Poirot (TV Series) Appointment with Death (2008) User Reviews

Visually stunning, with great music and is well performed; its deviations from the book and underdeveloped plot changes undermine what could have been a perfect adaptation

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 27 September 2009]

While I was watching this version of Appointment With Death, I asked myself two questions. One was which version did I prefer, the Peter Ustinov version or this? This is the easier to answer of the two, although it is more unfaithful to the book, in terms of visuals, music and acting I do prefer this. The Peter Ustinov version was good on its own merits, but I did think it was the weakest of the Poirot films that Ustinov did, lacking the grandeur of Death On the Nile and Evil Under The Sun. The second question I asked myself was did I prefer the book or the adaptation? For me, the book. The book isn't Agatha Christie's best overall, I much preferred Death On the Nile, Murder in Mesopotamia, Sleeping Murder, And Then There Were None and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but it was beautifully crafted and does keep you guessing to the last minute. The adaptation looks stunning, has lovely music and is well acted, but the underdeveloped plot changes and the many deviations from the book undermine it. It isn't as good an adaptation as Five Little Pigs or Sad Cypress, but I do think it is an improvement on Cards On the Table, that started off so well, but let down considerably by the last thirty minutes. I also preferred it over the adaptation of Murder of Roger Ackroyd, that was a real disappointment.

It is unfair to say that this has no redeeming qualities, it has its flaws, but I personally really liked it. Visually, Appointment With Death looks absolutely stunning, with dazzling photography and breathtaking landscapes, making it one of the more visually beautiful "recent" Poirots. The opening scene was superb by the way, and the ending with Poirot and Jinny was quite moving. The costumes were lovely too, and the script while bearing little resemblance to the book is not so bad. The music was absolutely wonderful, very dramatic and very often enhanced the drama. And it was lovely to hear the poignant Dido and Anneas lament When I am Laid in Earth, which along with Lensky's aria from Eugene Onegin, Ach ich fuhl from Magic Flute, Phillip's Lament from Don Carlo and Che Glenida Manina from La Boheme is one of the heart-rending arias in opera history. The acting is very fine, with David Suchet impeccable as always as Poirot, and Zoe Boyle was just stunning as Jinny. Elizabeth McGovern turns in a decent performance as Celia Westholme, though she could have done with more screen time. John Hannah and Paul Freeman have both given better performances, but here they were rock-solid in their roles. But for me, the biggest surprise was Tim Curry as Lord Boynton. It is true, his character does not exist in the book, but instead of the "pantomime" additional character, I liked the character of Lord Boynton. I am also a fan of Tim Curry's, though I will admit I was worried when I saw him cast. If you see his biography and the roles he has played in the 30+ years he has been acting- a transsexual scientist, a fastidious butler, a satanic personification of evil, a killer clown, a hotel concierge, an ambitious pirate cook/captain plus countless voice overs- you would find him an unlikely choice for the role. Still, while he has been better, he was surprisingly good, and I really enjoyed his performance.

However, there were things that didn't work as well. My main gripe was the character of Mrs Boynton,one of the main merits of the book, and although Cheryl Campbell played her with real demeanour, she was underused and not the truly monstrous character she is in the book, in the book she is a real gorgon, if you forgive the expression. Though to be fair, the 1988 version didn't get it right either. Because of this, the killer's motive wasn't as strong as it was in the book. Another major problem was the character of the polish nun. Sorry guys, I found the character completely unnecessary, and the story around her was weak and badly underdeveloped. She and Nanny Taylor are the only characters I would deem "pantomime". Plus, you mayn't agree with me here, but it is my humble opinion, that Beth Goddard did struggle with the accent. Compared to the character in the book, I did feel that Christian McKay was too young for Jefferson Cope. Usually I don't mind changes to books, I am a lot less forgiving when the changes are underdeveloped, sadly that was the case here. Characters like Nadine and Lennox were left out, and others added in. The subplots about the child abuse and the slave trade could have been really intriguing, if only they were given more explanation. Though to be fair, Appointment with Death isn't the first Poirot adaptation to take liberties with the book. In Cat Among the Pigeons, one of the victims was killed with a javelin, in the book she was shot, and the character of Mrs Vansittart was left out entirely. In Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Parker is killed off, not in the book. In Cards on the Table, they made Rhoda a murderess, and Dr Roberts a homosexual, neither are in the book. Another reviewer said that Poirot is starting to behave like Marple. I am not sure whether I agree entirely with the statement. Of course Appointment with Death takes extreme liberties with the book, but Sleeping Murder and Nemesis(the Geraldine McEwan versions) in particular were poorly adapted, and on the most part, both were disappointing.

