Agatha Christie is a Master of Mystery and her writings are classic. "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" is one of her best and should have been a great movie. However, this movie bears very little resemblance to the book, especially at the end. I suppose the writers thought her ending would be too tame for today's audiences. Just once I wish someone would make an Agatha Christie movie that is faithful to her writing
37 Reviews
What a disaster!
igorlongo10 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
the most catastrophic result in Christie's TV movie story! Dr Sheppard, the world-famous ambiguous narrator of the story, doesn't narrate anything at all, and he do not collaborate in any way with poirot .His role is completely sucked by Inspector japp, and so the highly celebrated Agatha Christie's final twist is deprived of any sense.The tender relationship among Dr Sheppard and his sister,the psychological key of the novel, is substituted by a silly shooting in a chemical factory, as in a Batman film(but of course without special effects) and by the absurd murder of the butler.Certainly the worst screenplay in a series duly highly praised for the excellent Suchet, but not certainly for the uneven quality of the screenwriters,throwing usually in their scripts Labour party marches or speed water records with no sense or relations with the story they must to adapt.
Disappointing adaptation of one of Agatha Christie's masterpieces
TheLittleSongbird24 October 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The book is an absolute masterpiece, for those who haven't read it I urge you to read it, that's how good it is. It is complex, involving and has some both scary and poignant parts. In short, the book is a must read. The adaptation, I am afraid to say was very disappointing. I accept the book is a very complicated one to bring to TV, but apart from the characters, there was minimal resemblance to the book. The book is in a first person narrative, which could have been really effective. But instead the murderer writes down his thoughts in a diary... why would the murderer want to confess in a diary? And where was the ingenious solution of the book? Instead it was replaced by a rather embarrassing shootout in the factory, and completely obliterated the poignancy of the ending of the book. And why was Parker killed off, did the writers find him unnecessary or something? And Dr Sheppard and his sister's warm relationship was lost, and there were bits that were too talky for my liking. However, on a positive note, the adaptation did look lovely, the music was beautiful and the acting particularly from David Suchet and Oliver Ford Davies was very good, considering the rather weak script they had to work with. Sorry, the script was weak even by Poirot standards, there were some funny moments with Poirot, but overall it suffered because of the deviations. Overall, nicely done and decently acted, but as an adaptation of a wonderful book, it falls short. And I do think it is one of the weaker Poirots, and you know what that is a real shame because it did actually start off promisingly. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Untrusted Narrator
tedg18 January 2005
The book on which this is based is one of the cleverest in all literature. The detective story is a matter of intellectual battle between the reader and the writer for control over the larger arc of the story. In most cases, the writer's avatar is the narrator. But what if the narrator is a character in the story and caught up in motivations from the fictional world?
It is a fantastic idea, that of the untrusted narrator. And it is one that clever writers and filmmakers have been using for a long time. Kubrick was one over on the film side and still after all those viewings most people take him literally. Just goes to show that it is very hard to do one of these untrusted narrator things in film. And it is nearly impossible if you have to aim as low as a TeeVee audience.
Clive Exton, the adapter, is the long time defiler of Christie. Who will do these again in my lifetime now that he has ruined the magic of them? In this case, he transforms the clever narrative device into a journal that Poirot reads as we see the story unfold. Exton doesn't go as far as inferring that what we see is literally what Poirot reads and in fact its sort of a muddle. One gets the impression it is there to mollify curmudgeons like us who wonder where the book fits in.
As with all Exton adaptations, complexities are eliminated, suspects erased and endings turned into dramatic TeeVee events.
But there is some joy here. As dull as the adapter is, the director tries to be clever. The opening shot, where Poirot recovers the journal, is a terrific piece of staging and I would be proud of it if it were mine. Throughout, he artfully plays on the nature of shadows. Just a little more would have been welcome.
Each of these plays by the BBC rulebook of places and faces. One of those rules is that one of the young women must be very pretty. In the past, we've even seen Polly Walker. Here, the duty falls to Daisy Beaumont.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
It is a fantastic idea, that of the untrusted narrator. And it is one that clever writers and filmmakers have been using for a long time. Kubrick was one over on the film side and still after all those viewings most people take him literally. Just goes to show that it is very hard to do one of these untrusted narrator things in film. And it is nearly impossible if you have to aim as low as a TeeVee audience.
Clive Exton, the adapter, is the long time defiler of Christie. Who will do these again in my lifetime now that he has ruined the magic of them? In this case, he transforms the clever narrative device into a journal that Poirot reads as we see the story unfold. Exton doesn't go as far as inferring that what we see is literally what Poirot reads and in fact its sort of a muddle. One gets the impression it is there to mollify curmudgeons like us who wonder where the book fits in.
As with all Exton adaptations, complexities are eliminated, suspects erased and endings turned into dramatic TeeVee events.
But there is some joy here. As dull as the adapter is, the director tries to be clever. The opening shot, where Poirot recovers the journal, is a terrific piece of staging and I would be proud of it if it were mine. Throughout, he artfully plays on the nature of shadows. Just a little more would have been welcome.
