Opiniones de usuarios

Weak and lacking any real punch. A collection of highly unlikely characters brought together in a highly contrived situation with a rather daft storyline and mediocre script. The claustrophobic atmosphere did add a degree of tension but overall there was little in the way of real suspense, just dead bodies everywhere.

The characters were paper-thin and demanded little attention although the performances of Helen Baxendale, Blake Harrison and Jodie McNee were fair enough; the rest had little more than walk-on parts and were eminently forgettable. I watched it without enthusiasm and consider it time not well spent.

The best I can offer is 5 out of 10, mainly for the central performances, and that's being generous.

Tom Dalton strikes again, giving us another installment of Agatha Christie, albeit another work of fiction.

First point, without there being an Agatha Christie scheduled for Christmas, it's a shame they didn't save this one up until the festive season, a miserable Wednesday night in October was bizarre scheduling, meaning this drama will perhaps go unnoticed.

In truth, I think it may have been a bit more enjoyable, had I been three sheets to the wind with Christmas port.

The story was a bit odd, but it was Agatha Christie herself who was so off, we've had two different interpretations of her previously, Marshall and Bradley, this time Helen Baxendale.

Baxendale is an excellent actress, and performs particularly well, it was a very good performance, the problem was more so the material she's working with, Christie was portrayed as a somewhat devious, conniving character, I'm not sure anyone believes that about her.

I'm glad they're still making them, I enjoyed the last two, this one is pretty good, I thought the first half was pretty poor, but the second half was much, much better.

If you can stick with it, the ending is rewarding, it's better with a second watch. 6/10.

Well, it's easy to see why the world wants more and more Agatha Christie - and here we have some fairly good fan fiction. Good acting and fairly good dialog. Though, here I have a slight problem with F-bombs being dropped here and there. Fortunately beeped out on PBS. Not really the sort of language one would expect Agatha Christie to use. At least the graphic set scenes that seem all to common in New adaptations has been left out. Though there is one or two scenes of some gore, but, seriously, if you've called Agatha Christie's novels "cozy" you haven't been paying attention. Pretty good plot twist. It'll pass in the dark if you give it a shove. OR, you could return to David Suchet as Poirot.

This is an Agatha Christie story. Must be one of her less favourite ones. It's a collection of highly unlikely characters brought together in a contrived situation with a rather silly storyline. Overall there was little in the way of real suspense, just lots of dead bodies (we have all seen those). The characters were shallow and of little interest although the performances of some actors were fair enough; the rest of the day players were forgettable.

Cruder than Agatha Christie and without the class and style that usually comes with an Agatha Christie story. A shame to see her name associated with something like this.

It is a very average B movie that doesn't manage to hold your attention or provide much entertainment. It feels like someone sat down with a list of bullet points of what makes a Christie story. They then tried to make it edgier and managed to remove any charm that may have existed. Characters are shallow and the performances match which is a shame as there are many decent actors in it. Reruns of the Poirot and Marple series are infinitely better.

If this wasn't badged as an Agatha Chistie, it still would be a rambling poorly acted mish mash. We were actually looking forward to the ad breaks. Plodding along with a scattering of swear words, 3rd rate jokes and violent deaths doesn't make an Agatha Christie murder 'mystery'.

My caveat is that I'm American and we are used to such a poor standard of made-for-television movies (before streaming shook everything up) that most anything with an English sensibility, seems brilliant. This is no exception. I thought Christie's character was consistent with her two previous outings in this series, insecure but obviously with her own genius, struggling to succeed in a man's world. That is the dominant theme. She tolerates infidelity, exploitation, and threats to her life, all by men, and doesn't quite get what she deserves in return.

I thought the acting was fine. The "improbable" plot was apparently cobbled from actual truths, for example that the author was investigated by MI5 for leaking secrets. I found the script fine as well. I had trouble following the clues to the reveal, I am sure I would get it if I watched it a second time. I found it entertaining for the same reason I found the other two entertaining even if they weren't as good as if they had been penned by the master, the compelling representation of Christie's ambivalent but beautiful character. The mysteries were really excuses to expose the intelligence and motivation that led to her brilliant creativity. And they made her incredibly alluring and fascinating.

More than a little muddled, poorly acted and with rather a lot of bad language not typical of the period in which it is set.

Somehow I got a third of the way through this debacle of a movie before I realised I may totally lose the will to live if I watched a second more. Helen Baxendale, totally miscast, did the best she could with the abysmal script, but could do nothing to improve it. The rest of the characters did nothing but annoy, and the acting in general was amateurish. The supposed comic moments were unfunny and embarrassing and the suspense was conspicuous by its absence. The occasional bad language seemed way out of character and the actual story was about as interesting as fishing. I regret every second I wasted on this - even the time spent writing this frigging review! What a waste of effort. I have been generous giving it 2 stars. Watch this at your own peril.

In an earlier review, djalloyingj-7365929 August 2021 asks how a film set in 1940 can have a rude song about Hitler's balls set to "The Bridge on the River Kwai" march theme, when "The Bridge on the River Kwai" was made many years after 1940 and the end of World War II. What djalloyingj-7365929 does not realise is that the march theme used in "The Bridge on the River Kwai" is actually a much earlier military march, written by a British counterpart to America's military march king, John Philip Sousa. The original march is called "Colonel Bogey", and a little web-searching can add much detail to this, although "Colonel Bogey" seems to be a fictitious character. The naughty words, very popular with the British army, and naughty little boys, tell us that "Hitler had only one brass ball, Goering had two, but very small, Himmler was somewhat sim'lar, but poor old Goebels had no balls at all!" This may not have been historically correct, but was very satisfying to sing very loudly. The idea that Agatha Christie, in real life, might find herself in a real murder scene, and be able to use her fictionally honed mystery-solving skills to solve the mystery is sufficient to motivate "Agatha and the Midnight Murders", and other (fictional) murder mysteries that do not involve Christie's usual sleuths, such as Poirot and Marple.

