Ordeal by Innocence (2018) User Reviews (121)

A totally surprising ending ... and I've read the book and the ending was still a surprise!

[markfranh · 6/10 · 28 April 2018]

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.

Sarah Phelps's Ordeal by Innocence

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 16 April 2018]

This adaptation of a story by Agatha Christie opens with the murder of wealthy heiress Rachel Argyll; her adopted son Jack is arrested for the killing but protests his innocence. Later, while on remand in prison, he is killed in a fight with another prisoner. Eighteen months pass and Rachel's widower, Leo, is preparing to marry the woman who was once his secretary. Then a strange man comes to the door stating that he can provide an alibi for Jack. Nobody is pleased to see him though as if Jack didn't kill his mother it is almost certain that somebody else living in the house did; her husband, his new fiancée or one of the other four adopted children.

I know this miniseries got glowing reviews in the press but I'd only say it was decent enough; the main problem being that just about every character is fairly unpleasant so I found it hard to care which of them actually did it. The cast did an impressive enough job; I believed in the characters even if I didn't much like them. The production values can't be faulted; it looked great with the right feel for the 1950s setting. I haven't read the book so can't really criticise the changes however I discussed it with somebody who knows the book well and she was far from impressed with changes that were far from minor... I read that Sarah Phelps, the creator of this series, doesn't care what 'purists' think but if she doesn't want criticism for that then it shouldn't be advertised as 'Agatha Christie's Trial by Innocence'. Overall I'd say this isn't one of the better recent Christie adaptations but it is still entertaining enough if you aren't familiar with the original story or don't mind the deviations.

Gripping, but misses the essential irony of Agatha Christie's story

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 20 June 2020]

(spoilers) Personally I have no objection to screenwriters changing the story of a book / play when they are adapting it to the film medium - as long as the changes are improvements (in my eyes). I don't think the changes to "Ordeal By Innocence" are improvements: the whole point of the story - the irony at the center of it - is that the entire "present day" investigation was a disastrous folly, because Jack WAS guilty after all, despite having an alibi; by making Jack innocent, this irony is lost. (end of spoilers) Other than that, this version is moody, gripping, stylized, handsomely produced and has a top-notch (and quite attractive) cast; this family is a total mess and there is no Poirot or Marple in sight to clean it up - they'll have to do it themselves. **1/2 out of 4.

It wasn't so bad

[enitar · 7/10 · 16 April 2018]

I cannot say Ordeal by Innocence is my favourite Christie's novel. But I was looking forward for this TV drama. Part I seemed very poor to me, I couldn't imagine this Dr. Calgery arriving and solving the mystery of the Argyle family. Part II explained more about the story and part III was really powerful. Unexpected ending, Nemesis of the murderer... yes, I can accept this adaption indeed.

What have these reviewers been watching??

[charlesfirth · 10/10 · 29 April 2018]

A darker adaptation of an A.C. work. No Marple or Poirot (good) a straight forward mystery with plenty of red herrings. Re-worked by Sarah Phelps ,sometimes these are overworked, get boring. This one wasn't. Morven Christie, who I'm a big fan of, was certainly in total control of her part and acted out in style. Nice to see Bill Nighy playing it straight to the end, not his usual cameo of an aging rock star. I also liked that they used a reverse of film and clock as not to confuse you in stating a look back in time. A mystery with twists and turns to the very end, supported by a fine cast.

Insipid

[jbt1972 · 6/10 · 1 April 2018]

Boring, over acted and just meh.

Typical of a bbc adaption they plod it out so much. 2 episodes would be better.

Ignore the Agatha Christie fanatics - they missed the show

[movius · 9/10 · 14 August 2018]

This is a superb show. Period. I really dislike it when people come in with this "I read the book"" approach and "blah blah blah is different". WHO CARES! Enjoy the show.

Are people only allowed to use Christie stories with strict adherence to the book (rhetorical). That would be ridiculous. Is she sacrosanct?+

This is simply a superbly acted, superbly directed, very enjoyable story. Now look at what's happened to the rating because Christie extremists come in with this snotty attitude. Really too bad. Please get the popcorn and judge for yourself.

admirable work

[Kirpianuscus · 27 December 2019]

Well crafted scene by scene, from storytelling, atmosphere, cinematography and great acting. Intense and just an admirable work. It has, in fact, one sin - it is not real the adaptation of the novel. Off course, this is a serious problem but the care to details, the angry about a too much freedom of adaptation are obstacles to admire a profound beautiful crime film. And, I suppose, that is not so fair for the viewer and for the hard effort of the director and actors.

