Poirot "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" #4.3 (1992) (TV)

"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

Poirot "The Hollow" #9.4 (2004) (TV)

"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

Poirot "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" #3.1 (1990) (TV)

"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

Poirot "Appointment with Death" #11.4 (2008 (TV)

"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

Agatha Christie's Marple "The Body in the Library" #1.1 (2004) (TV)

"Isn't she marvellous?", 25 February 2017

The residents of Gossington Hall wake one morning to find the body of a young woman in their library. Who is she? How'd she get there? Who strangled her? It's a mystery. While the police begin their official investigation, Miss Marple is called in to provide her unique look at things.

For 15+ year, I have avoided these Marple stories because I had read mostly bad things about them. I haven't seen the Joan Hickson version of The Body in the Library in what seems like a hundred years and I haven't read Agatha Christie's book in what seems like a million years. But I remember enough to know that this version of the story strays considerably from both. Does it bother me? Not as much as I thought it would. Even the twist at the end that would have never made it in Christie's work is okay with me. I'm not doing cart wheels of joy over the changes to the story, but they don't bother me that much. Geraldine McEwan's take on Miss Marple is different, but not unenjoyable. The sets, costuming, and locations are as good as you'll find in a television production. It's really quite beautiful to look at. And I can even forgive a few of the gigantic plot holes because I was having such a good time with the rest of the movie. I suppose my biggest complaint is with some of the acting. As much as I enjoy Simon Callow and Joanna Lumley, their constant overacting gets tiresome. Still, it's a decent enough cast with Mary Stockley being the standout.

If you don't go into this with preconceived notions, you might just find The Body in the Library enjoyable. I'll give it a solid 6/10.

6/10

Guns in the Heather (1969)

- The Secret of Boyne Castle

So Much Padding, 24 February 2017

The Secret of Boyne Castle tells the story of Rich (Kurt Russell), a fairly normal American exchange student attending school in Ireland. Everything about his life is fairly routine. Then in one day's time, his life is turned upside down. He's visited by a dying man with a secret, discovers his brother is an American agent, and is taken prisoner by a band of Commie goons. Rich and his buddy have to find a way to escape and make their way to Boyne Castle to uncover the dying man's secret.

The Secret of Boyne Castle isn't horrible, but it's not very good either. I have several problems with the movie, beginning with the horribly misleading title. Being a Disney production with a name like The Secret of Boyne Castle, I was expecting more. The "secret" ends up being a real letdown. It's a scrap of paper with a short message hidden in a fireplace – not at all what I was hoping for. I also have a problem with how simple the plot is. There aren't really any twists or turns. Every time I thought the story was going to take a turn and get interesting, it didn't. Instead, the plot goes from point A to point B on the straightest line possible. Again, disappointing. But the biggest issue I had was with the padding. The version I watched (the three segment Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color presentation) ran 2 hours and 20-something minutes. I'd guess that at least 45 of those minutes were added padding. Most of the movie goes something like this: Rich and his buddy are almost captured – they make a daring escape – they run. Repeat over and over and over. It quickly gets tedious.

On the positive side, the acting is solid. A lot of the performances were very nice. Russell is solid in this early outing. His buddy, played by Patrick Dawson, is a nice complement. But the real star is the Irish countryside. It's stunningly beautiful. I doubt the Irish tourist bureau could put together anything more appealing. I'd love to visit some the locations where The Secret of Boyne Castle was shot. 

Overall, a 4/10 from me.

4/10

Poirot "Death on the Nile" #9.3 (2004) (TV)

"Do not open your heart to evil, mademoiselle. If you do there will be no turning back.", 24 February 2017

Pithy plot summary: It's Agatha Christie, which means that someone is murdered in an elaborate manner and it's up to Poirot to find the killer. Oh, and it takes place on a boat on the Nile.

As hard as I try, every time I watch the 2004 version of Death on the Nile, I can't do it without comparing it to the 1978 version. It's impossible. And the newer film, in my opinion, doesn't measure-up. While there are a number of things I could write about, there are two main areas where the newer Death on the Nile pales in comparison.

Acting – with two exceptions, the actors in this film are not the world-class actors in the 1978 movie. Don't get me wrong, the actors here are fine – there aren't any poor performances. But they're not Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, David Niven, or Jane Birkin. The two exceptions I mentioned are David Suchet and David Soul. As much as I like the 1978 movie, Peter Ustinov never really feels like Poirot. And, as much as I love George Kennedy, Soul is a better fit in the role.

Tone – the newer film has a much darker, brooding feel to it that the earlier movie. As a result the newer movie's just not as much fun or enjoyable. This really hurts the 2004 production. The 1978 movie actually has quite a bit of comedy in it, but not enough to take away from the serious nature of the subject matter. Even other episode in the Agatha Christie's Poirot series have a lighter touch to them that would have worked much better here.

That's not to say it's a bad movie, there's really a lot here to like. I've already mentioned the two Davids – Suchet and Soul. There's also some incredibly beautiful cinematography, nice costuming, and interesting locations. It's also as faithful to the significant plot points found in Christie's book as the earlier movie. On the whole, the good and bad just about negate each other and I rate it a 5/10.

5/10