1933 में, सेवानिवृत्त जासूस हरक्यूल पोयरोट को एक ताने मारने वाले हत्यारे द्वारा लक्षित किया जाता है, जो एबीसी पर हस्ताक्षर किए पत्र भेजता है, जिसे हत्यारे की पहचान का पता लगाने के लिए पोयरोट... सभी पढ़ें1933 में, सेवानिवृत्त जासूस हरक्यूल पोयरोट को एक ताने मारने वाले हत्यारे द्वारा लक्षित किया जाता है, जो एबीसी पर हस्ताक्षर किए पत्र भेजता है, जिसे हत्यारे की पहचान का पता लगाने के लिए पोयरोट को डिकोड करना होगा.1933 में, सेवानिवृत्त जासूस हरक्यूल पोयरोट को एक ताने मारने वाले हत्यारे द्वारा लक्षित किया जाता है, जो एबीसी पर हस्ताक्षर किए पत्र भेजता है, जिसे हत्यारे की पहचान का पता लगाने के लिए पोयरोट को डिकोड करना होगा.
- पुरस्कार
- 3 कुल नामांकन
एपिसोड ब्राउज़ करें
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
OK here's my problem with this series. First it is an excellent mystery but they should not have made that an Agatha Christie mystery. The backstory of Hercule Poirot is a complete fabrication. The actor does an excellent job portraying the role given him. The problem is it is a complete variance with the true Agatha Christie character.
Rightly or wrongly this was a story inspired by the original Agatha Christie novel rather than the story itself. Yes it was very different BUT I still found it very watchable. I watched it over 3 consecutive nights and wanted to watch to the end despite knowing 'who dunnit'. I was intrigued to find out about the demons Poirot was wrestling with from his past. It was a tad overlong though, I think two episodes with less padding might have been better, and why they didn't just make something similar with a new detective we didn't know is unfathomable as they made it almost unrecognisable anyway. It would have worked just as well as I thought John Malkovich was very good.
If you do not know anything about Poirot and Agatha Christie this is enjoyable.
But if you are a purist you will be disappointed and maybe even angry.
I wish I could give it a negative rating. I forced myself to watch the whole thing. I kept waiting for it to improve. It didn't. It was depressing, both in tone and visually. I had to keep turning up the brightness on my phone just to have a clue to what had been filmed. After I pushed myself through it, I had to watch the 1992 version to cleanse my palate. I will also search my bookshelves for the book and really get back into the story. Agatha Christie was a genius. I've read all of her books. If this had been my first introduction to Poirot, I would never had read any more.
Thanks to David Suchet, people have a specific ideal for Hercule Poirot. He must be arrogant and suave. He must be calm and unruffled, like a deaf partridge. And he must be above all of the petty little squabbles around him. Because he is Poirot.
To be fair, this is also the Hercule Poirot that Agatha Christie designed.
But this is not the Hercule Poirot that Sarah Phelps wrote. If she had gotten the character of Poirot right, I could have overlooked the unfortunate hyper-sexuality, but she didn't, she got him wrong. There has never been a more depressed, morose, or tragic incarnation of Poirot than the one in this miniseries. Now, I could blame John Malkovich, but he did not write the screenplay. Therefore, not his fault. It's not his fault that Sarah Phelps decided to rewrite Poirot's history and turn him into a decades old liar. That offended me the most. The very idea of Poirot lying about his history is even more preposterous than the fabricated background she created for him.
So no. Alas, no. If she'd gotten Poirot right, like I said, the other millstones could have been overlooked and I might have rated a 7 or 8. But when the screenplay writer shows no respect for the origins of a literary character and its creator, that's when I get off the boat.
To be fair, this is also the Hercule Poirot that Agatha Christie designed.
But this is not the Hercule Poirot that Sarah Phelps wrote. If she had gotten the character of Poirot right, I could have overlooked the unfortunate hyper-sexuality, but she didn't, she got him wrong. There has never been a more depressed, morose, or tragic incarnation of Poirot than the one in this miniseries. Now, I could blame John Malkovich, but he did not write the screenplay. Therefore, not his fault. It's not his fault that Sarah Phelps decided to rewrite Poirot's history and turn him into a decades old liar. That offended me the most. The very idea of Poirot lying about his history is even more preposterous than the fabricated background she created for him.
So no. Alas, no. If she'd gotten Poirot right, like I said, the other millstones could have been overlooked and I might have rated a 7 or 8. But when the screenplay writer shows no respect for the origins of a literary character and its creator, that's when I get off the boat.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाSet in 1933 As Poirot makes his way to Avondale, a train ticket collector has a lapel pin of the British Union of Fascists with a lightning bolt in a red circle BUF was founded in 1932 by Oswald Mosley (and which later added National Socialists to the name). However that lightning pin design was not used until 1935-40. The British Union of Fascists - 1932 to 1935 used the Italian version of pro-fascism, and other fascists, the fasces.
- गूफ़In the dance hall scene set in Bexhill on Sea in 1934 , the music is 'At The Woodchopper's Ball' recorded by the American Woody Herman Orchestra in 1939. The dancers are dancing the jive, a swing dance brought to Britain by American soldiers in the 1940s.
- कनेक्शनReferenced in Diminishing Returns: Diminulum Unreturnable (2020)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Убивства за абеткою
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- Ripon Spa Baths, Park Street, Ripon, North Yorkshire, इंग्लैंड, यूनाइटेड किंगडम(Bexhill railway station: exterior and interior)
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें