The Worst Poirot Movie. (No, Not That One.) - Taken at the Flood
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2022
- A comparison of the Agatha Christie novel Taken at the Flood to its adaptation.
Other footage used is from:
-The Body in the Library (2004)
-Doctor Who 
Развлечения
Oh good grief! This TV story was set in the 1930’s and the views of abortion by the characters is historically correct.
Exactly! It fits the time period perfectly. That pro-choice vs pro-life is a hot topic nowadays is completely separate. If we are to shun away from controversial topics in movies and series, then how can we even make a series about murders to begin with?
Ah, "Taken at the Flood". Not only do I detest the novel, I also detest the adaptation. I think I detest the latter more.
Please do maybe the best poirot movie FIVE LITTLE PIGS. It's just perfect cinematic piece ❤️
It really is the best!
Beautiful superior drama, with gorgeous music. My all time favourite with Sad cypress.
@@Bluesky-gk4qy Peril at endhouse with Polly Walker is rather good,too.
I actually dislike it for some reason.
I also liked the Sad Cypress and the Hollow.
Momentarily I’m reading the mirror cracked. In the beginning of the book but also in little details further in the story are descriptions of the changes in the sixties. It has a melancholy undertone, life becomes so different. But Christie also noticed that everything actually stays the same. Funniest example is the hairdresser who renames her business hairstylist salon (in the Dutch edition) but her clientele are the same women who come for their stiff permanent curls.
Your remark about the description of postwar life in the UK made me think that there is so much more in Christie’s work than only a murder mystery. In both books, your and mine the murder is part of that overall theme
I agree, there is MUCH more to Christie's work than only the murder mystery aspect. Her settings, humor, and economical writing in her character descriptions and dialogue that appear simple on the surface but have much depth underneath are all pure gold!
I’d definitely say Appointment with Death. The adaptation, Agatha Christie’s Poirot, is absolutely horrendous. As a person who has read the novel 2-3 times, I found it quite difficult to understand what was going on 🤬
I agree, that one was genuinely dreadful. It's kinda hard to even call it the same story, considering how the killer has an entirely different motive. They also manage to both overcomplicate and lose any nuance in the story , turning the whole thing into a nonsensical, dumbed down mess of a movie.
It was horrible. Any resemblance to the book was totally coincidence!
I agree, I dislike it so much and it is one of my favourite novels of AC.
No comparison. Appointment With Death was the worst adaptation. Almost the entire plot line has been modified plus two unnecessary characters have been added. Horrible Horrible Horrible!
I only saw David's Taken at the Flood once. I remember thinking it was painfully off at the time.
God, Taken at the Flood isn't simply my least favorite of the Suchet adaptations, I actively dislike it. It's just all around unpleasant. From the sick way David abuses "Rosaleen" to the vicious behavior of the rest of the family to the distasteful portrayal of Lynn to the tension cul-de-sac that was the threat of the bomb at the end. I get that that may have been a logical portrayal for a girl in the 30s, but to an audience in 2006, it just seemed exploitational and unneeded. Then again, hearing about Lynn's decision to stay with Rowley in the book turned me stomach as well.
As for the retiming it to before WWII, it's definitely a problem (one that After the Funeral suffers from as well), but not something that bothers me too much. The decision to set all (except one) of the Poirot stories to before WWII and all the Marple ones to after was a calculated choice by the producers and it works well enough. It's certainly one of the least objectionable things about this adaptation.
I've only seen it once, and spent the entire time either squirming or rolling my eyes, being horrified and wishing it were over.
The scene of the bomb killing the patriarch, which you use, is actually from the tv adaptation of The Body in the Library.
Ooof, that was a choice, er, choices. For a palate cleanser, I'd recommend the Poirot film of After the Funeral- similar "Horrible Family and a dead Patriarch" set up, with some fairly good tweaks on the clueing, and a slightly over the top "the mask falls" moment after the killer is revealed. Also, if you haven't already, Check out the "All About Agatha" podcast: two friends reading all of Christie's novels in order and ranking them. Incredibly granular analysis that you would like.
