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.

I don't like this modern adaptations of Agatha Christie's novels. I turn to her when I want a glimpse in to a different times, with different manners and customs. A cosy crime story, escapism, but with her good psychological observations. It seems that Sarah Phelbs wants to be a better than the master, but she takes everything what is good and genius about Christie and destroy it in the process. This can also be seen in the Witness of the Prosecution adaptation. She really wants it to be "contemporary" and she fils it with so much sex that it only gets vulgar. There is no sex in Agatha Christie's work. Not so much in the face. If she wanted to include so much open sex descriptions and conversation about it, she would. It was no uncommon thing to write about it in her age and within a genre. In fact, there is so much genre writers who have used it profoundly. She has distinctive style and Sarah Phelbs has missed it completely. I have stopped watching Ordeal by Innocence on the beginning of the third episode and decided to read the novel again instead, because a forgot the end of it, it was a long time when a read it. And I recommend everyone to do so if they want a classy and stylish read. In the future I will avoid every adaptation with Sarah Phelbs name in it.

I really enjoyed the stylised approach to the filming and sets. The colours were fantastic. Also the actors were pretty decent, I really hated a good few of them (as we were meant to). To pre-empt the next bit, I liked Phelps' attempt at 'And then there were none'. Normally I wouldn't rate something so low on script alone, but I thought it was a bit of a car crash. How unimaginative to have swear words and graphic sexual gestures littering the script. It was boring and disgusting. At least Christie didn't have to resort to that kind of sensationalism. What else did Phelps need - some kind of ridiculous ending that couldn't hope to hold a candle to authentic Christie : We must of course have a bit of high level corruption (because the policeman is a homosexual paeodophile) leading to the murder of your bastard son (result of a different paedophilic rape) to cover up your own murder of your wife, because she threatens to divorce you when she finds you 'tupping' the secretary.This is exactly why I relax reading Agatha Christie for her subtle understanding of humanity, engagement with language and a good puzzle that is hard to work out but all comes together in the end. I got a tiny proportion of that in this. Please would you just write a new tv series altogether if you can't manage to adapt Christie well and want to cut it up and sew it back together in a Frankenstein's monster attempt.

The murderer is changed and hence the whole plot falls apart. So many details were changed from the original book that it was unrecognisable . Disappointing and confusing viewing if you have read the book. As a stand alone murder mystery this was entertaining but I was too confused by the number of differences between the book and tv drama it spoilt my viewing experience. Agatha must be turning in her grave