Each of these plays by the BBC rulebook of places and faces. One of those rules is that one of the young women must be very pretty. In the past, we've even seen Polly Walker. Here, the duty falls to Daisy Beaumont.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
An interesting angle.
colinrogers120 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
As this is such a classic it's not a bad thing to twist the twists slightly. TV can adapt and base something on an original. I'm no expert on this but one thing does leave me perplexed and I feel Agatha Christie omitted this detail unconsciously. In the grand staging , gathering all important and main suspects, why was there no invitation to Caroline Shepherd? She had to try herself to get invited. Possibly the adapter felt the same and tried. She was the village gossip. She was never questioned.. only unsolicited information from her that led to several vital points. Was Poirot rusty from retirement? Did he get this case wrong? Watching an interesting documentary recently and they concluded the same. It's still a wonderful book and the author keeps us all guessing. Even now!!
So much for retirement...
grantss25 May 2016
Hercule Poirot retires from sleuthing and moves to a cottage in a small country town, King's Abbott. His old friend, the industrialist Roger Ackroyd lives there and he soon makes friends with some of the other townsfolk too. One day a widow, Mrs Farris, (apparently) commits suicide, almost a year after her husband died. Then, soon after a dinner party that Poirot attended, Mr Ackroyd is found murdered in his study. Suspicion immediately falls on Ralph Paton, Mr Ackroyd adopted son, the inheritor of his estate and a man who had large debts with Mr Ackroyd. Poirot is reluctant to get involved but then the investigating officer from Scotland Yard turns out to be an old friend and ally, Chief Inspector Japp. Poirot and Japp, the old firm, get on the case.
Intriguing but a bit more straightforward than most of episodes in this series. The murderer can be largely figured out through seeing whom the scenes draw most attention to. You can't be 100% sure though (I wasn't) so there is still a large degree of mystery to it.
The journal also adds a new dimension to the story, as we see Poirot reviewing the case after the event through reading the murderer's journal.
Also a decent degree of sentimentality and nostalgia, with Poirot giving up London for the country. This is made most clear when Poirot briefly goes back to his London home and reminisces.
Overall, reasonably entertaining and interesting.
Intriguing but a bit more straightforward than most of episodes in this series. The murderer can be largely figured out through seeing whom the scenes draw most attention to. You can't be 100% sure though (I wasn't) so there is still a large degree of mystery to it.
The journal also adds a new dimension to the story, as we see Poirot reviewing the case after the event through reading the murderer's journal.
Also a decent degree of sentimentality and nostalgia, with Poirot giving up London for the country. This is made most clear when Poirot briefly goes back to his London home and reminisces.
Overall, reasonably entertaining and interesting.
Enjoyable entry and well done
Paularoc27 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I started reading Agatha Christie 50 years ago and she is still my favorite mystery writer. I vividly remember the Murder of Roger Ackroyd - mostly because I read a magazine article about Christie prior to reading the book and the writer, a real horse's pa-toot, gave away who the killer was. Once known, it is always remembered. After watching this series entry, I knew there would be a big reviewer flap about it especially because the narrative focus was changed. But I thought the change worked and liked the glimpses into village life and Poirot's attempt at retirement. His new pursuit of growing vegetable marrows (a term I have to look up every time I see it) pales after a awhile. Poirot tosses a squash, uh marrow, in disgust and accepts that he wants to go back to the most interesting job - the study of human nature. The cast is good, notably Oliver Ford Davies and Selina Cadell. And I'm glad that Inspector Japp is in the show, his character always adds value. David Suchet is so outstanding in every show - he is absolute perfect as Poirot. There was one bit that I found jarring in this show and that is the final shoot-out scene. Other changes the adapters made I understand but this one has me scratching my head in bewilderment.
After a year's retirement, Poirot is coaxed into helping with a case
SimonJack10 June 2019
"The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" is another early Agatha Christie mystery (1926) written with Hercule Poirot as the hero. But it is made into this film later in the sequence of stories. Still, it's not toward the very end, but after his first retirement.
Poirot has been in retirement for a year, tending his vegetable garden where he hopes to produce vegetable marrow, something akin to summer squash and zucchini. In truth, he is struggling at his hobby, but won't let on to his problems with friends. He has his comfortable cottage in the country, but as yet has not visited a friend from the past, Roger Ackroyd. Another friend, the village doctor, James Sheppard, shows up early to take him to see Roger at his factory.
When his friend, Roger, is murdered, Poirot is finally coaxed back into detective work by another friend, Chief Inspector Japp, who shows up to take charge of the murder investigation. Naturally, there are a number of complexities in this case, but Christie and Poirot aficionados know that the clues discovered by the junior policeman on the scene, Inspector Davis, are suspicious at the least.
This is a segment that fits between the long-running early TV series and the rest of the full-length films that complete the Poirot series. It's one that leads Poirot back into his line of work. He and Japp make a nostalgic stop at his former residence in Whitehaven Mansions. Poirot doesn't give on that he might be returning to work. In this story, he is torn between some of the ghost from his past work that haunt his former office, and the challenge and enjoyment of putting his gray cells to work to solve a crime.
Poirot fans will notice the slight change or adjustment in Poirot's appearance. He is transitioning his physical appearance with a change in his mustache. The former short, turned up pointed mustache centered above his upper lip with his nose has now become wider and fuller. It still turns up to points on the end, but now reaches to the ends of his mouth. Within a couple of years, his mustache will be straightened out and lengthened beyond his mouth to points left and right. That is how he will appear in the last mysteries off his illustrious career.
