This is the final film in the ninth series of Poirot, originally broadcast in 2004.

In, “The Hollow” Poirot is staying at a cottage in the country. After being invited for a return visit, Poirot finds a doctor dead and his wife holding a gun. The doctor’s secret mistress tells the wife to thrown the gun to the water which in the end doesn’t matter as it’s not the murder weapon.

Poirot seeks to untangle the truth of the very complicated relationships but runs into resistance and new suspects at every stage.

Overall, I thought this was a solid production and it rose above the typical mystery of its sort where the characters of wife and the other woman can be cardboard cutouts. The husband is really just a very selfish person in his private life with the only thing coloring that is his more noble professional efforts as a doctor. However, both the wife (played by Gerda Christo) and the mistress (played by Megan Dodds) were fully fleshed out as complex and fully developed characters. The interaction between the mistress and Poirot was particularly well done. It was also a thrill to see Edward Harwicke (Watson from the Grenada Sherlock Holmes series) in it.

I had two complaints about this. First was the ending which featured Poirot allowing the murderer to walk away and get something after their identity has been revealed based on their promise not to go anywhere and tragedy results. It really is out of character not that Christie’s original ending would have worked but they had to come up with something better. Also they added in a sex scene that while not r-rated and not even showing actual flash was just unnecessarily gratuitous and titillating which doesn’t suit this series at all.

Overall, despite these flaws, The Hollow is a great adaptation of a book that’s not usually considered one of Christie’s best.

Rating: 4.25 out of 5.0

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

This was third episode in the ninth series of Poriot films starring David Suchet and was originally broadcast in 2004. It finds Poirot on vacation in the Middle East and embarking on a cruise down the Nile. However, all is not well. A wealthy American heiress stole her best friend’s fiance and married. The jilted woman decides to spitefully haunt the young married couple’s Honeymoon which was the same Honeymoon played by she and her former lover. Poirot attempts to intervene but tragedy escalated. The groom is shot and wounded by his ex-lover and the bride is found murdered. The most likely suspect has a perfect alibi.

With this Poirot begins his investigations and more bodies drop until Poirot gives a solution that turns everything the audience understood about the love triangle and other passengers on its head.

The film is brilliantly acted and filmed through out and an incredible adaptation of an incredible story. Naturally, I mentally compared to the Peter Ustinov film version and found it to be a draw. Both featured great lead actors, and a decent cast. Both deliniated from the original story to similar degrees though in slightly different ways. The biggest difference may be between the casts. For my money, I’ll take David Niven from the Ustinov movie over James Fox from the ITV story. Though, there is a case to be made that Angela Lansbury took her role of Salome Otterbourne over the top in the 1970s version and so the performance of Frances De La Tour may be preferable. Both versions are just extraordinary works that actually make you want to read the book if you haven’t.

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Sad Cypress tells the story of a young woman named Elinor Carlisle on trial for murder. Through flashbacks we see Elinor speaking to her dying aunt who she inherits a fortune from. A girl named Mary had won a place in her aunt’s heart and subsequently steals her beau Rodney. When Mary dies at a party held by Elinor. She’s arrested for murder and Poirot steps in to investigate.

This is actually one of the best adaptations I’ve seen yet. The mystery had me guessing until the end, the producers did a great job creating plenty of misdirection, to make this one a puzzler. It also really worked on an emotional level helped by a top notch score that created the perfect mood. Suchet was fabulous as always, making this a nearly perfect production.

Rating: 5.0 out of 5.0

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Sixteen years after her mother was convicted of murdering her father and subsequently executed, a young woman asks Poirot to uncover the truth and clear her mother’s name.

To do this, Poirot begins a meticulous series of interviews, trying to jog the memories of witnesses and using their stories, he tries to piece together what really happened and to do that he has to cut through people’s biases which are as fresh they were when the murders first happened. The story is intriguing, intelligent, and the solution is shocking as perceptions are turned on their head. Suchet gives a sold performance as Poirot and the rest of the cast is well in this first episode not featuring the Poirot “family” of the first-eighth series.

The only downside is the ham-fisted tampering with the plot. They changed the sexuality of one character and added some gunplay at the end. The tampering was obvious and was distracting from the story. Still, Christie’s original story was so strong and Suchet’s acting so good, that it is still a must-see movie for mystery fans.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.0

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Poirot’s Eight series in 2001 began with the telefilm of Evil Under the Sun. Poirot has an apparent heart attack after eating at Captain Hastings Argentinian restaurant, so on doctor’s orders he goes to an island to rest and to eat a healthier, blander diet. When he arrives, he finds actress Arlena Marshall has a large number of enemies on the island, thanks to her obvious stepping out on her husband with a man whose married to another woman, who is also on the island and witnessing this.

When the actress is murdered, there are plenty of suspects, though the wronged woman has an airtight alibi. With multiple suspects, Poirot seeks to find the truth with the help of Captain Hastings, Inspector Japp, and Miss Lemon.

This episode like Lord Edgeware Dies had been adapted as a film starring Peter Ustinov. Both the motion picture and this release made changes from the book. In this case, I think the changes made by the telefilm version were detrimental to the story. They changed the gender of the murdered woman’s stepchild which took a clue that was mostly unremarkable and made it stick out like a sore thumb. My wife, never a fan of mysteries had her hackles raised by a fact that would not have gone on her radar had the character been female as in the book.

In addition, attempts to keep the original Poirot family in the story were really awkward in this production and the part about Captain Hasting restaurant was especially problematic. It all seemed rather forced. It was with good reason that none of these characters have appeared since the eighth series despite how well they were liked through the first six and how much I look forward to the return of Hastings in the final one.

It’s a bit better than okay adaptation, but it could have been better and Ustinov’s take was far a far stronger version.

Rating: 3.75 out of 5.00

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

The second episode of the seventh Poirot series was Lord Edgeware Dies. This is notable as it’s the first time ITV adapted a Poirot story that had been previously adapted with Peter Ustinov, though Ustinov’s adaptation was, “Thirteen at Dinner.”

The Lady Edgeware, Jane Wilkinson wants a divorce from her unhappy marriage to Lord Edgeware and asks Poirot’s help. Poirot visits Lord Edgeware and finds to his suprirse that Lord Edgeware and already agreed to the divorce. Poirot reports this back to Lady Edgeware who says she never received the letter. That night, Lord Edgeware is murdered and the servants at his home point suspicion at Lady Edgeware. However, Lady Edgeware spent the whole with twelve respectable people at a dinner. Poirot sets out to find who committed the murder and is trying to frame the beautiful Lady Edgeware.

This film works great with the requisite twists, turns, and red herrings you expect from an Agatha Christie mystery, plus a solid performance by Suchet as well as the guest stars. This clearly beats Ustinov’s much more ambiguous adaptation. My one complaint in this film is its portrayal of Poirot having a crush on Lady Edgeware. I didn’t buy that, but the rest of film is pure gold.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5.0

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Four years after the end of the sixth series of Poirot, the mysteries returned for a seventh series with David Suchet. The Murder of Roger Ackroyd begins with Poirot in blissful retirement in the country as he focuses on his gardening.

However, a baffling murder brings him out to investigate the buried secrets of a small town.

As usual with Poirot stories, the mystery’s not a problem, nor is the acting by the lead. The fundamental problem with this play is dramatic. Here, I try not to give away the game to anyone unfamiliar with the story. The Murder of Roger Akroyd much Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, is noted for an unusual twist solution that’s actually quite shocking in the annals of detective fiction.

The ending works great in a book or in a well-done radio adaptation like Orson Welles’ Campbell playhouse version, however it’s understandably difficult to pull off in a cinematic way.  But, what they tried to do instead failed with a gratuitous chase scene to resolve the story just didn’t  feel right.  The film also suffered somewhat from the decision to include the Poirot family of actors even if it really didn’t work for capturing the spirit of the book.

In addition, the story had a somewhat maudlin, overly sentimental feel to it. To be fair, I wasn’t following the Poirot series in 2000 and maybe fans appreciated it back then, but it doesn’t age well.

It’s a weak entry and a bumpy start to the second half of the Poirot mysteries.

Rating: 2.5 out of 5.0

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

Dumb Witness was the last episode of the sixth series of Poirot and the series went on a four year hiatus afterwards.

Poriot receives an urgent letter from a woman who fears she will be murderered by her family. Poirot goes to the scene and advises her to make a change to her will. She ends up dying apparently of natural causes, but there’s some suspicious circumstances as two old ladies think there was a supernatural origin. And Poirot finds that the old women’s dog is the key witness in the case.

This was probably my least favorite Poirot mystery of what was a solid sixth series. The Novel Dumb Witness was an expanded version of a short story called, “The Incident of the Dog’s Ball.” The short story actually works quite well, but this expansion really felt like it just made the story drag on rather than adding true meat to it.

However, it must be said that David Suchet turned in a good performance as Poirot in an otherwise forgettable adaptation.

Rating: 3.75 out of 5.0

This post contains affiliate links, which means that items purchased from these links may result in a commission being paid to the author of this post at no extra cost to the purchaser.

If you enjoyed this post, you can have new posts about Detective stories and the golden age of radio and television delivered automatically to your Kindle.