Ages since I read the book but in fact I've enjoyed this so far. The general story is correct and the atmosphere is spot on. This was a murder of someone who deserved to be murdered and is necessarily dark and very sad. I think this is captured pretty well.
Another massacre of the book by the look of it so far.
To be fair, I think it is particularly difficult to cover this story on TV/Film. The whole contrivance of the story makes it hard to generate any level of whodunnit, and denoument.
Overall, I'm not actually bothered whether or not it is true to the book. I'm just interested in whether it is a good "watch" in its own right.
However, I'm not very impressed so far. (By comparison, I actually think the Albert Finney film was better - I'll go and wash my mouth out now).
Its now near the end. Its obviously working towards the people being intrinsically good (by not turning on Poirot) - so a goodish ending I think.
Another massacre of the book by the look of it so far.
Well i would avoid the Marple episode Secret of Chimney's when its aired, apart from the characters and setting it has very little to do with the book.
One thing that seems odd. We see the engine with snow drifted to half way up the side. Surely much of the snow would have melted from around the boiler.
Also they are laying the whole "murder is right in this circumstance" argument on a bit too heavily. We could have understood the issues with a much lighter touch.
Well i would avoid the Marple episode Secret of Chimney's when its aired, apart from the characters and setting it has very little to do with the book.
The ending of this is nothing like the book! Poirot agreed with what they did cos Cassetti deserved it for avoiding justice. He had his 'two theories' - one the convenient one with the murderer escaping and the true one, and he agreed he would tell the police the convenient one.
Mind you, I don't recall Poirot ever being as catholic as he is in this, so that was obviously done for him to react like he has.
David Suchet as wonderful as always as Poirot though! Not his fault he was given that script!
As for Marple ... happily I'm not as familiar with the Chimneys book, in fact I don't remember it at all (a lot of books I know very well, some I don't know much) and anyway, I never take this Marple seriously cos I see them as more comedies, everyone hamming it up in enjoyable 'who do you recognise' capers!
i never watched Geraldine wotsits Marple cos she got on my nerves, but I like Julia McKenzie and I've enjoyed what I've seen of her Marple so I'll still watch those.
No one beats Joan Hickson, as Miss Marple, and those at least were adaptations I recognised from the books!
Ages since I read the book but in fact I've enjoyed this so far. The general story is correct and the atmosphere is spot on. This was a murder of someone who deserved to be murdered and is necessarily dark and very sad. I think this is captured pretty well.
Agreed.
Your post sums up how I felt. I found the beginning in Istanbul very shocking I wasn't expecting that, and set up the story well.
As for Marple ... happily I'm not as familiar with the Chimneys book, in fact I don't remember it at all (a lot of books I know very well, some I don't know much) and anyway, I never take this Marple seriously cos I see them as more comedies, everyone hamming it up in enjoyable 'who do you recognise' capers!
i never watched Geraldine wotsits Marple cos she got on my nerves, but I like Julia McKenzie and I've enjoyed what I've seen of her Marple so I'll still watch those.
No one beats Joan Hickson, as Miss Marple, and those at least were adaptations I recognised from the books!
Chimney's is a good book, but like a lot of ITV's Marple's its not a Miss Marple story, they have replaced Battle in this with Miss Marple.
As for Murder on the Orient express, i watced it a couple of months ago and quite enjoyed it, its been awhile since ive read the book.
Well i would avoid the Marple episode Secret of Chimney's when its aired, apart from the characters and setting it has very little to do with the book.
One thing struck me while watching tonight's episode - in the Marple adaptations, they populate most of the parts with very recognisible faces, and some quite big names. However, on the whole, Poirot actors are less obvious - a few experienced (and good) actors, eg David Morrissey and Eileen Atkins, but not the "big" names that appear in Marple. I wonder if this is intentional.
One thing struck me while watching tonight's episode - in the Marple adaptations, they populate most of the parts with very recognisible faces, and some quite big names. However, on the whole, Poirot actors are less obvious - a few experienced (and good) actors, eg David Morrissey and Eileen Atkins, but not the "big" names that appear in Marple. I wonder if this is intentional.
Well Marple, does, as I said, seem to be more 'who do you recognise' fun capers, more than anything to be taken seriously. Poirot is obviously supposed to be taken seriously!
But part of the fun of Marple IS seeing who you recognise.
And the fact they put Marple in stories she wasn't even in in the books is a great sign that you don't take them seriously, I reckon!
Well Marple, does, as I said, seem to be more 'who do you recognise' fun capers, more than anything to be taken seriously. Poirot is obviously supposed to be taken seriously!
