Poirot "The Underdog" #5.2 (1993) (TV)

Everywhere I look, I see plot holes, 12 August 2015

Sir Reuben Astwill couldn't be nastier if he was shown kicking puppies and clubbing baby seals. So when he turns up dead, no one seems overly upset. Some even seem happy. With no shortage of suspects who had something against Sir Reuben, Poirot has his work cut out for him.

The Underdog is a well made episode with fine acting, excellent camera-work, nice period details, an interesting subplot involving synthetic rubber, terrific locations, and everything else you might expect in a Poirot episode. But, as my rating indicates, there are things about The Underdog that bother me. The plot holes are so big, I can't get past them to fully enjoy the episode. 

HUGE SPOILER ALERT - First, I didn't care for the whole hypnosis bit. It seems more like something from a Charlie Chan film than an episode of Poirot. And to make it worse, Lady Astwell's recollection of events while under hypnosis is ridiculous. She remembers seeing a figure behind the curtain. And yes, when we see the curtain, there's definitely someone behind it. But the way their leaning into it, I half expected them to come tumbling into the room at any minute. Wouldn't this mysterious figure taken a step or two back to better hide themselves? It's preposterous.

Second (and more importantly), this has to be one of the worst final reveals I've seen in a Poirot episode. After it was over, i just sat there dumbfounded. Poirot proved nothing. I don't know if it was Christie or the screenwriter (I can't remember the short story), but Poirot's summation is full of holes. The piece of paper Poirot produces to show that Mr. Trefusis' contract would have been worthless had the process been sold to the Germans was not evidence he committed a crime. It's motive and nothing more. And how does Poirot know that Mr. Trefusis was hiding behind the curtain? He doesn't. In fact, there might not have been anyone hiding behind the curtain. We only have Lady Astwell's word for it. For all Poirot knows, Lady Astwell and her true love, Victor, could have committed the crime together. The rest of the events would have still fit. Or, how does Poirot know that Lily wasn't behind the curtain? She could have been the one to come out and kill Sir Reuben and the rest of the events would have still fit. Or, how does Poirot know that Charles didn't kill his uncle while quarreling with him? Because he said he didn't? He could have killed Sir Reuben and the rest of the events would have still fit. I've named at least four other possible murderers (and I could list more) that Poirot could have named. He has no evidence to support naming anyone the murderer. Like I said, way too many plot holes for me.

5/10