ooh, I'll definitely be checking it out
i remember watching this adaptation and being very confused- it was part of a new era of adaptations where they would add gruesomeness for the sake of it; undoubtedly to appeal to a desensitized audience
Along with David Suchet’s Murder on the Orient Express, this was the only time I’ve ever seen Poirot mad at the killer
He was also mad in Murder in Mews, with his monologue about killing a human mind
It really is a bizarre adaptation, and not in a good way. Now I don’t mind if an adaptation wants to simplify or alter story elements for the sake of a televisual or cinematic experience, mostly because I believe a film or episode can still be great even if it’s practically almost unrecognizable (The Jurassic Park film is a good example). But this episode unfortunately doesn’t succeed on standing on it’s own merits. The cinematography is rather wonky, especially with some closeups, the writing and dialogue sound rather off kilter, and overall a bit clunky and directionless. And it’s even worse when this one of the episodes where Suchet looks excellent as Poirot, his moustache and suits are on point, his gaze is iconic, but disappointingly, it had to be in this episode. Fortunately this episode was an outlier and not the standard of how the last couple of seasons were going to play out. Nevertheless, great video and the mentions of the importance of the story originally being post war was a nice touch
Looking back, it probably wasn't the greatest idea to have all the Poirot stories set in the 1930s. Because stories like Taken At the Flood, which are heavily steeped in post-war II, take a big hit by having all the post-war elements stripped out, losing the richness and depth of the setting and the character's relationship to this new setting versus the time before pre-WWII. Can't imagine how stories like Miss Marple's A Murder Is Announced would look like if its post-WWII elements were ripped out. Then screenwriters have to come up with ways to explain away certain things that were more convincing in their original time and setting to things that just aren't well convincing. When it comes to the book Taken At the Flood vs. the film, the book wins hands down. The screenwriter who wrote the Taken At the Flood film script clearly doesn't know his Shakespeare and must not have read the book closely to know what the title was taken from and what it means. Not a great Poirot episode and a complete downer for the series.
One would think so, but establishing the show’s period between 1936 and 1938 does help keep the show very orderly , but it’s also very much practical in terms for the production crew. If the show had really spanned from 1916 to the late 1960’s/early 1970’s, the show would’ve probably had to face various costs and its visual tone and identity wouldn’t be as immediately recognizable. Something like that only benefits a couple of the post war Poirot stories and fix the matter of why Poirot and his associates age so drastically in the span of 3 years. Ultimately, you either alter the post war novels and try to find a similar theme that fits the late 30’s (which this episode didn’t succeed in this case) or have the show span the 1930’s and the 1940’s. But that might risk the show’s colorful and glamorous identity being overshadowed by the war. Unless, of course, you want to explore the decay of the romanticized decadence of the 1930’s and Poirot falling behind s in a world that’s in a war and will soon modernize
I've never read Taken at the Flood, but I did see this adaptation. I've read other Christie novels and short stories. The Taken at the Flood adaptation was one that felt out of character, and now I know why. Maybe I'll give the book a chance someday, but this adaptation is poorly written. All the actors were great though.
If you decide to read it - or any other novels by Christies for that matter - make sure it is an old, *unabridged* edition, and you will realise that she was not such a bad writer as you had thought after reading "pruned" books by her 😉 .
@@Beirut27 good advice. However, I have already read a few unabridged novels by Agatha Christie that are not good. In my opinion, Passenger to Frankfurt and Postern of Fate are not enjoyable. Peril at End House failed to stick the landing. Cat Among the Pigeons took forever to get Poirot involved. When Christie was on, she put out some amazing stuff like Murder at the Vicarage, Orient Express, Death on the Nile, or And Then There Were None-some of the best mystery novels ever. But not all of her stuff is good just because her name is attached to it.
@@timmeyer9191 I remember reading a first edition of Murder at the Vicarage and I enjoyed her humour, the description of a small country parish life and the unlikely love of a middle-aged vicar and his much younger wife. On the other hand none of her formated novels are readable imo. But one must bear in mind the fact that while Archie was losing money or failing to earn any she had to write, often too fast, to put food on the table ! Apparently she wasn't the only female mystery writer to be in that position : it was also the case of Pamela Branch, married to an utter loser and who died much too young of cancer but not before writing four whodunits, subtle and delightful mixture of slapstick and understated humour ; I highly recommend 'The wooden overcoat' and its hilarious sequel, 'Murder every monday'.
@@Beirut27 I understand her history, and I feel sorry she went thru that. However, I'm not going to recommend people to read all of her work simply because she wrote it. I will recommend certain books like Five Little Pigs, Roger Ackroyd, and Towards Zero in addition to others, but I will also admit I cannot recommend some of her other work. They are not just "Bad for Christie". They are subjectively bad in general. I don't think it diminishes her to admit she had good days and bad ones.
