User reviews

As a Christie fan who was not familiar with this particular story, this feels much bleaker than the average novel by Dame Agatha.

It's a competent whodunit, well-cast, well-performed. The second act feels a little slow, all the more because nearly every character is sour, bitter and miserable; they lack a certain variety in tone which could have made the dialogue more lively.

Still, it's a solid effort and I was genuinely surprised by the denouement, which I won't spoil.

6,5/10

Agatha Christie's "Crooked House" is a gripping tale that will keep you at the edge of your seats most of the time. Only most of the time because the film is oddly paced, moving either too fast or too slow. However, this is compensated for by the captivating performances of the talented cast members and the elaborate mystery that Agatha Christie herself considered one of her personal favorites. I was a bit disappointed by the detective Charles Hayward because his character was flat and static although the flashbacks offered potential. He was also nothing more than a device used to let the audience into the dysfunctional family's lives. Unlike Poirot, he was unable to reach conclusions without having them shoved into his face. I still thoroughly enjoyed the film and would recommend it to anyone who has not read the book. Knowing the twist could diminish the charm of the movie.

I have not read the book, so I'm unable to make comparisons. Seeing as Agatha Christie thought this to be her best book, I'm guessing the novel was 10x better than the movie.

I felt the film itself moved quite slowly, despite being nearly 2 hours long. I felt myself at points losing interest. I'm thinking we needed a Marple or Poirot in this to spice it up a bit! I'm absolutely obsessed with the Poirot series; I find it thrilling, jam packed with twists, and so when I come across any Agatha Christie adaptation, I'm expecting them to live up to these high standards, but this fell short. I don't believe there was enough time with the suspects for the audience to build cases against them. However I must say that the big reveal of the actual killer left me speechless, it made up for the rest of the movie being quite boring, otherwise my score would be a lot lower. I'd say instead of big named productions, stick to the BBC/ITV adaptations of Agatha Christie's work....so much better.

By the way Glenn Close was fab.

It is so wonderful to see Agatha Christie's work still in demand, on the small and big screen alike. Brave to see the production team take on Crooked House, a feat never before attempted. The results are pretty good, as a novel I think Crooked House is one of her best, it is outstanding, so the story is not in question, firstly it's quite a faithful adaptation, and they were brave enough to stick with the shock ending. The acting is excellent, Glenn Close is commanding in every single scene, showing the class act she is. Gillian Anderson and young Honor Kneafsey also impress. The settings and fashions are flawless, it looks wonderfully glamorous, and is again in keeping with the text. If I were being critical I would pick on some of the editing and cutting, at times it was a bit clunky, which is a shame because the core elements are strong.

I'm always glad to see a new production from Agatha Christie's catalogue of brilliance. More please, 7/10

I enjoyed the film. That is personal choice, which I imagine is the whole point of a review. I was not aware that as suggested by one reviewer, an opinion was any less valid because " five reviewers have only been members for two weeks " or because another reviewer is such an expert on Agatha Christie, that they think the author is a " HE " and this was " his favourite work ". in itself odd, given that Christie herself frequently said it would be " And then there were none " ? I enjoyed the film, that does not guarantee that everyone will. But at least watch it, then you will know. OK ?

Multi-millionaire Aristide Leonides has just died, apparently of a heart attack. Private investigator Charles Hayward is approached by his granddaughter Sophia and asked to investigate his death as she believes he was murdered. Hayward takes on the case and visits the Leonides estate, questioning the family. He discovers that it is far from a simple case - the family is incredibly dysfunctional and nothing is as it seems.

Decent, though not great, adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel. Good setup with a fair amount of intrigue and mystery. Solid performances from a cast that includes Glenn Close, Julian Sands, Terrence Stamp and Gillian Anderson. Great work by 13 year old Honor Kneafsey as Josephine - she almost steals the show.

However, after a solid start, the intrigue doesn't get built on very well and the middle-to-end part drags a bit. Even more disappointing, the ending feels very rushed and out of the blue.

