उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I was really enjoying this until the very end. I didn't understand the ending and even reading the BBC's dissection on what it all meant left me none the wiser. I feel as if I wasted valuable TV time :-(

Sigh. The screenwriter simply doesn't understand Agatha Christie and she's murdering the originals. The Pale Horse, The ABC Murders, Witness for the Prosecution, And Then There Were None - they all miss the point completely.

You know who understood Christie perfectly? Rian Johnson. His "Knives Out" is exactly like an Agatha Christie novel. He even captured the essence of Poirot, something Murder on the Orient Express could not. See, Poirot is not about the fact that he's Belgian, or bald or has a mustache. It's that the others perceive him as weird, and pompous, and even clueless, things Daniel Craig & Rian Johnson understood perfectly.

Agatha Christie was never gross. She was never obvious. She was witty, clever and cultivated. Her social commentary is subtle. She knew how to allude without shouting it. She knew how to misled, how to create an atmosphere. She could make you suspect everyone and noone at the same time.

Sarah Phelps' adaptations are like crayon copies of Renaissance paintings. You may recognize the subject but it'll never leave a lasting impression.

There seems to be a need these days to take classic works by the likes of Bram Stoker and in this instance, Agatha Christie and re-write them. Or to put it another way, in my opinion, "stuff them up".

For me, the maxim "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies and The Pale Horse is no exception. To start with you have a male hero, who can't be a hero, without first being a villain. The original hero of the piece is re-written as a scoundrel and a womaniser. Why this is the case I can only guess at but its a lame ploy.

The rest of the story fares little better, skewing the tale away from an intriguing murder mystery, towards a rather jaded tale of sexual infidelity and secrets.

On the plus side the acting is decent and the visuals are creepily eerie. That said, once again, the price of tinkering with something that works just fine is an off balance tale, that fails to resonate.

5/10.

The ending killed it. It was a good and enjoyable plot until it stoped making sense towards the end.

It's so exhausting watching Agatha Christie adaptations that literally should not legally be called an adaptation. The storyline was trash and nothing to do with the book. Other than it contained a great cast and visually was shot well, this is a must miss.

First part was promising something very good but then part two.. I am quite unsatisfied by the ending.

Sarah Phelps "version" is a complete mess. The production has an excellent cast including Rufus Sewell, who is magnificent as usual. The set design and costumes are top notch and even the cinematography and music are good, but...

Sarah Phelp's story, script and directing are terrible. She makes an utter train wreck out of the original story and what's left makes no sense at all. I can only hope that Sarah Phelps writes and creates her own scripts for future projects as she has no talent adapting existing stories.

We've had two previous versions, the first from 1997, and the second where ITV squeezed Miss Marple into its series in 2010, so we at least have a few versions to compare.

I was hugely disappointed that this didn't air on boxing day, Agatha Christie had become of of the Christmas highlights, but a month later it's on, not the best idea to schedule it up against Endeavour.

Re written by Sarah Phelps, so naturally there are changes, so the die hards will struggle to recognise a lot of it, I will attempt to review it as honestly as possible.

Visually stunning, the period detail was glorious, not only did they capture the look of the era, but the feel, The BBC does period drama like no other. The acting is flawless, Rufus Sewell and Sean Pertwee are great, I also adored Rita Tushingham. It's hugely atmospheric, and possesses a sinister vibe.

For me the issue was the pacing, it takes an age to open up, lots of flashbacks and moody glances, generally focused on Sewell's cheekbones. The talk of the witches was too heavy handed, making out that they were coming for their victims, the book was more about the subtlety of people going to them. Needed Father Gorman.

More than a glimmer to The Wicker Man, it had that kind of vibe. Overall it's definitely worth a look, though not up there with her stunning version of And then there were none. 7/10

A bit slow,but an interesting story. Rufus Sewell gives an amazing performance and overall great cast.