@@timmeyer9191 If you read in my comment that I recommended her works unconditionally or that I felt sorry for her you suffer from a less-known kind of illiteracy, one which will allow you to decipher a texte but not to understand its meaning 😉 .
Love the video title, lol, couldn't wait to see which it was referring to.
Harcule Poirot series was sold the American Company, therefore, its authenticity disappeared too much. American accent killed the serial, and also they added some stupid lines, for example, Poirot is coming to ask a question to the suspect, she is telling "I want to a lawyer." 🤣 It was a stupid line. 😄 I watched the Poirot's serials several times, but it irritated me to watch the episodes made of American company. In the UK, their talking, conversation, places, characters were following the original.
You should make an video about how bad the David Suchet version of "Murder on the Orient Express" is. Except that the Kenneth Branaugh version is even worse than the David Suchet version! *SIGH*
I think the suchet version is excellent. watched it a million times.
both of the brana adaptations are atrocities, not even comparable
@@freckleKaren Try the Albert Finney version of "Murder On The Orient Express." Agatha Christie herself thought it was very faithful to her book. It's by far and away the best version of all. The David Suchet version brought in all sorts of religious crap that was not in the book and has no bearing on the plot.
Disliked them both and I was so looking forward to the Suchet version!
@@wanderingtreeestate yes, I noticed the "religious crap" and yes, it was kind of a downside, but so far the only one. I loved everything else so much that I could easily make peace with this liberty they took.
@@wanderingtreeestate I'll try the 1970s one, thank you. I doubt it will change my opinion on the Suchet version though as it doesn't work that way - I already think it's great in it's own right. I'm usually super calm about directors taking liberties and adaptions taking a different route/approach than the book if the end result is good which I think it was
I cannot lie - I rewatch this adaptation over and over solely for the pleasure of looking at Amanda Douge. Something about her checks all of my boxes.
Another great upload! Can't wait for this channel to take off
I've read them all, or practically, so I could make several requests. Pale horse, Endless night, The dials....
The adaptation had one improvement; Lynn didn't marry Rowley. What I missed most from the book was Frances' explanation of the hoax.
Love your humor! Thank you for the super analysis and comments. You find the perfect visuals too.
Miles, I agree that this TV movie adaptation of the book was not that good, nor was it enjoyable for me. Maybe the worst of Suchet's 'Poirot' series. I know that the movies' writers would make some changes from the novels. Mostly, the changes worked (I speak of 'Poirot' and 'Marple' movie adaptations.) The worse movie adaptation of a 'Poirot' mystery, in my mind, was 'The Alphabet Murders', which starred two very fine actors (Tony Randall and Robert Morley. Enjoying your insight.
I often question the choices they make in these adaptations. But one thing to remember is that the BBC adaptations are not stand alone films, they are a TV series that does not follow the sequence of the original novels (which began early on when they cherrypicked their favorites, not imagining that the series would run so long), and as such they have to allow for a common setting between episodes. So rather than artificially age Poirot to fit the novel's time period, they are all set in more or less the same period. It doesn't excuse all the liberties they take with Christie's stories, but you can't really blame them for things like this that are really beyond their control.
If you are saying these adaptations are made by the BBC, then you are mistaken, they were made by ITV. All of the later filmed stories in my opinion are so inferior to the earlier ones, but each to their own. And the Marple ones, urgh don't get me started!
@@debm3041 Yes, you're correct. ITV not BBC.
The it’s a shame this adaptation is so cringe. The sets, production, and actors are all phenomenal.
Agreed.
Funny I was just thinking the other day on how this one was my least favorite movie in the series. I always skip it on rewatches.
This has to be the only Christie effort I have loathed from the first time I tried to read it to the last time I tried to watch it. Honestly, I cannot for the life of me get all the way through it in any of its forms.
Yes, I agree. The adaptation of Taken at the Flood is very bad. Ironic really, as it's one of Christie's best books. There was no need to stray from the text.
Just to be sure, the 'No, not that one' film is in reference to...?
The Alphabet Murders or either of the Branagh films are arguably more deserving of this title, so it could be in reference to any of those. I personally feel like this is the worst one because I expected a lot better.
I just hated the book ending so much since most of Christie's novels end in a sort of "happy ending". And here the haopy ending is you stay with an abusive boyfriend for thrills. Yay!