Another negative is the performance of Christina Hendricks as Brenda. I know she is supposed to be a femme fatale but she didn't have to try to sound like Marilyn Monroe on helium. Way overdone and quite irritating.

Agatha Christie's this detective fiction first published in 1949 and this is its first film adaptation. Haven't read the original novel yet, so can't tell how well they have adapted it here but found it pretty entertaining with great production value and great cast including Christina Hendricks, Gillian Anderson (couldn't recognize her first!), Glenn Close, Terence Stamp and Julian Sands. May be because it wasn't one of her popular Hercule Poirot or Miss Marple stories, there wasn't much charms of solving the mystery with clue by clue. Still it was enjoyable as it also offered one of her signature & most engaging mystery format...a gorgeous mansion of a wealthy Britt family and the house full of suspicious characters who each may got his/her own motive for the murder(s) and of course, with a nice surprise at the final revelation; particularly this story came with a real shocker!

We'd not watched this before, despite growing up with Agatha Christie books as a teenager. Glenn Close's aristocratic British accent was nearly perfect. Thoroughly entertaining.

Seeing the negative reviews, I expected something more like the recent Orient Express remake, which was difficult to watch. This was nothing like that. It had an even, slow build to an ending that Glenn Close brings home. It was basically what I wanted from an Agatha Christie story, a bit of mystery, not too gory, and a little twist that I may have guessed, but couldn't be certain about.

I mourn the movie this could have been in the hands of someone who knew what they were doing. This is below Lifetime-Movie-of-the-week levels of skill. Film-school style camera tracking. Terrible screen wipes. It's too distracting to make this enjoyable. Shame since the actors are usual great.

If you liked: Knives Out Murder on the Orient Express Ten Little Indians

This is a yet another modern film adaptation of Agatha Christie's mystery crime stories. Now, it isn't that I've never heard anything good about this film; I've actually never heard anything at all, which is surprising, considering how much I enjoyed it. A huge family house, a murder, everybody is a suspect - classic, what else do you want? I liked the story, I liked the cinematography and directing, and the acting was also ok; however, this film, like "Murder on the Orient Express"; which is also based on Agatha Christie, got very mediocre reviews; and I think I now understand why.

First reason is that I'm a bit too obsessed with detective stories so I might let everything except for the mystery elements slide because I'm so immersed in trying to guess the outcome myself. So, if the story is good, I don't notice anything else that might be bad, but that's only for detective films. Despite that, I did notice that the film kept tilting dangerously towards a melodrama, which I hate in any kind of movie that isn't a melodrama (my problem with Hitchcock's "Vertigo" as well); but overall it didn't seem too unnecessary and distracting. Another reason could be that most people who gave this film bad reviews, especially the critics, are actually familiar with Christie's work (I'm more of a Conan Doyle guy) and are comparing it to the novel rather than to other detective movies. So, for them, after a while "there is not a great deal happening plot-wise, with the programme not so much gripping us as drifting pleasantly by". Perhaps when you already know the outcome the adaptation itself isn't that great; although on the other hand once you've read the story first it's almost next to impossible to perceive it as a film and compare it to films; rather than to see it as an adaptation and compare it to the book; so I don't blame them.

I enjoyed it a lot more than "Orient Express", and it was the first film that was very similar to "Knives Out" (which I loved), so it is a film I recommend; especially if you know nothing about the story.

In this classic Agatha Christie detective story, former diplomat Charles Hayward (Max Irons, Jeremy Irons' son) has gone back from Cairo to London to become a private detective. When Aristide Leonides, a wealthy and ruthless tycoon, is poisoned in his own bed, Detective Hayward is invited to solve the crime. The spy-turned-private-detective is lured by his former lover Sophia de Haviland (Stefanie Martini) to discover who killed the Greek billionaire to do everything possible to clarify the murder. As the investigation deepens he must confront the shocking realization that one of the key suspects is Aristede's beautiful granddaughter, his employer and former lover; and must keep a clear head to navigate the sultry Sophia and the rest of her hostile family, made up of the widow (Christina Hendricks), Lady Edith de Haviland (Glenn Close), Philip Leonides (Julian Sands), Magda Leonides (Gillian Anderson), Roger Leonides (Christian McKay), among others. The case will be complicated by more deaths and the fact that no one has a firm alibi. From the bestselling author of all time, comes one of her personal favourite thrillers !.

