Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

rainabosniac 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.

jcp370 Only made it 40 minutes into Episode 1. I thoroughly disliked every single character. Since I felt this, I didn't give 2 hoots what happened to them. And could've it been more boring? I can't think how.

stephwagg I really enjoyed the stylised approach to the filming and sets. The colours were fantastic. Also the actors were pretty decent, I really hated a good few of them (as we were meant to). To pre-empt the next bit, I liked Phelps' attempt at 'And then there were none'. Normally I wouldn't rate something so low on script alone, but I thought it was a bit of a car crash. How unimaginative to have swear words and graphic sexual gestures littering the script. It was boring and disgusting. At least Christie didn't have to resort to that kind of sensationalism. What else did Phelps need - some kind of ridiculous ending that couldn't hope to hold a candle to authentic Christie : We must of course have a bit of high level corruption (because the policeman is a homosexual paeodophile) leading to the murder of your bastard son (result of a different paedophilic rape) to cover up your own murder of your wife, because she threatens to divorce you when she finds you 'tupping' the secretary.This is exactly why I relax reading Agatha Christie for her subtle understanding of humanity, engagement with language and a good puzzle that is hard to work out but all comes together in the end. I got a tiny proportion of that in this. Please would you just write a new tv series altogether if you can't manage to adapt Christie well and want to cut it up and sew it back together in a Frankenstein's monster attempt.

markfranh 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.