I was really enjoying this until the very end. I didn't understand the ending and even reading the BBC's dissection on what it all meant left me none the wiser. I feel as if I wasted valuable TV time :-(
150 Reviews
Confused
MazzyMayhem-117-54451120 February 2020
They don't understand the source material
gaspyy25 February 2020
Sigh. The screenwriter simply doesn't understand Agatha Christie and she's murdering the originals. The Pale Horse, The ABC Murders, Witness for the Prosecution, And Then There Were None - they all miss the point completely.
You know who understood Christie perfectly? Rian Johnson. His "Knives Out" is exactly like an Agatha Christie novel. He even captured the essence of Poirot, something Murder on the Orient Express could not. See, Poirot is not about the fact that he's Belgian, or bald or has a mustache. It's that the others perceive him as weird, and pompous, and even clueless, things Daniel Craig & Rian Johnson understood perfectly.
Agatha Christie was never gross. She was never obvious. She was witty, clever and cultivated. Her social commentary is subtle. She knew how to allude without shouting it. She knew how to misled, how to create an atmosphere. She could make you suspect everyone and noone at the same time.
Sarah Phelps' adaptations are like crayon copies of Renaissance paintings. You may recognize the subject but it'll never leave a lasting impression.
You know who understood Christie perfectly? Rian Johnson. His "Knives Out" is exactly like an Agatha Christie novel. He even captured the essence of Poirot, something Murder on the Orient Express could not. See, Poirot is not about the fact that he's Belgian, or bald or has a mustache. It's that the others perceive him as weird, and pompous, and even clueless, things Daniel Craig & Rian Johnson understood perfectly.
Agatha Christie was never gross. She was never obvious. She was witty, clever and cultivated. Her social commentary is subtle. She knew how to allude without shouting it. She knew how to misled, how to create an atmosphere. She could make you suspect everyone and noone at the same time.
Sarah Phelps' adaptations are like crayon copies of Renaissance paintings. You may recognize the subject but it'll never leave a lasting impression.
Pale imitation....
s327616921 February 2020
There seems to be a need these days to take classic works by the likes of Bram Stoker and in this instance, Agatha Christie and re-write them. Or to put it another way, in my opinion, "stuff them up".
For me, the maxim "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies and The Pale Horse is no exception. To start with you have a male hero, who can't be a hero, without first being a villain. The original hero of the piece is re-written as a scoundrel and a womaniser. Why this is the case I can only guess at but its a lame ploy.
The rest of the story fares little better, skewing the tale away from an intriguing murder mystery, towards a rather jaded tale of sexual infidelity and secrets.
On the plus side the acting is decent and the visuals are creepily eerie. That said, once again, the price of tinkering with something that works just fine is an off balance tale, that fails to resonate.
5/10.
For me, the maxim "if it ain't broke don't fix it" applies and The Pale Horse is no exception. To start with you have a male hero, who can't be a hero, without first being a villain. The original hero of the piece is re-written as a scoundrel and a womaniser. Why this is the case I can only guess at but its a lame ploy.
The rest of the story fares little better, skewing the tale away from an intriguing murder mystery, towards a rather jaded tale of sexual infidelity and secrets.
On the plus side the acting is decent and the visuals are creepily eerie. That said, once again, the price of tinkering with something that works just fine is an off balance tale, that fails to resonate.
5/10.
What the hell did I just watch??
jmpiechutowska6 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Did the script writer had a bout of constipation? Because this "adaptation" (if you can call it that - more like an "inspired piece", which should not be called by the same name as the original book, because it's so far removed from the story that there's hardly any resemblance to it) is so hard to digest, I might have difficulty passing it through my system.
I really wish people wouldn't try to change the story so much so as to make it "contemporary". If we wanted that, we'd ask for an original piece. Agatha Christie is turning in her grave at the sight of these new adaptations.
The last new one that I actually liked, because it ran true to the original story was And Then There Were None. Very well done, and still contemporary, why? Because her stories will always be contemporary, because they are about HUMAN NATURE. That doesn't change! We still have the same problems and emotions as we did 100 years ago. So PLEASE stop trying TOO hard in making modern adaptations of her stories for the modern world, because her stories are TIMELESS. All you're doing is making them too complicated and ridiculous by trying too hard. PLEASE STOP NOW.