Poirot and Japp have some interesting exchanges of dialog. Here are my favorite lines form this film.
Flora Ackroyd, "I wish you'd tell me about these antique things, Dr. Sheppard. I' sure you know what they all are." Dr. James Sheppard, "Oh, just because I'm an antique myself...."
Chief Inspector Japp, "You're doing what you always do, Poirot." Hercule Poirot, "What is that, chief inspector?" Japp, "Confusing me." Poirot, "Ah!" Japp, "Just when I think I'm getting a grip[p on the case."
Hercule Poirot, "Decidedly, it is time for Poirot to act."
Chief Inspector Japp, "Home, sweet home, eh, Poirot?" Hercule Poirot, "Oui! But it is full off ghosts." Japp, "Lively ones too, some off 'em."
Chief Inspector Japp, "You were never meant to be a country bumpkin, Poirot."
Chief Inspector Japp, "Well, we'll see if you're right, Poirot. See if your newspaper article has flushed anybody out of the woodwork." Hercule Poirot, "Can woodwork be flushed, chief inspector?" Japp, "You know what I mean."
Hercule Poirot, "I thought I could escape the wickedness of the city by running to the country. The fields that are green, the singing of the birds, the faces, smiling and friendly. Hah!. The fields that are green are the secret burial places of the victims of murder most hideous. The birds sing only briefly before some idiot in tweeds shoots them. And the faces all smiling and friendly - what do they conceal?"
Poirot has been in retirement for a year, tending his vegetable garden where he hopes to produce vegetable marrow, something akin to summer squash and zucchini. In truth, he is struggling at his hobby, but won't let on to his problems with friends. He has his comfortable cottage in the country, but as yet has not visited a friend from the past, Roger Ackroyd. Another friend, the village doctor, James Sheppard, shows up early to take him to see Roger at his factory.
When his friend, Roger, is murdered, Poirot is finally coaxed back into detective work by another friend, Chief Inspector Japp, who shows up to take charge of the murder investigation. Naturally, there are a number of complexities in this case, but Christie and Poirot aficionados know that the clues discovered by the junior policeman on the scene, Inspector Davis, are suspicious at the least.
This is a segment that fits between the long-running early TV series and the rest of the full-length films that complete the Poirot series. It's one that leads Poirot back into his line of work. He and Japp make a nostalgic stop at his former residence in Whitehaven Mansions. Poirot doesn't give on that he might be returning to work. In this story, he is torn between some of the ghost from his past work that haunt his former office, and the challenge and enjoyment of putting his gray cells to work to solve a crime.
Poirot fans will notice the slight change or adjustment in Poirot's appearance. He is transitioning his physical appearance with a change in his mustache. The former short, turned up pointed mustache centered above his upper lip with his nose has now become wider and fuller. It still turns up to points on the end, but now reaches to the ends of his mouth. Within a couple of years, his mustache will be straightened out and lengthened beyond his mouth to points left and right. That is how he will appear in the last mysteries off his illustrious career.
Poirot and Japp have some interesting exchanges of dialog. Here are my favorite lines form this film.
Flora Ackroyd, "I wish you'd tell me about these antique things, Dr. Sheppard. I' sure you know what they all are." Dr. James Sheppard, "Oh, just because I'm an antique myself...."
Chief Inspector Japp, "You're doing what you always do, Poirot." Hercule Poirot, "What is that, chief inspector?" Japp, "Confusing me." Poirot, "Ah!" Japp, "Just when I think I'm getting a grip[p on the case."
Hercule Poirot, "Decidedly, it is time for Poirot to act."
Chief Inspector Japp, "Home, sweet home, eh, Poirot?" Hercule Poirot, "Oui! But it is full off ghosts." Japp, "Lively ones too, some off 'em."
Chief Inspector Japp, "You were never meant to be a country bumpkin, Poirot."
Chief Inspector Japp, "Well, we'll see if you're right, Poirot. See if your newspaper article has flushed anybody out of the woodwork." Hercule Poirot, "Can woodwork be flushed, chief inspector?" Japp, "You know what I mean."
Hercule Poirot, "I thought I could escape the wickedness of the city by running to the country. The fields that are green, the singing of the birds, the faces, smiling and friendly. Hah!. The fields that are green are the secret burial places of the victims of murder most hideous. The birds sing only briefly before some idiot in tweeds shoots them. And the faces all smiling and friendly - what do they conceal?"
none of the punch of the novel
blanche-213 February 2015
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd was, I believe, the first Agatha Christie I read, so many years ago it's frightening. I do remember a lot about it, though, and watched this episode with great anticipation.
Unlike some on this board, I couldn't possibly remember some of the book details that were left out, but I knew something was missing. The book packed such a wallop, it was breathtaking.
This episode, alas, seemed ordinary to me.
Hercule Poirot has retired to King's Abbott and is working on growing marrow. When a friend of his, Roger Ackroyd, is found murdered in his home, Poirot looks into the case. Inspector Japp joins him, so the to old friends are reunited.
Just the day before, there had been the suicide of Mrs. Dorothy Ferrars. She was Roger's great love. Poirot begrudgingly is pulled further into the case, where he tries to figure out the motive as he sorts through suspects: a secretly married couple, Mrs. Ackroyd, etc.
