Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Prismark10 This is a rather atmospheric production, the director has gone for moody shots to reflect a story where justice might have gone wrong as a young woman, Lucy Crale contacts Poirot to find out how her father, an artist dies 14 years earlier, a crime for which her mother was executed for and an incident which has always haunted her as she was a little girl at the time.Lucy's father, Amyas was a womaniser, her mother, Caroline apparently put up with his philandering ways. His latest conquest was Elsa, a wealthy woman he was painting and who he had promised that he will leave his wife for.The story is told in flashback as Poirot talks to various people who were present including family members, this leads to some unreliable narrators which Poirot has to fathom.At one point a character tells Poirot to get on with it. An intriguing mystery but it does rather drag a bit which is always tends to be the case with feature length Poirot mysteries, hence the moody shots. Yet it did keep you guessing as to who is the culprit but I am not sure that it all hangs together well.

grantss Hercule Poirot is hired by a young woman, Lucy Crale. 14 years earlier, her father was murdered and her mother was convicted of the murder and hanged. She is convinced of her mother's innocence and wants Poirot to investigate who really killed her father. Poirot accepts the case.Interesting and novel in that the murder occurred in the distant past. This makes things more difficult for Poirot and requires different investigating to his usual methods. However, it also brings about some disengagement. There is no immediacy about the case, the evidence is all cold, very cold, and he is mostly reliant on recollections from witnesses. There is also the thought that, whoever the murderer is, they've gotten away with it for 14 years, so any justice would feel a bit diluted.Also, none of Poirot's friends - Japp, Hastings, Lemon - are there and they tend to add different, interesting dimensions to any Poirot story.Still quite intriguing in the end. Worth noting that the cast includes Aidan Gillen and Toby Stephens. Little Finger (of Game of Thrones) and Captain Flint (Black Sails) together in the same show!

Mark Rimmell I have after all this time read the reviews..I was the Set Decorator..and I have to say to work on Death on The Nile and 5 Little Pigs was a joy plus a few others... The period is my favourite . One always hopes'that one gets it right...There are'so many Poirot fans . Any slight error of period will be spotted....So I get rather paranoid to please' just that one expert of Agatha Christie... I still have one or two reminders of Death on The Nile, The menus from The Karnak. My original notes at the time...and a few small pieces that I loaned from my collection... Before this came Jeeves and Wooster with the great Eileen Diss as'designer.. Retirement is now upon me.......No more Poirot, No more Jeeves , Longitude etc..etc..I can now watch out for the errors...and stay silent ...

Robert J. Maxwell This is one of Dame Agatha's more engaging conundrums, though not exactly the kind of acute examination of "the psychology" that Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) claims it is.Let's see. There is one of those perfervid painter-types, Amyas Crale, a Byronic figure, married to a good-enough wife but having one affair after another. He drinks a glass of beer and drops dead, poisoned in the proper British manner. The deed seems to have been prompted by Crayle's announcement that this time his love affair with his model (Julie Cox) was serious and he intended to shrug off his marriage and replace his wife with his model. The wife is convicted and, without any protest from her, hanged. That was fourteen years ago. Now, the daughter is convinced of her mother's innocence and hires Poirot to investigate.So who did it? Well, there were only about half a dozen people present at the isolated rural mansion at the time of the murder. Was it Crayle's best friend from boyhood (Toby Stephens)? Maybe it was Meredith, another boyhood friend who is always skulking around and who, after all, had a collection of chemicals in the basement, the poison among them. Or maybe it was Crayle's own daughter, blinded in one eye by her mother years ago, killing her father in order to frame her mother who is the obvious suspect. Might it not have been Julie Cox, the model he was apparently about to marry? But, no. What motive would she have for killing her lover? Could Crayle's wife actually be GUILTY? Or was there some stranger out of the past who sneaked in and did the dirty deed? Well -- not that. Because all of Agatha Christie's plots involve only the suspects who are around at the time of the murder.Now, I'll tell you who did it. (Not really.) I enjoyed this more than most of the movie-length episodes in the series for a couple of reasons. One is that there was no subordinate or embedded crime, irrelevant to the murder itself, that might have thrown the plot off kilter. None of the suspects is a closet jewel thief or anything. It's a nice clean mystery. Second, I could tell the characters apart. As always, they're introduced with a name and a phrase and we're given a two-second shot of the suspect's face. But this time there seemed to be fewer suspects, and they LOOKED different from one another. Toby Stephens I already recognized from "The Great Gatsby" TV production, which should have been called "The Great Blunder." The others had some visible distinguishing characteristic -- the beard; the disfigured face; the great enormous stupendous colossal raccoon-like exopthalmic eyeballs of Julie Cox, the model, who looks as if she could eat a normal human being alive by nibbling him to death with her pupils. I haven't read the novel but I imagine some modernization has gone on. The artist and Toby Stephens, as it turns out, were more than just friends during their boyhood.David Suchet IS Poirot, giving a shaded performance much different from his splashier big-screen counterparts.I admired, too, the tale for having a moral behind it. Van Gogh, Modigliani, Toulouse-Lautrec, Jackson Pollack, and the rest notwithstanding -- one should never drink while trying to paint. Not unless you want your model to turn up with three breasts.