, and you completely right about Ten little Indians at number 3. It's one of my favorite books but nearly every time when it's adapted they change the ending. I can think of 1 exception but that's all.
TBH, I feel like maybe I should have put that MOTOE on the list. I thought it would make but then I rewatched it and I thought it was alright. It was better than I remembered so that may have done it.
Not my favorite either. She was too young to play it, and she didn’t fit the character otherwise.
About Appointment with Death, this is one that I wish would be remade because both major adaptations totally miss the mark.
I find the 1988 film to be a pretty faithful depiction of the mystery, but a wreck in most other ways. Tonally it's bizarre the opening plays like a travelogue with the Boynton family on a jolly holiday through Europe all with a plodding, sappy soundtrack sounds off in the background. Does the movie not realize this is an abusive woman who keeps her children in a prison-like web? There's a recurring feeling of a humorous tone being jammed into this mystery; several of the Ustinov Poirot films are humorous, but I feel like this is the movie where it's least appropriate. The cast is impressive, but it doesn't amount to much; most of them are either directionless or don't match their characters.
I have to disagree with you pretty thoroughly about the lack of production value in the Suchet adaptation. Not only are the sets, costuming, and camerawork all extremely well-done, the use of music in this version is just spectacular. The Middle Eastern incidental music sets the atmosphere throughout wonderfully and the use of Dido's Lament when the body is found might just be the most dramatic in the whole series! There's a sense of mystery, intrigue, and solemnity throughout.
Where it fails, as you mentioned, is the mystery and the motive for the murder. The "I've never forgotten anything" line and its meaning was the most interesting element from the source material and without it, the story loses something. The callback to the pregnant servant from the book is cool, but by keeping the resolution (the guilty party commits suicide), the adaptation spoils the psychology of the murderer: "Our darling daughter, we couldn't bear to let the woman who physically scarred you live. So now that that's done, we're going to emotionally scar your by killing ourselves in front of you rather than face a life sentence in prison where you could potentially interact with and create a relationship with us. Yep, this is better." What parent would do this to their child?! Let's be real: they weren't motivated by love for Ginevra, they were motivated by revenge against Boynton.
I can understand you being vexxed by the character changes; they don't add much of anything. The false nun is used as a counter to Poirot's Catholicism, I suppose. Ms. Pierce's suggestibility, is kept in a way in the form of Dr. Gerard drugging Nanny Taylor and then planting the idea that she drown herself. However, it's not as interesting this way.
As for the actors, it's certainly not the best use of Tim Currey, but I still don't think he's wasted. His scene in the tomb discussing John the Baptist with Poirot is compelling; I love how it was shot, I love both him and Suchet exchanging stories in whispered tones. Elizabeth McGovern is not Lauren Bacall, but then again, no one is. Despite that, she holds her own in this role and gives a ranged performance. Her speech about the local human element in any destination might be my favorite part in the whole movie.
So here we are: one adaptation that is faithful to the mystery but spoils the tone, and another with high production values and a lushly created tone that stumbles with the mystery. Maybe a new adaptation could someday get both elements right.
To me, the Peter Ustinov one is better but that is not saying much. I always felt the Ustinov one was just sort of phoning it as if they lost interest.
@@summationgathering He captured Poirot's trademark avuncular nature, but of all the ones he was in, really I only find "Death on the Nile" to be worth a watch.
@@Unownshipper I like others with Ustinov but Death on the Nile is definitely the best.
While I have lots of contenders for the this list, there isn't an adaptation on here that I would remove. There really are a lot of stinkers out there. And as far as your number one goes, I could not agree more. I grew up watching Tony Randall on "The Odd Couple" and have always loved him, so when I saw he was in an adaptation of the 'ABC Murders' I just had to watch it. Wow, what a disappointment. Thanks for the list, I really enjoyed the video.
The fact that Christie was warned not to watch Alphabet Murders because it would be too upsetting for her, I think goes a long way my decision to put that one first.