From the beginning, Poirot reads a journal, the journal of the murderer. In the book, the story is narrated by someone else. Also, there is no second murder. Japp was not present; it was an antagonistic inspector. Poirot's actual Hastings in this story was Dr. Sheppard, who has a small role here.
What a shame -- of all the stories to wreck, this is the one they picked. I'm a little disappointed in the Christie estate. They sold these stories without any care of what would happen to them.
I loved Suchet, as always, and Japp.
Unlike some on this board, I couldn't possibly remember some of the book details that were left out, but I knew something was missing. The book packed such a wallop, it was breathtaking.
This episode, alas, seemed ordinary to me.
Hercule Poirot has retired to King's Abbott and is working on growing marrow. When a friend of his, Roger Ackroyd, is found murdered in his home, Poirot looks into the case. Inspector Japp joins him, so the to old friends are reunited.
Just the day before, there had been the suicide of Mrs. Dorothy Ferrars. She was Roger's great love. Poirot begrudgingly is pulled further into the case, where he tries to figure out the motive as he sorts through suspects: a secretly married couple, Mrs. Ackroyd, etc.
From the beginning, Poirot reads a journal, the journal of the murderer. In the book, the story is narrated by someone else. Also, there is no second murder. Japp was not present; it was an antagonistic inspector. Poirot's actual Hastings in this story was Dr. Sheppard, who has a small role here.
What a shame -- of all the stories to wreck, this is the one they picked. I'm a little disappointed in the Christie estate. They sold these stories without any care of what would happen to them.
I loved Suchet, as always, and Japp.
The little grey cells come out of retirement
coltras3515 July 2023
Poirot reminisces about an older case in which Roger Ackroyd, the elderly, stingy millionaire disliked by many, was found murdered in cold blood - a second unnatural death in the village of King's Abbot in the past few months. Poirot comes out of retirement - he now grows cabbages in his Garden In King's Abbott- when his industrialist friend is brutally murdered a short while after a local widow who was suspected of killing her husband commits suicide.
Firstly, I must say I prefer reading the novels of Agatha Christie as the genius is in the detail and they are quite fun, and a few adaptations I have seen capture this, however this adaptation of Poirot's first adventure is well done, has great period details, presents the suspects really well, and ends with a bang -quite literally. It gets quite tense as the truth unravels to the end.
Firstly, I must say I prefer reading the novels of Agatha Christie as the genius is in the detail and they are quite fun, and a few adaptations I have seen capture this, however this adaptation of Poirot's first adventure is well done, has great period details, presents the suspects really well, and ends with a bang -quite literally. It gets quite tense as the truth unravels to the end.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd
Prismark103 August 2018
An unusual framing device is used for this meandering tale. At first I thought that the director was being arty as this was the first episode of the seventh series of Poirot. Poirot narrates this tale but there is something in the words he uses to describe some of the people that just makes it seem odd.
Poirot has retired to a village life and is trying to grow giant marrows and failing. Poirot at long last visits an old friend's factory. An industrialist Roger Ackroyd who Poirot once loaned some money to and Ackroyd has made a great success of his company. Yet Poirot makes disparaging remarks about the man in his commentary, like he dislikes Ackroyd.
Roger Ackroyd is found dead after a dinner party which Poirot had attended. Ralph Paton his feckless stepson is the main suspect but he has disappeared. There is also the intriguing case of a widow, Mrs Farris who killed herself almost a year after her husband died. Mrs Farris was linked somehow to Roger Ackroyd.
Poirot reluctantly comes out of retirement and gets involved in the investigation once Inspector Japp turns up.
The episode is let down by a leaden pace, it is another feature length episode that feels overstretched. I liked the production design which I know deteriorates in later years of Poirot. However I felt the director's misdirection was not sufficient enough to point away from the actual murderer.
The shoot out at the end was laughably banal, all that was missing at the end was a vat of acid for the body to fall into.
Poirot has retired to a village life and is trying to grow giant marrows and failing. Poirot at long last visits an old friend's factory. An industrialist Roger Ackroyd who Poirot once loaned some money to and Ackroyd has made a great success of his company. Yet Poirot makes disparaging remarks about the man in his commentary, like he dislikes Ackroyd.
Roger Ackroyd is found dead after a dinner party which Poirot had attended. Ralph Paton his feckless stepson is the main suspect but he has disappeared. There is also the intriguing case of a widow, Mrs Farris who killed herself almost a year after her husband died. Mrs Farris was linked somehow to Roger Ackroyd.
Poirot reluctantly comes out of retirement and gets involved in the investigation once Inspector Japp turns up.
The episode is let down by a leaden pace, it is another feature length episode that feels overstretched. I liked the production design which I know deteriorates in later years of Poirot. However I felt the director's misdirection was not sufficient enough to point away from the actual murderer.
The shoot out at the end was laughably banal, all that was missing at the end was a vat of acid for the body to fall into.
