Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Cards on the Table (Suchet)

AndThenThereWasTim 23 Jan 09 at 12:26 a.m. GMT

I recently rented the COTT movie and thought it was awefull.. Poirot was throwing accuisations everywhere, two of the characters changed and the motive at the end was so strange that I almost turned it off. They ending on the lake did not make sence. What did you think of this interpretation? The book was Great but the move was awefull.

Login or register to add posts and reply

24 replies

Reverse order

go_leafs_nation 23 Jan 09 at 1:26 a.m. GMT

The book is my personal favourite. The first 58 minutes of the film were magnificent, and I loved them. The final half-hour was dreadful, and I've never re-watched that bit. I always stop right before Despard tells his story. The acting, score, costumes, etc. were grand, but the plot was unnecessarily changed. And yes, I do live in the real world, and I realize that movies oftentimes have to stray from books. But this one didn't have to by such an alarming degree.

Holly 23 Jan 09 at 11:04 a.m. GMT

I agree absolutely. Love the book, very much disliked the changes they made when they adapted it for television. I think they need to go back to the early days of the Poirot adaptations with David Suchet, and stick more closely to the books. I know some people like the plots to be changed, but personally, I'm something of an AC purist, and I like to see the stories brought to life as she wrote them.

Tommy_A_Jones 23 Jan 09 at 4:32 p.m. GMT

go-leafs you are very generous, I didn't like it as much as you did, I was really looking forward to seeing Race and Battle, even though I don't like Race as a Charavter because I love the Book so much and having Race makes a change to having Hastings who I do think is wonderful, I was also lkooking to see Battle as he has never been portrayed since Harry Andrews did in ITVs Seven Dials Mystery, And Holly I can't see why if anyone wants to watch an adaptation of a book why they would want it altered.

Aurora 23 Jan 09 at 5:52 p.m. GMT

I'm with go leafs. I loved the book (and the BBC radio play) but I thought it lost it in the second half. It is dark enough without the need to modernise.

ariadnepoirotmarple 23 Jan 09 at 6:48 p.m. GMT

I love the novel. The atmosphere, the characters, the plot, the ending! I love everything about it and I was so disappointed with the TV adapt. The changes were unnecessary and ridiculous. Personally, I like when something in the plot is changed when there are some things in the book that didn't work, when changes are really necessary. However I found COTT disgusting and dreadful. The wardrobe and the sets were amazing and the atmosphere was well captured. The first half of the movie was, indeed, intersting although two characters were replaced. I'm proud to say that I have become an AC purist.

AndThenThereWasTim 26 Jan 09 at 4:14 a.m. GMT

Whoever played Shaitana and A. Oliver was great but I found that Poirot was dancing and suggesting to many different muderers also. To a degree I agree with go leafs accept I would say the first quarter was the best. And their reasoning behind the motive for the murder and the secretary was so sircumstantial that if put in a court of law would be thrown out like trash. I'll stop here before I give any more away.

jimmymac 07 Feb 09 at 2:54 p.m. GMT

I think the point here is that most people would accept that tv adaptations have to change some things and some change more than others... but, Cards on the Table is by far the worst example of the series. I am surprised Suchet agreed to the script.

The good news is that the following episodes have been better (even taking into account the changes).

Cards on the Table was a disgrace on a par with the latest Marple series.

Tommy_A_Jones 07 Feb 09 at 4:15 p.m. GMT

I totally agree jimmymac, It would be great if someone had the chance to ask him why he agreed to the changes.

AndThenThereWasTim 07 Feb 09 at 5:48 p.m. GMT

Maybe he forgot to read the book? LOL

Tommy_A_Jones 13 Feb 09 at 3:59 p.m. GMT

Maybe they thought as the guy who played Race in Death On The Nile wasn't available to play him again they would do something totally bizarre and nothing ruin the book.

Holly 13 Feb 09 at 4:22 p.m. GMT

I really liked David Niven as Race. But after all, they had to recast all the characters who had previously been cast for the Peter Ustinov versions anyway... so why not Race?

I can understand that some changes are necessary - e.g. because they can't have as many characters in the adaptation as there were in the book. But I don't like significant changes, and there were too many of those in this one, imo.

Tommy_A_Jones 14 Feb 09 at 12:25 p.m. GMT

I thought they had the same number of Characters in Cards On The Table but just had a differeent Colonel and Policeman instead of Race and Battle (I was looking forward to seeing who would be Battle as I think I have said before.

go_leafs_nation 21 Feb 09 at 3:33 p.m. GMT

That's precisely what happened. Battle became Superintendant Wheeler. Race became Colonel Hughes.

Tommy_A_Jones 25 Feb 09 at 4:08 p.m. GMT

Yes go leafs, James Fox wasn't available so I can sort of see why they couldn't have had Race (Although I still think they could have got a different Actor to play him as he only appears in 2 Poirots so I don't think it would have mattered if they had) but it doesn't explain why they didn't get someone to play Battle as he hasn't been portrayed for years unless you include SPARKLING CYANIDE where his name was changed and the Film version of THE MAN IN THE BROWN SUIT but that was an A film so I am not including that.

devilgal19 20 Mar 09 at 12:33 a.m. GMT

Not among my favourite tv adaptation.  I mean they did get the murderer right but the story was so mixed up.  Since when was Anne Meredith, Mrs. Lorrier's daughter.  Also the changing of names of several of the detective names got thrown into questioning by me.  Also, didn't Anne die rather than Rhoda?  I believe she did.

sapphire_arisa 28 Mar 09 at 5:45 a.m. GMT

I've watched it last night on DVD, and I found it...good. I haven't read the actual book, so when i do, maybe I will find some details missed on the movie, like most of the adaptions do.

Tommy_A_Jones 28 Mar 09 at 12:49 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

The book is much better, In case you don't know sapphire arisa Battle and Race are in the book and not the Colonel and Policeman who was in the Adaptation but Aradne is in the book and of course Poirot, you will enjoy the book, I have read it 3 times at least.

Tommy_A_Jones 30 Mar 09 at 1:38 p.m. GMT

When Colonel Carbury first appears in 'Appointment With Death' which I am currently reading he is reading a letter in which Race explains about Shaitana's Murder so perhaps it would have been better if Race's replacement had been him, I could have lived with that as even though he might have been portrayed before (I can't remember if he has) if they had to re-cast for whatever reason it would not have been so bad as Carbury isn't so well known.

go_leafs_nation 01 Apr 09 at 9:49 p.m. GMT

I bought the TV Tie-In version of COTT. The screenwriter, Nick Dear, admitted the book's grandeur, but said that it had to be altered to better work on TV. (More likely to make it more appealing to American audiences.) I can find the exact quote later.

Tommy_A_Jones 02 Apr 09 at 2:31 p.m. GMT

I think that excuse is either an insult to the Americans or a sad inctment on the Americans and their Country.