Home
search
more | tips
Prev | 50 of 62 Episodes | Next

IMDb user comments for
"Agatha Christie: Poirot" Five Little Pigs (2003)


Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 24 comments in total 

17 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Heart-breaking tragedy, 27 April 2004
10/10
Author: Scott Baker (felix-38) from Melbourne Australia

This film is incredibly good. The cast is uniformly good. The direction is clever and thoughtful. The music is beautiful. The script has all the essentials of the plot and remarkably faithful to the book. I would be quite willing to say it's the best Christie adaptation so far. It's so good in fact that it could have been made for the silver screen. I even forgive the fact that it isn't set on a rocky battlement as it is in the book - the documentary on the DVD explains why - budgetary constraints - and the water garden does just as well. All the heart-breaking tragedy from the book - and it is a tragedy, even for the culprit - is there. It bodes well for the next lot of Poirot films, and so too for the upcoming Miss Marples. I thank the producers for having the courage, which has paid off handsomely. Well done.

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Hauntingly beautiful, 22 December 2005
9/10
Author: TheKid15 (vintagous@hotmail.com) from Perth, WA

The Poirot series has always appealed to me because I love that era, but also because it's intriguing and interesting. This is no exception - actually, this is one of my favorites, if not THE favorite.

A young woman asks to meet Poirot and she explains that she believes her Mother was wrongly hanged for killing her Father. There are a number of flashbacks, beautifully arranged in accurate places. Every suspect is interviewed and gives their account on the story. One little pig is lying.

Not only did the incredibly sad story make an impact on me, but the hauntingly beautiful score which set just the right mood (mysterious, sad, haunting) for the movie. It is the cherry on top of a very beautiful, yummy cake.

Poirot: Five Little Pigs is one of the best movies I've seen. It just feels right. You just relax and enjoy the story - you don't have to cringe at bad actors. A truly beautiful, hauntingly sad movie.

Was the above comment useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
Wonderful Mood Piece, 29 September 2004
Author: Emberweave from Chicago, IL, USA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is one of the more interesting Poirots I've seen in quite a while. They did a remarkable job with the flashbacks considering how difficult it is to pull off flashbacks on film and that most of this story is told in flashback. There was an interesting atmosphere throughout the whole movie that kept me watching. I admit it's been a long time since I read this particular story, so I can't comment on specifics from book to film, but with Agatha Christie books in general there are a few points. I thought that Toby Stephens did a wonderful job with the role of Philip. He played a closeted, conflicted homosexual very well. The anger, frustration and grief about Amyas were all there from the start. I figured he was gay from his derisive remark about Hollinghurst in the beginning. Only someone with issues would make a comment like that out of the blue. The way he would shake when the past was being brought up again was brilliant. He looked like he was coming apart at the seams after years of holding everything in, so when he finally vents his grief to Poirot it was a great scene. I am impressed with the actor. And the script. Immediately afterwards Philip pleads for secrecy, then is reckless, "It doesn't matter anyway" and back to his rigid self in the drawing room. His turmoil was painful to watch. But great drama.

I don't remember about this story specifically, but there are a lot of Agatha Christie stories with gay & lesbian characters. Not only gay by today's standards, but also by the contemporary views of the times when the books were written. The language is all there. Granted they're stereotypical effeminate men & butch women, but it's pretty clear. (Christopher Wren in The Mousetrap) The only difference is that in today's (supposedly) more open and enlightened times these issues can be portrayed on screen with a bit more honesty. If anyone does not think that Murgatroyd & Hinch in A Murder is Announced aren't lesbians, they're being naive. And of course in Death on the Nile the guy & girl are together in the end in the novel. It's what a gay man would have done back then (and many sadly feel compelled to do now), and contemporary audiences would not have accepted an admission of homosexuality from a character. The scene of the two young boys where Philip kisses Amyas' neck was very sweet and innocently romantic. I applaud British television for portraying it. The US wouldn't do it, I'm sure. Five Little Pigs stands out as a great movie on very many levels. All the performances are good. And another reviewer was right. "It's Gladys from A Pocketful of Rye!!" That was a hoot.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Five little pigs and a few big changes..., 6 October 2005
7/10
Author: AliciaP from Argentina