In Agatha Christie's most twisted tale, three generations of the Aristides Leónides family, live together in a curious and luxurious mansion with an inclined structure, the house's routine is cut short when Aristide turns up dead, and it is suspected that the culprit must be someone in the family. Following Agatha Christie usual premise in which our main role, Max Irons playing sympatheticaly an eye private, has to discover the murderer of the patriarch of the dynasty, while all the members of the family are suspected of the murder, although the majority have some alibi.

After winning the best director award for ¨Sarah's Key¨ at the Tokyo Film Festival, French director Gilles Paquet-Brenner returns with the film adaptation of Agatha Christie's enigmatic novel of the same title. The film is acceptable and passable but nothing special, it is a simple and glamorous adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel without providing any new element, letting itself be carried away heavily by too much insubstantial dialogue and many false clues without much sense, although the ending is quite emotional and tense. ¨Crooked House¨ stars a good cast headed by Max Irons (¨The Host¨) as the cunning detective assigned to catch her grandfather's murderer before Scotland Yard exposes dark family secrets, Stefanie Martini (¨Doctor Thorne¨), the winner of two Golden Globes and Emmy Awards Glenn Close (¨Dangerous liaisons¨) and the famous FBI agent of the television phenomenon X-files Gilliam Anderson. Completing the cast of suspects, Christina Hendricks, (¨Mad Men¨), Amanda Abbington, Honor Kneafsey, among others, many of them had previously appeared in TV renditions of Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple novels before working on this Christie film adaptation. Furthermore, veterans as Roger Ashton-Griffiths and Terence Stamp, the unforgettable actor of the classic ¨The Collector¨ still very active performing.

In ¨Crooked House¨ stands out the luxury and colorful cinematography by Sebastian Wintero, including the monumental mansion. The motion picture was professionally directed by Gilles Paquet-Brenner. This french director has made decent films, such as: ¨Dark Places¨, ¨UV¨,¨Les jolies choses¨, ¨Gomez & Tavarès¨, ¨Christmas Next Door¨ and ¨Sarah's Key¨. Rating: 5.5/10. Passable detective thriller. The film is especially advisable for Agatha Christie enthusiasts.

Perhaps my expectations were too high going in, but Crooked House is one of the Christie novels I've been looking forward to seeing adapted the most. While not altogether awful, this film left me disappointed.

Why is it that these modernizations try so hard to put the emphasis on needles drama, edgy characters, and artsy cinematography rather than the mystery when the mystery is inevitably what people tune in to see? The first act of the film is spent nearly entirely on side-stories that have little to do with the plot. It's as if they don't have faith in the source material's ability to hold the viewer's attention.

Far too much time was spent on the detective's irrelevant backstory and one of the most off-putting romances I've ever been subjected to, (like two cold, dead fish being knocked against each other,) while most of the suspects, and subsequently the mystery, are allowed to fade into the background.

If you're familiar with the book I'd suggest skipping this film. If you're not, the book is probably still a more enjoyable experience. If you're looking for a different spin on an old trope watch Gosford Park instead.

