Set in 1917 and based on Agatha Christie's first book, "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" is sort of a prequel to the regular Poirot series (in fact, it reminded me somewhat of the recent Casino Royale - right down to the absence of the classic opening credits and the gradual introduction of the familiar music theme - only the timeline here makes much more sense). Having met before in Belgium, Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings run across each other again in the English country, where they have to solve a perplexing crime - the poisoning of the owner of the huge manor where Hastings was staying as a guest. This is also the first time Hastings meets Inspector Japp (Poirot had known him from before). The production is exceptional (apparently going 2 decades back from their usual timeline was no problem for the cast and crew), and the story will absorb and surprise you. Many little details and clues are well-thought-out, but (and here we are going into "spoilers" territory) an illogical central contrivance is hard to ignore. Simply put, everything connected with "the letter" that the killer writes and that incriminates him/her is complete bull: why doesn't the killer TAKE THE LETTER WITH HIM instead of ripping it to (only 3) pieces and leaving it behind? Why doesn't he come back to get it at a later date, even if he has to break into a locked room? Why does he write the letter in the first place, clearly naming his accomplice? Why does he leave it locked in a place for which his target also has a key? And finally, why does the target, after having read the letter, allow herself to be poisoned in exactly the way described in it? Everything about this "letter" reveals this as Agatha Christie's beginner's work, although as I said in all other respects her story is well-thought-out, intriguing and surprising. (***)
28 Reviews
Absorbing mystery, but with some nagging logical problems
gridoon20248 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
If Curtain is the finale, Styles is the beginning.
Sleepin_Dragon6 March 2018
The Mysterious Affair at Styles is a very good example of early Poirot, it's a very good story, but it's the character play and development that's key to the success here. I often think it would have been nice if they'd have run this as a pilot, to set the characters up, and explain Poirot's back story, but it fits in really well nonetheless.
It's a wonderfully cosy British murder mystery, you can almost hear the clink of ice in jugs of iced tea. It doesn't have the excitement of many late episodes, but it's still a very enjoyable episode. I really enjoy Michael Cronin's Alfred Inglethorpe and Joanna McCallum's Evie Howard, but the acting in general is excellent. The production values are superb.
I know the solution does seem a little far fetched, but it's still cleverly devised, you just need to stretch your imagination a little.
It's a wonderfully cosy British murder mystery, you can almost hear the clink of ice in jugs of iced tea. It doesn't have the excitement of many late episodes, but it's still a very enjoyable episode. I really enjoy Michael Cronin's Alfred Inglethorpe and Joanna McCallum's Evie Howard, but the acting in general is excellent. The production values are superb.
I know the solution does seem a little far fetched, but it's still cleverly devised, you just need to stretch your imagination a little.
Not so 'stylish' but a commendable representation of Poirot's first case
sanddragon93924 May 2009
The Mysterious Affair at Styles, published in 1920, is a historic novel in 2 ways: It launched the literary career of the 'Queen of Crime'-Agatha Christie and it introduced to the world the greatest fictional detective after the legendary Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot. Beyond its historical significance and the fact that it was obviously well-written with a well-constructed plot, the novel is not really considered remarkable when you stack it up against some of Christie's far superior and far more famous works published over the next several decades (The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile, A Murder is Announced, And Then There Were None stand out as some exceptional works), but nevertheless, it certainly deserved an adaptation of some sort which is precisely what Granada did for the centenary of Christie's birth year...
STYLES tells the story of how the Belgian sleuth, Hercule Poirot(David Suchet), who is a refugee from his native land during the First World War, ends up being invited by his old English friend, Arthur Hastings (Hugh Fraser) to investigate the murder of a wealthy old woman, Mrs Inglethorp, who died under mysterious circumstances in her country house, Styles Court, in the middle of the night. Poirot puts his detective skills to good use, investigating the scene of the crime, interviewing suspects and witnesses, collecting evidence and ultimately using the little 'grey cells' of the brain to discover the hidden truths of the matter. There are certainly no shortage of suspects in this case: There is Mrs. Inglethorps eldest son to consider, not to mention his wife and younger brother; there is her protégée and of course her much younger second husband who is hated by the rest of the family. Clues are in abundance as well: a smashed coffee cup, a glass of cocoa, a burnt document, a piece of green thread... The differences between STYLES and other Poirot adaptations which Suchet acted in become apparent-there is the setting to consider; Poirot is no longer (or rather, hasn't yet reached) the Art Deco settings of 1930's London; his reputation is briefly hinted at but he still isn't considered the greatest and most famous detective of Europe; Hastings too is just getting used to the idea of playing the slow sidekick to a great mind. There are also certain differences derived from the fact that this is Christie's first novel, like the abundance of clues and tangible evidence, the vast number of red herrings (later Christie stories would have more subtle psychological elements), the excessive stereotyping of the characters etc. But all this shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of a well-directed and acted TV movie. A must watch for all Christie and Poirot fans!
