Poirot (TV Series) One, Two, Buckle My Shoe (1992) User Reviews

Such a clever mystery

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 27 August 2016]

OK so the two girls, the music and maybe the lengthy news reel aren't to everybody's taste, but I don't think they do enough harm to detract from what is a wonderfully clever murder mystery, one which is seemingly light on the surface, is actually very dark, full of dark love and burning passion.

The characters are beautifully drawn, you have the commanding Alistair Blunt, fantastically portrayed by Peter Blythe, who gives a very strong performance. Frank Carter is so much like the character in the novel, Eccleston never fails. Sara Stewart I find rather good also as Jane Olivera, such a beautiful and talented actress.

It looks great, the inside of 'Whitehaven Mansions' in particular, look fantastic, what a classy period in history. Some of the costumes are super too.

I love that it is such a complex mystery, I doubt a casual viewer would watch it and guess the outcome, it's a show you have to pay attention to, or face missing a key element. Great episode 8/10

Good but some strange decisions

[Iain-215 · 7/10 · 9 April 2008]

This is generally well acted and Suchet is engaging as Poirot but there are a couple of minor irritations and one larger one. Because this series is a little obsessed with keeping to a particular time period, the political aspect of the novel is toned down and a couple of characters cut out. As a result, the character of Jane Olivera has much less to do and more focus is put on other characters elsewhere. More importantly...

SPOILER

The whole prologue in India at the beginning is irritating because it seems to give the whole game away there and then. It introduces a character we are unaware of in the book until quite near the end and makes a case of confused identities very obvious indeed. It also focuses attention on the murderer far too early. Of course, I watched this just after reading the book - perhaps if I had not already known the story these things would have been less obvious.

The film looks good though and, as earlier stated, is well acted on the whole.

Intriguing and entertaining but overly complex and a tad implausible

[grantss · 7/10 · 16 May 2016]

Hercule Poirot's dentist, Dr Morley, dies of a gunshot wound in his surgery. The police initially believe it is suicide, a belief strengthened when one of the patients Dr Morley treated that morning, Mr Amberiotis, dies later that same day from a Novocaine overdose. The police are concerned, however, that this all may in some way be a plot to kill Mr Alastair Blunt, an influential banker, who was a patient of Dr Morley and saw him that morning. Starting to suspect that it was murder, suspicion falls on Frank Carter, boyfriend of Dr Morley's assistant, as he and Dr Morley do not see eye-to-eye. Then another of Dr Morley's patients, Mabelle Sainsbury Seale, turns up dead.

Intriguing and entertaining, as always. However, overly complex, to the point of implausibility. Certain parts of the plot still do not make sense to me, or hinge on everything going perfectly according to the murderer's plan. Still worth watching though.

A rattling good detective thriller that fans of the series and those who simply enjoy high quality whodunits should on no accounts miss this.

[jamesraeburn2003 · 25 July 2018]

Hercule Poirot finds himself investigating the death of his dentist, Henry Morley, just hours after he had visited his surgery for a routine check up. Chief Inspector Japp believes that it was suicide, and this theory is strengthened after one of Morley's patients, a greek called Amberiotis (Kevork Malikyan), dies as a result of an overdose of procaine and andrenalin: the drug used by dental surgeons to freeze gums. He assumes that Morley had made a mistake when administering it to Amberiotis and then killed himself in remorse, but Poirot is not satisfied. When it transpires that Alistair Blunt (Peter Blythe), a prominent banker, had also visited Morley's surgery on the fatal day, Japp asks if Morley had actually been murdered but that the real target was Blunt. Poirot discovers that Blunt had been accosted in the street by a good natured but rather scatter brained and dowdily dressed lady called Mabelle Sainsbury Seale (Carolyn Colquhoun) who claimed to have known his wife in India. Poirot and Japp question her, but she disappears almost immediately afterwards. The disfigured body of a woman wearing the same clothes (including a pair of buckled shoes) as Miss Sainsbury Seale is subsequently discovered in a trunk at a flat belonging to a Mrs Sylvia Chapman. The body is identified as that of the latter through her dental records - she too was a patient of Morley's - and Japp now believes that he is hunting down an unlikely psychotic killer in the form of Miss Sainsbury Seale. But, Poirot believes that he is dealing with a clever and elaborately planned triple murder where the motive lies in the world of political intrigue and big city banking...