If you want to spoil an Agatha Christie story, transfer it to the screen exactly as written, with all the earnest endless talk, cardboard characters and everyone taking themselves absolutely seriously. Then if you want to make the film really hopeless, add a few extraneous anachronistic bits which contribute zero to the plot - the Mafia, the CIA, a Sam Spade-like private investigator in 1950s Soho whose father had been a policeman and mysteriously murdered, nope, this one will be neither detailed further nor resolved nor relevant to anything at all... Can you possibly go more wrong if you were doing it on purpose? And get the aforementioned 'Sam Spade' character to be essayed by one Max Irons, an actor probably not destined for glory, first because he's prone to puckering his face a lot and keeping mouth open when in doubt, and second because he doesn't seem to have a clue who his character is and how he landed in this particular mess. Avoid at all costs.

Sophia Leonides (Stefanie Martini) hires her former lover, private investigator Charles Hayward (Max Irons), to investigate her grandfather business tycoon Aristide Leonides' death. Charles' family friend Chief Inspector Taverner (Terence Stamp) gives him helpful advises. Lady Edith De Haviland (Glenn Close) is the sister of Aristide's first wife Magda (Gillian Anderson). Philip Leonides (Julian Sands) is his oldest son. Charles arrives at the family estate to investigate the untrustworthy family with rumors of esponiage. Brenda Leonides (Christina Hendricks) is Aristide's young widow who the others consider to be a gold-digger.

This is adapted from the 1949 Agatha Christie mystery novel. It has an old school feel. While this has lots of acting talents, the leading man doesn't have anything juicy enough to outshine the rest. He's rather bland and there is a strict lack of stakes for him. The obvious way to elevate the stakes is to make his relationship with Sophia bigger. Some way or some thing needs to be manufactured to increase the danger and the intensity. Overall, this is solid and a little bland from old school Agatha Christie.

"Crooked House" is an adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel of the same name, published in 1949. It was a book she personally loved the most, and she steadfastly refused to change the ending, despite the insistence of her publishers. Nowadays, I suppose, we're more used to this kind of story.

The film has a great cast - Glenn Close, Mox Irons, Terence Stamp, Gillian Anderson, Christina Hendricks, and Stefanie Martini.

A detective, Charles Hayward (Irons) is asked to look into the death of an old girlfriend's (Martini) grandfather, which she thinks may be murder. It's a wealthy family and not all that anxious for publicity.

The house has several discontented generations under one roof, including the victim's late wife's mother (Close), his young, beautiful wife (Hendricks), his sons, their wives, and another younger granddaughter.

The will the family thought was in effect was never signed, and there's plenty of disappointment when the family learns about the heirs. Everyone is at each other's throats.

There are plenty of suspects and more death in this dark story that contains some excellent performances. I found the second half much more exciting than the first; the movie is slow in the beginning, but the characters make it interesting enough.

I read all of Agatha Christie's books probably 50+ years ago, so it's hard for me to remember if this story stuck to the book or not. Some producers have taken a lot of liberties with Christie's works, sticking Miss Marple in when she wasn't in the novel, etc., but this one is probably pretty straightforward.

Based on Agatha Christies own favourite book from the many novels she has written this is a charming murder mystery which could potentially keep you guessing who has done it till near the end. Sprinkled some famous faces (Max Irons, Stefanie Martini, Glenn Close, Gillian Anderson, Christina Hendricks, and Terence Stamp); acted well; and themed in a way to make things look and feel authentic.

Following a young sleuth as he tries to figure out who killed a millionaire Greek patriarch, whose immediate family all seem to have motives and means to be able to commit the murderous act. As the sleuth meets all members of the family it becomes more and more difficult to find the responsible party and bring them to justice. Is it the obvious nasty characters, or is the more charming and friendly characters - enjoy the ride while the audience and the sleuth uncover the truth at the same time.

I quite enjoyed this film and recommend it as a safe film for a lazy Sunday, or to enjoy with the family. It's simple and charming while being modern in its approach. In a world full of CGI superheroes and multimillion dollar blockbusters, a simple murder mystery can still seem enchanting. 7 out of 10.

I'm not sure what all the bad reviews are about. This was great! It was intense and kept me guessing. Very well done! I thought the acting was great and I loved the all of the dialogue.

