Overrated

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The movie is surprisingly subdued in its pacing, its characterizations, and its go-for-broke sensibilities.

This was great, and obviously well acted, written, and directed. Unlike some of the other reviewers, I love Christie, but I'm not so much of a purist that the changes to the book offended me...perhaps the writer had an original idea floating around and then adapted it to become similar to Christie's book. The third act, in which all the flashbacks and hints come together to reveal what really happened, is tremendous.

It is sad to see writers take classic works and completely ruin the premise and foundation of it. This is NOT a reinterpretation, It IS reinvented with completely different plot twists and ending that ruined the the foundation of this classic work. Other than that, it might have been ok if they just did something different with different characters unrelated to Christie's novel.

The murderer is changed and hence the whole plot falls apart. So many details were changed from the original book that it was unrecognisable . Disappointing and confusing viewing if you have read the book. As a stand alone murder mystery this was entertaining but I was too confused by the number of differences between the book and tv drama it spoilt my viewing experience. Agatha must be turning in her grave

Presumably - as with the majority of BBC writers - Sarah Phelps is unable to come up with her own plots and so pinches those of other writers.That's fine of course, and this stealing of other people's ideas has a long, long history - but real writers use the armature and then cover it with their own work of art.The BBC, however, has a long history of distorting the armature willy nilly before even beginning to create; then the creation proves nothing except that whichever scriptwriter is responsible hasn't understood the original work.If Sarah Phelps and the BBC are so creative that they know better than Agatha Christie how to create a plot and tell a story (Agatha Christie is only the world's best-selling author - ever - after all...), then why don't they create their own work from scratch?Or at least leave the armature intact.There are artistic reasons for making changes to an original work if you're reproducing them at a later date. None of those reasons exist here (that's why Agatha Christie's work is devoured by each successive generation of readers). So the changes are gratuitous, and artistically pointless.Good points:The opening sequence was mesmerising and atmosphericThe acting was good in the main (shame about the direction and pace)It was a long dramatisation and so served to pass the timeBad points: The sets and props were wrong in so many waysThe music was, as so often with BBC productions, over-loud and intrusiveThe direction was turgid and made the characters even more unpalatable (and, dare it be said, boring) than even the script had rendered themThe plot wasn't Agatha Christie's 'Ordeal by Innocence' (so why bill it as such?)The plot lacked subtlety, characterisation (just the usual BBC cardboard figures) and, ultimately, interestIt was way overlong, extended by a slow pace throughout, pointless bits of cinematography, overlong close-ups, pieces of graphic insertion wherever possible, etc. - all in the interests of padding out the thin plot to stretch over three episodesThank heavens Agatha Christie will never know.