A Great Disappointment
BaronBl00d14 August 2005
For those of you who have NOT read the novel by the same name by Agatha Christie, you may indeed think my criticism of this adaptation somewhat harsh. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is easily one of the greatest mystery novels and particularly one of Christie's best ever written. It is a great novel and is definitely a hard one to truly bring to the screen(small screen in this case)entirely faithful. Allowances must be made, but the script from this adaptation meanders a good deal from much of the source material. I did not like the framing device used. Why not have the narrator in the novel narrate? How bout that hokey ending with its proverbial "shootout" to get the audience's attention? And what about Poirot cracking the case in question? These major departures from the book greatly diminished my favor with this film. It is done very stylishly. The acting is as always very good. David Suchet makes the best Poirot and certainly the most faithful to the books. But this mystery has been twisted and contorted too much so that I can only faintly see Christie. What a shame! I would have really liked to see how Suchet and company could tackle this innovative novel. I came, I saw, I sighed!
Quel tragedie! This should have been one of the best adaptations.
Sleepin_Dragon15 November 2015
The second book I ever ready from Dame Agatha after And then there were none, was the murder of Roger Ackroyd, I waited for years for the book to be made into TV, and it was, and they made a hash of it. The novel is an out and out masterpiece, it's a stunning piece of work, they managed to make it so flat, so devoid of the genius it undoubtedly had.
It's a gorgeous looking episode, Ackroyd's home is gorgeously decorated, the enormous wall clock, the rugs, china etc, everything is so opulent, it just oozes sheer class.
Nothing wrong with the acting, it's solid as opposed to brilliant, Oliver Ford Davies is good value as Doctor Sheppard, and I'm a big fan of Selina Caddell, so I enjoyed her very much.
I think the main problem was the direction itself, it was just so flat, dare I say boring, the changes from the novel didn't seem to benefit, if anything they diminished the plot. I didn't like Poirot's narration. Through no fault of Oliver Ford Davies the character in the book is just so different, in the book there's a warmth to him that just doesn't come across.
It's so hard to believe this and Lord Edgeware dies were made at the same time, that was brilliant, this one is just flat. A tragic 5/10
It's a gorgeous looking episode, Ackroyd's home is gorgeously decorated, the enormous wall clock, the rugs, china etc, everything is so opulent, it just oozes sheer class.
Nothing wrong with the acting, it's solid as opposed to brilliant, Oliver Ford Davies is good value as Doctor Sheppard, and I'm a big fan of Selina Caddell, so I enjoyed her very much.
I think the main problem was the direction itself, it was just so flat, dare I say boring, the changes from the novel didn't seem to benefit, if anything they diminished the plot. I didn't like Poirot's narration. Through no fault of Oliver Ford Davies the character in the book is just so different, in the book there's a warmth to him that just doesn't come across.
It's so hard to believe this and Lord Edgeware dies were made at the same time, that was brilliant, this one is just flat. A tragic 5/10
The Murder of "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd"
DrizztDoUrden29 January 2004
I shan't talk about the plot, because that would ruin it.
Agatha Christie readers could not have possibly have imagined that the adaptation would be this poor. It takes one of Agatha Christie's best novels, and butchers the story, removes half the suspects. It then inserts periods of boring introspection by the detective as he visits his old flat in Whitehaven Mansions.
Moreover, in the novel, most of the characters had some redeeming qualities. All humanity seems to have been stripped out of them in this adaptation. As a result, viewers who have not read the book would probably care even less who the murderer turns out to be.
Fans always knew that this novel would be one of the hardest to adapt, because there is relatively more narrative, and there is less banter than in the Poirot-Hastings stories such as the ABC murders. However, the recent excellent adaptation of Sad Cypress showed that it is possible to convert the moodier, less conversational mysteries to the screen.
A film that is inadequate for first-time viewers and bookreaders alike.
Agatha Christie readers could not have possibly have imagined that the adaptation would be this poor. It takes one of Agatha Christie's best novels, and butchers the story, removes half the suspects. It then inserts periods of boring introspection by the detective as he visits his old flat in Whitehaven Mansions.
Moreover, in the novel, most of the characters had some redeeming qualities. All humanity seems to have been stripped out of them in this adaptation. As a result, viewers who have not read the book would probably care even less who the murderer turns out to be.
Fans always knew that this novel would be one of the hardest to adapt, because there is relatively more narrative, and there is less banter than in the Poirot-Hastings stories such as the ABC murders. However, the recent excellent adaptation of Sad Cypress showed that it is possible to convert the moodier, less conversational mysteries to the screen.
A film that is inadequate for first-time viewers and bookreaders alike.
Does not do justice to the book
www-marinouniki30 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Rated S for Spoilers. So, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is cited as Dame Agatha's best. I tend to disagree - it's really not that great, but that doesn't mean I don't want to watch a decent adaptation of it. It saddens me to give it a low rank, but I want to review the least good episodes, and I'll do the ones I liked last.
Several characters (Charles Kent, Hector Blunt) have been cut, as well as some subplots (Mah Jong chapter, Miss Russell's son). Those are trivial. What this adaptation does and undermines the episode's brilliant murderer is... to take away all the suspense. We're meant to see Dr Sheppard as a surrogate Hastings; someone Poirot can definitely trust. In here, it's not that he doesn't trust him, but his role has been reduced. He's put aside in the background, making him nothing more than a mere suspect, so the Reveal at the end is much less satisfying. In other words, they took out the only element that made the book shine, because in terms of characters, character development, characterization and themes, the book was simply lacking. By making the character of the doctor less irrelevant, they wrote off the only thing that made the book worthwhile for me. To be fair, making Sheppard the narrator would not only be difficult, but also suspicious. Hastings, the good Watson himself never narrates an episode, so why does this random guy do it? In that case, they should just write his journal off, no matter who reads its aloud. Instead, I believe, they should have Dr Sheppard accompany Poirot everywhere, as Hastings would have done, and perhaps even say something along the lines of "You remind me of my good friend Hastings", so the audience would think of him as another Watson to Poirot's Sherlock. Instead, they wrote Japp in, which was a huge mistake. Not only is Japp nowhere to be found in the book, but in the episode, he undertakes Sheppard's role and becomes one of the reasons why the murderer reveal is has less impact.