As far as I remember Kirsten just had him trapped in an underground cellar/room but I don’t remember her building a wall.
I could be misremembering it or at least maybe I thought the implication was she entrapping him in the wall.
One actress had a small role in one of the Rutherford films, before going on to become the BEST Miss Marple EVER! Her name - Joan Hixon.
She was also in The Seven Dials as a socialite
Murder is Easy is HORRIBLE.
Miss Marple tells a man that a young woman who has just found out she's got a 75% matching DNA with a serial killer and a 75% match with a mentally damaged sex criminal will get over the shock and (it's implied) marry him in time.
Uh, no. With this DNA, she's going to spend her whole life wondering when she's going to turn violent killer. And, birth control being what it was in the 50's, marriage means passing these genes on. So, NO. NEVER happening.
By the way, if I could take this at all seriously, this show would be making the strongest argument ever made against sex ed. Apparently, if you explain it to people, you risk them going out the next day and applying their newfound knowledge. Violently. Without consent.
And . . . I kind of doubt women in the 50's went around mocking an unmarried woman for never having had sex. Wasn't that kind of the societal expectation? And, even if not everybody lived up to it, that was the behavior they made rude comments about. Especially if they were talking about women.
By changing it to the 50's, they set it in a time when penicillin was available and antibiotic resistant diseases were not yet a thing. Try to kill the doctor by infecting his wound and see him recover with a miracle drug--unless you decide to have him forget it's the 50's and that penicillin is now a thing because that would mess up the plot.
Also, I'm sorry, but Miss Marple would have had the whole thing figured out in time for tea.
I couldn't imagine Joan Hickson playing Miss Marple in this.
Great list! For me, it's Helen Hayes as Marple that jars.
I do not like Helen Hayes as Miss Marple. She's probably my least favorite Miss Marple but I think the films overall aren't that bad.
Enjoyed your video very much and agree with your views. The worst adaption of one of Agatha Christies books was to my mind was " The Sign Of The Four"" this ITV version was so far out from the book. David Suchet must have been embarrassed playing this role. By the way David Suchet was Poirot the very best.👍
Thanks! I think you mean the Big Four. Sign of Four is a Sherlock Holmes. But yeah, I didn't like the ITV version but they really were working with a mess to begin with. Suchet - very politely - details how much he didn't really want to make certain episodes but was dedicated to doing them all.
ANY movie adaption of AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (aka 10 LITTLE INDIANS) suck because they keep giving it a happier ending, ugh.
That's the ending Christie gave it when she turned it into a play and its been, for some reason, the popular ending to go with since.
I watched Murder Is Easy before I read it, and had to keep reminding myself that they were supposed to be the same story. There seems to be a strong pull towards incest in the modern adaptations. That's totally unnecessary in my opinion. Agatha Christie can obviously stand the test of time, without modern screenwriters adding their own twisted plots.
A few of the modern produces/writers/etc who adapted Christie have this false idea that Christie would have written about all this stuff if she could have which is just completely ridiculous. Christie wrote what she wanted to.
Quick add on. If you ever saw the original "Casino Royale", you would understand the producers thought it was what we wanted.
That was the best Bond film.
Thankfully I haven't seen most of these adaptations, except Appointment With Death. It really annoyed me that they totally changed who the murderer was...I mean why on earth? In the novel it was Lady Something Or Other, who Mrs. Boynton remembered was once a convicted prisoner when she (Boynton) had been a wardress. She blackmailed & tormented her so Lady S killed her. But as you pointed out, in this adaptation it was a doctor and a woman who together were the actual parents of one of Boyntons daughters. All very dramatic but totally different to Christie's novel. I'm of the opinion that any movie which claims to be an adaptation of Christie's novels should be as faithful to the original plot as possible. Otherwise what's the point? 🤔
The series had its own rule that it would never change the murderer nor change the means of murder, both of which it failed here. I suppose you could say they didn't change the murderer since its the same (though very different character) but it also added a new murderer as well.