Slow plot mars excellent quality production

[charmainemorgan · 6/10 · 4 January 2024]

Having enjoyed previous versions of this Agatha Christie plot I looked forward to this production with a talented cast led by one of my favourite actors, Bill Nigh.

Unfortunately, despite superb costumes, setting and film quality, the constant drone of the background music and constant revisiting of the timeline made the whole production feel sluggish and laboured.

Were some of the scenes really necessary? At times it made uncomfortable viewing, although that may have been deliberate.

One by one the back stories of the main characters are revealed with the climax revealing who did it.

I believe this production would have benefitted however with an increased pace and by being 2 episodes long and not three.

Quality drama, thank you Sarah Phelps and BBC.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 1 April 2018]

There has of course been a lot of controversy surrounding this drama, originally due for transmission at Christmas, The BBC recast and re shot the part of Mickey Argyll and sent it out over Easter 2018.

I'm sure many Agatha Christie fans, like myself, were disappointed by what happened, and the fact that the drama was pulled from Christmas TV, but the BBC of course made the right decision.

Hopes were high, The Annual BBC Agatha Christie drama has become a definite treat, following in the footsteps of Witness for the Prosecution, and the superb And then there were none.

The production values were of course evident, gloriously shot, superb settings and costumes, a truly lavish feel. Acting throughout was superb too, Bill Nighy, Eleanor Tomlinson and Matthew Goode all worthy of a mention.

At times I felt like there were too many cutaways, ticking clocks, wine being poured etc. but they did help set the scene and build the atmosphere.

Ordeal by Innocence seemed rather a brave choice to go with following the previous adaptations, particularly when you take into account that ITV made it back in 2007, and Geraldine McEwan popped up as Marple. In terms of accuracy and bringing a book to life, this wins hands down.

Disappointing that it wasn't shown over three nights as is the custom, the three week span seemed unnecessary, but I'm sure it will prove a ratings hit.

Next up for Sarah Phelps is Poirot, The ABC Murders, that's a whole different ball game, following David Suchet's golden reign in the role will be hugely challenging.

Overall though, Ordeal by Innocence is very good indeed, when you take into account the source material, cast and budget, they were never going to fail.

When will we have a vaccine?

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 18 February 2021]

There are 3 episodes for this television adaption, and while I watched the first episode I kept thinking that we definitely need a vaccine to fight excessive flashbacks. Honestly, the first episode had so many flashbacks...in fact many were mere snippets of flashbacks...that they were confusing and I almost gave up watching this series. Fortunately, they seemed to get things under control in the second and third episodes.

Some say this version is HEAVILY adapted from Agatha Christie's original story, and I don't know, but as whole, it's done very well.

Bill Nighy is excellent here as the father, and it's interesting how he goes from what seems to be the sympathetic father figure to a bit of a monster. Anthony Boyle plays the son and accused murderer of his mother; I'm not going to decide on how good an actor he is based on this film; undecided. Anna Chancellor is the evil adoptive mother...plays the bad mother very well. Morven Christie is perfect as the housekeeper with a secret. Crystal Clarke is one of the daughters here, and again, I'm going to have to see more of her before I can decide how good an actress she is. Christian Cooke did well as another of the sons. Alice Eve as the future wife of Nighy...well, difficult to tell. The more I see Matthew Goode, the more he impresses me. He does very well here as a very unsympathetic adopted son. I thought Eleanor Tomlinson was quite good as the wife of a broken (literally and figurately man). The standout here may be Luke Treadaway, who plays Jack's potential alibi, who has also been in an acylium.

Stick with it. Once you get past all the mini-flashbacks, you can enjoy a tale well told. Brian McCardie as Bellamy Gould, chief detective

Messed up family

[annmalbrough · 10/10 · 4 July 2021]

What a show. Once you start to watch, it becomes so addictive. Great diverse acting.

Quite liked it

[Headturner1 · 7/10 · 3 December 2019]

This was pretty good tho I was correct with my initial suspicion. There's a lot of twists and turns it was kinda quirky ( not sure if that's how all Christies stuff is) and it was well acted and no long. Totally recommend.

an insult

[blanche-2 · 2/10 · 11 September 2018]

Total garbage using the title of an Agatha Christie novel, the same characters, and changing the story and the identity of the killer. A bunch of totally unlikable characters.

Great production values totally wasted.