In conclusion, lovely to watch, lovely music and it is well acted, like all the Poirots. It does disappoint as an adaptation, I think it was trying to cram too much in one mystery, so there were parts where areas of development would have been appreciated. But essentially, while not faithful, this is mighty fine musically and visually 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

Splendid

[gridoon2024 · 8/10 · 19 October 2008]

Syria, 1937. Lord Boynton is a famous English archaeologist who is searching for the buried skull of John the Baptist. He has invited a large group of people to visit his camp, including his unpleasant, domineering wife and her three adopted children. When Mrs. Boynton is found murdered, there is certainly no shortage of suspects, as everyone except her husband hated her. However, Hercule Poirot also happens to be visiting the same area....

With its majestic landscapes (it was actually shot in Morocco), dazzling cinematography and fluid, cinematic directing style, "Appointment With Death" is one of the most visually beautiful "Poirot" episodes so far - and given the high standards of this long-running series, that's saying something. There are a few shots that you just have to pause the DVD and admire - they look like paintings. The music, loud, sweeping, and with just the right amount of Middle Eastern flavor, compliments the visuals.

I haven't read Agatha Christie's book, but going by the Peter Ustinov 1988 adaptation (assuming it was fairly faithful), the script of this version has taken quite a few liberties with it. But let's be honest here: the original AC story was not one of her best; it was too simple. By sticking closely to it, the Ustinov film was also one of his weakest Poirot outings. The screenwriter of this version has changed and complicated the basic story in a way that is, to quote the film itself, "ingenious and commendably grotesque". Besides, I feel that most of the changes, from the method of the killing to the ultimate fate of the killer(s), are very much within the Agatha Christie spirit and use gimmicks that she herself had used in some of her other books. Kudos, also, to the chilling sequence that "explains" the title.

The acting is, typically for this series, very fine, though this is more of an ensemble piece and there are no truly outstanding performances (it must be said that Zoe Boyle is just lovely beyond words; please Zoe, make more movies!). Suchet himself is, of course, exceptional - he has found the PERFECT balance between the funny and the serious Poirot.

Bottom line: for a (more) accurate version of the book, stick with the Peter Ustinov version. For a movie that is a feast for the eyes, ears and yes, the brain as well, watch this one. (***)

The highlight of Series 11.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 8 August 2015]

First off I'd have to say I think series 11 is possibly one of the weaker of the Poirot series. I didn't really love the three that came before this one, and I remember not particularly liking this, but on second viewing, once again I loved it. The music is gorgeous throughout, really good, it's a visual treat too, the scenery is stunning, the big scale big budget feel works so well here, has a more grown up feel then say Murder in Mesopotamia.

Cheryl Campbell gives a great performance as the nasty sadistic Lady Boynton, an actress that is often sweet in her parts, is particularly nasty. The story is not one of Christie's best, and I feel that some of the changes they made greatly benefited the story, an average novel is made into a very good drama.

I wasn't overly fussed on Tim Curry in this, I found him a little bit over the top, I had a huge difficulty believing in any kind of relationship being possible between Campbell and Curry's characters. Mark Gatiss had some very humorous lines, I'm sure some feel Poirot has no place for humour, but I appreciated it. As a lifelong fan of Angela Pleasance I was surprised how good she was in the part, I don't think she even spoke? It's heaps better then the Ustinov film, which has always felt like a cheap low budget b movie.

It's way better then the reviews here would have you believe. 8/10

Crowded

[lbournelos · 10 February 2018]

Too many characters for a 90 minute play. I was lost trying to understand who is who, what had anybody to do with the plot and finally why all those persons had to participate to the play.

Worth the watch . . . and listen.

[k_qbn · 8/10 · 24 January 2009]

The first thing I must point out in this film is the musical score. Absolutely stunning. Usually I find the music to be little more than background noise but in this case the music really sets the mood and moves each scene along. Second is the beautiful setting. The blazing heat of the Middle East desert has never looked so good.

As for the story itself, it is obvious that the book has been enhanced. It's been years since I've read this book but Christie's characters tend to be quite one dimensional and for the most part, the actors do enough with the characters to keep us interested.

It is not unusual for a Christie victim to be unlikeable,but the victim here is particularly evil. This comes to us mostly from the lips of other characters as we see little of the lady before she is killed. Tim Curry brings the husband to life in a way that is also not usually found in the pages of Christie's books. For better or worse,Suchet plays Poirot in the manner we have grown used to. I am not a big Poirot fan (as was the case with Christie herself) and I have no problem with Suchet's portrayal.

For the most part, the people who produced the movie present us with a gripping story that is all the better for the cinematography and score. Well worth the watch and more enjoyable than many of the Poirot movies.

Loved it!

[ria-landon · 9/10 · 9 March 2011]

Well I loved it.

I actually like new adaptations of classics and one would expect there to be changes.

Rarely are adaptations as good as the original but they can still be great entertainment as this version is.

These adaptations generate interest and encourage people to look at other versions.

They also continue to keep this great British writers work in the public domain which has to be a positive thing especially with the current drivel they continue to serve up these days..

Quite far-fetched but still interesting

[grantss · 7/10 · 7 June 2016]

Hercule Poirot is in Syria. He is part of a party accompanying Lord Boynton, a famous archaeologist, on a dig to find the skull of John the Baptist. Also in the party are Lady Boynton, an evil ogre of a woman, and the main target of her malice - Lord Boynton's three children (she is not their mother, as they were born to a previous wife of his). One day, Lady Boynton is found stabbed to death. Poirot investigates but, due to the seemingly universal dislike for the woman, the suspects are many. Plus, the murder seems impossible as she was in plain view when the deed was supposed to have occurred.

Quite intriguing, and tension-filled too. Good scenery and cinematography. Back stories and motives are far-fetched though, and the rush of revelations at the end seems quite fantastical. No way any viewer could work the murder plot out for themselves, which diminishes some of the fun. Still quite interesting though.

Supporting cast includes Tim Curry, John Hannah and Elizabeth McGovern.

Many red herrings in this dark episode of Christie's Poirot

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 2 June 2019]

"Appointment with Death" is one of the darker mysteries that Agatha Christie wrote for her super sleuth, Hercule Poirot. With that and the absence of any of his usual associates, Poirot doesn't have the light touch of humor that usually makes its way into his TV movie mysteries.

In this tale, Poirot is again in the Middle East, where we know he isn't fond of the dusty and hot conditions. Still, they aren't as much a bother in this story, it seems, because there's just too much going on all around him. At the concluding session with all of the main cast - and various suspects, Poirot states flatly that the case has had many red herrings. He says, "This case, mes amis, it is full of the red...fish." The red herring of white slavery could have been left out, and a little more given to some of the background that is lacking, particularly of Dame Celia Westholme, for whom there is no apparent reason to be in the group. Even the way she arrives, mysteriously riding a camel that stops the vehicles on the way to the dig, suggests that the writers didn't know how else to bring her into the picture.

Indeed, there is very much packed into this story, and it weighs it down considerably. The audience sees flashbacks of several of the cast - those who were children abused by Lady Boynton. So, viewers have some idea of the haunted past and experiences of three of the adult children. But the film shows very little about how Poirot could have learned so much about all the characters and their pasts.

All of Christy's mysteries with Poirot are interesting. And, the cast and productions are superb always. In this film, the scenes shot in Morocco are stunning. And the busy-ness of the markets in Casablanca gives a sense of reality and being in the place and the scene. But this is one of a small number of Poirot mysteries that is too complex to be treated to the audience's satisfaction in less than 90 minutes. And, anything longer would tend to tire the audience.

Dame Christy and the moviemakers just put too much into this one story, So, it's weight - even after Poirot's logical explanation and unfolding of the mystery, still left me scratching my head. The murder plot itself was so clever and intriguing, that it should have stood alone as the focal point of this film. And the superb surprise ending screamed for eliminating some of the red herrings in this film.

I do wonder if one scene wasn't intended as a clue for readers and audiences about one of the characters. When Sister Agnieszka is talking with Jinny Boynton in the dig cave, she says, "The word King James renders as 'Angel' is in the Greek, 'anagkazo.'" I don't know if Anglican nuns wore such full habits as she wears in this film, but I think she was meant to be portrayed as a Catholic nun from Poland. She was apparently a student of Biblical archaeology. Or so, audiences were meant to think. But, her mention of "King James" might have been a hint that she wasn't what she appeared to be. A Catholic nun would most likely have quoted from the Septuagint as translated in English and used by the Catholic Church. But even then, she probably would have just said, "the Bible."

In her later stories with Poirot, Christy began to show glimpses of his faith. His handling and ostensibly praying of a rosary points to his Catholic background. While religion is not a frequent theme that runs through the Poirot mysteries, Christy uses his faith in key instances when it helps wrap up a story.

This story is a case in point. At the end, he gives consoling words to Jinny Boynton. "Mademoiselle, there is nothing in the world so damaged that it cannot be repaired by the hand off almighty God. I encourage you to know this, because without this certainty, we should all of us be mad." He then gives her a gift of a small pearl-bead rosary that she takes out of its velvet pouch.

Not like the book but OK on its own merits

[Iain-215 · 6/10 · 26 October 2008]

The novel 'Appointment With Death' is quite a simple story and the solution is not (IMO) one of Christie's best. Where this book scores is in its picturesque setting (the rose red city of Petra) and in the character of the victim, Mrs Emily Boynton - an extraordinary creation who remains in the imagination long after the book is over.