STYLES tells the story of how the Belgian sleuth, Hercule Poirot(David Suchet), who is a refugee from his native land during the First World War, ends up being invited by his old English friend, Arthur Hastings (Hugh Fraser) to investigate the murder of a wealthy old woman, Mrs Inglethorp, who died under mysterious circumstances in her country house, Styles Court, in the middle of the night. Poirot puts his detective skills to good use, investigating the scene of the crime, interviewing suspects and witnesses, collecting evidence and ultimately using the little 'grey cells' of the brain to discover the hidden truths of the matter. There are certainly no shortage of suspects in this case: There is Mrs. Inglethorps eldest son to consider, not to mention his wife and younger brother; there is her protégée and of course her much younger second husband who is hated by the rest of the family. Clues are in abundance as well: a smashed coffee cup, a glass of cocoa, a burnt document, a piece of green thread... The differences between STYLES and other Poirot adaptations which Suchet acted in become apparent-there is the setting to consider; Poirot is no longer (or rather, hasn't yet reached) the Art Deco settings of 1930's London; his reputation is briefly hinted at but he still isn't considered the greatest and most famous detective of Europe; Hastings too is just getting used to the idea of playing the slow sidekick to a great mind. There are also certain differences derived from the fact that this is Christie's first novel, like the abundance of clues and tangible evidence, the vast number of red herrings (later Christie stories would have more subtle psychological elements), the excessive stereotyping of the characters etc. But all this shouldn't spoil your enjoyment of a well-directed and acted TV movie. A must watch for all Christie and Poirot fans!
One of my favourites of the series
TheLittleSongbird6 April 2011
The Mysterious Affair at Styles(the book to introduce the quintessential detective) is not my favourite Agatha Christie novel, but it was a great read with memorable characters, fine atmosphere and a carefully-constructed plot. This adaptation of the book is not my favourite episode of the wonderful Agatha Christie:Poirot series, but it is ever bit as compelling as the book and more.
The characters are still memorable, Poirot is still the clever and eccentric detective we know and love, Hastings is appropriately naive and Japp is still amusing. Supporting cast wise, Albert especially is very shifty. The plot is very clever and careful, with the odd logical lapse, and sticks fairly faithfully to that of the book. And the atmosphere is also there, not haunting as it is in Hickory Dickory Dock, One, Two, Buckle My Buckle or The ABC Murders, but a lot of scenes left an impression, especially Emily Inglethorp's death scene and the final solution.
On its own terms, The Mysterious Affair at Styles works wonders. The adaptation is shot in a very sumptuous visual style with interesting camera-angles, luxurious costumes and breathtaking scenery and evoking of the period. The music is not the best there is in these adaptations, but it is still beautiful and haunting as it should be, the dialogue is thoughtful and intelligent with the odd spot of humour and the direction is very well done making this episode I feel one of the better-directed early episodes.
The cast are also magnificent. David Suchet is an outstanding Poirot and nails everything about the detective down to the appearance, accent and mannerisms. Hugh Fraser gives one of his better performances of the series and Phillip Jackson is a joy. The supporting cast are high-calibre across the board, with Michael Cronin, Robert Calf and Gillian Barge particularly standing out.
In conclusion, a fine adaptation and one of my favourites of the series. 9/10 Bethany Cox
The characters are still memorable, Poirot is still the clever and eccentric detective we know and love, Hastings is appropriately naive and Japp is still amusing. Supporting cast wise, Albert especially is very shifty. The plot is very clever and careful, with the odd logical lapse, and sticks fairly faithfully to that of the book. And the atmosphere is also there, not haunting as it is in Hickory Dickory Dock, One, Two, Buckle My Buckle or The ABC Murders, but a lot of scenes left an impression, especially Emily Inglethorp's death scene and the final solution.
On its own terms, The Mysterious Affair at Styles works wonders. The adaptation is shot in a very sumptuous visual style with interesting camera-angles, luxurious costumes and breathtaking scenery and evoking of the period. The music is not the best there is in these adaptations, but it is still beautiful and haunting as it should be, the dialogue is thoughtful and intelligent with the odd spot of humour and the direction is very well done making this episode I feel one of the better-directed early episodes.
The cast are also magnificent. David Suchet is an outstanding Poirot and nails everything about the detective down to the appearance, accent and mannerisms. Hugh Fraser gives one of his better performances of the series and Phillip Jackson is a joy. The supporting cast are high-calibre across the board, with Michael Cronin, Robert Calf and Gillian Barge particularly standing out.
In conclusion, a fine adaptation and one of my favourites of the series. 9/10 Bethany Cox
A gem!
nvserv25 December 2005
David Suchet is the quintessential Hercules Poirot, and it was a joy to see his portrayal of the famed detective's first case. After a slow start, the "funny little man" makes his first appearance on the screen. Of course, the character as portrayed by Suchet was still being developed, so there are a few minor differences, but nothing that would be annoying.
As was mentioned before, the period sets, clothing and props were delightful. The mannerisms of the upper crust are always fun to watch in Poirot, as they seem completely oblivious to the real world.
I highly recommend this program to fans of the series.
As was mentioned before, the period sets, clothing and props were delightful. The mannerisms of the upper crust are always fun to watch in Poirot, as they seem completely oblivious to the real world.
I highly recommend this program to fans of the series.
