The Murder of Roger Ackroyd

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.

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.

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!

An unusual framing device is used for this meandering tale. At first I thought that the director was being arty as this was the first episode of the seventh series of Poirot. Poirot narrates this tale but there is something in the words he uses to describe some of the people that just makes it seem odd.

Poirot has retired to a village life and is trying to grow giant marrows and failing. Poirot at long last visits an old friend's factory. An industrialist Roger Ackroyd who Poirot once loaned some money to and Ackroyd has made a great success of his company. Yet Poirot makes disparaging remarks about the man in his commentary, like he dislikes Ackroyd.

Roger Ackroyd is found dead after a dinner party which Poirot had attended. Ralph Paton his feckless stepson is the main suspect but he has disappeared. There is also the intriguing case of a widow, Mrs Farris who killed herself almost a year after her husband died. Mrs Farris was linked somehow to Roger Ackroyd.

Poirot reluctantly comes out of retirement and gets involved in the investigation once Inspector Japp turns up.

The episode is let down by a leaden pace, it is another feature length episode that feels overstretched. I liked the production design which I know deteriorates in later years of Poirot. However I felt the director's misdirection was not sufficient enough to point away from the actual murderer.

The shoot out at the end was laughably banal, all that was missing at the end was a vat of acid for the body to fall into.

Hercule Poirot retires from sleuthing and moves to a cottage in a small country town, King's Abbott. His old friend, the industrialist Roger Ackroyd lives there and he soon makes friends with some of the other townsfolk too. One day a widow, Mrs Farris, (apparently) commits suicide, almost a year after her husband died. Then, soon after a dinner party that Poirot attended, Mr Ackroyd is found murdered in his study. Suspicion immediately falls on Ralph Paton, Mr Ackroyd adopted son, the inheritor of his estate and a man who had large debts with Mr Ackroyd. Poirot is reluctant to get involved but then the investigating officer from Scotland Yard turns out to be an old friend and ally, Chief Inspector Japp. Poirot and Japp, the old firm, get on the case.

Intriguing but a bit more straightforward than most of episodes in this series. The murderer can be largely figured out through seeing whom the scenes draw most attention to. You can't be 100% sure though (I wasn't) so there is still a large degree of mystery to it.

The journal also adds a new dimension to the story, as we see Poirot reviewing the case after the event through reading the murderer's journal.

Also a decent degree of sentimentality and nostalgia, with Poirot giving up London for the country. This is made most clear when Poirot briefly goes back to his London home and reminisces.

Overall, reasonably entertaining and interesting.