Burgeoning Agatha Christie review channel? You've got a sub, good sir.
Getting to look at Elliot Cowan is this adaptation’s one saving Grace 😉
I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist for a couple of editing mistakes...
For me the Suchet adaptation of Appointment with Death is the worst ever.
Stick around.
It’s not that bad. It makes the adaptation of Murder in Mesopotamia look like Death on the Nile.
Sure they play fast and loose with the book. A weaker book for the time it was written. Still I’ll like and subscribe. I like to see channels like yours build up.
MiM had such potential too - I think it was the only Poirot novel with a female narrator. Remove Hastings and return David Emmott. Hastings didn't belong in Evil Under the Sun, either, especially at the price of losing the Gardiners.
@@seto749 you are 100% right. I love Hastings but for me he fits best in the early Poirot novels or any of she short stories.
I didn’t hate the Ustinov Evil Under the Sun at all.
Just today I wrote a forum review about this book and the episode (I don't like it to say the least - this one and Cards on the Table are the two episodes I hate the most) - I read the book a few days ago. There is nothing about this adaptation that I like, it's just terrible.
This video title has some kind of twists as the movie it examines! But strangely it uncomfort but I like
Really not a fan of "SIGH this tv show is making me SO MAD!" vibe tbh
Probably my least favorite of Agatha Christie’s works. Sounds like this adaptation was even worse than the book.
Oh, oh, oh - I do think they "should write their own story if they can't follow the book", and here it seems worse than ever!
Will do my best to avoid this adaptaion!
I agree that the ending with Lynn's choice gives bad taste to say the least, I would strongly advice against younger children to read it, but when I now think of it, I just think Christie was tired of the book and wanted it to end. And she wanted to show that those men who had to stay home (because would do more for the country that way) were as "manly" as those who went to the warzone. But the way she showed it in the book is just absurd (and lazy).
/Now I will spend half the night figuring out HOW she should have plotted it, to make Rowley as irresistible to us, as he seems to be to Lynn🤔/
The abortion reference showed the extent of David's depravity. Not sure what you meant by "bodily autonomy?" Autonomy as defined by Kantian philosophy means to act according to objective morality - having an abortion is a violation of morality.
Having not read the book, the interesting theme in the tv version was the selfishness of everyone, but "Roseleen" And, how it manifests itself in greed, pride, and jealousy.
yaaaaay Thank you!😁
it made no sense that they changed the timeline etc.
I totally agree with all of this, the movie really was awful, but what I personally think was even worse, was the ending of THE BOOK. like wtf, Christie started romanticizing domestic violence…. it’s sad that in the book even the lovestory between Lynn and David was healthier than Lynn and her later HUSBAND (!!!) Rowley. I think the statement they made in the movie (for example Lynn’s quote that she would still love David even if he would beat her) described way more the book relationship between her and Rowley. And I will never truly be able to REALLY like this book, knowing that it has this ending…
Lynn's quote that she would still love David even if he would beat her, is a reflection of what quite a few females want in a man.....a strong, confident, "dangerous", exciting, "violent" male (David), rather than a sedate, simple, unexciting boring and "safe" man (Rowley).
It is kinda twisted but this attraction for a dangerous man over a safe man is something that is fairly common.
At least how it is presented in the movie, the first meeting between Lynn and Rowley vs Lynn and David is a stark contrast in how Lynn feels in the presence of both Rowley and David.
With Rowley there is zero spark....just safe routine....but with David there is a palpable sexual tension in the air.
After the meeting with David at the party....Lynn cannot seem to get David out of her mind and she starts questioning her decision about her forthcoming marriage to Rowley.
She is completely taken over by David's personality vis a vis Rowley.....she says as much to Poirot and Poirot realises this change in her before even she can comprehend that.
I thought this aspect was very well captured in the movie.
The adoption was vastly superior to the book which was actually quite crap
Thanks 🙏 ❤
Thank you! I just watched this last week and spent much of it wondering if Poirot, the world's greatest detective, was somehow now also the world's greatest clairvoyant. How the hell did he come up with abortion (and I'm 100% with you on body autonomy). I know she said the thing where she was no longer welcome in the church, but as a lapsed Catholic I can attest that there are many reasons you can get the "you don't have to go home but you can't stay here" talk. There were a few of these Poirots in that era which were odd. But I love David Suchet and will keep watching. You have a great channel!