Belgium Refugees welcomed to our shores
Paularoc2 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The story opens with Captain Hastings recovering from a WWI injury in a beautiful mansion converted to a convalescent home for soldiers. A newsreel is being shown, one item of which is "Belgium refugees welcomed to our shores." This, the first Christie novel, provides us with the background on why Poirot came to Britain and how he and Hastings met and became fast friends. An old friend of Hastings visits him and invites him to his home, Styles Court. He tells Hastings that his family is very concerned that his mother, Emily, has married a much younger man, Alfred Inglethorp. The family is convinced that Inglethorp is after Emily's money. Soon after arriving at the village of Styles St. Mary, Emily Inglethorp is brutally murdered by strychnine. Also in the village are Belgian refugees, including Poirot. Hastings had met Poirot in Belgium and they quickly re-establish their friendship. Hastings asks Poirot to investigate the murder. The aloof and generally unlikable Alfred Inglethorp immediately is a suspect and gives an incredibly poor showing at the coroner's hearing. But come to find out, Inglethorp has an iron clad alibi for the time in which the strychnine was purchased. And so the investigation continues. This film is visually stunning with its depiction of the the era - the costumes, the shops, the vehicles, the country lanes, the magnificent Styles Court - all beautifully captured. Although somewhat flawed, the mystery and how Poirot unravels it is a darn good yarn. And the Poirot character, with all his eccentricities (the scene where he tries to get the shopkeeper to rearrange her goods into a more logical way is a hoot) is both memorable and engaging. From this story, it is easy to see why Christie became such a popular and enduring mystery writer. This entry in the Poirot series is a real winner.
Poirot comes to England
blanche-210 July 2014
"The Mysterious Affair at Styles" marks Poirot's first mystery. Interestingly, Poirot's first and last cases take place at Styles.
Here he reconnects with a friend, Captain Hastings, whom he has not seen in some time. Hastings is recovering from an injury he received during World War I. He is staying in a mansion that has been conscripted as a hospital.
In the beginning, we see Hastings and other patients watching the newsreels which shows Belgian refugees arriving in England. This is how Poirot first came to England.
Hastings has an old friend who invites him to his place, Styles Court. He confides in Hastings that his mother has married a younger man, Alfred Inglethorp. The whole family believes that he is a golddigger.
Not long after that, Emily Inglethorp is murdered by strychnine. Hastings appeals to Poirot to investigate. Inglethorp is the obvious suspect, but are things as they seem? This is a beautifully made episode that displays the era with perfection. The story has a couple of holes, but Poirot's deductions are excellent, and even if you know the denouement, you will be intrigued by the way it unfolds.
David Suchet is the best Poirot - fastidious, cheerfully egomaniacal, and eccentric. Delightful episode.
Here he reconnects with a friend, Captain Hastings, whom he has not seen in some time. Hastings is recovering from an injury he received during World War I. He is staying in a mansion that has been conscripted as a hospital.
In the beginning, we see Hastings and other patients watching the newsreels which shows Belgian refugees arriving in England. This is how Poirot first came to England.
Hastings has an old friend who invites him to his place, Styles Court. He confides in Hastings that his mother has married a younger man, Alfred Inglethorp. The whole family believes that he is a golddigger.
Not long after that, Emily Inglethorp is murdered by strychnine. Hastings appeals to Poirot to investigate. Inglethorp is the obvious suspect, but are things as they seem? This is a beautifully made episode that displays the era with perfection. The story has a couple of holes, but Poirot's deductions are excellent, and even if you know the denouement, you will be intrigued by the way it unfolds.
David Suchet is the best Poirot - fastidious, cheerfully egomaniacal, and eccentric. Delightful episode.
Nice show, but stupid solution
anbudmor17 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Everything about this episode fits in well the the series generally. It is very well produced and acted, and generally enjoyable to watch.
The problem with the episode lies in the fact that the culprit decides to leave the most inculpatory pieces of evidence at the scene of the crime. The culprit broke into a locked room where the victim had died to retrieve a letter that proves his guilt. When he hears Poirot and some others coming to the room he decides to tear up the letter in 3- strips, crush them lengthwise and leave them with some other pieces of crushed paper in a vase on the mantelpiece. He then escapes through a second door before Poirot et al. arrive.
Why the hell didn't he just take the letter? What he should have done is so obvious that it spoils the episode. Fortunately this information is only revealed to the audience at the end of the show, so one gets to enjoy most of the episode before the incredible action of the perpetrator is revealed.
The problem with the episode lies in the fact that the culprit decides to leave the most inculpatory pieces of evidence at the scene of the crime. The culprit broke into a locked room where the victim had died to retrieve a letter that proves his guilt. When he hears Poirot and some others coming to the room he decides to tear up the letter in 3- strips, crush them lengthwise and leave them with some other pieces of crushed paper in a vase on the mantelpiece. He then escapes through a second door before Poirot et al. arrive.
Why the hell didn't he just take the letter? What he should have done is so obvious that it spoils the episode. Fortunately this information is only revealed to the audience at the end of the show, so one gets to enjoy most of the episode before the incredible action of the perpetrator is revealed.
Front rank British TV drama and a lasting tribute to one of the twentieth century's greatest crime writers.