Another thing that really bugged me was the ending. These series have a tendency to add ridiculous over-the-top chase scenes, and Roger Ackroyd is no exception. Here, at the end, after we know who murdered Roger Akcroyd, Poirot and Japp chase James in the factory, which results in Sheppard's death. It seemed completely unnecessary, and his suicide by veronal was way better executed in the books. Plus, there was some irony in it, dying the same way Dorothy Ferrars had. In here, it just was unbelievable and stupid. Also Caroline should have never learnt about her brother's doings, never.
On the acting... really, David Suchet and Oliver Ford Davies' acting was the only thing than prevented this episode from being a complete disaster. They both were very good! A pity we barely got to see James Sheppard.
Several characters (Charles Kent, Hector Blunt) have been cut, as well as some subplots (Mah Jong chapter, Miss Russell's son). Those are trivial. What this adaptation does and undermines the episode's brilliant murderer is... to take away all the suspense. We're meant to see Dr Sheppard as a surrogate Hastings; someone Poirot can definitely trust. In here, it's not that he doesn't trust him, but his role has been reduced. He's put aside in the background, making him nothing more than a mere suspect, so the Reveal at the end is much less satisfying. In other words, they took out the only element that made the book shine, because in terms of characters, character development, characterization and themes, the book was simply lacking. By making the character of the doctor less irrelevant, they wrote off the only thing that made the book worthwhile for me. To be fair, making Sheppard the narrator would not only be difficult, but also suspicious. Hastings, the good Watson himself never narrates an episode, so why does this random guy do it? In that case, they should just write his journal off, no matter who reads its aloud. Instead, I believe, they should have Dr Sheppard accompany Poirot everywhere, as Hastings would have done, and perhaps even say something along the lines of "You remind me of my good friend Hastings", so the audience would think of him as another Watson to Poirot's Sherlock. Instead, they wrote Japp in, which was a huge mistake. Not only is Japp nowhere to be found in the book, but in the episode, he undertakes Sheppard's role and becomes one of the reasons why the murderer reveal is has less impact.
Another thing that really bugged me was the ending. These series have a tendency to add ridiculous over-the-top chase scenes, and Roger Ackroyd is no exception. Here, at the end, after we know who murdered Roger Akcroyd, Poirot and Japp chase James in the factory, which results in Sheppard's death. It seemed completely unnecessary, and his suicide by veronal was way better executed in the books. Plus, there was some irony in it, dying the same way Dorothy Ferrars had. In here, it just was unbelievable and stupid. Also Caroline should have never learnt about her brother's doings, never.
On the acting... really, David Suchet and Oliver Ford Davies' acting was the only thing than prevented this episode from being a complete disaster. They both were very good! A pity we barely got to see James Sheppard.
Disappointing
Sulla-212 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
It's difficult to squash a full length novel into 100 minutes but it can be done if you don't add things like the silly ending. Without the additions you could include a major character like Blunt. Although I like Japp. he should not have been there.
Mrs Christie has already done all the hard work, why on earth do they need to change things?
However the acting was excellent as usual and the sets were fantastic.
Mrs Christie has already done all the hard work, why on earth do they need to change things?
However the acting was excellent as usual and the sets were fantastic.
Poor Agatha Christie
armannja9 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Agatha Christie disliked the theatrical adaptations of this novel and felt they were full of needless changes. This one is no different and is in fact one of the worst of the David Suchet' Poirot episodes.
1. The narrator is completely lost, Dr Sheppard is a completely secondary figure in this version and does not have the necessary 'Watson' role that is fundamental to the novel. 2. The warm comedy of Dr Sheppard's relationship with his sister and her whole role in the story is lost. Again! Strange how those who adapt the novel seem to dislike Caroline, a character Agatha herself was very fond of. 3. There is a completely superfluous second murder. 4. There is far too much shouting and running and unnecessary action. 5. I miss many of the characters from the novel, especially Mrs Russell the housekeeper. 6. In the novel, Geoffrey Raymond is not a 'bit of a stick' but a likable young man who might be a possible romance for Flora. I have yet to see an adaptation where his character is retained which is a pity as he is one of the most sympathetic characters in the novel. 7. The whole 'small town gossip' atmosphere of the book is lost. 8. Japp and Poirot are too close, in the novel the inspector (not Japp in this case) is to a degree his antagonist.
The end result is quite disappointing. Will this novel, one of AC's best, never be adapted properly?