@@summationgathering Yes good point. I'd forgotten that Lady Whatshername was still the murderer...I kept thinking she was different character. But as you say, her personality and motives were totally different from the novel, plus they brought in an extra murderer. It was certainly a plot twist but I do wish they'd stick to the original Agatha Christie endings! Before I go, thank you for your excellent summations...I've been watching your channel for a while now and you are so good at what you do. Your summations are always fair, balanced, clear and concise. Here's to your reaching 1000 subscribers and beyond! 😊💐
@@janethammond5925 Easy to miss as the character is totally different except in name. And thanks for being a long-time follower! I appreciate it.
Precisely! A couple of these I saw the movie first Then read the book. Could not believe they had the hubris to rewrite Christie to the point they changed the murderer.
The latests adaptations are just crap, Agatha Christie is rolling in her grave for sure
They are just slapping her name on anything and everything before the books enter the public domain.
I didn't even know #1 existed, so that came out of left field for me! Would you say it's so bad that it's good? Or is it just unwatchable?
Also, I think the adaptations I would call the most egregious are the ones that change the character of the detectives - making Miss Marple unkind or too liberally-minded; and I think the ITV episodes gave her some kind of sordid background that I don't clearly remember... and I recall the Branagh Orient Express had Poirot climbing and running all over the place as if he was, like, James Bond or something. Just dumb.
The Alphabet Murders is definitely watchable at least. It's more watchable than some of those Miss Marples.
Yes, Miss Marple had a married lover who died in the war, and Branagh's Poirot had a lost love whose photo he moons over. If you're going to give Poirot a love interest, the Countess Rossakoff is right there. (Although that wasn't good either in the Alfred Molina one.)
It's done by the same production company, which made the Rutherford Marples and it has a similar comedic style. Robert Morley from Murder at the Gallop plays Hastings in here. Franklin Clarke is played by one of the suspects from Murder at the Gallop as well (Rosamund's husband).
Except it's missing all the charm of the Rutherford movies and the humor doesn't work here at all. Margaret Rutherford and Stringer Davis actually have a cameo appearance in it as Miss Marple and Mr Stringer, and it's the best minute of the entire film.
It's not good, but it could have been much worse. According to Mark Aldrige's Poirot book, we almost had what basically seems to be a soft porn version of the ABC Murders and Poirot's character. Instead the randall movie was made, and we dodged a bullet.
@@Sebastian-lw5qb Well...that would have been something.
Somehow, although I've managed to see many of the Dishonorable Mentions, I've only seen a couple of the Top 10. So, speaking only for the ones I've seen, I was disappointed not to see Endless Night on the list. Also, the David Suchet version of Murder on the Orient Express.
You left out SLEEPING MURDER with GM!!!!! That was awwwwwwwful!!! 🤦♀️
Yeah that one is pretty bad. I was trying not to make the whole video Geraldine McEwan.
I recognize the problems with the 2001 Alfred Molina Poirot, but it has a certain charm that makes me come back to it. The number of characters being reduced actually makes it easier to understand, they did a great job adapting the setting to the 21st Century and Alfred Molina is actually very good as a younger, less eccentric Poirot - if only he wasn't so tall and imposing!
I actually don't think its that bad considering the decisions that were made.
I much preferred the 83 version of Sparkling Cyanide. Yes i know it was very Americanised but i thought it played out better.
I've sort of come around to the 83 version so I'm glad I didn't put it on the proper list.
@@summationgathering I'm glad to. For me it's the kind of film you watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. I liked the cast especially Pamela Bellwood. It was sloppy in places admittedly especially when Tony re-enacted the table scene with just the three of them. Would never had worked.
Ironic that you're critiquing Christie adaptations but pronounce Poirot's name completely wrong.
ABC Murders was meant to be a spoof in the fashion of the Pink Panther movies. Ranking it the worst actually misses the point!