This film is the second adaptation of the book. Neither it nor its predecessor (with Peter Ustinov) managed to get to Petra but in this Suchet version, the archaeological dig setting works almost as well - so scenically we are well served! Neither film version quite manages to nail the character of Mrs Boynton. Arguably Piper Laurie is marginally more successful in the Ustinov version but I think this is simply because we get to see more of her. Cheryl Campbell just doesn't get very much to do and, more fatally the character becomes a rather more ordinary monster whose motivations are never satisfactorily explained. Sarah King's role in the book is to establish an uneasy relationship with the Boynton family and therefore uncover much of the background of the victim and why she is what she is. This doesn't happen here and Lady Boynton (as she is here) becomes a much less interesting person as a result.

This film is stuffed full of incident and subplots (that don't exist in the book) and as a result several new characters are introduced including a Polish nun and a batty nanny, neither of whom add very much to anything. A couple of old Christie themes are added in (ambiguous Christian names, last minute double murder/suicide, dual identities) but again they don't really improve the plot in any way. There are also substantial changes to the motive and method of the principal murder as well as the identity of the murderer(s). Thanks to some of the acting, the damage done as a result of these changes really isn't too bad. A further thought - why are all these people visiting (and staying over) at Lord Boynton's dig? One can understand his family being there but who invited Poirot, Dr Gerard, Mr Cope, Dr King and the Polish nun? It's not as if its a tourist attraction and Lord B doesn't seem to know any of them - apart from maybe Poirot himself.

Very few of the performances here really stand out but Elizabeth McGovern manages to do something special with the role of Celia Westholme (now a travel writer as opposed to a semi-comic American member of the British parliament) and both Boynton daughters are well done. IMO John Hannah overdoes it a bit in the role of Dr Gerard and the other men are a bit dull.

Altogether, this is not bad as a standalone murder mystery but as an adaptation of the Christie novel it falls a little short and, for me is the weakest if the latest season.

Stunning Location Shooting, Even Better Music

[drinkard-1 · 10/10 · 9 August 2010]

Normally I don't care for the Poirot mysteries, and certainly the new series is suffocatingly claustrophobic, dark, and unappealing, often seeming as though they are trying to save money on light bulbs. This episode, however, was quite the exception, with stunningly brilliant outdoor scenes, probably shot in Spain, and entrancing music. As another reviewer observed, the music for these Mystery shows is often less than second-rate, seeming like an annoying after-thought. But this score by Stephen McKeon is beautifully done, avoiding the urge so common in Middle East stories these days to mimic local music. It is overtly and unabashedly Romantic, with a touch of French color, lending a whiff of nostalgia and wistfulness to the curiously violent story, told in flashbacks, of horrific child abuse to the major characters and the comeuppance suffered by the perpetrator. I don't know, nor do I care, about how closely the film version matches the original Christie story, as I'm not a huge fan of hers anyway. And I'm reasonably sure the book didn't have a fine score. This is one of the best Masterpiece Mystery shows ever.

even I knew this wasn't like the book

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 1 July 2014]

It's been decades since I read the Agatha Christie books but somehow I remembered "Appointment with Death" well enough to realize that this version was an aberration of the book. Apparently in this late entry in the series, they took on some new writers. Guess adaptation isn't their thing.

In 1937 Syria, Poirot is in the area of an archaeological dig led by Lord Boynton (Tim Curry), who doesn't appear in the book. His wealthy wife, the shrewish, horrible Lady Boynton (Cheryl Campbell) is financing this search for the skull of John the Baptist. Don't ask me how they figured out that a) they could find it; and b) where it might be.

Lady B, we know, is on borrowed time for the start. One only has to see how awful she is to her adopted children and their nanny. So when she winds up dead, there are suspects a-plenty.

This thing is a mess. In the story, Lady Boynton is a former prison warden and while she may be a sadistic witch, the problem her children have with her is that she is basically suffocating them. The book ends on a happy note, with each child going on to a better life. Sarah King is not a nanny, as I recall. There is no nun and no white slavery. Lady Westholme figures in the plot but not as a journalist.

I don't understand rewriting these stories. All of the new Miss Marples insert her in stories where she wasn't and change the plots. I hate to this twisting of stories with Poirot. Agatha Christie, according to The Guinness Book of World Records says Christie as the best-selling novelist of all time. Her novels have sold 4 billion copies, and, according to her estate, claims that her works come third in the rankings of the world's most-widely published books.

So what makes Guy Andrews think he can do any better?