The ending killed it.
mps_animaxfriends21 February 2020
An enjoyable, if altered adaptation.
Sleepin_Dragon9 February 2020
We've had two previous versions, the first from 1997, and the second where ITV squeezed Miss Marple into its series in 2010, so we at least have a few versions to compare.
I was hugely disappointed that this didn't air on boxing day, Agatha Christie had become of of the Christmas highlights, but a month later it's on, not the best idea to schedule it up against Endeavour.
Re written by Sarah Phelps, so naturally there are changes, so the die hards will struggle to recognise a lot of it, I will attempt to review it as honestly as possible.
Visually stunning, the period detail was glorious, not only did they capture the look of the era, but the feel, The BBC does period drama like no other. The acting is flawless, Rufus Sewell and Sean Pertwee are great, I also adored Rita Tushingham. It's hugely atmospheric, and possesses a sinister vibe.
For me the issue was the pacing, it takes an age to open up, lots of flashbacks and moody glances, generally focused on Sewell's cheekbones. The talk of the witches was too heavy handed, making out that they were coming for their victims, the book was more about the subtlety of people going to them. Needed Father Gorman.
More than a glimmer to The Wicker Man, it had that kind of vibe. Overall it's definitely worth a look, though not up there with her stunning version of And then there were none. 7/10
I was hugely disappointed that this didn't air on boxing day, Agatha Christie had become of of the Christmas highlights, but a month later it's on, not the best idea to schedule it up against Endeavour.
Re written by Sarah Phelps, so naturally there are changes, so the die hards will struggle to recognise a lot of it, I will attempt to review it as honestly as possible.
Visually stunning, the period detail was glorious, not only did they capture the look of the era, but the feel, The BBC does period drama like no other. The acting is flawless, Rufus Sewell and Sean Pertwee are great, I also adored Rita Tushingham. It's hugely atmospheric, and possesses a sinister vibe.
For me the issue was the pacing, it takes an age to open up, lots of flashbacks and moody glances, generally focused on Sewell's cheekbones. The talk of the witches was too heavy handed, making out that they were coming for their victims, the book was more about the subtlety of people going to them. Needed Father Gorman.
More than a glimmer to The Wicker Man, it had that kind of vibe. Overall it's definitely worth a look, though not up there with her stunning version of And then there were none. 7/10
dissappointing
ozturkness17 February 2020
Nice with one big plot hole (big spoiler)
danbredy15 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This is a nice mystery where the killer dispatches his victims via thallium (a heavy metal once used in rat poison) while convincing our protagonist that the killings are the work of three witches. One of the symptoms of thallium poisoning is loss of hair in large clumps and this hair loss is dropped as an early clue in our story. The only problem is that this is hardly the only symptom. Thallium poisoning is very painful which would lead one to ask why none of the victims sought medical attention which would cause investigators to suspect poisoning or disease as the common vector amongst the victims, however neither is brought until near the end when the villain gives us his grand reveal.
OMG Sarah Phelps write your own stories!
brownbrown-7552617 February 2020
Sarah Phelps "version" is a complete mess. The production has an excellent cast including Rufus Sewell, who is magnificent as usual. The set design and costumes are top notch and even the cinematography and music are good, but...
Sarah Phelp's story, script and directing are terrible. She makes an utter train wreck out of the original story and what's left makes no sense at all. I can only hope that Sarah Phelps writes and creates her own scripts for future projects as she has no talent adapting existing stories.
Sarah Phelp's story, script and directing are terrible. She makes an utter train wreck out of the original story and what's left makes no sense at all. I can only hope that Sarah Phelps writes and creates her own scripts for future projects as she has no talent adapting existing stories.
