The King of Clubs

Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings visit the stage set of a film. Later that evening the head of that studio, Harry Readburn, is found dead in his house. A young actress was apparently seen running from the house around the time of his death, and she is the prime suspect. Chief Inspector Japp thinks it is an open-and-shut case, but Poirot knows otherwise. His biggest clue is a missing card from a game of bridge...

Reasonably interesting. The set up was engaging and the mystery was intriguing. Some of the usual amusing off-topic banter from Hastings (though I still have no idea why Poirot keeps him around - he is quite clueless).

The conclusion is a bit of a damp squib though. The reveal is quite subdued and Poirot's actions after that are quite odd.

How many times have you seen this story? We see a man at his place of business. Clearly not a pleasant man. He orders one of his employees to be fired, and we see the employee come to the man's office and launch an angry attack on the man before being escorted away. We see the employee mutter "I'll show him" before staggering away to get drunk. Later we see the man at his home. A woman comes to his home, taking care not to be seen by a visitor who is just leaving. Then we see the woman entering another house nearby, and the lady of the house is calling the police, apparently to report an incident at the house next door. The detective is called in because the unpleasant man has been found dead in his home. Who is responsible? The woman who was apparently sneaking in? The disgruntled employee? One of the gypsies making camp just down the street? This could be an episode from any detective series made in the last 50 years. The fact that it features David Suchet as Poirot makes it bearable, but it's missing all the extra touches that make this series so entertaining. The writing and acting are not particularly memorable, the clues that lead to the solution have nothing to do with the actual crime, and the solution itself can be predicted from the relationship that the characters have to each other. Nothing wrong with it. Just not very interesting, I'm afraid.

A ruthless studio boss is found dead with a hole in his head. The person who found him? A famous actress, engaged to royalty, who takes refuge in the house next door. Fearing unfavorable publicity which would mean no marriage, the Prince asks for Poirot's help in solving the case.

Good episode in that we see them making a '30s film, though it looks like a bad one. The first leading man, who is also a suspect, was a John Gilbert type, a mustached alcoholic who was big in silents.

Poirot wonders why the actress ran to the house she did, when another one was more convenient, and a couple of other things missed by Inspector Japp just don't add up.

Sumptuous production as usual. The denouement is a little different. Let's just say the King of Clubs is involved.

Right from the start of this story you know the man who must die ... a movie director who seems intent on bullying, demeaning, and generally making an ass of himself to everyone on the set and in the production.

With the complication of a Prince engaged to the female lead and a leading man who can't remember his lines and is being fired, you know it can't take long.

Poirot and Hastings just happen to be visiting the set when the death occurs. There is a bit of a kerfluffle over witnesses who can't be witnesses and a card game that couldn't have been played.

And there is a dead body that wasn't killed in the traditional ways of murder. And that's about it. I enjoy most of these shows but this one just seemed to spin its wheels without ever getting anywhere.

I am a big fan of Hercule Poirot and these productions are easy and enjoyable to watch. Great sets and good performances. The weak link is the episode and the turn it took. It was reasonable enough to watch but the end was anti-climatic. It had its twists and turns but the events and set ups were easy enough to follow. Perhaps the public's views on these incidents were different back then or maybe Poirot has a unique moral code. But I found it hard to swallow when Poirot cast a blind eye to what he called an accident. A man, despite being a terrible one, was dead and there should be an investigation. But Poirot says its not the same as Murder. Yes but what about manslaughter? Poirot's behaviour is odd in visiting the actress as if nothing happened. Somewhat enjoyable yet bizarre.