Punição para a Inocência

Let's be honest about this. If this hadn't been advertised as an Agatha Christie adaptation, I would have rated it a lot higher. As it was, my wife gives it a 9, I give it a 3. Average score: 6.

Why the huge difference? Because I knew the story before we started watching and she didn't.

This is NOT an Agatha Christie adaptation. This is taking an Agatha Christie title, using the same characters, starting out with the same opening of a son convicted of killing his mother ..... and then changes pretty much everything that follows.

I could almost accept that. What I can not accept is having reached the final episode and expecting character "A" to be revealed as the killer in the closing scenes because I knew the original story but instead finding out that in this 'adaptation' it is actually character "B" that did the deed because the screenwriter knows better than the incomparable Agatha Christie.

Imagine if you were going to an 'adaptation' of a Shakespeare play about a couple of star crossed lovers. You know the story. You know what to expect. You are confused by a few of the director's changes as you watch and you are doubting your memory of the original story but then you get to the final scene and the boy ... let's call him Romeo ... rushes to the girl's tomb ... let's call her Juliette ... to find her apparently dead. Surprisingly (because you KNOW the story), he decides to join her and kill himself but ... just before he can plunge the sword into his chest, Juliette awakens in the nick of time. Furious at being so cruelly deceived into thinking his beloved was dead, he stabs Juliette instead and then launches into a long soliloquy on the tyranny of women before fleeing the stage. Would you be happy with the rewrite?

An adaptation of Agatha Christie's Ordeal by Innocence? It is nothing of the sort.

However, if this had been given a completely different title, with different unrecognizable characters, set in a different time and place, I probably would have enjoyed it.

As it was, I was left immensely frustrated by the writer, director and producer's decision to capitalize on the Christie name and not willing to let the production stand on its own merits.

In future Christie 'adaptation' by the BBC, I'll be carefully checking the screenwriter and avoiding it if it has Sarah Phelps name on it.

On the other hand, if I see an original production where Sarah Phelps is the writer, I'll give it a go because, as I said, other than the con of presenting it as an Agatha Christie it wasn't too bad.

Before you start watching this, you should know that the story has been rewritten, it's not exactly like the one in the book. Now that that's out of the way, without complaining about the fact that this wasn't an adaptation as much as it was a rewrite, I'm just going to say what I thought about it as a movie not as a story.

The actors did their best, there weren't any moments when I found the acting to be questionable. They had depth, were three-dimensional and just made the story interesting. I've got nothing bad to say about the actors or the characters.

The plot was intriguing, but an exciting story is expected from an Agatha Christie adaptation. It had depth, it definitely keeps you on your toes and again, nothing bad to say about that.

The directing wasn't as good as I wanted it to be. It is a bit excusable, considering there was quite a wide variety of scenery and an intriguing plot, so it didn't need some amazing directing, although as I have previously said, it could have been better.

Summing up, it's a great mini-series to watch, I definitely recommend it. You shouldn't watch it if you expect the story to be exactly like Christie's book. I didn't really mind that, it felt like a gust of fresh air. I'm actually giving it a 8.5/10.

Evidently the writer thinks critics of her are 'b*****s' and will kick off at you if you dare criticise. Actually she only really borrowed the characters and a few of the story traits. It is nothing like Christie, more TOWIE meets Stephen King. She'd have been better off rebadging this as 'inspired by'. Maybe shed have attracted less flack, but controversy sells! Christies fnas will be very confused, little of the original remains. Overall its not bad but lacks that real understated Christie class. It's brash and tarty. Youll hate everyone and not really care what happens by the end of the first part. Not a good start...

A darker adaptation of an A.C. work. No Marple or Poirot (good) a straight forward mystery with plenty of red herrings. Re-worked by Sarah Phelps ,sometimes these are overworked, get boring. This one wasn't. Morven Christie, who I'm a big fan of, was certainly in total control of her part and acted out in style. Nice to see Bill Nighy playing it straight to the end, not his usual cameo of an aging rock star. I also liked that they used a reverse of film and clock as not to confuse you in stating a look back in time. A mystery with twists and turns to the very end, supported by a fine cast.

I binged this on a transatlantic flight, and was initially quite impressed at the style and mood-setting, as well as the acting (though Bill Nighy is overexposed). But as episode 3 progressed, it became apparent that the entire premise of the plot (including the identity of the murderer and the motive) had been upset. I agree with all the other reviewers who said that Christie's name should be removed from the title. She supplied the set-up and cast of characters, but it wasn't the same plot. In fact, the ending felt more like one of Roald Dahl's Tales of the Unexpected than the resolution of a murder mystery.