I do understand that and the film is a lot of fun. It's definitely more watchable than some of the others on the list but I just couldn't. Not with the high-diving clown.
Ordeal by Innocence (2018) and The Pale Horse (2020) were both monstrosities.
You are right about "The Alphabet Murders". I wondered if it would make your list or if it had already slid into obscurity. A 1960 horrid attempt to mix Christie with humor, Hollywood version of sixty mentality and Pink Panther stylistics.
TBH, I think it is more watchable than some of the others on the list. It's almost so bad, you can't turn your eyes away.
@@summationgathering Older people look at it differently as we know what they were trying for. They were hoping for a series of films like the Margret Rutherford series. She has a very short cameo in the movie to let us know this was to be a successor.
I have to disagree about the worst "Marple" episode.
It has to be Sleeping Murder! That was a complete travesty of the original novel.
Thank goodness for the Joan Hickson version.
Apart from that one omission, I agree with your choices.
Sleeping Murder is definitely bad. I don't like that one either.
Joan Hickson has to be the definitive Miss Marple, she’s the embodiment of what you picture in your head when you read the book. Same for Suchet as Poirot - simply impossible to improve upon in my opinion.
Okay, so when that bizarre Sparkling Cyanide "adaptation" came out, Britain was having a Cultural Moment/tabloid obsession about the wives and girlfriends of Footballers. This was partially fuelled by ITV's own drama series Footballers' Wives which was melodramatic as all hell. (Example: The mistress and the wife of a footballer have a baby at the same time. The mistress' baby dies and passes off the corpse as the wife's child). So, Sparkling Cyanide was a very transparent attempt at ITV trying to keep their Footballer's Wives audience when it wasn't airing.
That makes a lot of sense. I did not know that. Thank you.
Indeed - Sarah Ph fundamentally misunderstands AC. They chose her as ‘they’ meant - misguidedly - to add an ‘edge’ to AC - they imagined that’s what modern audiences wanted - and she was thought to fit the bill. And what a dreadful woman -listen to Phelps pontificating!
She has outright stated that she never read Christie before her first adaptation (which was the excellent And Then There Were None). She also stated she writes the way Christie wishes she could have. First of all, how would she know that when she never read Christie. Second, Christie wrote what she wanted and if she didn't write something it was because she didn't want to.
@@summationgathering A deliberate misconception. They suddenly decided Agatha Christie needed ‘roughing up’ as well as ‘sexing up’. As that’s what modern audiences wanted - which is more nonsense.
@@58christiansful Agreed. Modern audiences don't always want that and certainly when when adapting something that didn't contain that in the first place. And Christie isn't as sexless as I think people apparently believe.
Your #2 "Agatha Christie: Nemeis" was directed by, of all people, Nicholas Winding Refn. NOT somebody I would have ever expected to direct a Christie adaptation.
Well that explains a lot.
I have always been surpries of how bad and strange many ITV Marple adaptions are, like even with the Poirot one they didn't get so over the top with their changes, with the exeption of Appointment with death and Cards on the table, the other ones are generaly more loyal to the original stories. Like they were obsess in the marple series to add to much to the stories to the point they just don't work anymore.
Also, I do think it would be interesting if you make a list of some adaptation that did work better that their original stories.
That's a good idea for a video.
I do love the ITV adaptations of A Murder Is Announced, Ordeal by Innocence, and At Bertram’s Hotel. With the last one the tacked-on subplot (Nazis fleeing justice) actually works, or at least it did for me.
@@CanadianMonarchist I like the Ordeal by Innocence one for sure and I think At Bertram's Hotel is fine with the Nazi subplot. It needed to be changed around quite a bit. I'm not sure I needed the twins thing tho.
Great analysis.
Appointment with Death is a great Christie story, but the adaptation is extremely disappointing. In my opinion, they could’ve found a way to merge the ending from the book and the ending from the play. The film adaptation changed so much that I could only watch it once and I’ll never watch it again.
