Poirot using a pc?
THREE ACT TRAGEDY is one of Dame Agatha's great ideas, because of the way she was able to hide the murderer, the motive, even the fact of murder. But it's not one of her strongest novels, strangely enough. That's a matter of structure. And, I suppose, taste.
Poirot misses the second murder in this show because he's hammering away on a computer, writing his memoirs. That's a clever dodge. It's rare one of these modernized TV adaptations adds something interesting, so they need to be acknowledged when they do.
I've been a fan of Christie's since seeing "Murder on the Orient Express" on the big screen as an adolescent. I especially enjoyed Albert Finney's Poirot, who hypnotized me like a snake (not having read a Christie story at that time I had no other frame of reference). I was disappointed when Oscar-winner Ustinov took over. This has nothing to do with Mr. Ustinov personally. I've enjoyed many of his performances. But by the time his Poirot rolled around I had read several Christies and I saw nothing of Poirot in him; I don't care how many houses of cards he constructs. Nevertheless, I had a compulsion to watch any new Christy adaptations. I see his movies as mysteries using Christy's ideas but with a whole new detective. And, by his accent, a detective by way of Inspector Clouseau. Peter Ustinov is a truly great actor, but not a great Poirot. That's my contrarian view.
This movie is part of the slide away from all-star, splashy movies and into narrower TV budgets with notable film stars replaced by familiar television faces.
Hastings: I don't recall if Hastings was in this book but I rather think he wasn't.
I 've enjoyed Jonathan Cecil in a number of radio programs and talking books, but his Arthur Hastings is an idiot. He's not even a good sounding-board.
Tony Curtis is perfectly cast and they wanted a sexy female so Emma Samms was thrown in, where a woman of more modest dimensions might have been more advisable, though perhaps not so good for advertising.
For the rest, actors like Dana Elcar and Diana Muldaur are best known for being journey-people actors who get a job done.
Frankly, I'm no great fan of Tony Curtis but he's definitely a star, in the sense that the Finney flick and early Ustinov movies were cast with stars. A strange actor, when he's up against weak opposition on the screen he can be dull; but when cast against a Burt Lancaster or Jack Lemmon he can ratchet up his game to match them. He was notable in comedies and a twist of humor is always helpful in Agatha Christie performances; whereas in performances of her great contemporary P. G. Wodehouse the characters have to be dead serious, without a twinkle or a wink or a tongue in cheek.
This adaptation, so modernized, as I mentioned, Poirot is writing is memoirs on a computer, has changed a lot, if it remained faithful to how the murder was disguised. But, as with Christy's novel this adaptation tends to drag.
THREE ACT TRAGEDY is one of Dame Agatha's great ideas, because of the way she was able to hide the murderer, the motive, even the fact of murder. But it's not one of her strongest novels, strangely enough. That's a matter of structure. And, I suppose, taste.
Poirot misses the second murder in this show because he's hammering away on a computer, writing his memoirs. That's a clever dodge. It's rare one of these modernized TV adaptations adds something interesting, so they need to be acknowledged when they do.
I've been a fan of Christie's since seeing "Murder on the Orient Express" on the big screen as an adolescent. I especially enjoyed Albert Finney's Poirot, who hypnotized me like a snake (not having read a Christie story at that time I had no other frame of reference). I was disappointed when Oscar-winner Ustinov took over. This has nothing to do with Mr. Ustinov personally. I've enjoyed many of his performances. But by the time his Poirot rolled around I had read several Christies and I saw nothing of Poirot in him; I don't care how many houses of cards he constructs. Nevertheless, I had a compulsion to watch any new Christy adaptations. I see his movies as mysteries using Christy's ideas but with a whole new detective. And, by his accent, a detective by way of Inspector Clouseau. Peter Ustinov is a truly great actor, but not a great Poirot. That's my contrarian view.
This movie is part of the slide away from all-star, splashy movies and into narrower TV budgets with notable film stars replaced by familiar television faces.
Hastings: I don't recall if Hastings was in this book but I rather think he wasn't.
I 've enjoyed Jonathan Cecil in a number of radio programs and talking books, but his Arthur Hastings is an idiot. He's not even a good sounding-board.
Tony Curtis is perfectly cast and they wanted a sexy female so Emma Samms was thrown in, where a woman of more modest dimensions might have been more advisable, though perhaps not so good for advertising.
For the rest, actors like Dana Elcar and Diana Muldaur are best known for being journey-people actors who get a job done.
Frankly, I'm no great fan of Tony Curtis but he's definitely a star, in the sense that the Finney flick and early Ustinov movies were cast with stars. A strange actor, when he's up against weak opposition on the screen he can be dull; but when cast against a Burt Lancaster or Jack Lemmon he can ratchet up his game to match them. He was notable in comedies and a twist of humor is always helpful in Agatha Christie performances; whereas in performances of her great contemporary P. G. Wodehouse the characters have to be dead serious, without a twinkle or a wink or a tongue in cheek.
This adaptation, so modernized, as I mentioned, Poirot is writing is memoirs on a computer, has changed a lot, if it remained faithful to how the murder was disguised. But, as with Christy's novel this adaptation tends to drag.