En 1933, un inspecteur à la retraite, Hercule Poirot, est la cible d'un tueur moqueur qui envoie des lettres signées "ABC", que Poirot doit décoder afin de découvrir l'identité du meurtrier.En 1933, un inspecteur à la retraite, Hercule Poirot, est la cible d'un tueur moqueur qui envoie des lettres signées "ABC", que Poirot doit décoder afin de découvrir l'identité du meurtrier.En 1933, un inspecteur à la retraite, Hercule Poirot, est la cible d'un tueur moqueur qui envoie des lettres signées "ABC", que Poirot doit décoder afin de découvrir l'identité du meurtrier.
- Prix
- 3 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis en vedette
An excellent production in terms of photography and direction but it wavers in the overall writing and what ends up being stunt casting. Malkovich is barely trying to play Poirot as we know the character because he knows better than to imitate Ustinov or Suchet. So if this wasn't billed as Christie or Poirot it would probably have gotten a better response although it probably wouldn't have been made then.
Since I am not familiar with this particular Christie story I came into it with a different viewpoint. The three episodes are very well thought out until the last episode where it gets all muddled and it seems sort of pointless. Malkovich is mostly playing Malkovich which can be interpreted as acting laziness but he is so good at it, it could be forgiven if this wasn't supposed to be an older Poirot. If this was a PBS Masterpiece Theater mystery offering with a new character it would be all very entertaining but that's it.
Since I am not familiar with this particular Christie story I came into it with a different viewpoint. The three episodes are very well thought out until the last episode where it gets all muddled and it seems sort of pointless. Malkovich is mostly playing Malkovich which can be interpreted as acting laziness but he is so good at it, it could be forgiven if this wasn't supposed to be an older Poirot. If this was a PBS Masterpiece Theater mystery offering with a new character it would be all very entertaining but that's it.
Firstly this is certainly mostly watchable.
Secondly I guess I will be downvoted by some since this is likely an adaption that will create a divide between people who love it or hate it, or at least those who like it a lot or not at all, and I am in the middle.
In short some of the lower reviews are because this is great material, and the lead is a great actor, and yet this is a just a passable say a "fair to good" or what we stateside would call a "C+" to "B-"
Really does Christie portray the police so badly? (Correct Answer: No.) Would she have so many anachronistic behaviors and character attributes? No. Would she have native Francophone Belgian Poirot speak lousy French? No and Malkovich has impeccable French and seems to have been directed to speak French badly.
It isn't so much that that the series is terrible, it isn't. It is a) expectations should be high and the end product is mediocre, and b) one senses an intentional distancing from the source material -- which is often ok, but in this case the distancing does not work. This adaption doesn't just have condensations of the material -- it has added quirks and elements that not only are not in the Christie story, but detract from it. They create a different Poirot. Not different as in Suchet vs Malkovich portrayals, but the director/screenwriter vs Christie. EG, the bizarre overlay of immigration themes/controversy is a pointless attempt to score points and doesn't belong in this story. Adding a grittiness, and a literal darkness is not needed either. It seems a fashionable trope now, but there is no need when the original material already has its own texture that the adaptor obfuscates or fundamentally distracts from with their own vision. It is over the top.
Look I am all for adapting major literary/cultural archetypes, even subverting them -- in what they do and what the moral tale is. It is perfectly OK to tell two completely different morals with Prometheus, Daedalus or Electra and Orestes. Byron can subvert Mill on the former. Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Graves and Williams can use the latter to very different conclusions. But you don't just take a relatively contemporary character, created by another artist and change their characteristics to the point where they are unrecognizable and their actions are not credible.
Again, it s a C+ to B-, bring on the downvotes if you must. Oh and turn up the brightness on your screen, for some reason the adaptors think making everything actually dark equals a figurative darkness.
Secondly I guess I will be downvoted by some since this is likely an adaption that will create a divide between people who love it or hate it, or at least those who like it a lot or not at all, and I am in the middle.
In short some of the lower reviews are because this is great material, and the lead is a great actor, and yet this is a just a passable say a "fair to good" or what we stateside would call a "C+" to "B-"
Really does Christie portray the police so badly? (Correct Answer: No.) Would she have so many anachronistic behaviors and character attributes? No. Would she have native Francophone Belgian Poirot speak lousy French? No and Malkovich has impeccable French and seems to have been directed to speak French badly.
It isn't so much that that the series is terrible, it isn't. It is a) expectations should be high and the end product is mediocre, and b) one senses an intentional distancing from the source material -- which is often ok, but in this case the distancing does not work. This adaption doesn't just have condensations of the material -- it has added quirks and elements that not only are not in the Christie story, but detract from it. They create a different Poirot. Not different as in Suchet vs Malkovich portrayals, but the director/screenwriter vs Christie. EG, the bizarre overlay of immigration themes/controversy is a pointless attempt to score points and doesn't belong in this story. Adding a grittiness, and a literal darkness is not needed either. It seems a fashionable trope now, but there is no need when the original material already has its own texture that the adaptor obfuscates or fundamentally distracts from with their own vision. It is over the top.
Look I am all for adapting major literary/cultural archetypes, even subverting them -- in what they do and what the moral tale is. It is perfectly OK to tell two completely different morals with Prometheus, Daedalus or Electra and Orestes. Byron can subvert Mill on the former. Homer, Sophocles, Euripides, Graves and Williams can use the latter to very different conclusions. But you don't just take a relatively contemporary character, created by another artist and change their characteristics to the point where they are unrecognizable and their actions are not credible.
Again, it s a C+ to B-, bring on the downvotes if you must. Oh and turn up the brightness on your screen, for some reason the adaptors think making everything actually dark equals a figurative darkness.
I wish I could give it a negative rating. I forced myself to watch the whole thing. I kept waiting for it to improve. It didn't. It was depressing, both in tone and visually. I had to keep turning up the brightness on my phone just to have a clue to what had been filmed. After I pushed myself through it, I had to watch the 1992 version to cleanse my palate. I will also search my bookshelves for the book and really get back into the story. Agatha Christie was a genius. I've read all of her books. If this had been my first introduction to Poirot, I would never had read any more.
A very dark interpretation. Depressing and oppressive. The gravitas of Poirot, without any of the charm. A waste of talent.
If you do not know anything about Poirot and Agatha Christie this is enjoyable.
But if you are a purist you will be disappointed and maybe even angry.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesSet in 1933 As Poirot makes his way to Avondale, a train ticket collector has a lapel pin of the British Union of Fascists with a lightning bolt in a red circle BUF was founded in 1932 by Oswald Mosley (and which later added National Socialists to the name). However that lightning pin design was not used until 1935-40. The British Union of Fascists - 1932 to 1935 used the Italian version of pro-fascism, and other fascists, the fasces.
- GaffesIn the dance hall scene set in Bexhill on Sea in 1934 , the music is 'At The Woodchopper's Ball' recorded by the American Woody Herman Orchestra in 1939. The dancers are dancing the jive, a swing dance brought to Britain by American soldiers in the 1940s.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Diminishing Returns: Diminulum Unreturnable (2020)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Убивства за абеткою
- Lieux de tournage
- Ripon Spa Baths, Park Street, Ripon, North Yorkshire, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(Bexhill railway station: exterior and interior)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant