Poirot (TV Series) The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly (1989) User Reviews

Brain work yes, rough stuff...dubious.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 26 October 2015]

Poirot is engaged by the wealthy Mr Waverly who has received a ransom note, £50,000 or his young son Johnnie will be kidnapped. Poirot takes Waverly and the demand to Japp, who dismisses any danger. Poirot travels back with Waverly and sees Johnnie happy and content. The very next day Waverly finds a note in his bedroom, 'at twelve o'clock.' Japp arrives with men, but Poirot and Hastings break down at a nearby village, after a clever bit of misdirection Johnnie is snatched from under their noses. A new larger ransom is received.

Miss Lemon gets more screen time, we learn more about our favourite efficient secretary. We learn also that Hastings is mad about cars.

Favourite part has to be Poirot and Hastings singing in the car, must be one of the most unique bits in the show's history.

The episode is watchable and fairly enjoyable, but it does lack a true spark, as a story it's on the beige spectrum. Very obvious who the culprit is, and not much is done to throw suspicion elsewhere. Nicely acted, but a bit too pedestrian. 6/10

A criminal who wanted to get caught?

[kaberi-893-642316 · 6/10 · 3 September 2015]

Poirot is visited by a client who has been receiving threatening letters. The letters warn of the impending kidnapping of the young son of a country squire, and ask for increasing amounts of ransom money to prevent it from occurring. After visiting Japp at Scotland Yard, where the Chief Inspector downplays the likelihood of the crime's taking place, Poirot and Hastings accompany the client to his home to help watch over the little boy.

In a number of episodes of this series, the writers make changes from the plot of the original Christie stories, usually to increase the dramatic tension or to make the sequence of events more interesting for the television viewer. In this case, they have made a small but fundamental modification. In the original story, Poirot was presented with the problem after the kidnapping had taken place, whereas here, the great detective is actually on the grounds of the estate while the crime is being committed. Curiously, twice during the episode, Poirot points out to Hastings that the kidnappers could have taken the little boy at any time. "Why," says Poirot, "make trouble for themselves by warning the family of the exact time in advance?" Why indeed. By having changed the sequence of events, by the end of the episode it turns out that the criminal himself was responsible for putting our daring duo onto the case. So, not only has the criminal warned the family in advance (the reason for this does become somewhat clearer later) but the man actually called Poirot in to witness the crime when he could have gotten away with it by simply saying nothing, which didn't happen in the original story.

Although The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly does have a few nice moments, including Poirot and Hasting singing together, a clever cut between the little boy winding up his toy car and Hastings turning the crank on his rather more expensive toy car, and the introduction of Miss Lemon's famous filing system, I can't get past the fact that by putting Poirot at the scene of the crime before it happens, the writers transformed the criminal from someone who was simply foolish to someone who evidently wanted to be found out.

Watchable but disappointing

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 6 May 2012]

It is not as if the Poirot series is a bad one, it's not, for eight or nine years now it has entertained and surprised me and has always maintained its high standard of production values, music and acting, and to this day always makes my day when it is on. The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly is not a bad episode as such, but of the short-story adaptations it even beats the convoluted but interesting Case of the Missing Will as the most disappointing. My biggest problems were with the plot and the script. Usually the stories are so clever and riveting in Poirot, but here it seemed rather confused with the whole how the kidnapping was done scenario not making much sense. The final solutions also interest me and there have been some ingenious ones of the short-story adaptations(especially The Lost Mine), but this one was a let down, I got the sense that I was told too much too early(with one too obvious clue) so I knew who the perpetrator was earlier than I wanted to. The script isn't a complete shambles, but it is not up to the standard of other Poirot episodes whether in suspense, poignancy, simplicity and humour. There are some intelligent and mildly amusing lines from Poirot, but this script lacked the suspense factor, making the pace sag at times, and the humour(courtesy of Hastings) falls surprisingly flat. However, it is very well made, the scenery is wonderful, and the costumes, period detail and atmosphere are very evocative. The music is well-composed and fitting, not as haunting or as beautiful as others, but never bad enough to distract. The acting is also great, with David Suchet outstanding as Poirot, and Hugh Fraser and Phillip Jackson doing a good job as Hastings and Japp, though they have given better performances and their characters better written too. Pauline Moran is appropriately efficient and firm as Miss Lemon. The support cast are solid, but none really stand out. All in all, watchable but not up to the usual high standard. 6/10 Bethany Cox

