_"It is a hothouse of suppressed passion. This is what happens when the person you love the most in the world, who you would give your life for, is actually the same person that you hate the most."_ _**Crooked House** (2017)_ is a slow burn adaptation of Agatha Christie’s most twisted book. Charles, a PI, is invited by his former lover, Sophia, to catch the person who murdered her grandfather. But as Charles investigates, the turn of events leads to a shocking conclusion. When I first watched this film (years ago), I was thoroughly impressed with its climax and ending. It’s safe to say that that is still a strong point in the film. However, the story is slow and at times dull enough that your attention drifts elsewhere. But with an ending like that, everything before is almost forgotten. The performances in this are superb. Every single woman ate onscreen and had the script been more entertaining, I think this would’ve been a STELLAR adaptation. I definitely cried at the end which is vastly different than my reaction when I first watched this. But I understand why I decided to circle back to Crooked House. That ending has lived rent free in my mind since I first saw it.

**A film that manages to entertain its audience, but cannot be called memorable.** By mere coincidence, I caught this film on TV during these early days of the year, and I took the opportunity to watch it knowing that it was an adaptation of a novel by Agatha Christie. Although I don't consider myself, even remotely, knowledgeable about her work, I really like her books and have read several. It is not the case with this book, so I will refrain from commenting on the quality of this adaptation. There will be more qualified people to do that. However, if we consider all the adaptations that exist based on the author's material, I don't think we can put this film among the worst, as it tries to respect the environment and the historical period while giving us high doses of suspense and unpredictability. A warning: anyone expecting to see Poirot or Miss Marple will be disappointed because they are not in the original book. The film is quite good, better than some big productions we sometimes see out there. It entertains its audience, especially if we are attentive enough to follow the story, full of twists and turns. The direction is not particularly happy, I think Paquet-Brenner was not able to get the best out of the cast he had at hand. I think it would have been equally positive if we had had more time to get to know each member of that family. I say this because there are characters that are merely sketched, and I have difficulty believing that Christie didn't leave material to develop them better. The editing also fails a lot, the pacing is uneven, and the suspense oscillates instead of gradually growing towards the climax. Where the production seems to invest more solidly is in the very well executed cinematography, in the careful choice of filming locations and in the design of sets and costumes. As for the cast, I think we had some casting errors that created problems: Max Irons is an actor I wouldn't want here. He seems uncomfortable with the material and doesn't develop any kind of chemistry with Stefanie Martini, who should be his love interest. The scenes between them, particularly those that require greater rapport between the actors, are very forced. Gillian Anderson, Terence Stamp, Christian McKay and Julian Sands are all solid bets that don't disappoint us, but their characters deserved greater development and more time on screen, as has already been said. In contrast, veteran Glenn Close is perfect in her role and gives us very consistent work, while young Honor Kneafsey shows signs of talent and commitment in one of the best children's characters I've seen in some time.

A bit boring. Wanted to stop watching in the middle because it's so dull. I just continued watching it only to find out who the killer was. Otherwise, I would have stopped watching it.