Don't expect a Christie plot.
dbethay-5645815 March 2020
Great story IF you let it play and stop trying to compare it to the original Christie. I thought the ending was brilliant, just what he deserved. Rufus Sewell is always delightful as a handsome, classy 60's man, as in "Zen".
for god's sake.....Stop Sarah Phelps from butchering Christie classics
maragachi13 March 2020
Once again, Sarah Phelps has gone of the rails and did what she did to ABC Murders and Ordeal by Innocence and other Agatha Christie classics. I don't understand how Christie's estate allows her completely murdering the plot, characters and all the underpinning of the novels. She also wrote Dublin Murders which is worse than watching paint dry. Her pretentious style and over the top approach to story-telling is the opposite of subtle style of Agatha Christie. This is an absolute crime to use Christie's name and produce a kind of garbage she does.
Bewitching adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel The Pale Horse
robfollower13 June 2020
Agatha Christie was a master of plot and situation. Broadcast on BBC One in the UK and available via Amazon's Prime streaming service in the US, is an adaptation of her 1961 novel The Pale Horse. Is a trio of witches responsible for a series of sudden deaths or is there a rational explanation ?
Set design and photography is spectacular. A veritable visual feast. The period detail are glorious, not only did they capture the look of the era, but the feel, The BBC does period drama like no other. The acting is flawless, Rufus Sewell ( The Man in the High Castle) and Sean Pertwee ( Event Horizon) are great, I also enjoyed Kaya Scodelario ( Crawl).
It's hugely atmospheric, and possesses a sinister vibe with supernatural undertones. Unpredictable twists kept me engaged, the tension is so palpable, and the characterization is phenomenal. The Pale Horse a nightmarish fever dream. If you are a viewer that likes a slow burn from time to time and a story-line that is a bit cerebral and open ended. This film is worth a watch. 8/10
Set design and photography is spectacular. A veritable visual feast. The period detail are glorious, not only did they capture the look of the era, but the feel, The BBC does period drama like no other. The acting is flawless, Rufus Sewell ( The Man in the High Castle) and Sean Pertwee ( Event Horizon) are great, I also enjoyed Kaya Scodelario ( Crawl).
It's hugely atmospheric, and possesses a sinister vibe with supernatural undertones. Unpredictable twists kept me engaged, the tension is so palpable, and the characterization is phenomenal. The Pale Horse a nightmarish fever dream. If you are a viewer that likes a slow burn from time to time and a story-line that is a bit cerebral and open ended. This film is worth a watch. 8/10
Much Deeply Disappointed
pinklady195015 March 2020
It's so exhausting watching Agatha Christie adaptations that literally should not legally be called an adaptation. The storyline was trash and nothing to do with the book. Other than it contained a great cast and visually was shot well, this is a must miss.
Why adapt a book when your intention is to completely re-write it?
Janet161218 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The Pale Horse is a great Agatha Christie book. The book starts with priest being summoned to a dying woman. The woman tells him of evil and wickedness and. gives him a piece of paper; a list of names. On his way home, the priest is murdered, the list is in his shoe and when it's found, the police start their investigation. On the list is a Heskith Dubois, an aunt of Mark Easterbrook. Mark earlie. with his friend Ginger, witnesses a fight in a coffee bar and one of the girls fighting ' Thomasina or Tommy Tuckerton' is seen with her hair falling out. Mark's aunt then dies and the police arrive to find out more about her, I can't remember how. but Mark is shown the list and recognises Tuckerton's name. There's a connection to the symptoms before death. and from there the mystery unfolds. With a mention of The Pale Horse, murder by remote, witches, and so on, it's just such a great story with great characters.
This BBC adaption is poor. Very, very poor. We are shown slow, unnecessary scenes of Mark's first wife (deceased), his current wife (nutty as a fruitcake), some strange goings on with The Pale Horse, Mark having dream. Mark driving his beautiful car, Mark looking confused and bewildered (as we all were at the end). The writers have CHANGED the story completely. How can anyone have the gall to change the plot of one of the world's best selling authors? Anyway, they made a laughing stock of it.
The book is about people getting their inheritance and first directed to a gambling man who'll give them 'odds' of the rich relative dying and them getting their inheritance. A visit to The Pale Horse to see the witches, is essential and they believe it's their work which kills the intended victim -it's not. It's a much cleverer plot..
This BBC version (paid for by us in the UK by compulsory TV licence) is so very poor, confusing, complete change from the book, with an ending that had us saying 'what'? And laughing out loud as it was so ridiculous.