But part of the fun of Marple IS seeing who you recognise.
And the fact they put Marple in stories she wasn't even in in the books is a great sign that you don't take them seriously, I reckon!
Yes, good point.
I've read quite a lot of Christie books, but many years ago. However I rarely remember the detail of what I've read in terms of the name of the book, or who the lead is, but can often remember the key to unlocking the story. Some of the well known ones I will remember from the title, but many I don't. I'll be watching one, and then suddenly realise that I'd read it.
They had to make it dark and Poirot in turmoil. The story is so well known it needed another aspect added to it. I thought it was very well done.
In interviews with David Suchet, they always seem to make great play of being true to the stories (at least in terms of the key crimes and twists etc, as well as characterisations, although they do play fast a loose with minor characters, eg Miss Lemon and Hastings, but thats primarily to make the story flow better on TV, to provide a side kick to allow narative explanations and to stop it being a one man show).
Maybe it was an attempt to give a twist to a well known story, because otherwise it was too well known. If so, I think that's a poor reason. But putting that to one side, even if it was a good idea to show Poirot in turmoil, I think it was done quite crudely and could and should have been done more gently. The audience doesn't need spoonfeeding with the scenario. We had:
the adulteress and Poirot's reaction
Miss Debenham's reaction and the discussion with Poirot
The idea of 12 good men and true - mentioned 2 or 3 times
Poirot being a devout Catholic and praying
Poirot's discussion with the governess and the comparison of her views being different from Catholicism (and the limitations of Catholicism in this context)
a second conversation between miss Debenham and Poirot
The goup of killers arguing their case, and Poirot's anger
Poirot's obvious turmoil as he plays with his rosary
The lead up to the turmoil was laid on a bit too thickly, for me. It wasn't necessary. A much lighter touch would have been better, IMO.
I agree, regarding his acting. I'm less convinced by the storyline and the way he was expected to act.
Agree he's brilliant. I remember when I first saw him as Poirot, having read umpteen Poirot stories, it really was literally like it was the Poirot as described in the book. It was uncanny.
I never read the short stories so the hour long series were all new to me and I adore them all, but the more I've seen the full novels being turned into dramatisations, the more I wonder what David thinks of them cos I remember him saying to get Poirot right he read all the Poirot stories, so he'll know how different they are.
I think it's interesting that he's said his favourite is the ABC murders., cos that's probably the most faithful to the story of all of them. It was the first long one I saw and I loved it cos it was like the book. Unfortunately it meant I expected them all to be that good, and they aren't.
What they did to Roger Ackroyd is a crime against Agatha Christie! The end is genuis in the book (the first time you read it it is certainly!). It's a complete insult in the dramatisation. Agatha Christie got Miss Marple from Shepherd's sister. No one would believe that if they saw her on the telly version!
I did, I must add, enjoy David on the Orient Express last week. Fact more entertaining than fiction this time!
Flukie
Posts: 40,578
Comments
I'm so used to the book, read it/heard it so many times, I can see the umpteen differences.
But they rarely do the books justice.
It's probably enjoyable if you don't know the book.
To be fair, I think it is particularly difficult to cover this story on TV/Film. The whole contrivance of the story makes it hard to generate any level of whodunnit, and denoument.
Overall, I'm not actually bothered whether or not it is true to the book. I'm just interested in whether it is a good "watch" in its own right.
However, I'm not very impressed so far. (By comparison, I actually think the Albert Finney film was better - I'll go and wash my mouth out now).
Its now near the end. Its obviously working towards the people being intrinsically good (by not turning on Poirot) - so a goodish ending I think.
Well i would avoid the Marple episode Secret of Chimney's when its aired, apart from the characters and setting it has very little to do with the book.
Also they are laying the whole "murder is right in this circumstance" argument on a bit too heavily. We could have understood the issues with a much lighter touch.
Anybody read "Curtain"?
The ending of this is nothing like the book! Poirot agreed with what they did cos Cassetti deserved it for avoiding justice. He had his 'two theories' - one the convenient one with the murderer escaping and the true one, and he agreed he would tell the police the convenient one.
Mind you, I don't recall Poirot ever being as catholic as he is in this, so that was obviously done for him to react like he has.
David Suchet as wonderful as always as Poirot though!
As for Marple ... happily I'm not as familiar with the Chimneys book, in fact I don't remember it at all (a lot of books I know very well, some I don't know much) and anyway, I never take this Marple seriously cos I see them as more comedies, everyone hamming it up in enjoyable 'who do you recognise' capers!
i never watched Geraldine wotsits Marple cos she got on my nerves, but I like Julia McKenzie and I've enjoyed what I've seen of her Marple so I'll still watch those.