"It was obvious, Hastings"

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 14 January 2008]

Mr. Waverly comes to Hercule Poirot's office to ask for his help on a serious matter: he has been receiving anonymous letters warning him not only that his son, Johnnie, will be kidnapped, but even specifying the exact time! Poirot and Hastings go to Waverly's mansion, and soon Inspector Japp and his men follow them. But will all these precautions be enough to stop this audacious crime?

Agatha Christie wrote a grabber of a premise here, but one that also kind of leads the writer into a difficult spot: after all, if the child is in the company of several people at the critical time that the letters specify, how can he possibly be kidnapped? Only if one of those people does something that allows the kidnapping to happen, and as soon as you spot that person and his "mistake", you know who's behind it all, at least in part. As Poirot says to Hastings at the end, "it was obvious". Perhaps the main point of interest in this very early Poirot episode is to see how fully the 4 main actors (Suchet, Fraser, Jackson and Moran) have already adjusted to their roles. (**1/2)

Echoes of Lindbergh

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 13 May 2014]

"The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly" is rich with character and the locations are impressive. It has it share of humor, too, with Poirot disappointed that "the good English breakfast" as his client's country estate consists of kedgeree. I don't know what he's so disappointed about. Kedgeree is a rice dish with flaked fish, hard boiled eggs, parsley, and butter, imported from India by colonials. The typical breakfasts I had in England were coffee and biscuits.

In any case, this story has to do with a kidnapping. It is announced by post that a country squire's and his wife's son is to be kidnapped at noon on the 29th of November or something like that. The threat is sloughed off by Japp as a phony from some "disaffected employee" but Poirot and Hastings take the case.

Developments were easy to follow, for which I'm grateful, but the ending came in a flash and I had to guess at what had actually happened. The kidnapper's motive was obscure. The kidnapping was a sham, organized by the squire himself and his complicit niece. The boy was perfectly safe after the abduction.

Why did the squire engineer this theatrical act? I'm not sure. He was part of a long established family and his young wife was terribly rich. There were signs during the story -- hints, rather -- that the squire himself was hurting for money. That explains the inexpensive kedgeree breakfast, the pause in the refurbishing of the old mansion, and one or two other minor details. Evidently he intended to ransom his son and get the money from his wealthy wife so he could carry on as if rolling in dough. It's never made explicit, unless I missed it during a period of microsleep.

And I still don't understand why the squire made such a big to-do out of the threatening letter. He brought it to the police, which was enough to establish that the threat was real. So why hire Poirot and bring him out to the manse? The impending crime already had its bona fides.

I thought the plot fell apart at the end but except for the last few minutes nothing interfered with the enjoyment of this nicely textured episode.

third film in the long-running series

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 9 June 2012]

"The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly" is from the first season of "Agatha Christie's Poirot," which is still running today. David Suchet is probably the closest to the books in his interpretation of Poirot - so much so that when one sees him speaking with his native British accent, it comes as a shock.

The story concerns a man who comes to Poirot with a note from a kidnapper saying that the man's son will be kidnapped on a certain day at noon. Scotland Yard wasn't interested. Poirot and Hastings travel to the man's estate and finally, Scotland Yard does show up. But despite all of this, the boy is kidnapped.

I figured this out in about two minutes, but I can't figure out if I'm smart or if I saw this in 1989.

Enjoyable, but there are better episodes of "Poirot."