Poirot has a soul

[i-talk-way-too-much · 8/10 · 17 June 2010]

It is refreshing to see that Hercule Poirot has perhaps an appreciation and an understanding of religion. He is shown reading the Bible and praying. Einstein once said that the more he learned about the workings of the universe the more he became convinced there had to be a Supreme Creator behind it all. Poirot is perhaps learning that as well. David Suchet is synonymous with the character of Hercule Poirot for those of us who've become fans of the show. But just as important are the characters of Colonel Hastings and Inspector Japp. It is disappointing that they don't appear in later episodes. While it's true that these characters don't appear in several of the books, they would have been a welcome compliment to Poirot's character in the screenplays. After all, screen adaptations are rarely exact adaptations of the book. And the screenplays would have benefited from the likable characters of Japp and Hastings.

Totally different, but still enjoyable

[cannda180 · 6/10 · 3 May 2009]

If you really enjoyed the book, then this is not for you. If you haven't read it, or were a little disappointed, like me, then it is worth a look.

The murderer is not changed, she is just given an accomplice. I actually enjoyed this more than the book, because the result in the book lacked a personal angle and a proper motive. The introduction of a "nun" and the slave trade is ridiculous, as is the character of Lord Boynton, who wasn't in the book.

I thought Lady Boyton was hilariously evil, and overdone to perfection. Some decent acting from Elizabeth McGovern and Tim Curry make this an interesting movie. The music is fantastic and the scenery lovely.

While I am normally conservative and don't like Christie's works altered much, and some of the changes in this are stupid, I enjoyed the movie a lot. However, if you're looking for something more faithful to Christie, watch "Mrs McGinty's Dead" and "Cat Among the Pigeons" from this series.

A mess

[orde-morton · 2/10 · 27 July 2010]

I have been reading Agatha Christie for over 50 years, but I am not one of those who think she is a sacred text, incapable of improvement and which it is sacrilegious to change. All the same, change should be an improvement or at least do no harm. The book "Appointment with Death" (a) has a clear plot and in Mrs Boynton one of Christie's most memorable characters (b) is a masterpiece of misdirection (c) shows Poirot's ability to see beneath the apparent to the real. This version tries to cram a much more complicated plot and more characters (notably Lord Boynton, someone superfluous to requirements if ever there was one) into a little over an hour of screen time. The result is that it is difficult to grasp who the characters are, let alone what their motives might be. Needless complications abound. Why are the Boynton children adopted? What purpose does Nanny Taylor serve? Why can Col Carbury, a British Foreign Office official, call on the French police in a French mandated territory? Why does Dr Gerard become a wholly superfluous villain? Above all, what does Lord B and his absurd search for the head of John the Baptist add? All this is such a muddle that it takes Poirot almost 15 minutes to explain the answer, which is not enough.The impression left is that the re-write team decided to throw in a little something for everybody - the Baptist for the religious, a peer for N American snobs, beatings for the sado-masochists, love interest for the damp handkerchief brigade,and plenty of drugs for all and sundry.

It is sad to see David Suchet's talents wasted. The Hotel Constantine's interiors are notable and some of the desert scenes handsome. Otherwise best forgotten.

Orde Morton

The Gathering

[tedg · 25 February 2015]

Christie invented so much, and much of that has found its way into the film vocabulary. As with Conan Doyle, one can hardly work on her material without taking chances. Part of the risk is readers who will be upset with the translation to film. But others, like myself, may be annoyed not by details of the story, but overarching, necessary structural issues.

That's because it is just those structural issues that helped build film, build the way we dream visually. One of her devices is the Poirot gathering. By simple fiat in every story, Poirot is able to get everyone involved in the same space while he recounts how things transpired and why.

The device is very particular, because these people are both characters in the story, and audience (shared with us), as things are explained. Almost everyone in the room has some secret that is exposed to the others with some surprise. This is one effect I call folding, this notion of participants becoming audience. So when I judge these adaptations of Poirot, I have to start with that final sequence and judge whether it works.

I am a very hard judge, and have really been critical of many of the Suchet productions. But this one works, because that final sequence is well oiled, full of the dynamics that reinvent everything we have seen. That is thin mustard because we have only been watching from afar, but it is life-altering stuff for our surrogate audience,

All else is good enough, and occasionally is better than we need to keep going until we reach the apogee.

Awe-inspiring

[small-corgi · 10/10 · 23 September 2012]

The scenery is great and the haunting music beautifully captures the bittersweet sadness of a couple who overcome great odds in order to wreak awful vengeance upon a wealthy, powerful, evil person who deserves it.

A couple who rescue their beloved daughter through sheer will and intelligence and then commit suicide rather than accept the authority of a legal system which failed to protect children. The ancient Greeks would have appreciated this story.

