FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

bcpollock Let me start by saying that I've no familiarity whatsoever with Agatha Christie novels so whether or not the character is true to the source material I can't say.What I can say is that the sets, acting and props are all very well done & that I thoroughly enjoyed watching most every single episode.It's a simple formula; much like Columbo you have the frumpy little detective man who must solve the crime using the most faint of clues as his guide. Not exactly "True Crime" but entertaining nonetheless. What's more is that, unlike many other shows, the solution is a "whodunit" until the very end.If you like English television or detective shows give this a try.

John Smith Agatha Christie's Poirot is an ITV TV series based on Agatha Christies novels and short stories, some 70 in total, running from 1989 to 2013 in 13 Series. Most if not all of Agatha Christies works were adapted. Starring David Suchet (Poirot), Hugh Fraser (Poirot's assistant), Phillip Jackson (Chief Inspector Japp), Pauline Moran (Poirot's Secretary) and David Yelland (Poirot's Butler). The latter recurring characters are prevalent in the early series, but used as needed throughout and to a lesser extent in the later series, with David Yelland appearing towards the end. In Murder on the Orient Express for example, Poirot solves the case alone.Poirot is a period piece with most of the episodes set in the 1930's, which deviates from Agatha Christies timeline. High production values and excellent casting are highlights of the series.Poirot is a murder mystery series, with each episode following Poirot solving one of his cases, which invariably is one or more murders. Given the excellent casting, it is difficult to determine the murderer, unlike lesser shows such as Midsummer Murders, where the most accomplished supporting actor is frequently the perpetrator.The plot is Poirot uncovering a series of apparently unrelated clues, with Poirot in front of the suspects at the end piecing the puzzle of the crime together. Each of the suspects is examined in turn and ruled out leaving the perpetrator, except on the odd occasion where they are all guilty. Poirot solves the cases by analysing the psychology of the suspects (whether they could carry out the crime), eliminating suspects and using deductive skills.Most of the crimes are committed by the upper classes of society, with the episodes typically set in an English country mansion. One episode involves a serial murder (The ABC Murders). Series 6 onwards are double episodes, based on the novels; the earlier series were based on the short stories.Well acted, high production values, the only criticism is the length of the latter series. Special mention goes to David Suchet for his portrayal of Poirot. 7.5 out of 10.

JonathanWalford I have watched this series many times and I hope you will find my thoughts useful:Episodes created between 1989 and 2003 are mostly under an hour in length. One or all of the characters: Miss Lemon, Inspector Japp, and Hastings appear in each episode, and they are generally a lighter, or at least have some humour in them at some point. They are also better costumed than the second series. Episodes created between 2003 and 2014 are movie length - usually around 1 1/2 hours. In only one episode do the old regular characters show up, otherwise there are now new characters on the side including his man George, and a novelist friend. The episodes are much darker, devoid of humour, and with poorer period costuming and sets, however, the quality of film and direction are better. They stand as theatre-worthy films. David Suchet is the only constant through all the episodes. His character changes - becoming angrier, darker, and more religious in later episodes, but this can be explained as characteristics of Poirot as he ages. Which brings me to my worst complaint about the series. I REALLY WISH the producers had thought about presenting the episodes in the order in which they were published over a broader range of years, rather than the 1934 - 1939 time frame. Most of Christie's books with Poirot were written in the 1930s, but he does appear in books published between 1920 and 1972 (with one flashback story set in 1917). It would have been nice to see the episodes spread out from the early 1920s to the mid 1950s - which would excuse Suchet's 24 years of aging better.Regardless, it is a great series, and Suchet is the ultimate Poirot. I am sure he must be typecast as I have only ever seen him play Poirot, or crazy Arab terrorists... but he deserves kudos for bringing Poirot, with all his unsocialized prissiness to life.

junkjunknow History: Great to see how England was before and I am sure its the same as the so called high society looks down towards everyone that don't have money. However, apart from those rich pompous people, its great to see how Europe was in the 1920-30s and people's daily lives. You get to see how life was those days and how people interacted with each other.Poirot: From all the shows, you can't help but see Poirot as an arrogant, pompous, and pretentious person. So full of himself and always rude, and disrespectful towards everyone around him. Trying to find time to rub it in others face rather than provide assistance. It gives you a glimpse of probably how Agatha Christie was as a person towards others. After all, most writers place characters through their own knowledge or experiences.Racism: Agatha Christie is a genius at hiding the racial slurs within her writing. Its common to see English looking down on everyone except themselves and few neighboring countries. So, you see how she places character that are racist but more often their sayings are so blatant that you have to step back and think, was this because its needed in the writing or Agatha Christie trying to take off her frustration against everyone that is not English.Women: Well here also from the shows, you can see how Christie manages to look down on those women who don't have much as in money, power, or status. Its very carefully done throughout the show aka her writings.Men: Captain hastings is just a side person written to make fun of men. Agatha Christie does it so casually in all her stories, you see that in the show, Captain hastings is made as a character only to make fun of men. She does not show any respect to the detective partnership, and always places Captain hastings to look lost from the start of the crime until the it is solved. At least here Sherlock Holmes was well written, as it had Watson as a perfect partner. Agatha Christie seems to try to take off her frustration for no reason what so ever.Pretentious: Agatha Christie is so pretentious, its not even funny. The lady tries her best to act like she knows art, and culture by trying to put Poirot at scenes to do with art, concerts, and live performances. When you see scenes having to do with art, you see Agatha Christie as the kind of person does not know art but tries to much to be impressed by it. The kind of person you want to avoid at an art gallery as you will hear some of the most ignorant remarks that even the artist wants to move away from.In closing, if you meet a most rude, and disrespectful lady who does not care for others except in relation to herself or only if she is the center of attention, and then you convert that lady into a man. Then you get "Poirot".