From IMDb: "Hercule Poirot finds himself trying to solve the mystery of the Cloade family. Rosaleen is the young widow of Gordon Cloade who was killed in a gas explosion in his London home. Rosaleen has inherited her late husband's substantial fortune and she and her brother David Hunter are refusing to share it with other members of Gordon Cloade's family. There have been persistent rumors that Rosaleen's first husband, an intrepid explorer, is still alive and as such would nullify her marriage to Gordon. What Poirot learns however is of a far greater deception that will alter everyone's perception of what they believe to their reality." <br /><br />Taken at the Flood has to be one of my very least favorite of the entire Poirot series (I disliked it so much that I didn't even bother to write my own plot synopsis). I was never a huge fan of the book, but this adaptation has some real weaknesses and problems that I just can't get past. Chief among them is that it never "feels" like an Agatha Christie story. Who decided to sauce up Christie's work with all the sex and talk of abortion? I suppose it was done in an attempt to attract the more modern viewer. What about those of us who watch these movies because they aren't filled with the same garbage you can find in every other modern movie? Beyond the bastardization of Chirsite's novel, the denouement is terribly disappointing. Poirot brings up things about a murder that happened years ago that, not only would Poirot have had no way of knowing, the audience couldn't begin to come up with the solution. Kreskin couldn't have come up with half the things Poirot reveals. And it's not as much fun when you can't play along. I realize that Christie would often spring a surprise or two during one of Poirot's final monologues, but here Poirot offers no proof. Based on the evidence, his accusations seems to be little more than wild speculation.