The ending to the play would have worked great. They wouldn't have had to change the entire story like they did.
Great list, sometimes I feel ITV Marple is given a pass just because Miss Marple was played by famous actresses, but you didnt and thank god for that. Secret of Chimneys, really felt such waste because they had a great cast but they really murdered the plot(even my 5year old nephew could see what was going on)
I shudder to think what the next Miss Marple adaptations will look like because I actually think they have the potential to be much worse than the ITV version.
@@summationgathering yea i am a bit conflicted about that on one hand, like you I shudder that a new series would be more bowlderized but also I think Miss Marple is due a new adaption.
@@Jassa_9393 I do think Miss Marple is due for a new adaptation but I fear they will probably make her younger and "sexier". She's a commonly misunderstood and misinterpreted detective already and I think the potential to go way off is there. The recent adaptations of Christie have not been restrained in any way.
@@summationgathering you are so right when you say Miss Marple is the most understood. The most common example of it being the continuing belief on part of majority of the public that Jessica Fletcher is the American Miss Marple.(She clearly isnt as you so aptly point out in your recent video)
@@Jassa_9393 There are similarities but they are mostly surface level (their age, their nieces and nephews, their home towns). Personality wise, they couldn't be more different. The public largely identifies Miss Marple as that old lady who solved mysteries. And this sort of gets transformed into a grandmotherly figure. They totally miss character work at play. I can always tell who has read Miss Marple and who hasn't.
Surely the Suchet Cards on the Table is as bad if not worse than Appointment?
I don't think it's worse than Appointment with Death but it is bad. I actually had like #29 I think when I ranked all the novel adaptations from the series. I have since lowered it to second to last just above Appointment with Death. I actually forgot how bad it is.
@@summationgathering And it is a shame because Cards starts well and all the characters look right. They could have made it work had they had a good script writer.
@@58christiansful Yeah. At least its recognizable as Cards on the Table.
Oddly enough imho - if one hasn’t read the novel, which is not one of Christie’s masterpieces - there is a kind of gothic horror which unifies some of the weaknesses of the original. As such, to me, it stands on its own. And surprisingly modern for 2009. The world around us today shows that it’s not inconceivable that the grim elements have a contemporary resonance.
Which novel is this?
@@summationgathering nemesis
@@sciagurrato1831 Oh yeah that definitely fits in with gothic horror.
Why Didn’t They Ask Evans was an atrocity. I had to watch it three times to figure out what happened and then when I re-read the book, I wondered why they bothered. A waste of some really good actors, including Samantha Bond.
The series in general often cast big names and then absolutely did not take advantage of them.
I thought that was Tony Randell in number 1. Never saw that movie but I can imagine how bad it was.
It's really bad but in a fun way. I would rather watch it than some of the others on the list.
I know they’re not real adaptations of Christie novels, but I love those Margaret Rutherford Marple movies.
Many of these I had the pleasure not to see. 🙄
Unfortunately I was exposed to Sara Phelps’ adaptations. They were literally too gross for me. What makes Christie’s novels work is her suggestion of darkness lurking under.
I read Christie voraciously in the 70s and 80s and quite enjoyed the big films of Peter Ustinov and Albert Finney even though Ustinov admitted he didn’t play Poirot as written. The screenplays were solid and relatively faithful to the novels (except for a couple of movies being set in contemporary times) and the acting was good.
In the 80s I enjoyed Partners in Crimes and Why didn’t they ask Evans because of the wonderful chemistry between Francesca Annie and James Warwick.
David Suchet and Joan Hickson are my favorite Poirot and Marple but I had to stop watching them because the producers changed too much. Endings like A Pocketful of Rye were deeply unsatisfying and they shoehorned every Poirot episode in the 1930s when some of them very definitely didn’t belong. They butchered the 1950s novel Hickory Dickory Death and removed any traces of where Christie had attempted to address racial politics in Britain in the 50s. I don’t mind some adaptations being moved to the present-day but moving them to another historical period makes for weird plot gaps. .
