The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

Agatha Christie is a Master of Mystery and her writings are classic. "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" is one of her best and should have been a great movie. However, this movie bears very little resemblance to the book, especially at the end. I suppose the writers thought her ending would be too tame for today's audiences. Just once I wish someone would make an Agatha Christie movie that is faithful to her writing

I shan't talk about the plot, because that would ruin it.

Agatha Christie readers could not have possibly have imagined that the adaptation would be this poor. It takes one of Agatha Christie's best novels, and butchers the story, removes half the suspects. It then inserts periods of boring introspection by the detective as he visits his old flat in Whitehaven Mansions.

Moreover, in the novel, most of the characters had some redeeming qualities. All humanity seems to have been stripped out of them in this adaptation. As a result, viewers who have not read the book would probably care even less who the murderer turns out to be.

Fans always knew that this novel would be one of the hardest to adapt, because there is relatively more narrative, and there is less banter than in the Poirot-Hastings stories such as the ABC murders. However, the recent excellent adaptation of Sad Cypress showed that it is possible to convert the moodier, less conversational mysteries to the screen.

A film that is inadequate for first-time viewers and bookreaders alike.

Being a an equal member of the reading and watching public, and having more than the average understanding about what goes into bringing any previous work to film, I always approach filmed versions with a grain of salt.

I do not think I have ever been pleased with a depiction of any Agatha Christie novel. For some reason, the endings of these seem to be less than sacrosanct to writers and producers. Do not ask me why.

Also, it is usually very hard for every nuance a writer brings to her work to translate well onto the screen.

Yet, Suchet's charm has always seemed infectious to me. His Belgian eccentricities always make Poirot come alive to me. I may be overstating this for most tastes, yet, I can opine that Suchet has a way of transcending any plot mischiefs or storyline inaccuracies and makes every experience with Poirot a delight.

Such was the case with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. It was finely wrought and delicately portrayed in a way that pleased what little I know of what life was like then. If there was much lacking from the book, all I can say is that I certainly expected it and I adapted to it unbegrudgingly. If I want true and complete Christie every time: I will read her books. They are the true source of this brand of pleasure aren't they?

For those of you who have NOT read the novel by the same name by Agatha Christie, you may indeed think my criticism of this adaptation somewhat harsh. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is easily one of the greatest mystery novels and particularly one of Christie's best ever written. It is a great novel and is definitely a hard one to truly bring to the screen(small screen in this case)entirely faithful. Allowances must be made, but the script from this adaptation meanders a good deal from much of the source material. I did not like the framing device used. Why not have the narrator in the novel narrate? How bout that hokey ending with its proverbial "shootout" to get the audience's attention? And what about Poirot cracking the case in question? These major departures from the book greatly diminished my favor with this film. It is done very stylishly. The acting is as always very good. David Suchet makes the best Poirot and certainly the most faithful to the books. But this mystery has been twisted and contorted too much so that I can only faintly see Christie. What a shame! I would have really liked to see how Suchet and company could tackle this innovative novel. I came, I saw, I sighed!

Too bad. What should have been an intriguing and shocking Christie mystery ended up as a run-of-the-mill, made-for-TV mess --- the worst thing that a Poirot episode can be. The only shocking things about it are how the book was rewritten so much, and how the action unfolded in such a cheesy manner. I understand that some variations may help when trying to translate a novel to the screen, but, really, when three main suspects have been omitted, another perpetually ignored throughout the production, and another killed off during the movie (and NOT during the book!!), something is seriously wrong. Not to mention all of the swearing and gratuitous violence absent from the book and unbecoming of a Poirot film with David Suchet. Did we really need to see Roger Ackroyd gurgling and shaking his jowls for three minutes after getting stabbed in the neck? And what was going on with that climax? Was the director trying to recreate the chemical plant scenes from "Batman"? And there were many more butchered parts, too.

The first step towards making the film more interesting would have been putting the Dr. Sheppard character into more of a "Captain Hastings" role, a sidekick for Poirot, as he was in Christie's book. This would increase his relevance to the story and make the ending more effective. Of course, the whole production would have to be redone from the ground up to make it good. Sadly, Suchet probably won't be involved with such a remake since he has already been used for this misfire. At least he and Phillip Jackson picked up paychecks for their trouble.

Such a disappointment, especially compared to the recent A&E version of "Lord Edgeware Dies", which was nicely done, and also featured Suchet and company.