jamesraeburn20035 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
World War One: Lieutenant Arthur Hastings (played by Hugh Fraser) is injured in action and goes to recuperate at the country estate Styles Court at the invitation of his old friend John Cavendish (played by David Rintoul). It immediately becomes clear that there is tension in the household. John's mother, Emily (played by Gillian Barge), has married a man twenty years her junior, Alfred Inglethorpe (played by Michael Cronin), whom he dislikes intensely since he believes that he is only after her money. That view is shared by many, not least by Mrs Inglethorpe's companion Evie Howard (played by Joanna McCallam) who leaves following a row in which she told her in no uncertain terms that Inglethorpe is a fortune hunter who would murder her as soon as look at her. Later that day an argument is overheard by the family members and the staff between Mrs Inglethorpe and, supposedly, Alfred over money and his seeing another woman. She is also clearly heard to say that she plans to disinherit him. However, Mrs Inglethorpe is taken seriously ill during the night and dies. The doctor says that the cause of her death was Strychnine poisoning and therefore she has been murdered. Hastings calls in his old friend, the eccentric but highly intelligent Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (played by David Suchet) who happens to be staying in the village as a result of his being in England as a wartime refugee. Initially, Inglethorpe is the chief suspect but Poirot succeeds in persuading Chief Inspector Japp (played by Philip Jackson) of the Yard not to arrest him since he has an unshakable alibi after he refuses to account for his whereabouts himself. When John Cavendish is arrested and put on trial for his mother's murder at the Old Bailey following the discovery of poison in his room, Poirot, aided by Hastings, sets out to exonerate him and in so doing unmasks a particularly clever murderer.
This feature length special from the second season of ITV's acclaimed series was transmitted to mark the centenary of Agatha Christie's birth in 1990. This is front rank British TV drama that remains a fitting tribute to one of the twentieth century's most celebrated crime writers even after more than thirty years since it was first broadcast. David Suchet is quite simply the definitive Poirot who neatly captures all the mannerisms and eccentricities of the character such as his sense of order and method. Here, he admits that he cannot take to British pubs due to the bottles and glasses all being of different sizes. There is also a memorable scene at the village stores where he suggests to a somewhat puzzled and amused shopkeeper that she arrange all of the goods in her shop in order of their country of origin so she could find them more easily. She replies that she can find everything easily enough already and that as far as she is concerned everything comes from the local wholesaler. The acting, as a whole, is superb with Michael Cronin shining as the smooth talking but somewhat shifty Alfred Inglethorpe. Joanna McCallam is excellent as the loyal (or is she?) companion as is David Rintoul as the son framed for his mother's murder. Hugh Fraser and Philip Jackson offer their usual excellent support as Poirot's closest friends and associates, Lieutenant Hastings and Chief Inspector Japp, who complement Suchet's superb portrayal in that they have a tremendous affection for him and admire his tremendous talents even though they don't always understand his ways. The film has a strong feeling for place and period, which heightens the mystery aspects of the plot. The attention to detail is incredible, including the vintage cars and the hand cranked silent movie projector used to show a newsreel to injured troops at an army nursing home. The excellent direction is by Ross Devenish and all other technical aspects are of a high standard too.
This feature length special from the second season of ITV's acclaimed series was transmitted to mark the centenary of Agatha Christie's birth in 1990. This is front rank British TV drama that remains a fitting tribute to one of the twentieth century's most celebrated crime writers even after more than thirty years since it was first broadcast. David Suchet is quite simply the definitive Poirot who neatly captures all the mannerisms and eccentricities of the character such as his sense of order and method. Here, he admits that he cannot take to British pubs due to the bottles and glasses all being of different sizes. There is also a memorable scene at the village stores where he suggests to a somewhat puzzled and amused shopkeeper that she arrange all of the goods in her shop in order of their country of origin so she could find them more easily. She replies that she can find everything easily enough already and that as far as she is concerned everything comes from the local wholesaler. The acting, as a whole, is superb with Michael Cronin shining as the smooth talking but somewhat shifty Alfred Inglethorpe. Joanna McCallam is excellent as the loyal (or is she?) companion as is David Rintoul as the son framed for his mother's murder. Hugh Fraser and Philip Jackson offer their usual excellent support as Poirot's closest friends and associates, Lieutenant Hastings and Chief Inspector Japp, who complement Suchet's superb portrayal in that they have a tremendous affection for him and admire his tremendous talents even though they don't always understand his ways. The film has a strong feeling for place and period, which heightens the mystery aspects of the plot. The attention to detail is incredible, including the vintage cars and the hand cranked silent movie projector used to show a newsreel to injured troops at an army nursing home. The excellent direction is by Ross Devenish and all other technical aspects are of a high standard too.
Not a review
samuelsrenee25 November 2021
A comment... we see Hastings in the convalescent home with a group of other soldiers watching a film of battle. Is it possible, would they really have been so insensitive and cruel to show to soldiers who are supposed to be recovering from battle films of the very battles they just left?
Intriguing and nostalgic
grantss27 March 2018
World War 1 and British Army officer Arthur Hastings is recuperating in a quiet manor in the English countryside. When a woman is murdered in the household, Hastings enlists the help of an old friend to solve the mystery - Hercule Poirot.
Intriguing and quite nostalgic. This is the mystery that cemented the Poirot-Hastings partnership. So quite an historic feel to it.
Intriguing and quite nostalgic. This is the mystery that cemented the Poirot-Hastings partnership. So quite an historic feel to it.
Lovely to look at, difficult plot
pawebster28 January 2006
A picturesque version of 1917 in England is beautifully evoked -- lovely scenery, vintage cars, perfect costumes. Poirot and Hastings are good and the story is absorbing, at least at first. You need to be very wide awake, however, to keep careful track of the characters and events. Agatha Christie herself commented (I think in her autobiography) that she had perhaps overloaded this, her first book, with clues. In the book, you have time to take all this in and can look back if necessary. This TV version has to cram it in at fairly high speed. This - along with the technical nature of the poisoning - means that the average viewer has very little chance of working out how the crime was done. Another problem is that there are quite a lot of characters, some of whom get very little screen time. It was a commendable act of piety to make this film for the centenary of Agatha Christie's birth, but perhaps the book is not really suitable for dramatization.
Booooring.....
agnes220cpw29 November 2022
Subtitles are subpar and story line is almost impossible to follow. Everything is very slow and some ot the very handsome actors are not very good actors. What else can I say about a story that is an utter bore inspite the fact that visuals, as usual are scrumptious. Subtitles are a disaster, obviously done by auto-translate or someone who has no clue of French of Poirot, that is always spelled as something unrecognizable.
More words? More words? More words? I said all that can be said about this sad flop. No more, no more, no more no more..... 49 more characters about something that can be about on tenth of that many.
More words? More words? More words? I said all that can be said about this sad flop. No more, no more, no more no more..... 49 more characters about something that can be about on tenth of that many.
First and last case
dbdumonteil17 January 2007
Styles manor was certainly a place dear to the writer,for her first "Poirot" and her last one ("Curtain-Poirot's last case) in which the sleuth dies both take place there.
That said "Styles" is not one of Poirot's best cases,and Christie wrote at least twenty books which are superior to it.
Interest lies somewhere else.This is the novel which tells us why Belgian Poirot wound up in fair England -which he somewhat despised- and it does not forget the historical background ,with a fine depiction of the WW1 years.
If my memory serves me well,Christie wrote the book cause she wanted to take up her sister's challenge: a story where you could never guess whodunit..
That said "Styles" is not one of Poirot's best cases,and Christie wrote at least twenty books which are superior to it.
Interest lies somewhere else.This is the novel which tells us why Belgian Poirot wound up in fair England -which he somewhat despised- and it does not forget the historical background ,with a fine depiction of the WW1 years.
If my memory serves me well,Christie wrote the book cause she wanted to take up her sister's challenge: a story where you could never guess whodunit..
Excellent beginning
darextrodinare27 December 2020
I've recently bought the box set and I'm watching all of the episodes in order! So far they've all been great but in my opinion,this is the best thus far!!! Peril at end house got a higher rating on here but I disagree!
Perfect adaptation but only for one missing part.
bhattbrijraj6 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Just a few hours ago I read the novel and then watched this episode to see how good the tv adaptation was. I must say I was really impressed. Everything was perfect. The episode is way better than I expected but the only problem ( and a pretty big one at that) is that Poirot at the beginning tells Hastings that Mrs Ingelthorp is poisoned but because of some mysterious reason the effect of the poison does not take place until after 9 hours. But they fail to answer this question at the end. Mary Cavendish had added a narcotic in her cocoa that rendered the poison ineffective. If they had avoided this part altogether , that would have made sense but lifting this important question in the beginning but forgetting to answer it in the end is nothing less than a blunder to me and I am surprised no one has noticed it in the reviews that I have read so far. Please correct me if I am wrong. This is the thing that noticed which I feel was incorrect. If I am in the wrong , then please guide me. The other thing is that this episode is very unjustly criticized by people who have not read the book. They say that the murderer could have destroyed the document. It is not explained in the episode but it is in the book viz : It was wartime so even shredded and torn papers were found and read so there was a chance that someone could have found out the document even if it was torn and thrown away. Other thing is that why did not the murderer enter the room before Poirot did to retrieve the letter. The answer in the book is that Poirot had set 6 other detective after Mr Ingelthorp as he was his prime suspect from the very beginning. And Mr Ingelthorp knew he was being watched so he never tried to get the letter. This episode should have 8.5 rating if you ask me. People have greatly underrated this classic episode. ( Its good that I first read the case before watching it so I can understand the characters and the case in a much better way than those who are just watching it ). All in all a really good episode of a brilliant mystery TV series. It is my favorite!
Christie's first novel, mystery, and introduction of Hercule Poirot
SimonJack31 July 2018
"The Mysterious Affair at Styles" was the first novel written by Agatha Christie. As such, it was her first mystery of 80 that she would write in her lifetime. And, it introduces her most famous and appreciated detective, Hercule Poirot. Along, with Poirot, it introduces Inspector (later, chief inspector) Japp of Scotland Yard, and Hastings (first lieutenant, and later, captain) who would become a sleuthing companion of Poirot in many of his adventures.
Christie was just 26 years old when she penned her first story in 1916. It was serialized in The Times of London, and first published in book form in 1920 in America and 1921 in England. This movie is based on that novel. The films of this television series were not produced in the sequence that the stories appeared. But in this series, which began in the late 1980s, David Suchet would set the standard for Poirot's character. Several actors had played Poirot in movies that were made intermittently over the previous five decades plus. Now, Christie's public and fans would finally have a character who was every bit Poirot as created by the author.
The setting for this film is England in 1920, in the midst of the First World War. Poirot has fled his native Belgium that, he rues, has been overrun by the "Boche." But it is the beginning of an illustrious career in England in which Poirot will delight readers and audiences of all ages for ages, as the best super sleuth of all time.
The various British producers and writers who worked on this series over three decades did superb work. And the cast, from the exceptional regular leads and support, to the many different story characters (almost all are "suspects") make the entire series outstanding entertainment. This introduction of Poirot, Hastings and Japp has all the beguiling intrigue that audiences have come to expect and look forward to from Christie and Poirot.
Here are some favorite lines from this film. For more dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb web page of the movie.
Hercule Poirot, "You have a good grip on this affair, Hastings." Lieutenant Hastings, "Grasp." Poirot, "Yes?"
Hercule Poirot, "We must be so intelligent that he does not suspect us of being intelligent at all." Lieutenant Hastings, "Absolutely..." Poirot, "And there you will be invaluable, mon ami."
Madam Evie Howard, "May I ask what's going on?" Inspector Japp, "You may ask, madam. If you get any reply, you might let me know."
Lieutenant Hastings, "I shall never understand women." Hercule Poirot, "... Perhaps one day, when this terrible war is ended, we shall work again together, huh? And Poirot will explain all to you."
Christie was just 26 years old when she penned her first story in 1916. It was serialized in The Times of London, and first published in book form in 1920 in America and 1921 in England. This movie is based on that novel. The films of this television series were not produced in the sequence that the stories appeared. But in this series, which began in the late 1980s, David Suchet would set the standard for Poirot's character. Several actors had played Poirot in movies that were made intermittently over the previous five decades plus. Now, Christie's public and fans would finally have a character who was every bit Poirot as created by the author.
The setting for this film is England in 1920, in the midst of the First World War. Poirot has fled his native Belgium that, he rues, has been overrun by the "Boche." But it is the beginning of an illustrious career in England in which Poirot will delight readers and audiences of all ages for ages, as the best super sleuth of all time.
The various British producers and writers who worked on this series over three decades did superb work. And the cast, from the exceptional regular leads and support, to the many different story characters (almost all are "suspects") make the entire series outstanding entertainment. This introduction of Poirot, Hastings and Japp has all the beguiling intrigue that audiences have come to expect and look forward to from Christie and Poirot.
Here are some favorite lines from this film. For more dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb web page of the movie.
Hercule Poirot, "You have a good grip on this affair, Hastings." Lieutenant Hastings, "Grasp." Poirot, "Yes?"
Hercule Poirot, "We must be so intelligent that he does not suspect us of being intelligent at all." Lieutenant Hastings, "Absolutely..." Poirot, "And there you will be invaluable, mon ami."
Madam Evie Howard, "May I ask what's going on?" Inspector Japp, "You may ask, madam. If you get any reply, you might let me know."
Lieutenant Hastings, "I shall never understand women." Hercule Poirot, "... Perhaps one day, when this terrible war is ended, we shall work again together, huh? And Poirot will explain all to you."
Excellent version of her first book
Sulla-211 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I will try not to cover what has already bene written but I have to agree with the poster who asked why the murderer didn't just pocket the incriminating letter and why he wrote it in the first place/ I was also shocked that Poirot didn't even bother to look inside the case.
The fact that The murderer didn't even try to give his ailbi, should have set off alarm bells with the Police.
Enough of spoilers I want to praise the excellent performances of Phiilip Jackson and Hugh Fraser in this and all the episodes they are in.
Japp is a good police officer but a detective with limited ability. Japp's greatest strength is his ability to makes use of Poirot's skills.
Hugh Fraser is the perfect Hastings. I just can't imagine anyone doing a better job.
The fact that The murderer didn't even try to give his ailbi, should have set off alarm bells with the Police.
Enough of spoilers I want to praise the excellent performances of Phiilip Jackson and Hugh Fraser in this and all the episodes they are in.
Japp is a good police officer but a detective with limited ability. Japp's greatest strength is his ability to makes use of Poirot's skills.
Hugh Fraser is the perfect Hastings. I just can't imagine anyone doing a better job.
The War To End All Wars.
rmax30482318 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Unlike the other episodes I've seen, this one is set during the Great War, after one of the battles at Ypres. (Kids, that's pronounced EEP-rah. Well, kind of. The Great War ran its course from 1914 to 1918 -- AD -- and was fought before we learned to start numbering them. The result of the battle was a pile of dead and mangled bodies on both sides. PS: The English were fighting the Germans.) It's surprising to see characters waltzing around in wardrobe a la mode 1915. Many of the ladies had long flowing dresses that swept the floor when they walked. They wore high lace collars and often their hair was swept up on their heads in a configuration resembling that of a soccer ball or some kind of Gugelhupf.
The costumes, cars, and many props are of the period. Some props must have been carried over from the episodes set in the 1930s -- books and knick knacks -- but the producers must have dug deep to come up with so much new in the way of forms. I'd always thought of the BBC's Poirot productions as having some kind of massive chest of 1930s objects into which they dug for props and clothes. Now I have to add a massive chest for their period romances and even for their adaptations of Dickens. They had to put the 1935 bus away in the garage and dust off the 1914 model, for instance.
I'd like to add that wardrobe and props tend to be precise about these things. I had a prominent role in "The Road To Wellville." You can see the back of my head in the scene in which the kid farts in church. That scene was set in 1895. Another scene was set ten years later, and they had different sets of SHOES for the extras, depending on the date.
As far as this movie is concerned, I rather enjoyed it. True, I got some of the characters and their names mixed up. I usually do. These ensemble mysteries could actually benefit from the use of familiar faces, as Albert Finney' "Murder on the Orient Express" did. However, Poirot's climactic explanation and the dénouement wrapped things up nicely. There isn't really a dull moment.
The costumes, cars, and many props are of the period. Some props must have been carried over from the episodes set in the 1930s -- books and knick knacks -- but the producers must have dug deep to come up with so much new in the way of forms. I'd always thought of the BBC's Poirot productions as having some kind of massive chest of 1930s objects into which they dug for props and clothes. Now I have to add a massive chest for their period romances and even for their adaptations of Dickens. They had to put the 1935 bus away in the garage and dust off the 1914 model, for instance.
I'd like to add that wardrobe and props tend to be precise about these things. I had a prominent role in "The Road To Wellville." You can see the back of my head in the scene in which the kid farts in church. That scene was set in 1895. Another scene was set ten years later, and they had different sets of SHOES for the extras, depending on the date.
As far as this movie is concerned, I rather enjoyed it. True, I got some of the characters and their names mixed up. I usually do. These ensemble mysteries could actually benefit from the use of familiar faces, as Albert Finney' "Murder on the Orient Express" did. However, Poirot's climactic explanation and the dénouement wrapped things up nicely. There isn't really a dull moment.
One of the better episodes!
FreddyShoop9 February 2019
"The fire warms but it also destroys."
bensonmum226 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While recovering from injuries received during the War, Lieutenant Hastings is invited to visit an old friend in his mother's, Mrs. Inglethorp, country estate. The household is in a state because of the mother's recent marriage to a strange man 20 years her junior. One night, Mrs. Inglethorp is taken ill and dies. The cause of death - poisoning. The family suspects the new husband, but he wasn't at home on the night of the murder. Looking for help in solving the mystery, Lieutenant Hastings calls on a war refugee from Belgium living in the village. He's an odd bird, but a great detective named Hercule Poirot.
The Mysterious Affair at Styles isn't one of the great Christie works, but it's fun enough with interesting characters and a "nice" murder. I say it's not great because there are two things that really bug me (at least in this presentation of the story). First, the murderer makes the most illogical mistake imaginable. Why did he leave the incriminating piece of evidence where it could be found? Second, Poirot makes an awful lot of suppositions that just happen to be right. He's more clairvoyant here than usual.
But none of that matters much when the rest of the episode is so good and fun. It's a real hoot watching Poirot march his fellow Belgian refugees through the streets of a small English village. They look like penguins on parade. It's also a treat to see Hastings and Poirot renew an old friendship. It's a really nice moment. And, it's also a joy to watch Japp and Poirot working together on their first English case. The only thing missing was Miss Lemon. I only wish they would have filmed The Mysterious Affair at Styles first. It would have nicely set-up everything to follow. For someone new to the series, I'd suggest going straight to S3E1 to start.
Overall, a 7/10 from me.
The Mysterious Affair at Styles isn't one of the great Christie works, but it's fun enough with interesting characters and a "nice" murder. I say it's not great because there are two things that really bug me (at least in this presentation of the story). First, the murderer makes the most illogical mistake imaginable. Why did he leave the incriminating piece of evidence where it could be found? Second, Poirot makes an awful lot of suppositions that just happen to be right. He's more clairvoyant here than usual.
But none of that matters much when the rest of the episode is so good and fun. It's a real hoot watching Poirot march his fellow Belgian refugees through the streets of a small English village. They look like penguins on parade. It's also a treat to see Hastings and Poirot renew an old friendship. It's a really nice moment. And, it's also a joy to watch Japp and Poirot working together on their first English case. The only thing missing was Miss Lemon. I only wish they would have filmed The Mysterious Affair at Styles first. It would have nicely set-up everything to follow. For someone new to the series, I'd suggest going straight to S3E1 to start.
Overall, a 7/10 from me.
Our dynamic duo's first adventure together
kaberi-893-64231611 October 2015
This was the first mystery story that Agatha Christie ever wrote. Reasonably faithfully depicted here, it is an entertaining if straightforward retelling of what happened when Captain Hastings, recovering from a war wound in 1917, finds himself visiting the estate of an old friend in the village of Styles St. Mary. The same village where, coincidentally, Hastings's acquaintance Poirot has been living for the last 4 years, along with 7 other Belgian war refugees. When Poirot's benefactor, Mrs. Inglethorp dies mysteriously one night, Poirot and Hastings work together to investigate the matter.
The story is helped along by some minor touches of humor, especially the scene where a young woman appeals to Hastings for advice, and Hastings impulsively proposes marriage to her. This story, outside of simply being the first Christie novel, is also noted for having her first rather shocking final revelation, one that here is so shocking that the final confession "All right, we love each other!" looks really too ridiculous to be believed. But overall, the period detail is wonderful to behold, and Suchet and company as usual do an excellent job.
The story is helped along by some minor touches of humor, especially the scene where a young woman appeals to Hastings for advice, and Hastings impulsively proposes marriage to her. This story, outside of simply being the first Christie novel, is also noted for having her first rather shocking final revelation, one that here is so shocking that the final confession "All right, we love each other!" looks really too ridiculous to be believed. But overall, the period detail is wonderful to behold, and Suchet and company as usual do an excellent job.
Not bad at all
pietclausen17 April 2022
A friend of mine loaned me a DVD named "The Poirot Collection" which contained this movie of Agatha Christie's first novel published in 1920. An enjoyable movie with the usual complexities of her writings to be solved by Hercule Poirot. This TV movie was made as a feature-length special to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Agatha Christie's birth in 1890.
Enjoyable but not as entertaining or engaging as the previous 2 seasons
bob the moo7 March 2014
Although IMDb lists this feature length outing as the first episode of the third season, it is actually a stand-alone episode which was made to mark 100 years since the birth of Christie. I know this because early doors I did have to do some Googling to understand the context because the film is the very first book where Poirot makes an appearance and as it fit into the flow of the season. The plot sees Hastings having only previously met Poirot once but by chance reunited with him as the little Belgian and others have temporarily been granted entry into the UK to escape the war. Whenever the residence where Hastings is staying experiences a death, he suggests they involve Poirot to help with the investigation.