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Whoever read it, knows that if there is one Agatha Christie's novel which would be difficult to adapt for television, must be "Five Little Pigs". Basically due to its plot, in which Monsieur Hercule Poirot has to build the case by five testimonies from a group of people involved in a case of murder closed fourteen years ago. Nevertheless, it is known that Poirot doesn't investigate facts 'per se' but people's psychology. Here he leaves us astonished once again... or should I say it is Christie's amazing knowledge on human behaviour which actually does? The direction of this film really helps on that sense, by remarking the value of the characters' perspective, which adds a lot to a pretty good adaptation of the book. Although, there are some points that Christie's fans must be aware of. They relate to the script, which even when it's quite adjusted to the novel itself, includes several changes from the book as from her style as well. Unnecessary items like a bed scene, an homosexuality confession and some unexplainable non fit-character behaviour by the end of the movie are the points that don't allow me to say this is a great Christie's adaptation. It isn't a question of quasi moralism, it's just that she never wrote about it, not in this story nor in her others. As readers we have the right to find these things and themes hidden, implied in any line, but there's a limit for our own interpretations. Specifically in the case of the character of Philip Blake being gay, there is not much to assume since the author herself tell us that Blake has always been in love with Caroline Crane (not her husband Amyas, as the film tells). Maybe the presence of sex and guns were some sort of influence of nowadays footages. The truth is, as a real fan I didn't like that. Anyway, despite this comment, in my opinion it is fair to say that the acting, as well as the already congratulated direction, turn the beautiful locations into a disturbing atmosphere, where Poirot and his 'little grey cells' take us through a long walk to the past to find the truth in an unexpected end.

Was the above comment useful to you?

11 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Brilliant, 27 March 2004
Author: daniel_clancy2001 from Norfolk, England

This has to be, without doubt, the best Suchet-Poirot outing so far, except perhaps "Lord Edgware Dies" in 2000. At least Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon haven't been injected clumsily into the story. A few things peeved me: Cara Lemerchant became Lucy Crale, Phillip Blake became a homosexual and Agatha Christie's autograph was all over the screen. Other than those points, the script is extremely close to the source, acting is of surprisingly high quality (We don't expect Marc Warren to be able to act - he normally can't), and Suchet's moustache is - at last! - convincing. Fans won't be disappointed; Despite some toning down of the original story, this production is definitely good viewing.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Some spoilers...so beware!!, 18 October 2004
Author: gee-15 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

A great adaptation of one of Christie's more intriguing Hercule Poirot mysteries. All the characters were well-played with David Suchet as Poirot leading the band. The plot concerns a murder that took place 14 years ago. The daughter of the murdered man and his condemned wife wants to find out the truth. Poirot must interview the only other individuals(the five little pigs) who were present on that day. Not only do we get interesting character studies but we get to know the murdered man and his condemned wife and can see how clearly their own inherent weaknesses led them to their untimely ends. The book, in my opinion, does not communicate the tragedy of this situation nearly as well as the movie does. <Spoiler Alert> I must say something about Julie Cox who plays Elsa Greer. I've seldom seen such a realistic aging effect. The flashback that showed her a coquettish, somewhat spoiled young girl was a great contrast to her persona in the present, a cold and hard woman. And then, despite being easily the least sympathetic of all the suspects, to actually be able to elicit pity from the viewer at the end (and you DO pity her!) only goes to show that fine acting is the rule and not the exception in these recent Christie adaptations.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Average., 25 November 2006
Author: Cristi_Ciopron from CGSM,Soseaua Nationala 49

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I have read three of Mrs. Christie's novels,so the vast majority of these installments have all the novelty value for me.

The novel Five Little Pigs appeared in 1942.

There are some fine things in Five Little Pigs ,and the installment is pleasing.Above all,it has a beautiful actress (Rachael Stirling). Each scene that Mrs. Rachael Stirling is in, is agreeable.The idea of the novel is fruitful:changing several visions of the same facts.Poirot must discover the one who killed a womanizing painter.Seeing this movie,I remembered a nice thing from Ed Wood (Tim Burton, 1994):Lugosi picks a flower,so that he may bring a drop of poetry in a flick that he perceived as being too arid.Such a drop of fancy and imagination was very needed here too.I would have liked to see at least David Suchet doing such a thing,like stopping to take some fresh air.Instead,all the actors move as if they are puppets pulled by strings,or like robots.It is like the director avoids to bet on poetry and on thrills.

I know that a Mrs. Christie adaptation is not supposed to look like the detective novels read by Truffaut,Ralea,Bogart,Sartre;but then it should look like the novels read by Casares,Borges,I. Barbu, Suchianu, Clouzot: Golden Age of Detective Fiction .

I found very atmospheric and suspenseful Mrs. Christie's novels,and I do not know one movie to match those qualities.And Then There Were None, Murder on the Orient Express ,Curtain (the three novels I know) are indeed as good as the best of Poe, Simenon, Doyle. There are in these three books strong literary qualities.I do not think it is about the actors or the sets.Maigret had Jean Delannoy,with those (only) two Gabin movies (MAIGRET TEND UN PIEGE and MAIGRET ET L'AFFAIRE SAINT-FIACRE, two masterpieces);the instinct,the gusto Delannoy had; Sherlock Holmes had the Basil Rathbone shows.I do not know anything as good for Poirot.In Five Little Pigs ,the directing is too conventional and banal,there is a huge lack of poetry and of thrill.There is a certain lack of charm,of imagination;make these movies more wild,more cruel,more violent,more shocking and striking!