I don't blame the vulgar and sexed-up script totally on the writer; I blame the money-hungry Christie estate for allowing this type of trash to be made. They do not oversee these productions; some of them, as this one, are downright awful and have very little to do with Christie.

The ending is worth it.

[caveb-99096 · 7/10 · 23 June 2020]

I read a lot of psychological thrillers and this one was long winded to get to the finale but it was worth it for the twist.

Some of the acting was over melodramatic but true Agatha Christie fans are accustomed to.

Great

[rainabosniac · 8/10 · 19 July 2018]

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.

Where were the staff/servants?

[mmsbk · 6/10 · 11 July 2020]

I had forgotten the original plot so l didn't realise or mind too much about the Phelps reinvention. Loved the Art Deco curtains as did a previous poster and of course the costumes and decor generally . I can't, however , let go of my annoyance at the idea that the maintenance of that mansion and grounds, let alone the maiding and servanting of half a dozen people , the laundry and the entire cooking and serving of all meals, including vast Christmas fare was apparently totally undertaken by the hapless Kirsten..... Shallow and pettifogging of me no doubt, but l got obsessed with the lack of a butler, footmen, maids, gardeners, cooks and what have you without which such a house would not have functioned.

Reviewing on its own, not as an adaptation of Agatha Christie

[mjaneheeren · 9/10 · 6 October 2018]

If I read this book, I read it years and years ago and didn't remember the plot or the characters. As a country house mystery, this is very well done, well-acted and enjoyable. Based on reviews from Agatha Christie fans, this adaptation differs wildly from the original story. But I believe that it stands very well on its own.

Nice

[mgd_m · 6/10 · 31 January 2021]

Entertaining mystery, with top notch production values. Wonderfully acted by the mother's character, Jack and the doctor. A bit boring, but gains momentum. The last 30 minutes are very satisfying.

Christie Period Piece Done Wickedly Well

[patricia-haertlein · 8/10 · 4 July 2021]

Agatha Christie novels are of another era that was steeped in rich environment but more tame by today's standards. The new adaptations are very welcome, and this is no exception. Great plot, fantastic acting, and still a twist to please us to no end. The characters are real and all too human :)

Quite good

[gallagherkellie · 6/10 · 21 December 2021]

The acting was decent, it was short and easy to watch. The scenery and outfits were great. I haven't read the book so I can't compare but I enjoyed it.

Gorgeous, well paced adaptation.

[marketingdivadeb · 8/10 · 30 September 2018]

Binged in one afternoon. I couldn't remember the book (read all Christie's decades ago!) so got caught up easily in the mystery. Scenery, settings and use of color is GORGEOUS. Loved the twists and turns. Extremely well acted and well paced. If you enjoyed Harlen Corbin's "Safe" and "The Five" you'll enjoy this. Looking forward to seeing more from this director and screenwriter.

Very much like a stage production / play but a good one , well produced

[jmccrmck-65172 · 7/10 · 4 July 2020]

Being new to Agatha Christie's stories I have been consistently surprised at the her exploration of human character and this work is no exception. As I state in my summary this one is like watching a play rather than a movie but it suffers not from that distinction; in fact it is a welcome change of pace. The film can be streamed in 4K and that in itself makes it wonderful to look at and the locations, production design/values are first rate, costume scenery etc. No one character is more prominent than another which makes it interesting.And even though the acting skews to the camp rather than the subdued every actor gives a performance which makes his or her character 'alive' on the screen except for Bill Nighy as Leo Argyle who is mediocre at best. Good story, well executed film.Worth watching.

Stylish, but eviscerated Christie's plot

[beany_kelly · 4/10 · 13 August 2018]

I binged this on a transatlantic flight, and was initially quite impressed at the style and mood-setting, as well as the acting (though Bill Nighy is overexposed). But as episode 3 progressed, it became apparent that the entire premise of the plot (including the identity of the murderer and the motive) had been upset. I agree with all the other reviewers who said that Christie's name should be removed from the title. She supplied the set-up and cast of characters, but it wasn't the same plot. In fact, the ending felt more like one of Roald Dahl's Tales of the Unexpected than the resolution of a murder mystery.

The End

[baywoodarborist · 28 January 2021]

This is a who done it movie . It was solid but as a whole not exceptional. I would give it a 7.5 normally but the end really delivers. The end of a who done it is what it's all about right? I will say it was a very beautiful series. The cinematography was excellent with vibrant colors. If you stick with this series you won't be disappointed.