While Hercule Poirot prevails, this sophisticated story calls into question the very ethos that defines his life: That the Law must always be respected and that murder is always a crime.

It is unfortunate that some are so insistent that a MOVIE must capture Agatha Christie's every word that they are unable to appreciate this brilliant adaptation. The Tim Curry archaeologist character was not a distraction -- it explained why the evil woman came to be on the killing field. As well as giving an example of how vicious evil may not be recognized by otherwise highly intelligent men. That it may, in fact, be unwittingly protected by them.

I have seen almost all of David Suchet's performances of Hercule Poirot and I think Appointment with Death ranks with Murder on the Orient Express as one of the best.

Phenomenal.

[lowefreddy · 10/10 · 17 February 2021]

One of the very best Poirot episodes. Who cares if they rewrote the novel? It's still an absolutely superb film: beautiful music (wonderful use of Purcell's "Dido's Lament"), fantastic acting, great plot, and a brilliantly dramatic dénouement. I've seen some Christie adaptations that change the plots for the worse, and become disjointed and unpleasant experiences as a result. This is not one of them - it is an outstanding piece of filmmaking. Poirot at his peak!

Skullduggery

[Ian_Jules · 7/10 · 17 August 2019]

I once had a review of this title up under an old account, which I have since replaced. My feelings aren't quite as they were then but I still rather like this installment. As full disclosure, I've read a few of Christie's novels but this isn't one of them.

I do understand, from the debate online a few years ago and from research, that the plot is quite dramatically altered. But I think what we're presented with ends up working quite well on its own terms. There is a strong central drama and themes playing out through the episode. It's dark but a powerful human tale. The adaptation is bursting with red herrings, perhaps a bit too much for its own good.

The problem with subplots, really, is not that they exist, but when they feel forced within the story structure. When I first viewed the episode, I felt this was a problem, but returning to it subsequently, it is less cluttered and/or awkward than I remembered. If anything, I don't find the John the Baptist's skull deception subplot all that convincing, even with Mark Gatiss's earnest performance as Tim Curry's son. The most effective one is that of the rejected adoptive child, who didn't' want to kill the victim but instead to make her suffer while she lived. The business involving the nun and slavery trade is a bit out of left field, but carried off nicely and gets points for originality.

Besides the story, the film really is a delight in other ways, with beautiful camera work showing the appealing locales and color pallet of the setting. Music and atmosphere are developed throughout and there's plenty of fine acting. David Suchet never disappoints as Poirot. Cheryl Campbell, even though she doesn't have much time or opportunity to flesh out her character, she makes a powerful impression. Her husband is played by Tim Curry, whose performance really engages the viewer's sympathy and in fact managed to convince me that he genuinely cares for this unpleasant woman. Also excellent is Zoe Boyle as Ginny.

Of the characters, the only possible dud may be the nanny (Angela Pleasance). She plays an important part in the story, but doesn't get that much to do. The character has been described as pantomime and is certainly underdeveloped, mostly relegated to distant gazes and a genera listless affect that makes you wonder why she was considered worth killing. I did also think one final twist involving the killers' response to the intervention of justice was a bit extreme and implausible, but also in the spirit of previous Christie narratives.

If you are adamant about the adaptations remaining faithful to the source, this one will not be anywhere near a favorite. On its own merits, though, I think it's a pretty effective film with a good central story. Even if you dislike the adaptation, the other aspects of the filmmaking are clearly of high quality and good taste. Much like Murder on the Orient Express--a highly memorable film I would rate more highly than this one.

Lastly, a brief word on Poirot's religious convictions in these later installments. Some of the response to this has been excessive. Although not a particularly religious individual myself, I don't feel that the character's faith is given heavy-handed treatment and these are by no means religious films. It remains particularly unobtrusive here, taking backseat to a much more compelling story about families and in particular the relationships between parents and children-- just how profoundly the one impacts the other, how much it means to be responsible for the nurture and well-being of another person.

"A Bonanza Of Crippled Personalities."

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 31 May 2014]

Another adventure in an exotic land, Syria this time, in a search for the buried head of John the Baptist, with noisy third-world riff raff; a tourist's eye view of desert archaeological sites; a magnificently ornate hotel filled with tall archways, decorated like a wedding cake, and no cockroaches; a mean rich old American lady and her smoldering entourage; camels; dusty roads; a Polish nun; and a luscious blond doctor.