All in all, One Two Buckle My Shoe is a must see for all fans of Agatha Christie's works and for anyone who enjoys high quality TV drama and murder mysteries. Clive Exton's screenplay sticks very closely to Christie's novel, which was undeniably ingeniously plotted, but at times stretched plot credibility to the limit and the reader was forced to ask "Is that really possible?" For instance, this reviewer was told by his own dentist that for procaine and adrenalin to be fatal it would take at least seven cartridges to get anywhere near being so. Therefore, there is no need to be terrified the next time you sit down in a dentist's chair! Ross Devenish, who also directed this series' splendid adaptation of Christie's debut novel, The Mysterious Affair At Styles (1990), again shows that he is a natural for directing top notch whodunits skilfully linking the rich 1930's period detail with the atmosphere and intrigue of the complicated story line. Performances are extremely good all round with Peter Blythe of particular note as the extremely intelligent but arrogant and self-important banker Alistair Blunt. He and David Suchet, who offers his customary accomplished performance as Poirot, are well matched and it is extremely rewarding for the viewer in the way the two men collide over differences of opinion in matters political and in their differing attitudes towards regard for human life. Caroline Colquhoun is also noteworthy as the ill-fated Mabelle Sainsbury Seale; a character for whom we feel great sympathy since she unwittingly walked into a deadly situation and it was a combination of her good nature, plus the fact that there was no way she could have foreseen the danger before her, that sealed her fate. A case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Overall, fans of this series and those who simply enjoy a rattling good detective thriller should on no accounts miss this; and the original source novel is highly recommended too.

Gave me nightmares when I first saw it

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 24 October 2009]

One, Two Buckle My Shoe was a solid adaptation of a very complicated book. It is absolutely true, the plot is very convoluted and the character of Jane Olivera was underused. And I wasn't sure what the scenes in India, which give things away too prematurely, had to do with the original story; then again it has been a year and a half ago since I read the book. As usual, the look of the adaptation is superb, beautifully shot with splendid period detail. The music was so haunting, and scenes like the beginning and when Sainsbury Seale's foot is seen poking out from the hamper gave me nightmares when I first saw it, and still does. David Suchet gives yet another impeccable performance as Poirot, and he is perfectly matched by Phillip Jackson. The other supporting performances ranged from acceptable to very good, Christopher Ecceleston and Peter Blythe giving the most impressive supporting contributions, but they weren't as good as Suchet, who was by far the best thing of the adaptation. The final solution while very long was interesting. All in all, definitely worth the watch. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox.

I love it!

[mgl-92037 · 8/10 · 3 April 2022]

This is a great episode -- one of the most enjoyable of all. Even watching now a second time and knowing who the culprit was , I still was nearly lost in all the details. Besides the good acting and costumes, this episode really shined in the sets, the house and garden of Blunt and his sumptuous boardroom. Christopher Eccleston shone in another of his angry young man performances from his youth.

One, Two, Buckle My Shoe

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 21 March 2018]

The director makes some visual flourishes such as using newsreel footage at the beginning, some scenes set in India and little girls playing hopscotch.

We even see a man get shot dead which is later revealed as the Harley Street dentist, Dr Morley killed in his surgery. He also happens to be Poirot's dentist and the police think his death is suicide after he gave a patient from India, Mr Amberiotis a fatal overdose.

Poirot sees links between Dr Morley's other patients. A wealthy banker Alastair Blunt, a yobbish blackshirt Frank Carter, the boyfriend of Dr Morley's assistant and Mabelle Sainsbury Seale, a former actress who toured India and had once met Blunt.

The film is a multi layered mystery which requires a long explanation from Poirot during the reveal. It is complicated but also in some ways nonsensical. The murderer has far from planned the perfect murder but rather take some outrageous risks.

The goof of all goofs

[benbrae76 · 8/10 · 12 April 2016]

I love the episode of "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe", but I fear it contains one of the biggest goofs of any in the Poirot episodes, and it really is the fault of bad researching and sloppy editing which allowed it in.

The episode includes a 1925 visit of the Prince of Wales to the Indian sub-continent which is reported in a movie newsreel with perfect sound attached. One problem. Talkies weren't made to this quality at the time. The first talking movie, The Jazz Singer, wasn't produced until 1927, and sound in that was basically only for the songs, and very poor.

So why put in so obvious a phoney commentary, for a newsreel which is not even of the correct royal visit? The pictures are too perfect. It looks more like a royal visit somewhere sometime in the mid to late 30s than in the mid 20s. The commentary definitely states 1925, but there was no Prince of Wales tour of India in 1925. That occurred in 1921, during which time afaik there were no moving newsreels made at all. They didn't exist. Just still photography. I should also mention that the style of commentary given is more like those of the 1950s. Certainly not pre-WWII.

I've nothing against producers using such an historical idea as a prelude, but I wish the continuity, historical research, and editing departments, would do their jobs properly. If the viewers can figure out the faults, surely they can.

This goof is near the beginning of the episode and really doesn't deter from the rest of the episode which resumes its usual excellent Poirot quality, but the inclusion of such a goof is surely inexcusable.

And this is not a one-off. There's a similar newsreel reporting a murder trial at the start of "Murder on the Links". The action then moves forward 10 years and a hoarding promoting the forthcoming 1936 bicycle race is plainly shown, which would make the earlier newsreel as being in 1926, again before sound was added to film. This has to be the fault of shoddy research.