Dla mnie i tak nie pobiło najnowszej wersji "morderstwa w Orient Express". To jak tam wygląda Poirot i to jak mocno go zmieniono woła o pomstę do nieba! 🤷🤦
I don’t like any David Suchet adaptions , I can’t say why , just never saw him as Poirot , but I would watch every one of it meant that Kenneth Branagh would stop 😡
One of the few Agatha Christie books I despise. Not sure why, I just can't stand it.
Too freaky
It is a strange adaptation but I really don't object to it. I am not a purist so "that is not how it was in the book" counts for zero with me as criticisms go. And that seems to be the bulk of your complaints.
To be sure, this is not my favorite Poirot, but the worst would have to be THE ABC MURDERS with Tony Randall, at least among those I have seen. Just godawful.
I'm not a purist either, I realize it can be difficult to film the written word, so to speak. But have you seen some of the very recent adaptations, especially the White Horse (don't know the actors, I couldn't watch it) and The ABC Murders with John Malkovich? Talk about playing fast and loose with the original story!
@@3poodlez321 ON A PALE HORSE was a mess, a failed experiment involving what imho is not one of Christie's best. But the new ABC MURDERS was brilliant--a genuine re-imagining that actually worked! Reminded me of THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE! I was soooo skeptical going in, but was soon totally engrossed with this unfamiliar Poirot, exploring a darkness in the story which was new and amazing. Given how very good the Suchet version was, I'm not sure there was another way to re-tell that story but by such a radical re-imagination. I felt fascinated and totally drawn in. I thought the new AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was overall very good, very close to a bullseye but just a hair off. My own view is that its emphasis was on the wrongs and evils of these particular individuals, making the case they are the outliers, missed the mark. The original is actually a bit more socially aware and critical. But overall a good adaptation, up there with the brilliant Soviet version.
Methinks it was similar after Jeremy Brett's iconic interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. How do you follow up from that? Rupert Everett and some others tried, but they did not click. Until Moffat and his writing partner came up with modern version, i.e. the one with Benedict Cumberbatch. For good and for ill, that caught people's imagination and plenty of folks loved it. But, it was a re-imagination. Which, if done well, I like.
The new Netflixx version of PERSUASION on the other hand is not done well.
But I did love THE HAUNTING OF BLY MANOR.
@@3poodlez321 I can't stomach John Malkovich's The ABC Murders. The adaptation is atrocious and a waste of time for the screenwriter to write such a thing and the actors who starred in it.
It's not a question of being a purist. It's the fact that it's awful.
This is one where I saw the adaptation before reading the book and, man, was that trippy.
I really, ardently dislike the scene in Rowley's kitchen at the end of the book, so I can't say the book is better.
On the point about abortion being bodily autonomy, I think that actually adds to the evilness of the act - rather like those anti-abortion politicians who force their mistresses to terminate inconvenient pregnancies.
No, my real problem with it is a) abortion was so unsafe in that period that no-one would build it into their scheme and b) if the timing worked, it would make much more sense to pass it off as Gordon's child and secure the money for definite.
Ugh... Anti abortion stances are vomit inducing and tasteless. I hated this, and I adore the series and Suchet's portrayal. But I just can't forgive this and how horrible it is.
It was a terrible mis-adaptation.
I really dislike the novel and the adaptation is even worse. :(
My least favorite Poirot. Only seen it once. No need for a second time
The way poirot treats R's crimes in both the novel and the film is disgusting 😡
I agree 👍🏻
Yikes. I'm glad I missed out on this adaptation. And now I will definitely never watch it. What a waste - nay, desecration - of an inspired and unusual original plot.
Watch the last Poirot movies, they are more horrible than these. Without Suchet, they screw up terrible. On The Death of Nile's movie without Suchet, there were Black singer, lesbian master and slave, gays, also all scenes were CGI. I couldn't endure to watch the movie and I switched off in the middle. 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️
I could only bear about 30 minutes of it. It's looks like a 2 hour long perfume commercial (in the style of J'adore by Dior).
Why do people like you use Jesus' name as an expletive? Why not try using Muhammad's name as a curse word and see how that works out for you? I stopped watching at 9 minutes as your opinion, literary or otherwise, ceased to be of the slightest value to me. I will make a point of avoiding any of your other videos in future.
Oh, well. One cannot have 'fundamentalism' without 'fundament.'