Early Poirot mystery has more humor than intrigue

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 28 February 2018]

Two things are noticeable especially in this early episode of the Hercule Poirot series. Both are about attitudes. Chief Inspector Japp is flippant and often short with Poirot. Japp knows who Poirot is and that he is a very good detective. But he hasn't yet reached the point of wonder and respect for Poirot's super sleuthing abilities. The second attitude is with Poirot. While he is always kind to servants, even vagrants, in his early episodes he seems overly sweet toward them. It's most obvious in this film, "The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly."

Kidnapping is the subject of this Agatha Christie tale. By the title, one begins to suspect that even from the first. And, whether it was the series producers, or Christie herself, or both, this story seems simple and obvious compared to the usual intrigue. Too many questions come to mind in the viewer right away, and it's not too hard to guess the outcome by the time that Poirot himself figures it out.

All of the usual members of Poirot's retinue are here. Captain Hastings races to the country in his car and arrives at the Waverly estate ahead of Poirot, who goes by train. Miss Lemon, in the meanwhile, has just completed her perfect filing system that cross references all of Poirot's cases five ways.

This episode has fine humor in places. Here are some favorite lines. For more humorous dialog, see the Quotes sections under this IMDb Web page of the episode.

Hercule Poirot, "Monsieur Waverly has received letters threatening to kidnap his son." Captain Hastings, "Really? In England? Could be some band of foreigners, you know. Some gang." Hercule Poirot is clearly agitated and says, "The letters give no indication that the writer is a foreigner."

Hercule Poirot, "Miss Lemon, Captain Hastings and I will be away until tomorrow. Hold the castle."

Chief Inspector Japp, "We see a hundred of these every day, Mr. Waverly. If we was to go chasing about after every one..." Hercule Poirot, "A hundred, Chief inspector?" Chief Inspector Japp, "Well, perhaps not a hundred. Mustn't be too literal, Mr. Poirot." Hercule Poirot, "Every day?" Chief Inspector Japp, "Every week, anyway."

Hercule Poirot, "Ah, you are too kind, Chief Inspector Japp. Your great heart will be your downfall." Chief Inspector Japp, "True. True."

As they are exploringn a tunnel, Hercule Poirot says, "Tell me, what do you make of this case?" Captain Hastings, "You don't expect me to think in the dark, do you?" Hercule Poirot, "Ah, Hastings. The little grey cells - sometimes they work ever better in the dark."

Poirot with no murder?

[VetteRanger · 7/10 · 27 January 2023]

And we all thought Agatha Christie wrote murder mysteries. In this story, a family is threatened with the kidnapping of their son. Poirot is called in to investigate, and with the help of staff and police, move to secure the estate and protect the boy.

Shockingly, the boy is indeed kidnapped right at the time threatened, and right through the cordon of protecting adults. It's a black mark on Poirot's record, and a black mark against Colonel Hasting's automobile!

Poirot has to riffle through the list of unlikely suspects, because no likely suspects are at hand! The solution is off the beaten path of mystery motives. :-)

Great premise

[Paularoc · 8/10 · 8 August 2012]

An arrogant (is there any other kind?) squire and his wife are receiving ransom notes regarding their young son - but the twist is that the notes say the child will be kidnapped on a specific date and at a specific time if they don't pay up on the increasing ransom demands. We quickly find out that the wife is wealthy, that the old family mansion is need of costly repairs and that Squire Waverly is himself short of funds - witness the skimpy breakfast Poirot and Hastings are given. They are at the mansion because Japp at first refuses to take the ransom notes seriously so the squire goes to Poirot. Sure enough at the appointed time and place, the child is kidnapped even though Japp is on site with a number of policemen to guard the boy. I liked this episode in large part for the premise but also for Poirot, Japp, Miss Lemon, and Hastings. I also liked the shots of the estate - what a beautiful place. Sure would like to know how they got such beautiful lawns (not a weed in sight); it has been such a brutal summer around here that all the lawns are in bad shape and I eyed the lawns in this episode with envy.

David 'Poirot' Suchet really gets going!