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Remarkable achievement, 28 May 2004
7/10
Author: notmicro from Seattle

This is one of my personal top favorites of Christie's books, and I've always wondered why it hadn't been adapted for television; although considering how badly many of them have fared in the past, you figure maybe its just as well! Amazingly, this production has stuck remarkably close to the book - tight budgets and weather permitting - although it starts to derail badly a couple of times at the very end. Christie's books are sometimes quite dark and very adult, something which has usually been scrubbed out of the various movie and television versions, as they are dumbed down, cheered up, and "sanitized for your protection". However in this adaptation, the producers have instead chosen to "dive deep", and have come up with something surprisingly moving, which starts to edge towards Greek tragedy. In many ways, it stands head and shoulders above prior Poirots.

The casting has netted a very interesting group of actors, although as much as I admire Aidan Gillen's work he is the last person that I would have thought of for Amyas Crale - I would have looked for someone more like Denis Quilley. Suchet's work here is just about seamless, as he wisely takes a "less-is-more" approach to this serious outing. Its amusing to see Annette Badland in a minor role; she appeared memorably in a "Miss Marple" many years prior, as an unfortunate victim tied to a clothesline.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
"Engrossing whodunit.", 23 May 2004
Author: jamesraeburn2003 from Poole, Dorset

Hercule Poirot is called in to re-investigate a fourteen year old murder case, in which a womanizing artist was poisoned and his wife hanged for the crime, by the daughter who is convinced of her mother's innocence.

An engrossing whodunit. It takes a few viewings to fully appreciate this one, but it is actually a highly imaginative adaptation of Christie's novel with sympathetic characters and directed with flair by Paul Unwin. He and Producer Margaret Mitchell elected to shoot the flashback scenes with hand held cameras in order to try and make the audience feel as if they were part of the film. And in the children's flashbacks they tinted the shots in hazy colours to heighten the impression of the vagueness of the characters' recollections. All the performances work but Suchet stands out particularly as Poirot. The DVD comes with a bonus interview with the actor in which he talks about playing the Belgian sleuth. He has read every Christie Poirot novel and has compiled a complete dossier of the character's habits and eccentricities and as his star status has risen with the success of the series, he has been allowed to have more influence on the scripts and costume design and he is determined to go back to the books for inspiration.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The Fatal Glass of Beer., 13 August 2008
7/10
Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is one of Dame Agatha's more engaging conundrums, though not exactly the kind of acute examination of "the psychology" that Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) claims it is.

Let's see. There is one of those perfervid painter-types, Amyas Crale, a Byronic figure, married to a good-enough wife but having one affair after another. He drinks a glass of beer and drops dead, poisoned in the proper British manner. The deed seems to have been prompted by Crayle's announcement that this time his love affair with his model (Julie Cox) was serious and he intended to shrug off his marriage and replace his wife with his model. The wife is convicted and, without any protest from her, hanged. That was fourteen years ago. Now, the daughter is convinced of her mother's innocence and hires Poirot to investigate.

So who did it? Well, there were only about half a dozen people present at the isolated rural mansion at the time of the murder. Was it Crayle's best friend from boyhood (Toby Stephens)? Maybe it was Meredith, another boyhood friend who is always skulking around and who, after all, had a collection of chemicals in the basement, the poison among them. Or maybe it was Crayle's own daughter, blinded in one eye by her mother years ago, killing her father in order to frame her mother who is the obvious suspect. Might it not have been Julie Cox, the model he was apparently about to marry? But, no. What motive would she have for killing her lover? Could Crayle's wife actually be GUILTY? Or was there some stranger out of the past who sneaked in and did the dirty deed? Well -- not that. Because all of Agatha Christie's plots involve only the suspects who are around at the time of the murder.

Now, I'll tell you who did it. (Not really.) I enjoyed this more than most of the movie-length episodes in the series for a couple of reasons. One is that there was no subordinate or embedded crime, irrelevant to the murder itself, that might have thrown the plot off kilter. None of the suspects is a closet jewel thief or anything. It's a nice clean mystery. Second, I could tell the characters apart. As always, they're introduced with a name and a phrase and we're given a two-second shot of the suspect's face. But this time there seemed to be fewer suspects, and they LOOKED different from one another. Toby Stephens I already recognized from "The Great Gatsby" TV production, which should have been called "The Great Blunder." The others had some visible distinguishing characteristic -- the beard; the disfigured face; the great enormous stupendous colossal raccoon-like exopthalmic eyeballs of Julie Cox, the model, who looks as if she could eat a normal human being alive by nibbling him to death with her pupils. I haven't read the novel but I imagine some modernization has gone on. The artist and Toby Stephens, as it turns out, were more than just friends during their boyhood.

David Suchet IS Poirot, giving a shaded performance much different from his splashier big-screen counterparts.

I admired, too, the tale for having a moral behind it. Van Gogh, Modigliani, Toulouse-Lautrec, Jackson Pollack, and the rest notwithstanding -- one should never drink while trying to paint. Not unless you want your model to turn up with three breasts.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history