No one beats Joan Hickson, as Miss Marple, and those at least were adaptations I recognised from the books!
Agreed.
Your post sums up how I felt. I found the beginning in Istanbul very shocking I wasn't expecting that, and set up the story well.
VERY poor ending, as I've just said, In the book he wasn't in turmoil at all.
Yes, I've read Curtain. Years ago, but I remember how it ends.
Chimney's is a good book, but like a lot of ITV's Marple's its not a Miss Marple story, they have replaced Battle in this with Miss Marple.
As for Murder on the Orient express, i watced it a couple of months ago and quite enjoyed it, its been awhile since ive read the book.
One thing struck me while watching tonight's episode - in the Marple adaptations, they populate most of the parts with very recognisible faces, and some quite big names. However, on the whole, Poirot actors are less obvious - a few experienced (and good) actors, eg David Morrissey and Eileen Atkins, but not the "big" names that appear in Marple. I wonder if this is intentional.
I didn't realise that it had already been on. I must have missed it.
Well Marple, does, as I said, seem to be more 'who do you recognise' fun capers, more than anything to be taken seriously. Poirot is obviously supposed to be taken seriously!
But part of the fun of Marple IS seeing who you recognise.
And the fact they put Marple in stories she wasn't even in in the books is a great sign that you don't take them seriously, I reckon!
I saw a trailer for it on You Tube ages ago and I think it was a trailer for it to be shown somewhere last April.
I know it was made some time ago, but this is the first time it's been aired in this country.
Yes, good point.
I've read quite a lot of Christie books, but many years ago. However I rarely remember the detail of what I've read in terms of the name of the book, or who the lead is, but can often remember the key to unlocking the story. Some of the well known ones I will remember from the title, but many I don't. I'll be watching one, and then suddenly realise that I'd read it.
First time its been shown over here, but was on in the US awhile ago so was on download sites, same with the Miss Marples which are also on Youtube.
Suchet's acting, the music at the end. Superb!
Utterly brilliant throughout He's wonderful.
In interviews with David Suchet, they always seem to make great play of being true to the stories (at least in terms of the key crimes and twists etc, as well as characterisations, although they do play fast a loose with minor characters, eg Miss Lemon and Hastings, but thats primarily to make the story flow better on TV, to provide a side kick to allow narative explanations and to stop it being a one man show).
Maybe it was an attempt to give a twist to a well known story, because otherwise it was too well known. If so, I think that's a poor reason. But putting that to one side, even if it was a good idea to show Poirot in turmoil, I think it was done quite crudely and could and should have been done more gently. The audience doesn't need spoonfeeding with the scenario. We had:
the adulteress and Poirot's reaction
Miss Debenham's reaction and the discussion with Poirot
The idea of 12 good men and true - mentioned 2 or 3 times
Poirot being a devout Catholic and praying
Poirot's discussion with the governess and the comparison of her views being different from Catholicism (and the limitations of Catholicism in this context)
a second conversation between miss Debenham and Poirot
The goup of killers arguing their case, and Poirot's anger
Poirot's obvious turmoil as he plays with his rosary
The lead up to the turmoil was laid on a bit too thickly, for me. It wasn't necessary. A much lighter touch would have been better, IMO.
I agree, regarding his acting. I'm less convinced by the storyline and the way he was expected to act.
Agree he's brilliant. I remember when I first saw him as Poirot, having read umpteen Poirot stories, it really was literally like it was the Poirot as described in the book. It was uncanny.
I never read the short stories so the hour long series were all new to me and I adore them all, but the more I've seen the full novels being turned into dramatisations, the more I wonder what David thinks of them cos I remember him saying to get Poirot right he read all the Poirot stories, so he'll know how different they are.
I think it's interesting that he's said his favourite is the ABC murders., cos that's probably the most faithful to the story of all of them. It was the first long one I saw and I loved it cos it was like the book. Unfortunately it meant I expected them all to be that good, and they aren't.
What they did to Roger Ackroyd is a crime against Agatha Christie! The end is genuis in the book (the first time you read it it is certainly!). It's a complete insult in the dramatisation. Agatha Christie got Miss Marple from Shepherd's sister. No one would believe that if they saw her on the telly version!
I did, I must add, enjoy David on the Orient Express last week. Fact more entertaining than fiction this time!
This was fine, if the plot was a bit troubling. I like the darker, older Poirot.
And that sodding itv interactive bar popping up three times during the programme! Aaargh, how can we opt out?