His friend, solicitor Gilbert Entwhistle, asks Hercule Poirot to help solve a riddle and a murder. The riddle has to do with Richard Abernethie's will. It would seem that he changed his will immediately prior to his death, distributing all of his wealth equally among family members but excluding George Abernethie who, in all previous wills, had been the sole beneficiary. The two had supposedly argued recently, but Entwhistle suspects the new will may be a forgery. As for the murder, he would like Poirot to investigate the death of Cora Galaccio, who was violently beaten to death the day after Richard's funeral. She too had inherited from the suspect will, but are the two deaths and the will all part of a greater plot, or is there a simpler explanation? Written by
Count me as being one who is happy to see no Hastings in this episode. The poor-man's Dr. Watson does nothing for me, as he simply drags down every scene he's in. Japp is often necessary to the story as the representative of officialdom, and a little Miss Lemon is fine for seasoning, but Hastings swings from painfully dim to over-mannered in different episodes. If I have to sit through one more vacuous "Oh, I say there!" I'll take the gas-pipe.
As a general rule, the more Poirot you get in a Poirot story, the better. Every line for Hastings is one taken away from Poirot. And I've never read the books, so I really don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters. A lot of viewers/reviewers seem to have a problem with separating the movies from the books. If you want the book as written, then read it. I don't see the point of watching the television version if you know what will come next at every stage. Theatre is not prose - don't expect a transcription.
6 of 15 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?