"Poirot" Taken at the Flood (TV Episode 2006) ⭐ 7.4 | Crime, Drama, Mystery (original) (raw)
Episode aired Dec 17, 2006
1h 33m
A young widow is left in sole possession of her late husband's fortune, her brother who dominates her refuses to let her share it with her in-laws, so they enlist Poirot to prove her missing... Read allA young widow is left in sole possession of her late husband's fortune, her brother who dominates her refuses to let her share it with her in-laws, so they enlist Poirot to prove her missing first husband might not be dead.A young widow is left in sole possession of her late husband's fortune, her brother who dominates her refuses to let her share it with her in-laws, so they enlist Poirot to prove her missing first husband might not be dead.
Featured reviews
Have you ever hated a character more then David Hunter?
As with Mystery of the Blue Train, earlier in the series, the writer felt to make this work for TV, they needed to make several changes, personally, I thought the changes worked rather well, the ending is a bit of a stretch.
The story is very good, it's so bleak, and whilst the characters were decidedly off in the Blue Train, here I thought they were terrific. The standout performance came from Elliot Cowan, he is captivating as David Hunter, he's sinister, commanding, a real standout performance, I can't think of a character in the series I've hated more. Eva Birthistle, Celia Imrie and Jenny Agutter all shine also.
Good special effects, the usual slick production values, and another terrific performance from Suchet make for a very good episode.
I have just seen "Taken at the Flood" on DVD. I agree that those episodes produced after Japp, Hastings and Lemon were no longer in the story line are not near as entertaining. Poirot is portrayed as almost a different character. He is more harsh and sometimes rude. This is not the Poirot of old. One thing I have noticed about these last four is the transition from one scene to another, especially the scene changes at obvious "commercial breaks". It seems that the episode is so poorly edited that we are missing parts of the presentation. It is as though these DVD's contain copies of the same ones edited for television. If this true, we seem to be cheated. One more thing, The cast shown on IMDb for "Taken at the Flood" includes Hugh Fraser as Hastings and Philip Jackson as Japp. My wife and were excited to see this but alas, they were nowhere to be found in the episode.
Wealthy Gordon Cloade was among several people who died when there was a gas explosion in his house. His young wife, Rosaleen survived and inherited his estate. This was the second time Rosaleen had been widowed at such a young age.
The other members of the Cloade family are unhappy about this and have looked for evidence that her first husband, an explorer gone missing may not have died, therefore her second marriage would be void.
Rosaleen has a close relationship with her controlling brother, David Hunter who has a viperish approach to others.
Poirot is asked to look into this state of affairs, especially as some members of the Cloade family dislike Rosaleen and her brother David immensely. However other deaths ensure that Poirot has to look into a murder investigation.
On second viewing it becomes clear that the main thrust of the story is summarised in the opening minutes. However on first watch the story seemed to have crawled at a snail's pace as various characters are introduced and we wait for a death to occur so Poirot can kick in with his investigations.
The denouement is certainly left field, a lot of the revelations come out of nowhere. David Hunter is so despicable you just know Poirot is going to come up with something to take him down. There are hints as to the precise nature of him and his sister's relationship which rather are laid out bluntly by the director. A great contrast with the preceding episode, After the Funeral.
Taken at the flood, alas, wasn't, it turns out
"Taken at the Flood" stars David Suchet in his familiar, popular role of Hercule Poirot in this 2006 adaptation of an Agatha Christie story.
When Gordon Cloade dies, he leaves behind a young wife, Rosaleen who seems to be under the control of her brother, David Hunter. Therefore, certain obligations met by Gordon to the rest of his family are not met, nor is his generosity. Members of the Cloade family are bound and determined to prove that Rosaleen's first husband isn't dead as rumored. For this, they bring in Hercule Poirot.
Before Poirot can delve too deeply into whether or not the first husband is dead, he shows up. Murder follows on his heels, and Poirot is caught up in a far bigger mystery.
This is a very good story with Suchet excellent as the fastidious Poirot, here also endeavoring to help out a good friend, Lynn (Amanda Douge). There's just one small problem. Part of the story was changed for reasons unbeknownst to the viewers, and this change defeats the title "taken at the flood" completely. The title is from Julius Caesar and means grabbing something or taking a risk when the opportunity presents itself. In this story, that "taken at the floor" opportunity in Agatha Christie's story is actually an event the perpetrator plans.
It may seem like a small thing, but in fact, it shows a lack of integrity on the part of the producers to respect the actual story and also their complete lack of knowledge. That in turn makes the whole thing suspect.
So while I enjoyed this, I submit that Christie's original work is better -- and true to the title.
I will say, that my overview of the entire Poirot series is that it is absolutely wonderful, so well made and acted. Taken At the Flood isn't terrible, as there are some good things, but as an adaptation it doesn't work. Out of Season 10, this is the episode that I was most disappointed with. I was disappointed as well with Cards on the Table which started off so well with great acting but the ending spoilt it completely, but After the Funeral was absolutely phenomenal and one of my favourite Poirots to date. As far as Poirot episodes go, while there are some undeniably good things this is for me the weakest Poirot, and this was after I saw the Murder of Roger Ackroyd, which despite the good performances and production values made a mess of what I consider one of Miss Christie's best books. Speaking of the book Taken At The Flood, I agree it is one of the lesser works by the Queen of Crime, but it is still a compelling enough read.
There are some outstanding things here. First and foremost, David Suchet; by far the best thing of the adaptation, for he was absolutely outstanding here as Poirot. Here he acquired a perfect mix of the comical Poirot, which he does so effectively and the serious which he does even better. Second, the production values. The photography is excellent, the effects are well done and the scenery and costumes as is always the case with this series is top notch. Thirdly, the music is very good, beautiful in some places and haunting in others. Fourth, the direction from Andy Wilson is excellent in general. Out of the supporting performances, Elizabeth Spriggs and Tim Piggott Smith are the most impressive, and I love Jenny Agutter and she does a good job. Also Amanda Douge is stunning.
Some other things were merely acceptable. The quality of the script is not as good as it is in an adaptation like Five Little Pigs or After the Funeral, but Poirot does have some truly funny and even moving parts that Suchet, the great actor that he is, delivers brilliantly. Everything else ranges from acceptable to rather uncharacteristic of Agatha Christie. Eva Birthistle as Rosaleen does well, she performs effectively in some scenes, but Rosaleen isn't quite the same as she is in the book in terms of looks. The pacing is not exactly fast paced, as a matter of fact this is an example of an adaptation that starts quite slowly, but it does pick up.
However, there were other things that didn't work at all. I for one, didn't like the portrayal of David Hunter. Instead of the cynical, calculating and lecherous jerk he is in the book, he is as one reviewer summed up a cold blooded lunatic and I for one found it obvious that he was a villain in some way. Plus Elliot Cowan overacts so wildly, I found it hard to relate to his character at all, it was like Robert Hardy in the Inspector Morse episode Twilight of the Gods all over again. Some of the plot changes were baffling and implausible too, Rosaleen's drug addiction was a head scratcher, and the German air raid idea was implausible. Don't get me started also on the suicide of Major Porter, whose idea was it for him to do it right next to someone, it made no sense. But the biggest flaw, and the weakest scene of the whole adaptation was the ending, what a let down. I can watch it for Suchet's denouncement speech, which is a revelation in terms of delivery, but the plot changes like Cards on the Table and Murder of Roger Ackroyd ruined it, and it misses the point of the book completely.
All in all, some good things, but there are things that just didn't work. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Suggest an edit or add missing content
What is the French language plot outline for Taken at the Flood (2006)?