Suchet and Hickson were marvelous but in the end, they weren’t enough.
Sarah Phelps claimed that she makes her adaptations in the way Christie wishes she could have but couldn't because of the time in which she lived. This is such nonsense. Imagine saying you know more about what the author wanted than the author herself. And I understand why the Suchet series set all the episodes in the 1930s because they wanted continuity especially since they didn't film the books in order. I think Taken at the Flood is the one most adversely effected by the change in time.
The new Kenneth Branagh are terrible adaptations.
Agreed. I have yet to hear anyone say they like them.
That's rather a disgusting way to change Murder is Easy. I can't even imagine thinking that would be a Christie type situation.
I have no idea why they did that either. Adding in Miss Marple could have been so seamless with the story as it was.
Innocent lies is not based on Ordeal by innocence, but on Toward Zero.
Yes it is. For whatever reason I always mix those two up.
I'd have added Cards On The Table but a very good list of duff Christie adaptations
Yeah that one is really bad. I never really thought about how bad that version is. I still don't think it quite makes the list but its a lot closer.
I saw your number one pick on Turner Classic Movies not long ago. It fell into the category of so very, very bad that it was vaguely amusing.
TBH I would rather watch it than some of the others on the list. It's bad but watchable.
Can't wait to watch The Alphabet Murders now 😂
The best thing about the Margaret Rutherford films was the theme tune.
Geraldine McKewan was creepy and sinister as Miss Marple.
I disagree with #6, as I quite enjoyed this adaptation. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with you on #4 and #3.
Always like to hear someone disagree. It's refreshing.
I love all of the adaptations from the Suchet series ❤❤❤
I love 97% of them.
There are very few adaptations of Christie novels that I actually like. The most recent ones seem pretentious to me and overlong. I hate McEwan as Marple. I like Suchet but many of the Poirot movies are too long - I like the early one hour episodes better. I love Rutherford. I enjoyed Ustinov. I liked the USSR version of None… Recently, I did enjoy watching the very flawed mordernized version of Murder is Easy with the likeable Bill Bixby. I liked the TV movies with Helen Hayes.
Thank you for the video!
I have not been a fan of many of the recent adaptations either. I thought the Murder is Easy one was fine. I have high hopes for the upcoming Seven Dials Mystery and Towards Zero adaptations.
Sittaford Mystery was absolute trash.. Have never seen anything so bad. Murder is Easy was also awful. Hated all the Branagh garbage and everything Sarah Phelps does. What is wrong with her?? I actually liked the Marple Pale Horse. And I liked the Murder is Easy campy Olivia de Havilland Bill.Bixby version.
The Olivia de Havilland Murder is Easy is the best adaptation of that story and I think it's okay at best. In retrospect, I do wish I put the Sittaford Mystery on this list. I stand by not doing so because I refuse to consider that an adaptation of the book but its definitely worse than Alphabet Murders.
I think _The Murder of Roger Ackroyd_ adaptation with Suchet is pretty bad. I'm going to go against the common wisdom in that I think doing it more like the book would have been fine.
Funny a few people said that one. I agree it's not good but I never thought of it as bad.
@@summationgathering I hate it so much, although I admit I'm influenced by my love of the book and that I feel it gives the ending away without taking you down the road to it, essentially "spoiling" the book but not allowing the viewer the chance to solve the mystery.
Alpabet murders is just too silly.
Silly is a good way to describe it in one word.
I hated most of the Miss Marple series, except for the original Miss M actor. Later episodes too Woke.
You're not alone in that.
Thought I got it wrong was a bit tired.😂
Sarah Phelps does not have a clue!
Amazing how she put out on of the best adaptations in And Then There Were None and then just decided to blow it up with her subsequent attempts.
@@summationgathering she wanted to turn every book into And Then there Were None
@@curtisevans4100 She even admitted once to never having read one of the books she adapted. I think it was the Pale Horse but not totally sure.