"Halloween is not a time for the telling of the stories macabre, but to light the candles for the dead.", 28 February 2017
During a children's Halloween party, a young girl makes the boastful claim of having seen a murder when she was much younger. No one really believes her – she has a habit of making things up. But when she turns up dead in the apple bobbing tub, it's too much of a coincidence for writer Ariadne Oliver. Before you can say "trick- or-treat", she's on the phone to old friend Hercule Poirot for help solving the mystery.
I think Hallowe'en Party might have been the first Agatha Christie book I ever read (it was either this or The ABC Murders), so it's always held a special place in my heart. I've always worried that this particular book might be difficult to film. Fortunately, Director ___ and team got most of it right. Sure, there are some interesting bits from the novel that didn't make it and some other changes to the original story, but there's enough of Christie's work here to make any fan happy. As you would expect by now with these Poirot movies, everything is just about perfect. Acting, sets, and locations are all top notch. The music and mood are appropriate. And the mystery, while involved, makes sense in the end. I had forgotten how gruesome some aspects of the story were, but I suppose that's always the case when you're talking about children being murdered.
However, there is one key aspect of Hallowe'en Party that particularly bothers me. I cannot stand the style in which much of the episode was filmed. It looks more like an episode of Law and Order with artsy camera angels, quick cuts, obtrusive lighting, and even some shaky camera than it does a period mystery/drama. What happened to just telling the story in a straight on fashion? Oh how I miss the episodes from the first half of the series. If the mystery in the second half of the movie hadn't been so interesting, I would rate this one much lower.
7/10
"Oh, yes, I am. Very odd. That is to say, I am methodical, orderly, and logical, and I do not like to distort facts to support a theory.", 27 February 2017
Poirot's dentist, Henry Morley, is found dead of a gunshot wound on the same day Poirot had an appointment. Morley's death appears to have been a suicide. But when two other patients who visited Morely on the same day turn up dead, the coincidences are too much and Poirot suspects there is something more sinister going on. Can Poirot stop a murderer who has already killed three times?
I'm going to sound like parrot here and echo a lot of what others have written about One, Two, Buckle My Shoe on IMDb. I agree with others who have written that the plot can be a bit confusing. There's lot going on and a lot of characters to keep up with. This is an instance where the book is much, much better because Christie had ample time and space to explain things in a detail the movie couldn't. It would have been hours long. Next, I agree with what others have written about the scenes set in India at the very beginning of the movie. These scenes give away way too much of the mystery. The surprise factor is gone. Finally, Poirot makes too many assumptions for my taste. There are things that he knows with seeming certainty about the murders that he shouldn't. There is no solid evidence presented for much of what he says in his final denouement.
Still, this is a decent enough episode. The murderer in this episode is as brutal as any Christie wrote about. The death of one of the characters is especially violent. Of course nothing is shown, but the implication is there nonetheless. As always, sets, costuming, locations, and every technical aspect you can think of are top notch. The acting is as strong as ever. I think Suchet does a particularly good job. No one else really stood out, but all were solid.
Overall, not the best episode for the reasons I've listed. Still, this is Poirot so there's usually something to enjoy. I'll give One, Two, Buckle My Shoe a 6/10.
6/10
"Go, my child. Your place is with the living. I will remain here with the dead.", 27 February 2017
While vacationing in the country, Hercule Poirot is invited to lunch at a large manor house just down the road. Upon arrival, he's greeted by an unusual sight. Four people, one holding a gun, standing over a man who has just been shot. The gun the woman is holding proves not to have been the murder weapon. Poirot knows something is wrong with the scene he's just witnessed, but what? Can Poirot solve the mystery and find the real killer?
I haven't seen all of episodes in the Poirot series (yet), but I doubt I'll see one that I enjoy much more than this. The Hollow might be the best of the bunch. So what makes this one so good? As best as I can remember, there are only a few instances where the movie strays from Agatha Christie's book – and that's a good thing. As with all these Poirot episodes, the costuming, sets, lighting, and almost every other technical detail you can name are spot on perfect. The acing in The Hollow is as good as you'll find. David Suchet, Jonathan Cake, Claire Price, Edward Hardwicke, Sarah Miles, and Lysette Anthony all give performances worth noting. But Megan Dodds is the real standout. She's perfect as Henrietta Savernake. She's smart, clever, resourceful, beautiful, and every bit Poirot's equal. I've probably given Dodds too much credit and should save some for the screenwriters. The character of Henrietta is one of the best written in the series. Finally, there's the music. I don't remember being so moved by the music in any other Poirot episode. It fits the mood perfectly.
After my most recent viewing, I was going to rate The Hollow a 9/10, but I'm not sure that does it justice. I've seen The Hollow four or five times and even though I know the answer to mystery, it's still as good (or better) as the first time I saw it. Why not – I'll give it a 10/10. It's that good.
10/10
"The fire warms but it also destroys.", 26 February 2017
While recovering from injuries received during the War, Lieutenant Hastings is invited to visit an old friend in his mother's, Mrs. Inglethorp, country estate. The household is in a state because of the mother's recent marriage to a strange man 20 years her junior. One night, Mrs. Inglethorp is taken ill and dies. The cause of death - poisoning. The family suspects the new husband, but he wasn't at home on the night of the murder. Looking for help in solving the mystery, Lieutenant Hastings calls on a war refugee from Belgium living in the village. He's an odd bird, but a great detective named Hercule Poirot.
The Mysterious Affair at Styles isn't one of the great Christie works, but it's fun enough with interesting characters and a "nice" murder. I say it's not great because there are two things that really bug me (at least in this presentation of the story). First, the murderer makes the most illogical mistake imaginable. Why did he leave the incriminating piece of evidence where it could be found? Second, Poirot makes an awful lot of suppositions that just happen to be right. He's more clairvoyant here than usual.
But none of that matters much when the rest of the episode is so good and fun. It's a real hoot watching Poirot march his fellow Belgian refugees through the streets of a small English village. They look like penguins on parade. It's also a treat to see Hastings and Poirot renew an old friendship. It's a really nice moment. And, it's also a joy to watch Japp and Poirot working together on their first English case. The only thing missing was Miss Lemon. I only wish they would have filmed The Mysterious Affair at Styles first. It would have nicely set-up everything to follow. For someone new to the series, I'd suggest going straight to S3E1 to start.
Overall, a 7/10 from me.
7/10
"You see, mon ami, the voices of the little gray cells have begun to sing to Poirot.", 26 February 2017
While traveling with her archaeologist husband in Syria, Lady Boynton is murdered in plain sight of everyone at the dig. There are no shortage of suspects as Lady Boynton was a beastly, overbearing woman who mistreated just about everyone she met - especially her children. Poirot is (naturally) on hand to find the order in things and uncover a killer.
God, do I hate a lot of these new entries in the Poirot series. They lack the charm and simplicity of the earlier episodes. Episodes like Appointment with Death are full of style, stars, and "art", they lack the soul of good storytelling. Everything is overdone. And why change the story. I may seem like a hypocrite because I recently wrote that the changes made in Marple's Body in the Library didn't bother me. But those changes were minor compared with the gigantic rewrites to Christie's story in this one. It's heartbreaking and unnecessary. Finally, I miss the old intro. Seeing Poirot walking toward that art deco triangle/pyramid, I knew I was in for some fun. I can't believe I'm writing this, but if you want to see Appointment with Death, look for the 1988 film with Peter Ustinov. It's nothing to write home about, but it's a far sight better than this bloated monstrosity.
There are a lot of the newer episodes I still haven't seen. If they're all like this, I'm in for a rough time.
3/10
