It so happened that I got to watch three of Agatha Christie’s novels turned into movie/limited series one after the other and came away with mixed feelings about each of them. But all three of them, ‘Ordeal By Innocence’, ‘Crooked House’ and ‘The ABC Murders’, left me with a warm glow, like meeting a much-loved but distant relation after a long time, in this case the relative being Agatha Christie’s long-ago-read novels.  

I remembered reading ‘Ordeal By Innocence’ almost by the end of the first episode, but had thankfully forgotten who the murderer was. And so, as the scenes travelled across the screen, the plot slowly unraveled itself in my mind, the events leading me towards the conclusion I knew that I knew but couldn’t grasp until the last moment when the realization came to me at the very instant the murderer was revealed on the screen. Though I seem to recall vaguely that the book’s ending was a bit different from the one on the screen, it didn’t take away from the pleasant feeling that follows after reading any of Agatha Christie’s work.

Whereas ‘Ordeal By Innocence’ was a limited series, ‘Crooked House’ was a movie that tried to compress the complexities of the characters into an almost two-hour run time, and failed to do so in my opinion. Though played by stalwarts like Glenn Close (shining through with a memorable performance even with the limited screen time), Gillian Anderson (almost went unrecognized in her Cleopatra-esque wig), Terrence Stamp (who I felt was wasted with such a short exposure in the role of Chief Inspector Taverner) and Amanda Abbington (it would take an explosive performance to erase her Mary Morstan/Watson from my mind), they were not given enough time to truly flesh out the complex characters that made the household a ‘Crooked House’. It would have benefitted from the runtime of a limited series, negating the need for almost each character in the movie saying that the house was peopled with ‘an odd family’. Each character felt like a cameo, the viewing leaving me wanting more, thinking of the meatiness such acclaimed actors would have brought their roles had they been given the extended time of a limited series. As it stood, it left a slight mystification as to what was so ‘odd’ about the people of the ‘Crooked House’ that it seemed to warrant the title. A few hours after finishing the movie, the recollection of reading the book came to me and gave me a distinct memory of having had no such doubts about any of the characters of the ‘Crooked House’ after reading it.

And that brings me to the last one of the trio, ‘The ABC Murders’. At the outset let me say that I am an ardent fan of the ‘Poirot’ series, starring David Suchet. And so anyone else playing Hercule Poirot, will have to match up to my standard of David Suchet’s portrayal. John Malkovich, being the great actor that he is, brings his own Poirot to the series. Though, for me, the series started out with me being unresponsive, even a bit cold, to his Poirot, I must admit that by the end, he made me warm up to him so much so that the idea that he might be the Poirot for other screen adaptations of the great detective, was no more an unwelcome idea. Even then, the series did give a feeling of trying a bit too hard to establish ABC’s credentials as the prime suspect, when all along it was clear that ultimately he would prove only to be a red herring to the actual murderer. As opposing the ‘Crooked House’, I felt that ‘The ABC Murders’ would have benefitted from a shortened run time of a movie. Unlike the David Suchet episode where Poirot is still in the height of his powers and fame, and Inspector Japp is still alive, 'The ABC Murders' is set in a different and difficult time for Poirot. Added to that, his Inspector Japp embarks on his permanent passage, leaving Poirot alone to deal with police who have little regard for his yesteryear detecting achievements. One such policeman, Inspector Crome is played by Rupert Grint and to me, appeared to be on his way to achieving the aim of throwing off his ‘Ron Weasley’ mantle of the Harry Potter series. The difference between the two offerings seems to be the essential difference of British and American style of film making, the former a more genteel version to the latter’s grittier and darker offerings.

I must accept here that I am a biased viewer, when it comes to anyone else playing Poirot, as David Suchet’s Poirot is my go-to series whenever I find that all the current offerings on OTT platforms leave me with a sigh of yearning for some gentle ‘matter for the little grey cells’. Though I had no complaints with any or all the three, I do find that I need a viewing of David Suchet’s ‘Poirot’, a rich dessert to complete a rather well-spread, but slightly less-than-satisfying meal, to retain the warm glow that I spoke of at the beginning.