User reviews

Well, if you didn't read the book you will probably enjoy this one. I did read the book, I did enjoy the adaptation a little bit too, but just because of the good directing and to see Miss Lemon, Hastings and Japp all back together with Poirot, although they don't have much time on screen. David Suchet is perfect as always, and the other actors do a good job to. If you missed them (Lemon, Japp and Hastings) you should watch it, but don't have much expectations, because it is COMPLETELY different from the book, and I just can't understand why they've changed it so much. I waited so long to see this, was really disappoiting, but still has its good moments.

He's back. Poirot has returned to Masterpiece Mystery in "The Big Four." It apparently is quite different from the book.

I have been watching the earlier Poirot episodes recently, and I couldn't believe how ancient everyone looked in this episode. The actors aren't even that old! I'm wondering if it was the makeup.

That aside, this is an odd story.

Set in Europe in 1939, as war approaches, Poirot attends a party given by the head of the Peace Party, Abe Ryland. Ryland is going to play chess with a very famous Russian grandmaster, Ivan Savaranoff. Unfortunately, Savaranoff dies a couple of chess moves in, presumably of a heart attack.

Poirot is suspicious and he helps his old buddy, now Assistant Commissioner Japp, in his investigation. Then two other members of the Peace Party go missing. An ambitious young journalist is sniffing around, claiming to have inside information that these crimes are the work of the Big Four, an organization that is the cause of terrorist attacks and much of the upheaval going on in the world.

I found the motive for these crimes pretty silly, which spoiled it for me. However, I loved seeing Hastings, Japp, and Lemon reunited with Poirot, and as usual, the production values were opulent.

Disappointing, but I'll watch David Suchet as Poirot any time.

The world is on the eve of War, a storm is gathering. Poirot and Japp are guests at an event put on by Peace Party, a group of pacifists brought together by Li Chang Yen. Grand chess Master Doctor Savaranoff is brought out of retirement to play, during the game he dies, Poirot investigates and discovers it was murder. During the post mortem journalist Lawrence Boswell Tysoe tells Japp and Poirot the perpetrators of the crime were 'The Big Four.' Next victim is Jonathan Whalley, discovered with his throat cut by his house keeper. Tysoe pops up once again claiming Whalley knew something big, and he then appears at the scene of a third murder, he confides in Poirot telling him of the letters he'd received from The Big Four, each containing a cryptic clue about each murder. The fourth murder occurs, big supported of the Peace Party Stephen Painter, again two members of the Peace Party are present, Madame Olivier and Abe Ryland. It seems like everything possible is being done to wreck the Peace Party. Why is stage actress Flossie receiving so many gifts, always signed with four kisses? Poirot has his work cut out.

It is no wonder that they left The Big Four until the very end, the book is a disaster, it's all over the place, had they attempted to stick totally to its plot it would have been virtually impossible to make, even worse to watch.

I like this adaptation, it is virtually unrecognisable from the book, but that's a good thing. A little difficult to follow in parts, it's a complex story, but they deliver the misdirection that Agatha Christie herself intended, lots of smoke and mirrors. The scenes of the Big Four, look brilliant, the cloaked figures certainly look the part too.

I love the sequences at the end, Flossie's encountering The Big Four, very menacing, very surreal, but it all works really well.

It's very well acted, the main cast are exceptional as always, Patricia Hodge is excellent, Sarah Parish is just delightful as mature stage actor Flossie Monroe. Simon Lowe did a great job as Doctor Quentin, the casting director did a great job, with the latter especially.

I understand there wasn't much of an appetite to make it, but I'm glad they did, I really like it. 8/10

The Big Four is a collection of short stories, some of which are closer to Edgar Wallace than to Agatha Christie. Master criminals trying for world domination etc etc. All in all, a very minor Christie. The movie is nothing like the original book, apart from the title, the names of the protagonists and some other odds and ends. The basic idea of the movie is completely different.Is that bad? Well.in this particular case, I would say no. It would probably be impossible to make a good film of the original short stories, so this end result is more or less fine. So long as you realize and accept the fact that we are talking of a completely different concept than the original. As usual the production is excellent and it is great to see some of the old favorites resurfacing.

It is the late-1930s and the world seems headed for war. Hercule Poirot and his old friend Japp, now Assistant Commissioner, are reunited at a special function - the Peace Party, lead by millionaire businessman Abe Ryland, are holding a chess match between a Russian grandmaster and Mr Ryland. However, the Russian grandmaster is murdered during the match. Suspicion falls on a shadowy, subversive organisation known as The Big 4. It seems determined to undermine the fragile peace and lead the world into war. Poirot and Japp investigate, but, as we see from the opening scenes, this has fatal consequences for Poirot.

Intriguing, and quite different to your average Poirot mystery. The suspects aren't all neatly lined up for Poirot to interrogate and mull over. No, there are no suspects, well, none that you can see, due to The Big 4 being such a secretive organisation.

The whole thing feels more like a spy novel than a murder mystery, sort of Robert Ludlum-like but set in the 1930s.

In addition to the originality, one of the upsides to this episode is the fact that we have Poirot, Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon back together again, for the first time in a long while (the series' own Big 4!). Hastings and Lemon don't have much screen time but the Poirot- Japp partnership here is very Season 6/7-like, which is good, and quite nostalgic.