This BBC adaption is poor. Very, very poor. We are shown slow, unnecessary scenes of Mark's first wife (deceased), his current wife (nutty as a fruitcake), some strange goings on with The Pale Horse, Mark having dream. Mark driving his beautiful car, Mark looking confused and bewildered (as we all were at the end). The writers have CHANGED the story completely. How can anyone have the gall to change the plot of one of the world's best selling authors? Anyway, they made a laughing stock of it.
The book is about people getting their inheritance and first directed to a gambling man who'll give them 'odds' of the rich relative dying and them getting their inheritance. A visit to The Pale Horse to see the witches, is essential and they believe it's their work which kills the intended victim -it's not. It's a much cleverer plot..
This BBC version (paid for by us in the UK by compulsory TV licence) is so very poor, confusing, complete change from the book, with an ending that had us saying 'what'? And laughing out loud as it was so ridiculous.
The Stench Will Linger
drednm17 March 2020
Butcher job on Agatha Christie story and a lackluster cast make this nearly unwatchable. The period detail also seems wrong with all that late 1960s clothes and hair.
Rufus Sewell and Rita Tushingham are the only recognizable stars in this mess. Most of the others should have stayed in acting classes a little longer. Especially awful is the woman paying Hermia.
Casting is suspect also in having Sewell married to a Black woman in 1960 London, let along a Black witch living with two white women in Much Deeping.
The whole witchy woman thing vs the usual Christie poisoning plot turns into a total muddle and makes the un-Christie ending really stupid. Oh yes, and cut the F bombs. They added absolutely nothing to the proceedings.
I did, however, like the car Sewell drives.
Rufus Sewell and Rita Tushingham are the only recognizable stars in this mess. Most of the others should have stayed in acting classes a little longer. Especially awful is the woman paying Hermia.
Casting is suspect also in having Sewell married to a Black woman in 1960 London, let along a Black witch living with two white women in Much Deeping.
The whole witchy woman thing vs the usual Christie poisoning plot turns into a total muddle and makes the un-Christie ending really stupid. Oh yes, and cut the F bombs. They added absolutely nothing to the proceedings.
I did, however, like the car Sewell drives.
Writer is the obvious culprit
lohhs19 March 2021
Honestly I watched this just because I fancy Rufus Sewell's handsome look and his charisma. I feel so sorry that the poor script became an assailable aspect and turned this into a dreadful show. I feel Rufus' talent was very much wasted. I bid extra 5-star for Rufus...
Great overall feel to it (as usual), but confusing and unsatisfying end
goleafsgo-7362523 February 2020
This short series has the same overall feeling to it that the other recent series have (specifically And Then There None and Ordeal by Innocence). I loved it until the very end, which felt rushed, confusing, and overall unsatisfying. The villain's overall method of operation was confusing - as was the protagonist's ending and more.
I haven't read the book, so I make no direct comparisons to it. Nonetheless, I found myself looking up plot summaries for the book bc I couldn't find any good ones for the series. It's extremely rare that I even attempt to look up a plot summary / explanation. In this case, I thought I must have missed something.
I liked the first ~90%; it definitely satisfies the craving for this sort of series. I look forward to whatever comes next and simply hope it has a better ending.
I haven't read the book, so I make no direct comparisons to it. Nonetheless, I found myself looking up plot summaries for the book bc I couldn't find any good ones for the series. It's extremely rare that I even attempt to look up a plot summary / explanation. In this case, I thought I must have missed something.
I liked the first ~90%; it definitely satisfies the craving for this sort of series. I look forward to whatever comes next and simply hope it has a better ending.
Pretty good if you don't read books
carlowdelete28 March 2020
I enjoyed Part 1 & 2. Mind you, I'm not familiar with Agatha Christie's work. I know she was an author and all, but I've never read anything by her because I'm not the book/novel type of guy. I enjoyed it without the knowledge of other reviewers.
The acting and production are pretty darn good too.
The acting and production are pretty darn good too.