The stories often have a doctor tucked away somewhere among the passengers or the visitors. They're needed to establish the time and cause of death, as well as providing another suspect. In this case, the doctor is one of those succulent blonds that the producers happily continue to insert in the cast. I don't know about her acting. Mezza mezza. But her features and figure are flawless in a most conventional way. So are those of Zoe Boyle as Jinny, with her impudent nose. My own doctor is old, ugly, and male. He keeps saying things like, "Don't go squirting anything up there," and his chief function has devolved into teaching me a few words of Hindi. Just in case I wake up one morning and find myself in Bangalore.

What a budget these long episodes must have had. The vista of the flat horizon is almost as handsome as the blond doctor, and there seem to be hundreds of extras in period wardrobe, as well as what looks like a sprawling ancient castle with battlements that Sala'hadin's men might have manned.

The dozen or so characters mill around, gossiping about each other as Poirot watches and listens. The murder victim is the plump American lady, so rich and so well known that no one will criticize her, a monstre sacré, found on her perch overlooking the crowd, found stone dead, a Notre Dame gargoyle.

Ah, but the plot she is full of red herrings -- a whole school of herrings. There is a suicide, an illegitimate birth, an adoption, a burst of motherly love, an attempted abduction by white slavers, a dose of mescaline, another physician-assisted suicide, another plan vanilla suicide. (By the end I was lost.) And that Polish nun? She escapes into the desert and expires of sunstroke, for reasons I can't figure out.

I believe there is a feature film available with the same title, starring Peter Ustinov as Poirot. It's equally confusing and I think I prefer this version.

An enjoyable episode in which a murder takes place when Hercule Poirot enjoys vacation at an archeological dig in Syria

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 16 February 2018]

Suspense and intrigue with Poirot on holidays . A colorful whodunnit with an all star cast giving terrific performances , and exotic locales . Big-name cast as suspects of a murder committed in Syria and Poirot trying to unravel the killer , being especially appointed for avid fans of Agatha Christie , though including creation of new roles and the omission of others , adding all of them to the mix . This whodunit deals with Hercules Poirot (David Suchet) as the Belgian sleuth man in the case of killing a wealthy , unpopular heiress (Cheryl Campbell) , being found murdered by stabbing at an archaeological dig during a luxurious journey . He investigates the travelers and as numerous suspects , all the support cast (Christina Cole , Tom Riley , Zoe Boyle , Tim Curry, Emma Cunniffe ,Tom Riley ,Christian McKay , Beth Goddard , Mark Gatiss Elizabeth McGovern , John Hannah) . Who is the killer? , can he find the guilty? . Meanwhile , Hercules Poirot is helped by a British Colonel (Paul Freeman) . After the clues have been shown we will get a chance to give the answer with Poirot finding out about the culprit at a twisted finale with outstanding surprises but are taken the murders from different viewpoints of everyone which it makes a little bit boring, pedestrian , endless and overlong.

The film is a detective story in which you are the detective . In the picture there are mysteries , emotion, a love story , suspense and wonderful outdoors from Syria . The premise is simple : a rich heiress is found murdered , can Poirot identify the killer before he ends his journey? , but changing some aspects from original novel as the real reasons and adding another murderer . There are several fake clues , lies and red herrings , as Hercule is about to uncover a murder so carefully planned that even he must admit that the murderer has thought of everything .The pace is deliberate , slow and relaxed . And while the dialogue is in English, the film has a deliciously international flavor , with a mix of interesting accents and word pronunciations . Actors's interpretations are wonderful and including sunny outdoors . Filming had to be stopped every day at noon for around two hours because of the high temperatures . Actors 's performances are first-rate . As nice acting by the great David Suchet who gives a very good Poirot , he played 70 episodes , his acting is similar to Albert Finney (Murder on the Orient Express) and Peter Ustinov : Evil under the sun (Guy Hamilton), Appointment with Death (Michael Winner) and Death on the Nile (Guy Hamilton) . Acting of the support actors are awesome with special mention for John Hannah , Elizabeth McGovern , Mark Gatiss and Cheryl Campbell as the abusive and overbearing Lady Boynton .

The movie gets a lush costume design and magnificent production design . Colorful and sunny cinematography by excellent cameraman Peter Greenhalgh . Sensitive and atmospheric musical score by Stephen McKeon . This TV movie was professionally directed by Ashley Pearce , though contains some flaws . The flick will appeal to suspense lovers and Agatha Christie-Poirot novels buffs . There is a known cinematic rendition titled ¨Appointment with the death ¨ (1988) by Michel Winner with Peter Ustinov , Carrie Fisher, Nicholas Guest , David Soul , Hayley Mills , John Terlesky , Lauren Bacall and Jenny Seagrove married to Michael Winner .

Very enjoyable

[vg40 · 9/10 · 28 July 2020]

Nice set up, very enjoyable. Unlike other episodes, this one is straightforward. I've not read the book, please note.