[binapiraeus · 8/10 · 8 November 2014]

Although this is only the third episode of this GREAT, long-running series starring David Suchet as Agatha Christie's world famous master sleuth Hercule Poirot, Mr. Suchet has already perfected his role. His French accent, his gentlemanly but slightly haughty behavior, his dry humor, his pedantry make all the keen readers of Agatha Christie's novels feel like Poirot has actually 'jumped' right out of the book and onto the TV screen! Hugh Fraser as Hastings, Philip Jackson as Japp, and Pauline Moran as Miss Lemon are also present already as the (almost) steady supporting cast - so the foundations are laid for a series that would rise to unforeseen heights in the course of the next 25 (!) years...

And besides the magnificent acting on ALL parts, we can also admire a PERFECT recreation of the atmosphere of the 1920s - everything from clothes and hairstyles to interiors to cars. Really a BIG achievement for a TV series that's still in its 'infancy', so to speak! But the producers started out with ALL the right stuff from the very beginning - and the reward turned out to be one of the most popular, most high-class and longest-running British TV series ever.

This episode, adapted from one of Poirot's 'minor' early cases, a short story first published in 1923, isn't too complicated, maybe you could even call it a little bit predictable; and yet, it's quite suspenseful, stylish, entertaining - and 'spiced' with a good dose of humor! A WONDERFUL hour of entertainment for Poirot fans, and not only...

"If there was to be any rough stuff, I don't know as Mr. Poirot'd be the first person I'd think of."

[bensonmum2 · 3/10 · 4 July 2015]

Poirot is hired to stop a kidnapping. Even though the exact time of the kidnapping is known in advance, the combined force of Poirot, Japp, Hastings, and a host of officers proves ineffective.

I know these comments will receive more negative votes than positive, but I've got to be honest about these things. There are a few episodes of Poirot that I still haven't seen - most are the ones with run-times under an hour. But I simply cannot imagine myself enjoying any of these unseen episodes less than this one. The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly is easily the worst I've seen so far. The mystery is too easy to solve (as Poirot himself says, the solution is obvious), the acting is below par (Geoffrey Bateman may be a decent enough actor, but here he gets his part all wrong), and the runtime feels padded even at only 51 minutes (scenes like the ones with Poirot ordering eggs or Hastings running out of gas are examples). Overall, I can't recommend The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly. A 3/10 is the best I can do.

Another high quality adaptation.

[jamesraeburn2003 · 8/10 · 1 September 2023]

Hercule Poirot is hired by a country squire called Marcus Waverley (played by Geoffrey Bateman) to help him prevent his young son, Johnnie (played by Dominic Rougier), from being kidnapped. The kidnappers had sent the Waverleys letters demanding large sums of money, but since they repeatedly refused to pay up, another was sent giving the exact date and time that the kidnapping will take place. Poirot takes Waverley to visit Chief Inspector Japp of the Yard, but fails to convince him that it is a threat to be taken seriously. So Poirot and Hastings accompany Waverley to his country estate, Waverley Court. That night his wife, Ada (played by Julia Chambers), is taken ill as a result of being poisoned. On the following morning an enraged Waverley fires all of his staff with the exception of his long standing butler, Treadwell (played by Patric Jordan), believing one of them to be responsible for the whole thing. Meanwhile, Japp has decided to take it seriously and has arrived with back up to protect the child and apprehend whoever is behind it. Poirot and Hastings go out in the latter's Lagonda sports car to enjoy a pub breakfast. But, on their way back the car breaks down and Poirot is forced to walk back to the house on foot. Sure enough, Johnnie is kidnapped and the perpetrators managed to evade the police by putting the clocks inside the house forward by ten minutes. Has Johnnie been kidnapped by a ruthless gang, or does the culprit(s) and the motive lie closer to home?