Pretty good but confused!
natashialw5 August 2021
Is this the worst Christie adaptation ever?
nickjgunning17 February 2020
Illiterate retelling of Christie tale. Basically an episode of a tedious soap opera with a Christie story tagged on to draw in the audience. Lots of arty camera work conceals a poverty of imagination. The characters added are all completely meaningless, the violence totally irrelevant to the plot. The Christie estate should sue!
It's creepy and pleasant to look at
impressivesgirl-3785718 August 2021
Very good thrilling mystery - I am not mad that it has been so slow. The story is interesting and definitely different. I am disappointed by the end but overall it's watchable for once. Rufus Sewell and Bertie Carvels performances were very good hence the high score that I give. I think it does not deserve more than 6 though.
OMG, what rubbish
sbaynes997 March 2020
Rufus Sewell as the next Bond
colinrogers-5236317 February 2020
Sewell is so good in this. The Bond producers need to convince him he could do it. He's absolutely got that cold exterior, ideal for Bond. He was clinical in this and played the part brilliantly. Never mind it was a rehash and pale imitation of the Agatha Christie original of the original story (without a priest in sight). Supporting cast were excellent as well.
Mystery Transformed to Horror
lymelyte5 June 2020
Classy production that takes a late Christie murder dressed in black magic and turns it intriguingly into a psycho drama dressed in suspicion.
Far better way to handle a daunting number of corpses (even for Dame Agatha) than as a straight up murder investigation. Take delight in what is a sophisticated spoof played straight of a waning author's career built on murder mystery novels characterized by a super-abundance of either victims or perps and close quarters peopled by more than weird characters.
If you enjoy interpretations of original material, as many fans of Shakespeare must in our time, then "The Pale Horse" just may be your cup of strong tea.
Far better way to handle a daunting number of corpses (even for Dame Agatha) than as a straight up murder investigation. Take delight in what is a sophisticated spoof played straight of a waning author's career built on murder mystery novels characterized by a super-abundance of either victims or perps and close quarters peopled by more than weird characters.
If you enjoy interpretations of original material, as many fans of Shakespeare must in our time, then "The Pale Horse" just may be your cup of strong tea.
Disaster - Sarah please stop filming Agatha! You are detroying her. (spoilers)
veljkosbbb17 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I have all the books in the house, and I read all of them and I can't believe how much Sarah is giving freedom to herself in these adaptions. These filming are destroying Agatha concepts.
If Sarah thinks she can be smarter than Agatha, then make a new movie without mentioning her name. Do not try to introduce your ridiculous plots which are not compatible with the crucial elements and concepts from the book.
Spoilers:
1. In the book Venables is disabled and one of the most crucial guys in the book on who you have most suspicions minds. He is completely ignored in the film. He shows just for less than a minute in first part and he is not disabled...Sarah did not know what to do with him, another proof that she is completely the worst adapter of all Agathe movie adaptations
2. Zachariah Osborne is NOT so intrusive and intruding in the book like it is on the film. His point is just to accuse Venables and then he is just one isolated man who appears only two more times in the book. Sarah destroyed the idea of the Osborne. IT DOES NOT make any sense or logic for the killer to be so intrusive, to always run for the Easterbook, to reveal to the Easterbook that witches are doing the killing IT DOES NOT make any sense. That is why Osborne isolated himself, after being a "witness" in the book. If he didn't reveal that Easterbook would not have that trace!!! But why would a killer reveal that??? Witches in the book were far more discrete. The point of Osborne is to be quite and set isolated from the world so he could no be revealed that he is the killer. While in the film you see him all the time! This is stupid. If he did not appear so much no one will know that he is the killer, that was Agatha's idea
3. Why putting himself (Osborne) on the list??? Another nonsense. In the book he is not on the list. In the film Easterbook and Osborne are only alive on the list, making himself as main suspect.
4. Another nonsense - In the book you schedule a meeting with witches and after SOME time targeted person is being killed. In the film Easterbook went to the witches and in the SAME time while he is at the witches, Hermia and policeman are murdered(???) by the same "concept" of murdering.. That is not according again with Agatha's idea and main point of the "The Pale Horse", where you first take a bet, and then after is propagated to others man is dead..I mean REALLY how they can kill person so quickly if they follow the concept after seance????...it wouldn't be possible to execute poisoning so quickly (basically at the same time or little bit after Easterbook's seance) in the book or in the movie...