This does bring me to the one problem with this episode - the timeline. Being set in 1939 or so, this is only 3-4 years since the Poirot-Japp-Hastings heyday, in terms of the chronology of the stories. Yet, due to long gaps between seasons and episodes, it is at least 10 years since the last time Poirot and Japp worked together, and the aging of the actors is obvious. Initially I thought this was set in the late-1940s/early-50s, due to the age of the actors and characters, and the war clouds were really a reference to the Cold War. This belief was strengthened by Japp now being an Assistant Commissioner, a massive leap in rank from when we saw him last (as a Chief Inspector). He couldn't possibly have been promoted from Chief Inspector to Assistant Commissioner in only three or so years.

Basically, you need to suspend your disbelief regarding the timeline between this and other Poirot episodes.

Agatha Christie wrote her Hercule Poirot stories from 1920-1975 but the famous TV series starring David Suchet tried to film most of the episodes as if they were taking place in a specific time period in the mid 1930's. This creates a problem when they take a novel written by Christie in 1927 and transfer it to the 'eve' of World War II. The main characters look so much older than they do in the hour long episodes of the first 6 seasons not because the characters would have actually aged that much from the time period in which those episodes were set but because the actors themselves have aged a quarter of a century since they first started filming the series in 1988. The result is a ridiculous 'reunion' between characters who would have been working together just a short time before with their ages being inexplicably advanced. Why, oh why didn't they just film the stories in the sequence they were written and set then in the time in which they were written?

Did his death stop the world from going to war? Or was it all for a woman?

Mark Gatiss co-wrote this adaptation and he also borrows an element from Sherlock. The scene as to how a butcher in his van could go about in a village being both noticed and yet unnoticed.

The Big Four starts off very promisingly. Poirot is dead. Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon reunite for his funeral.

Poirot had been investigating the death of a retired Russian chess champion at an event organised by the Peace Party. The party is causing waves as diplomacy is failing and world is on the brink of World War 2.

A journalist tells Poirot of a mysterious organisation called The Big Four. The Peace Party has been manipulating events not to stop war but lead the way to it. Poirot finds that important members of the party have disappeared and before long finds his own life in danger.

Hastings is underused. The actor playing Ryland kept reminding me of David Soul.

The story is let down as it all ends up being overly theatrical and shoddy. Even the villain tells Poirot that there was no need for him to be so elaborate and the villain's motives turn out to be pants.

A nonsensical farrago. Heaven alone knows what the book must be like, if this adaptation is an improvement.

Old familiar three return Poirot dead?

The episode begins with Poirot's funeral and because of that Chief Inspector Japp, Captain Hastings and Ms. Lemon make their first appearance in many seasons. However, it's NOT a spoiler to say that Poirot cannot be dead...there are several more episodes to go.

The show then goes back in time a bit...to show the events leading up to his funeral as well as then showing the resolution of the case. It seems that there might be a secret organization referred to as 'the Big Four' that supposedly is pulling strings and is actually in charge of the world. If there is such an organization, what chance do Poirot and the police have in such a case? See the show and find out for yourself.

This is a dandy little story and it was nice to see Poirot's old associates again...even if they looked older than dirt. Well written and it will keep you guessing. An odd resolution as to what is really going on and why...so be prepared to be surprised.

The Agatha Christie shows that stick with her plots and her character personalities usually have the fun spark that made her so great. The episodes from the past few years have been a HUGE disappointment. The plots aren't nearly as clever and the characters and stories are very one-dimensional. The newer Poirot has no humor and has lost his charm. The other regulars are rarely there and when they are, they might as well not be since they aren't given anything to do that adds to the story. We miss them and their sly interactions w Poirot. And it really really is a shame that the newer shows which twist Christie's stories don't have that fact stated in their titles. Newcomers to Christie shouldn't think that these are her stories. They're not. They don't do her justice. Okay. Rant over. ") The actors and the scenery are always fabulous, we just miss seeing the real thing and expect better from producers as wonderful as Masterpiece Mystery.

This is a ridiculous mess and it is no surprise that it was written by Mark Gatiss. It is quite obvious that he believes himself to be incredibly smart, but his writing (and I don't mean just this episode) prove that the truth is the complete opposite.

The plot is completely unbelievable, the returning characters of Japp, Hastings and Lemon are wasted in this episode, it is just a total mess. And the "action" scene - finally, pure cringe, as the famous meme goes. The drawn out ending is tedious and boring and equally ridiculous. The only thing that was any good was that Poirot was called out on his unnecessary theatrics at one point here, but everything else is just terrible.

The source material is Christie at her most unpublishable -- rumour has it that she was having a nervous breakdown at the time of writing 'The Big Four' -- but that's no excuse for this puerile rubbish. It's almost as though writers Gatiss and Hallard haven't a clue about screen writing, and especially First Principles such as the one relating to the maximising of assets, be they actors or location.

Here, after a lengthy and painful absence, Hastings, Lemon and Japp are all brought back -- yippee!! -- to play a, er, um, well, let's see. . . to play virtually no part at all in the story but simply stand around and do little to nothing in what tedious minutes of screen time allocated to them.

The money would've been good for the actors and one can't blame 'em for signing on to this production but it'd be fascinating to know what Hugh Fraser's agent said to him about the Return of Captain Hastings: hopefully no mention was made of thrills, spills, excitement, tension, logic or drama, seeing as none of that was in any way discernible.

Rated: 1 out of 10 because minus points aren't feasible at IMDb.