All in all, The Adventure Of Johnnie Waverley is another high quality adaptation of one of Agatha Christie's short stories. David Suchet was by now establishing himself as the quintessential Poirot, accurately capturing the character's eccentricities and mannerisms in his detailed performances. Here, we see that he is disappointed not to be getting the traditional full English breakfast whilst staying at Waverley Court. Then at the cozy English inn that he and Hastings visit, he orders everything from scrambled eggs and kidneys to sausages. He even allows Hastings to order him a pint of beer at breakfast, although he is surprised that one would drink it at that time of day! In later episodes though he would express a big dislike for the English cuisine - a full English, in particular. The acting is very good all round with Geoffrey Bateman as Marcus Waverley and Patric Jordan as the loyal family manservant Treadwell being particularly noteworthy. Hugh Fraser and Philip Jackson offer their usual dependable support, which complements Suchet's performance as they provide the vital chemistry as his loyal friends and associates. The dramatization is excellent, Renny Rye once again does a fine job as director and all other aspects of the production: lighting, sets and costumes are spot on.

Far too obvious

[grantss · 5/10 · 16 July 2016]

A country squire, Marcus Waverly, approaches Hercule Poirot with a case. He has been receiving anonymous letters, threatening to kidnap his son, Johnnie, unless a ransom is paid. Every time Mr Waverley ignores the letter and does not pay the ransom, the ransom goes up. Poirot is intrigued and takes the case. Chief Inspector Japp and the police do not consider the letters a genuine threat and are doing nothing. Poirot and Hastings head out to the Waverly estate to investigate for themselves. Not sooner have they arrived and another anonymous letter arrives, specifying the date and time that Johnnie will be abducted.

One of the worst Poirot episodes, if not the worst. Almost from the start, the culprit is obvious. The story is fairly predictable and the kidnap plot quite transparent.

So, no intrigue at all. The only interesting thing is the sub-plot involving Hastings and cars, plus the usual wonderfully colourful portrayal of Poirot by David Suchet.

The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 7 June 2017]

This one is a bit of a clunker but a nicely made one but the script lacked tightness. At least we get to see Miss Lemon's efficient filing system.

Poirot is called in when a family receives letters telling them that his son will be kidnapped and held for ransom. Even the precise date and time. The kidnapping of the little boy shares elements with Poirot's most famous story 'Murder on the Orient Express.'

Mr Waverly owns a large country mansion and his wife is also rich. Poirot realises that Waverly has had to downsize. When the kidnapping does happen with the police and Inspector Japp present, Poirot soon figures it is all a farce.

The way the crime has been committed narrows down the list of suspects considerably and the episode does not really delves too much as to the motive although we can guess why.

Worst Poirot episode ever?

[pawebster · 1/10 · 13 August 2008]

I'm a fan of the Poirot series, but this is a stinker. The plot makes no real sense when you analyse it, and it is spun out to fill the time. It is also made very, very obvious from the start that the father is implicated in the crime. The script and dialogue are wooden, for example the extremely feeble jokes about Hastings and his car versus train travel.

This was one of the very earliest films in the series, and things rapidly got better, thank goodness. It's a wonder the whole thing was not cancelled after this effort.

Inspector Japp is not the genial figure he will become. He is different in these early Poirots. Here he is gruff and, frankly, rude and boorish. Miss Lemon's character is also not fully developed and the exchanges about her attempts to create the perfect filing system fall flat along with the rest of the proceedings.

To me, this seemed weak due to quite a few plot holes.

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 16 November 2023]

Generally, I love the Poirot stories which starred David Suchet. However, "The Adventure of Johnnie Waverly) is one that left me cold...particularly because of all the plot holes.

A rather haughty and unpleasant country squire hires Poirot. It seems someone has been threatening to kidnap his son...and vows to do it at noon on a day quickly approaching. Despite Poirot and the police's best efforts, the kid does disappear...and Poirot quickly determines what REALLY happened.

As I watched the show, I kept noticing plot problems. First, why would the man hire Poirot? When you see the entire show, this just doesn't make sense. Second, why wouldn't the father or mother mention the 'Priest Hole' in the house (i.e., a hidden passageway)? And, finally, why would Poirot handle the end of the case as he did? It really doesn't make a lot of sense and the plot seemed sort of slapped together without regard to whether it made much sense. The actors try their best....so at least this is a plus for the episode.