Once again, Sarah Phelps has gone of the rails and did what she did to ABC Murders and Ordeal by Innocence and other Agatha Christie classics. I don't understand how Christie's estate allows her completely murdering the plot, characters and all the underpinning of the novels. She also wrote Dublin Murders which is worse than watching paint dry. Her pretentious style and over the top approach to story-telling is the opposite of subtle style of Agatha Christie. This is an absolute crime to use Christie's name and produce a kind of garbage she does.

Butcher job on Agatha Christie story and a lackluster cast make this nearly unwatchable. The period detail also seems wrong with all that late 1960s clothes and hair.

Rufus Sewell and Rita Tushingham are the only recognizable stars in this mess. Most of the others should have stayed in acting classes a little longer. Especially awful is the woman paying Hermia.

Casting is suspect also in having Sewell married to a Black woman in 1960 London, let along a Black witch living with two white women in Much Deeping.

The whole witchy woman thing vs the usual Christie poisoning plot turns into a total muddle and makes the un-Christie ending really stupid. Oh yes, and cut the F bombs. They added absolutely nothing to the proceedings.

I did, however, like the car Sewell drives.

Beautifully produced, skilfully enacted, transposed from Christie's original post-war years to carefully re-created 1960/61, this re-telling of The Pale Horse pulls the viewer in masterfully but ultimately doesn't quite deliver - because the writer wasn't sufficiently true to the original writer/author's moral core and spirit. Which means that it ought to have billed as The Pale Horse based on the book by Agatha Christie. Thus, Christie's ultimate delivery of a satisfying ending was missing, leaving this viewer - a seasoned Christie viewer - slightly mystified and certainly unsatisfied, with a very un-Christie closing scenario of the wicked being punished while the somewhat wicked but now penitent is also punished? Too bad, because after watching the first two episodes, I was really enjoying this retelling and willing to go along with the multiple changes in characters and plot line... Plus, Christie by all accounts had no belief in the supernatural, whereas this storyline features supernatural elements not clearly delineated (which, one feels, IF Christie had included them, they would have been!). In summary; when re-working a well-known author's work, a modern writer should be more careful, and IMHO those working with them should hold them more closely to the original before unleashing it on the public.

Great story IF you let it play and stop trying to compare it to the original Christie. I thought the ending was brilliant, just what he deserved. Rufus Sewell is always delightful as a handsome, classy 60's man, as in "Zen".

I enjoyed this, wish the ending was explained a bit more. Great acting from everyone and Rufus was the perfect choice for the lead!

Agatha Christie's mysteries are ripe for movies that are sure to be engaging and at times mesmerizing due to the suspense factor. So much promise along the way. This depiction of the conclusion is simply a dull thud. A shame...

Illiterate retelling of Christie tale. Basically an episode of a tedious soap opera with a Christie story tagged on to draw in the audience. Lots of arty camera work conceals a poverty of imagination. The characters added are all completely meaningless, the violence totally irrelevant to the plot. The Christie estate should sue!

Very good thrilling mystery - I am not mad that it has been so slow. The story is interesting and definitely different. I am disappointed by the end but overall it's watchable for once. Rufus Sewell and Bertie Carvels performances were very good hence the high score that I give. I think it does not deserve more than 6 though.

Sewell is so good in this. The Bond producers need to convince him he could do it. He's absolutely got that cold exterior, ideal for Bond. He was clinical in this and played the part brilliantly. Never mind it was a rehash and pale imitation of the Agatha Christie original of the original story (without a priest in sight). Supporting cast were excellent as well.

Classy production that takes a late Christie murder dressed in black magic and turns it intriguingly into a psycho drama dressed in suspicion.

Far better way to handle a daunting number of corpses (even for Dame Agatha) than as a straight up murder investigation. Take delight in what is a sophisticated spoof played straight of a waning author's career built on murder mystery novels characterized by a super-abundance of either victims or perps and close quarters peopled by more than weird characters.

If you enjoy interpretations of original material, as many fans of Shakespeare must in our time, then "The Pale Horse" just may be your cup of strong tea.

This is a complete failure of the director to understand Christie.