1. The narrator is completely lost, Dr Sheppard is a completely secondary figure in this version and does not have the necessary 'Watson' role that is fundamental to the novel. 2. The warm comedy of Dr Sheppard's relationship with his sister and her whole role in the story is lost. Again! Strange how those who adapt the novel seem to dislike Caroline, a character Agatha herself was very fond of. 3. There is a completely superfluous second murder. 4. There is far too much shouting and running and unnecessary action. 5. I miss many of the characters from the novel, especially Mrs Russell the housekeeper. 6. In the novel, Geoffrey Raymond is not a 'bit of a stick' but a likable young man who might be a possible romance for Flora. I have yet to see an adaptation where his character is retained which is a pity as he is one of the most sympathetic characters in the novel. 7. The whole 'small town gossip' atmosphere of the book is lost. 8. Japp and Poirot are too close, in the novel the inspector (not Japp in this case) is to a degree his antagonist.
The end result is quite disappointing. Will this novel, one of AC's best, never be adapted properly?
"I beg of you a thousand pardons, but these vegetable marrows, they have driven me to the edges of barbarity!"
bensonmum22 August 2007
In most instances, I like to begin one of these "reviews" (I put that word in parentheses because I'm not sure that what I'm doing here would actually constitute a "review") with a plot summary. But, this being Agatha Christie and all, I would hate to give away even the most insignificant of clues. So I'll be very glib and just say that there's a murder, lots of suspects, and Hercule Poirot (I told you I was being glib).
I was prepared to write a rather lengthy review detailing all of my many problems with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but after reading what others have already written on IMDb, I'm not sure I see much of a reason. The issues I have with the film have been spelled-out more eloquently than I could ever hope. Like many other Agatha Christie fans, I've always thought of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd as one of her better efforts. It's a clever mystery told in an unusual style (at least unusual for Christie). As other reviewers have noted, gone is much of the mystery that makes the book so wonderful. Instead, the movie adds on a quite tacky finale that's completely out of character with the source material. I understand that creative license must be taken to bring these novels to television, but this time it's just too much. I could, and probably should, have rated The Murder of Roger Ackroyd lower, but the acting, sets, locations, etc. Are too enjoyable to rate it a total disaster.
Maybe someday someone will tackle The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and gets it right.
I was prepared to write a rather lengthy review detailing all of my many problems with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but after reading what others have already written on IMDb, I'm not sure I see much of a reason. The issues I have with the film have been spelled-out more eloquently than I could ever hope. Like many other Agatha Christie fans, I've always thought of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd as one of her better efforts. It's a clever mystery told in an unusual style (at least unusual for Christie). As other reviewers have noted, gone is much of the mystery that makes the book so wonderful. Instead, the movie adds on a quite tacky finale that's completely out of character with the source material. I understand that creative license must be taken to bring these novels to television, but this time it's just too much. I could, and probably should, have rated The Murder of Roger Ackroyd lower, but the acting, sets, locations, etc. Are too enjoyable to rate it a total disaster.
Maybe someday someone will tackle The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and gets it right.
Doomed to fail?
Iain-21514 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
'Ackroyd' is one of Christie's most celebrated novels where she pulled off one of her most outrageous tricks ever. It is a favourite of many and given the nature of the 'twist' it was always going to be a difficult novel to pull off on screen. In many ways this is actually not a bad adaptation of the basic story. It looks wonderful and is generally well acted. Motive and method remain intact. The big problem of course is that deprived of it's unique narrative qualities, the story itself is shown to be rather pedestrian and uninvolving. This mystery hinges on the audacious trickery of the author and this is not allowed to come through in the film. The final shootout is frankly embarrassing and it's a pity that Poirot is denied the opportunity to reveal his own deductions in unmasking the killer.
Ultimately unsatisfying, this film retains a 5/10 because taken on its own terms, it remains good entertainment. It is not however a true reflection of the brilliance of the novel.
Ultimately unsatisfying, this film retains a 5/10 because taken on its own terms, it remains good entertainment. It is not however a true reflection of the brilliance of the novel.
Oui, oui! A bad Hercule Poirot episode, mon ami!
El Cine1 February 2001
Too bad. What should have been an intriguing and shocking Christie mystery ended up as a run-of-the-mill, made-for-TV mess --- the worst thing that a Poirot episode can be. The only shocking things about it are how the book was rewritten so much, and how the action unfolded in such a cheesy manner. I understand that some variations may help when trying to translate a novel to the screen, but, really, when three main suspects have been omitted, another perpetually ignored throughout the production, and another killed off during the movie (and NOT during the book!!), something is seriously wrong. Not to mention all of the swearing and gratuitous violence absent from the book and unbecoming of a Poirot film with David Suchet. Did we really need to see Roger Ackroyd gurgling and shaking his jowls for three minutes after getting stabbed in the neck? And what was going on with that climax? Was the director trying to recreate the chemical plant scenes from "Batman"? And there were many more butchered parts, too.
The first step towards making the film more interesting would have been putting the Dr. Sheppard character into more of a "Captain Hastings" role, a sidekick for Poirot, as he was in Christie's book. This would increase his relevance to the story and make the ending more effective. Of course, the whole production would have to be redone from the ground up to make it good. Sadly, Suchet probably won't be involved with such a remake since he has already been used for this misfire. At least he and Phillip Jackson picked up paychecks for their trouble.
Such a disappointment, especially compared to the recent A&E version of "Lord Edgeware Dies", which was nicely done, and also featured Suchet and company.