As a Matter of Observation...And A Suggestion

[adam-462 · 7/10 · 16 January 2011]

As a matter of observation, both on this episode and "Murder on the Orient Express," the majority of the audience likes the film with a robust 7.2 rating, while most reviewers think it is horrible.

The problem that's presented here seems to come down to two things:

1) The work is not at all faithful to the novel. 2) Poirot is too religious. (Oh my heavens, Poirot prays in one scene and gives away a rosary to a grieving woman. Oh, the humanity. How can we have that in our secular society? And how can he even think if he prays?)

However, coming to the movie without reading the book. I thought it was a well-done story with Poirot's portrayal being intelligent and compassionate.

The one thing I thought was inappropriate and the same thing was true in "Murder on the Orient Express" is the sadistic murder committed by our "sympathetic murderers." However, I felt less sympathetic towards them for how they did the murder, but not entirely unsympathetic. Like with, "Murder on the Orient Express" the person being given the cruel death had committed crimes against children. There's something somewhat cathartic about it as those who commit real crimes against children are given a slap on the wrist for crimes as horrific as those committed in both stories.

However, it is risky business to insert a social conscience into a story where it does not exist organically, and will always incur the wrath of literary purists.

I'd suggest that Suchet and Company consider replicating the thought process of the Basil Rathbone films of the 1940s. While frequently attacked as inferior, the films remained enjoyable to the general audience. They would borrow elements from one or more of Holmes stories, add some original elements, and give the audience quite a thrill. The reason? They decided they needed a patriotic 1940s Sherlock Holmes to address problems that Holmes never did in his own stories.

No one entered the theater expecting to see a recreation of one of the original stories by Conan Doyle. With all the changes made, it would be like Universal releasing the movie, "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon" but instead releasing it as, "The Dancing Men" as an element from that story was borrowed. Going with stories that borrow elements from Christie novels rather than borrowing titles but making drastic changes might head off some criticism and confusion. But with the religious element, I doubt it.

Lifelong Agatha Christie Fan: "This program was actually BETTER than the book!"

[Daniel_Gullo · 10/10 · 1 September 2023]

Been a fan of Agatha Christie for >40 years. This is one of the few instances where the show was better than the book. As usual, Suchet delivers, as do the other cast members, like Tim Curry, Elizabeth McGovern, and John Hannah. The plot keeps the viewer guessing what will happen next, as opposed to the book and other productions; which were boring as hell. I may be the only fan of this episode and that's fine.

The Peter Ustinov production with Carrie Fisher, John Gielgud, David Soul, Piper Laurie, and Lauren Baccall was a 1/10 for me. I had high hopes because this was true to the book (which I was not a fan of) but then it fell flat on its face.

All of the ITV Studios productions are high quality, artistically made and breath taking.

It's a special treat

[Sulla-2 · 7/10 · 19 July 2020]

Yes it's a special treat for fans of Agatha Christie who have read the book because they more or less get a brand new story.

Really awful - watch the 1988 adaptation instead.

[teejay_w · 2/10 · 28 July 2010]

The only good thing I can say about this production is that it had a sterling cast, all my favorites.   But no sterling cast could rescue this.   It is not really an adaptation of Agatha Christie since it has almost no resemblance to the original Agatha Christie plot.  As I was watching, questions and comments were popping into my head.

1. Exactly how easy would it have been, in the early to mid 20th century class-conscious England, for an unemployed scullery maid to reinvent herself as a famous Dame of the British Empire?

2. I realize love is blind,but a word of explanation as to why or how Lord Boynton managed to fall in love with his monster of a wife (also vice versa) would have been appreciated.  Especially given that they were both middle-age adults with grown children by the time they met.  What?  In a good story character combinations are believable.

3. In what way does torturing someone to death constitute rescue of a long-abandoned child?  If the child was rediscovered after many years, why not simply take him or her away from the life of misery and live happily ever after?  What exactly did this elaborately planned nastiness achieve except for more misery for the child in question? Oh, and why exactly did it take 18 years to get around to doing anything about this? It's not like the child was kidnapped and hidden.

4. Guess what: torture-murderers are not sympathetic characters! Their motives are irrelevant.   Agatha Christie knew that, it's too bad that the writers at BBC haven't figured it out and presented them as noble protagonists.  Yuck. That touching scene at the end was a lot less touching than one might think.   

5. What was that absurd tale of a nun all about?  It never fit into the story, having absolutely no connection to anything at all.

6. Wouldn't it have been better to stick with the original plot?

In summary: amazingly terrible. Too bad about the misuse of an excellent cast.  My recommendation for the viewer:  read the book or see the 1988 movie with Peter Ustinov. Don't waste time on this.   But if you did, don't worry: the original will still surprise you.