I'll give points for the idea, because they could have actually gone somewhere with this storyline. Instead what we got was an uninspiring mess with flaccid characters and an uneven plot. It made it far too obvious who the villain was, you didn't even have to guess. It was just awful. Poor Agatha, they did her dirty. Poor woman must be turning in her grave.

I seriously think that the release of this film should be regarded as a crime, I wonder how many people wasted 90 minutes of their life watching this utter dross.

It is said that no one goes out to make terrible television drama, but Channel 5 has managed to do it. I feel sorry for all the talented cast and crew who have done their best to try and make this a great programme; alas to no avail. It reminded me of a low budget stage play. Channel 5's foray into original drama needs to produce something better than this. Better luck next time.

I gave this one star for the actors just turning up for filming!

I appreciate all actors, the good and the bad, as getting up there and performing, it's not the easiest job a person can chose to do, especially when the material they have to work with is just dreadful!

This is the third Agatha Christie outing for this writer, and frankly he should leave well alone, the story is an insult to the memory of Ms Christie.

The best of the three films was the first one, if the producers wanted a series then they should have continued with that creation of Agatha Christie, I saw real potential in that formulae of Agatha investigating the crimes, and the actress who portrayed her was brilliant, can't recall her name but she has an understated star quality, purist fans of Agatha Christie will have hated it, but I think it gave us the other side of Ms Christie's personality.

The second outing, it was okay, as boys own story, but the third outing, shame that script wasn't nicked, destroyed along with all stored versions and the writers memory!

It was just too painful for this viewer!

This fictional story features real life authoress Agatha Christie caught up in another murder mystery. She, and a man she has hired as a driver/bodyguard, are in a London hotel where she is to sell the rights to her latest 'Poirot' story to a wealthy Chinese businessman. When the air raid siren is heard a police woman ushers them, and other guests into the building's cellar. Tensions rise when Agatha realises that somebody has stolen the manuscript of her new novel... that is the least of their worries though; soon a fight leaves one man dead and then another man dies... Agatha suspects foul play. If she is right one of the people in the cellar is a killer and nobody is being allowed to leave till the all clear sounds.

This, the third of Channel Five's films imagining Agatha Christie in a murder case, has a somewhat theatrical feel due to the limited locations. This isn't a problem as having a confined location gave the story a good sense of claustrophobia. The people stuck in the cellar were nicely varied, giving us an interesting group of suspects/potential victims. While it is mostly a drama there are humorous moments; I particularly liked difference between what the Chinese man said, in subtitles, and what his translator said he said. The cast does a solid job, notably Helen Baxendale, who has taken over the role of Agatha Christie. The resolution contained some decent twists and turns so only a few are likely to work everything out before the reveal but most are likely to work out some details. Overall a solid murder mystery that fans of the genre are likely to enjoy.

I love all Agatha Christie's tv shows and most of the movies and was so excited about watching this but is so bad I fell asleep. There is no real story and the dialogue is just awful also didn't like any of the characters.

I love Christie's work and almost all shows about her. This was an awful, nonsensical, boring mess. I gave up before the end. Poor Agatha must be spinning in her grave to see such drivel associated with her name.

The acting was awful, the only suspicion character that was acting really weirdly was obviously the killer and there was no big twists. Wasted an hour and a half of my life!

I haven't seen the other two films but this was superb. It was tense, surprising, upsetting and occasionally very funny. It looked great, the music was excellent and despite having a contemporary feel was a proper old fashioned whodunnit. Also the ending dropped everything into place with a bombshell, which given the setting was very satisfying. I didn't guess what was going to happen and how often can you say that?

Helen Baxendale was excellent, as was Blake Harrison but my favourite was Jodie McNee, I've never seen her before and she was great. The film mostly took place in a single space and could have easily become boring, but what we saw always changed and there was such a mix of characters and personalities it was always alive.

So often British drama spoon-feeds us the same paste we've had a hundred times before, and although this no doubt relies on Christies coattails to get made, it grabs the opportunity to do something different. For anyone who thinks an Agatha Christie film isn't for them, give this a go. It's a brilliantly made film with big ambition.

Awful! I'd have thought the estate would have had to have given permission for Christie's name to be used, but clearly not. Can't even say it was so bad that at least it gave me a laugh. It was torture. OK I watched it recorded on TV, so could fast forward a few bits to see if it improved any, but after 2/3rds scrolled through till last 5 minutes. Helen Baxendale - I hope you got very well paid. Plot - dialogue - phony accents; it portrayed several different nationalities in pretty horrific stereotypes, (including English toffs) but not it seemed in comic fashion a la Borat. Aaaahhhhh!

The opening credit/scene was so unnecessarily gruesome, I nearly turned it off right then and there. But I needn't have worried about that...it had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the movie. I can't imagine what they were thinking it achieved.

Mind due, if I had turned it off I might have saved myself a few hours of watching mediocre nonsense.

It had the standard formula for a Christie, but that's where the similarities ended. There was very little in the way of mystery, clues or detection and rather just sudden murders, finger pointing and an ongoing manhunt.

I didn't mind some of it, but it the twists were a bit wild.

Confusing mish mash of odd characters with a woke/PC angle. Awful and boring.