By mere coincidence, I caught this film on TV during these early days of the year, and I took the opportunity to watch it knowing that it was an adaptation of a novel by Agatha Christie. Although I don't consider myself, even remotely, knowledgeable about her work, I really like her books and have read several. It is not the case with this book, so I will refrain from commenting on the quality of this adaptation. There will be more qualified people to do that. However, if we consider all the adaptations that exist based on the author's material, I don't think we can put this film among the worst, as it tries to respect the environment and the historical period while giving us high doses of suspense and unpredictability. A warning: anyone expecting to see Poirot or Miss Marple will be disappointed because they are not in the original book.

The film is quite good, better than some big productions we sometimes see out there. It entertains its audience, especially if we are attentive enough to follow the story, full of twists and turns. The direction is not particularly happy, I think Paquet-Brenner was not able to get the best out of the cast he had at hand. I think it would have been equally positive if we had had more time to get to know each member of that family. I say this because there are characters that are merely sketched, and I have difficulty believing that Christie didn't leave material to develop them better. The editing also fails a lot, the pacing is uneven, and the suspense oscillates instead of gradually growing towards the climax. Where the production seems to invest more solidly is in the very well executed cinematography, in the careful choice of filming locations and in the design of sets and costumes.

As for the cast, I think we had some casting errors that created problems: Max Irons is an actor I wouldn't want here. He seems uncomfortable with the material and doesn't develop any kind of chemistry with Stefanie Martini, who should be his love interest. The scenes between them, particularly those that require greater rapport between the actors, are very forced. Gillian Anderson, Terence Stamp, Christian McKay and Julian Sands are all solid bets that don't disappoint us, but their characters deserved greater development and more time on screen, as has already been said. In contrast, veteran Glenn Close is perfect in her role and gives us very consistent work, while young Honor Kneafsey shows signs of talent and commitment in one of the best children's characters I've seen in some time.

Agatha Christie's detectives are exceptionally smart. You always wonder what goes on in their heads! They appear to be seeing pieces of the puzzle and putting them together in their head while you have to excitedly wait for the end to hear them explain each puzzle piece individually and how they fit together! Unfortunately the detective in this movie was no Agatha Christie detective! Everything he saw and thought about we also saw and thought about as viewers!! He was as confused as we were, he knew as much as we knew!! Zero extra depth in his intelligence! On top of it we were unnecessarily involved in his romantic drama!!! It added nothing to the story, nothing to character development, nothing to the investigation!! The worst part for me was that the mystery got solved by pure dumb luck!! The person who figured out the killer's identity was not the detective and the detective found about the real murderer completely by luck .. so no one needed that detective to solve the mystery at all.. they only needed to find the diary of the killer!! How is this an Agatha Christie mystery? It felt more like an insult to Agatha Christie mysteries -_-

Great cast, excelllent plot, and an unexpected ending. Add in a very good script and perfect scenery. From my experience it's one of Agatha Christie's best. My only two concerns were that the volume of the sound rose to ear piercing levels when any music came on, and there were so many characters that I sometimes got confused as to who was married to who and the relationships between them.

Anytime you have a mystery, you want the audience to feel like they are part of the process. Where the viewer feels like they could have solved the mystery with the right amount of motivation. That is why, in most mystery movies, you have a character that is unique and even quirky, a person that stands out above others. However in this tale, you have a bland, uninteresting guy making each scene feel long and boring. Max Irons, that plays the detective, is mundane and even dusty, in the role that makes the story drag on like waiting at the emergency room admitting office. The entire movie, except for some scenes near the end, almost became unwatchable as drab performances and ill-timed background music filled the film. A movie mystery from an interesting book was turned into a long walk in a small platoon of trees.

This movie did have a number of great actors but it was obvious they were not used to their potential. And with the script going from one suspect to another suspect in a matter of minutes, the viewer only got a small potion of each character background right before changing to another scene with another character actor. For an Agatha Christie mystery, this film was lacking the excitement that was expected.