The first step towards making the film more interesting would have been putting the Dr. Sheppard character into more of a "Captain Hastings" role, a sidekick for Poirot, as he was in Christie's book. This would increase his relevance to the story and make the ending more effective. Of course, the whole production would have to be redone from the ground up to make it good. Sadly, Suchet probably won't be involved with such a remake since he has already been used for this misfire. At least he and Phillip Jackson picked up paychecks for their trouble.
Such a disappointment, especially compared to the recent A&E version of "Lord Edgeware Dies", which was nicely done, and also featured Suchet and company.
A wasted opportunity
cinda_b31 December 2020
If you haven't read the book I'm sure this is a perfectly good episode of Poirot - however The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is considered to be one of the best detective stories ever written and - without giving anything away - everything that makes it great was removed from this episode. It makes it fairly run of the mill when it should have been the jewel in the crown of the entire genre. Shame.
Complete Disaster (spoiler)
ernie-446 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Perhaps the most disappointing of all Christie adaptations. The main point of the book (the arrogant misdirections in the writing, within the bounds of classic cozy mystery rules) is completely lost. Simply keeping intact the dialogue of Poirot's reasoning in the revelatory chapters would have been a tremendous improvement.
Is this the same film as the book?
stuartandamy13 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
As usual, the production values and the acting are top notch, with David Suchet once again performing the perfect Poirot. The historical accuracy is good; the right cars, buildings and clothing for the period make it believable for that time period. As far as the film being a film, it is is good. I'm a big fan of Christie, not just Poirot and Miss Marple, but also her other characters, most of these novels have been made into decent programmes (although when her short stories are adapted for television there is obviously some padding put in,) but in most cases they tend to stick quite close to the source. However, as an adaptation of Agatha Christie's book of the same name, this version is appalling! To the point whereby when my brother recorded this for me at it's first showing, he entitled the cassette "The Murder of The Murder of Roger Ackroyd". 'Nuff said?
Suchet is always charming as Poirot
Enrique-Sanchez-5624 December 2000
Being a an equal member of the reading and watching public, and having more than the average understanding about what goes into bringing any previous work to film, I always approach filmed versions with a grain of salt.
I do not think I have ever been pleased with a depiction of any Agatha Christie novel. For some reason, the endings of these seem to be less than sacrosanct to writers and producers. Do not ask me why.
Also, it is usually very hard for every nuance a writer brings to her work to translate well onto the screen.
Yet, Suchet's charm has always seemed infectious to me. His Belgian eccentricities always make Poirot come alive to me. I may be overstating this for most tastes, yet, I can opine that Suchet has a way of transcending any plot mischiefs or storyline inaccuracies and makes every experience with Poirot a delight.
Such was the case with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. It was finely wrought and delicately portrayed in a way that pleased what little I know of what life was like then. If there was much lacking from the book, all I can say is that I certainly expected it and I adapted to it unbegrudgingly. If I want true and complete Christie every time: I will read her books. They are the true source of this brand of pleasure aren't they?
I do not think I have ever been pleased with a depiction of any Agatha Christie novel. For some reason, the endings of these seem to be less than sacrosanct to writers and producers. Do not ask me why.
Also, it is usually very hard for every nuance a writer brings to her work to translate well onto the screen.
Yet, Suchet's charm has always seemed infectious to me. His Belgian eccentricities always make Poirot come alive to me. I may be overstating this for most tastes, yet, I can opine that Suchet has a way of transcending any plot mischiefs or storyline inaccuracies and makes every experience with Poirot a delight.
Such was the case with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. It was finely wrought and delicately portrayed in a way that pleased what little I know of what life was like then. If there was much lacking from the book, all I can say is that I certainly expected it and I adapted to it unbegrudgingly. If I want true and complete Christie every time: I will read her books. They are the true source of this brand of pleasure aren't they?
Why?
petehazell10 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is rightly regarded as one of the best crime novels of all time. Its initial publication caused controversy in some quarters because of a startling trick pulled by Agatha Christie. To bring this across properly in the form of a TV movie would take considerable skill, but with the right script-writer and director, it could make a fantastic film.
This certainly isn't it. The normally-reliable Clive Exton has seen fit to add another murder for no reason other than to provide a cliff-hanger for a commercial break, most of the characters have been destroyed, and what on Earth are factories and airports doing in there? The film only needs to feature three houses to work - it's a puzzle, not an action film.
It's such a pity that this should have been part of the regular Poirot series. For the rest of its run, the adaptations have been fairly faithful to the source material. This one's destruction of the structure of the plot is the sort of thing which we'll see more of in ITV's Marple travesties in a few years time. Unfortunately, I doubt that ITV will ever go back and do this one properly, because subjective camera-work could lead to a very atmospheric film version of this story.
This certainly isn't it. The normally-reliable Clive Exton has seen fit to add another murder for no reason other than to provide a cliff-hanger for a commercial break, most of the characters have been destroyed, and what on Earth are factories and airports doing in there? The film only needs to feature three houses to work - it's a puzzle, not an action film.
It's such a pity that this should have been part of the regular Poirot series. For the rest of its run, the adaptations have been fairly faithful to the source material. This one's destruction of the structure of the plot is the sort of thing which we'll see more of in ITV's Marple travesties in a few years time. Unfortunately, I doubt that ITV will ever go back and do this one properly, because subjective camera-work could lead to a very atmospheric film version of this story.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