The plot is so SLOW and so full of memories...we see Easetrbook previous wife in the bath for I think more than 5 times...it completely destroys dynamic of the film. Murderer in the book is revealed because of the consecutive number of events. Dear Sarah, that is what makes mystery. Murderer in the film is revealed because of ONE sentence: Osborne said all of them are dead (except Easterbook and himself) before Tuckerton body is discovered. OK if that is the case then movie should be finished exactly at that point. I mean...again..REALLY??? Who can like this plot for children??? But the biggest lack is that Osborne jumps out and stands out and talks too much WITHOUT any LOGICAL reason to do so. He is the murderer, he should not focus so much attention on himself. In the book it is so great imagined but Sarah ruined everything. "The Pale Horse " from 2010/or 2011 with Marple is so much better than this ridiculous story.
As someone sad and I completely agree: Sarah hasn't understood a novel before destroying it for a generation. The worst Christie adaptation ever and the violence totally irrelevant to the plot. Using the violence she is taking the time which should be used for better plot. I understand little modifications but the complete plot...???
If Sarah thinks she can be smarter than Agatha, then make a new movie without mentioning her name. Do not try to introduce your ridiculous plots which are not compatible with the crucial elements and concepts from the book.
Spoilers:
1. In the book Venables is disabled and one of the most crucial guys in the book on who you have most suspicions minds. He is completely ignored in the film. He shows just for less than a minute in first part and he is not disabled...Sarah did not know what to do with him, another proof that she is completely the worst adapter of all Agathe movie adaptations
2. Zachariah Osborne is NOT so intrusive and intruding in the book like it is on the film. His point is just to accuse Venables and then he is just one isolated man who appears only two more times in the book. Sarah destroyed the idea of the Osborne. IT DOES NOT make any sense or logic for the killer to be so intrusive, to always run for the Easterbook, to reveal to the Easterbook that witches are doing the killing IT DOES NOT make any sense. That is why Osborne isolated himself, after being a "witness" in the book. If he didn't reveal that Easterbook would not have that trace!!! But why would a killer reveal that??? Witches in the book were far more discrete. The point of Osborne is to be quite and set isolated from the world so he could no be revealed that he is the killer. While in the film you see him all the time! This is stupid. If he did not appear so much no one will know that he is the killer, that was Agatha's idea
3. Why putting himself (Osborne) on the list??? Another nonsense. In the book he is not on the list. In the film Easterbook and Osborne are only alive on the list, making himself as main suspect.
4. Another nonsense - In the book you schedule a meeting with witches and after SOME time targeted person is being killed. In the film Easterbook went to the witches and in the SAME time while he is at the witches, Hermia and policeman are murdered(???) by the same "concept" of murdering.. That is not according again with Agatha's idea and main point of the "The Pale Horse", where you first take a bet, and then after is propagated to others man is dead..I mean REALLY how they can kill person so quickly if they follow the concept after seance????...it wouldn't be possible to execute poisoning so quickly (basically at the same time or little bit after Easterbook's seance) in the book or in the movie...
The plot is so SLOW and so full of memories...we see Easetrbook previous wife in the bath for I think more than 5 times...it completely destroys dynamic of the film. Murderer in the book is revealed because of the consecutive number of events. Dear Sarah, that is what makes mystery. Murderer in the film is revealed because of ONE sentence: Osborne said all of them are dead (except Easterbook and himself) before Tuckerton body is discovered. OK if that is the case then movie should be finished exactly at that point. I mean...again..REALLY??? Who can like this plot for children??? But the biggest lack is that Osborne jumps out and stands out and talks too much WITHOUT any LOGICAL reason to do so. He is the murderer, he should not focus so much attention on himself. In the book it is so great imagined but Sarah ruined everything. "The Pale Horse " from 2010/or 2011 with Marple is so much better than this ridiculous story.
As someone sad and I completely agree: Sarah hasn't understood a novel before destroying it for a generation. The worst Christie adaptation ever and the violence totally irrelevant to the plot. Using the violence she is taking the time which should be used for better plot. I understand little modifications but the complete plot...???
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