The change in time appears to have had other impacts too because this special is not quite as good as the previous two seasons had been. The change in dynamic and relationship is an impact but it is not particularly negative in the grand scheme of things but it does jar a little when watching in the context of the previous episodes; Hastings is a darker character in the wake of the war and Poirot's relationship with him is perhaps too superficial (as one would expect) so the humor between them is not as evident. The plot is engaging but not all of it makes sense and as part of filling out two hours, there is a lot more in the way of red herrings than normal which by definition means that the mystery becomes less accessible and less straightforward. These factors are small things though because, although clearly different from the episodes before, the film still works very well and delivers in the ways it normally does – even if that is not quite as well as we are used to.
The cast remain very good although understandably there is some restrictions on their characters as we "get the gang together" as it were. Suchet is as good as ever even in a younger appearance; I liked that he retained the character but made it work a few steps earlier in the line – for example his fussy, irritable streak is more gently shown with an attention to detail. Fraser has less of a comedic role, which is a shame as he is very good at that, but he does make for more of a rounded character. Jackson is solid in support as usual but is less used. The supporting cast are generally pretty good although in a way I went for them less because to me they were part of the "fuller" film feel and thus worked a little against the fresher, more accessible plots than I had enjoyed of late.
The Mysterious Affair at Styles is still a very enjoyable film that is a nice addition to the episodes even if it clunks a little bit against the flow. The essence is still there even if it must be said the longer running time and the change in the dynamics does rather reduce the fresh humor of the episodes and how accessible they were.
The change in time appears to have had other impacts too because this special is not quite as good as the previous two seasons had been. The change in dynamic and relationship is an impact but it is not particularly negative in the grand scheme of things but it does jar a little when watching in the context of the previous episodes; Hastings is a darker character in the wake of the war and Poirot's relationship with him is perhaps too superficial (as one would expect) so the humor between them is not as evident. The plot is engaging but not all of it makes sense and as part of filling out two hours, there is a lot more in the way of red herrings than normal which by definition means that the mystery becomes less accessible and less straightforward. These factors are small things though because, although clearly different from the episodes before, the film still works very well and delivers in the ways it normally does – even if that is not quite as well as we are used to.
The cast remain very good although understandably there is some restrictions on their characters as we "get the gang together" as it were. Suchet is as good as ever even in a younger appearance; I liked that he retained the character but made it work a few steps earlier in the line – for example his fussy, irritable streak is more gently shown with an attention to detail. Fraser has less of a comedic role, which is a shame as he is very good at that, but he does make for more of a rounded character. Jackson is solid in support as usual but is less used. The supporting cast are generally pretty good although in a way I went for them less because to me they were part of the "fuller" film feel and thus worked a little against the fresher, more accessible plots than I had enjoyed of late.
The Mysterious Affair at Styles is still a very enjoyable film that is a nice addition to the episodes even if it clunks a little bit against the flow. The essence is still there even if it must be said the longer running time and the change in the dynamics does rather reduce the fresh humor of the episodes and how accessible they were.
Atmospheric
lucyrfisher28 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The production does a brilliant job of recreating England during World War One - a period usually ignored by TV drama. Christie didn't often write about Englands great houses as she knew them before the war. They are nearly always affected by the changing times, as here. Protegee Cynthia is a dispenser at the local hospital (like the young Agatha Christie) and Mary Cavendish works on the land. Period ambulances etc are driven by women, who are also running the railway station.
Christie wrote this book during a holiday from her dispensary - on Dartmoor. She must have learned about the properties of bromide and strychnine at work and during her studies. In her autobiography she describes a moment when she realises her superior has put double the dose of a drug into some suppositories. She manages to knock them to the floor and tread on them with "my beetlecrushers" - her sturdy uniform shoes. Here it is a porcelain coffee cup that is crushed underfoot.
This story is beautifully told, but the story is simplified. A lot of dialogue has been cut, leaving the (superb) actors to sit around emoting mutely. Red herrings have also been cut, leaving the situation between John and Mary Cavendish rather baffling. Didn't Mary have a mother who was a Russian ballerina and suchlike picturesque details? Must read it again.
Alfred is brilliantly portrayed, but not given much to say, and the awkwardness of his presence is conveyed mainly during silent meals where everybody's cutlery is scraping their plates too loudly.
The spills are purloined from another writer...
Christie wrote this book during a holiday from her dispensary - on Dartmoor. She must have learned about the properties of bromide and strychnine at work and during her studies. In her autobiography she describes a moment when she realises her superior has put double the dose of a drug into some suppositories. She manages to knock them to the floor and tread on them with "my beetlecrushers" - her sturdy uniform shoes. Here it is a porcelain coffee cup that is crushed underfoot.
This story is beautifully told, but the story is simplified. A lot of dialogue has been cut, leaving the (superb) actors to sit around emoting mutely. Red herrings have also been cut, leaving the situation between John and Mary Cavendish rather baffling. Didn't Mary have a mother who was a Russian ballerina and suchlike picturesque details? Must read it again.
Alfred is brilliantly portrayed, but not given much to say, and the awkwardness of his presence is conveyed mainly during silent meals where everybody's cutlery is scraping their plates too loudly.
The spills are purloined from another writer...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