A plot worth puzzling, but a pity that a big part of the plot is given away to early

[richardmolenschot · 6/10 · 2 October 2015]

The plot of One, Two, Buckle my Shoe is, as all the other reviews point out is dazzling, but nevertheless a good puzzle. Poirot, Japp, all our favorite characters, or better said: the actors playing them, do a wonderful job in this story.

But the choices what and how to film this story reveal way to early (after 20 minutes!) who must be the murderer or part of the murderous team.

SPOILER: The mystery relies for a great deal on disguises and impersonations. So if one character impersonates another you have to be careful how and what you film. And therein this adaptation falls short due to three more or less unfortunate choices:

1. The length of filming the characters: In this episode both versions of the same character (the real character and the one impersonating) are shown for a quite extensive amount of time. That means our skills to recognize differences between faces is alarmed way to soon.

2. The acting of the impersonating actor is rather over the top: you immediately notice less authentic behavior in comparison of the actor playing real character

3. Everyone who knows Agatha Christie by heart knows that the Queen of Crime loves impersonations as part of many murder plots. So if you want to hide an impersonation from the viewer, you need to hide it very good. In this film all the other characters are quite plain. So the impersonation is the only outspoken character with very distinctive traits compared tot the other characters. That rings an immediate alarm bell. And SECOND SPOILER: when another character with distinctive physical traits appears -who only seems to serve a very small part in the story- one immediately wonders: is that the same impersonator? Which of course, proves to be the case. Better is would have been, to make the other characters more over the top as well. If you want to hide a black sheep, don't hide it in a white flock, but a black one.

Impersonations are tricky to film. I'll give you that, but then you need to choose what to film and how to film it very carefully. Otherwise the plot is quite given away from the beginning. Nevertheless a good episode. Made with care. Still a lot to puzzle after you discover the impersonation. And also an episodes that shows how difficult it is to film a plot with impersonations.

For Poirot, a visit to the dentist can be murder

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 31 July 2018]

Chief Inspector Japp is all over the murder case in "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe." At first, it appears to be suicide, although Hercule Poirot quickly convinces him otherwise. Then a second murder occurs that is linked. Japp watches as Poirot looks for clues. Then, when a third related murder turns up, Japp is all but beaten. Now, he pays close attention as Poirot pieces it together.

This film provides a couple of early clues that are very obvious, and not red herrings. If one sticks with them, part of the sinister plot will become clear. Still, it's a complex one, and only Poirot is able to come up with the precise scenario and why there are three murders. The story opens in 1925 India with some old newsreel film of the visit to that country by Prince George. After the opening scenes, it moves to London in 1937.

This Poirot mystery is one of just a few that have multiple murders. Here are some favorite lines.

Mrs. (Julia) Olivera, "I've never heard of a dentist committing suicide before. Wouldn't happen in the States, you can be sure of that. They're too damn rich to kill themselves."

Chief Inspector Japp, "Cheer up, Poirot. We can't have a nice juicy murder every time."

Hercule Poirot, after Japp suggests tea in his home, "Do you have, perhaps, a tisane?" Chief Inspector Japp: "Oh, come off of it, Poirot. This is ...."

Mrs. (Julia) Olivera, "I hope this is a matter of importance, Alistair. That Belgian detective sent a most insolent message to us."

A knot of a plot

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 2 February 2008]

Hercule Poirot investigates the death of his dentist in London. At first, it appears to be a clear case of suicide, but when one more client of the dentist is found dead a few hours later, and yet another one disappears, Poirot realizes that the matter is much more complicated than it seems.

The plot of "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" is so incredibly convoluted that it takes Poirot an entire 20 minutes (ie. 2 DVD chapters) to explain it at the end! It's clever, yes, but I don't see how any person with an IQ below 150 can follow it on the first viewing. Neither the locations nor the characters are particularly memorable, although the production is of course up to the usual high standards. The single best thing about this film may be the highly atmospheric score, which offers a series of variations on the melody of the title rhyme. (**1/2)

Disturbed by a gross historical inaccuracy

[rdbqpaul · 8/10 · 5 June 2020]

I love Perot and always enjoy the historical references. However, starting the episode with a "talking" newsreel allegedly from 1925 seems ludicrous considering the "talkie" was still at least 3 years in the future. How did that slip by?

I liked it but man, was it confusing

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 21 October 2014]

I love an intricate plot, but there's a difference between intricate and downright confusing. "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" is the latter.

When Poirot's dentist is found shot to death shortly after Poirot's appointment, the Belgian detective is on the case. Though some assume it's suicide, he knows it is not. He begins by looking at everyone who had an appointment after his: Alistair Blunt, a prominent bank director, Frank Carter, who had a grudge against the dentist, Mr. Amberiotis, from India, and Mabelle Sainsbury-Seale, an ex-actress just in from India.

Mabelle disappears, and Mr. Amberiotis is found dead. So what's going on? The answer can be found in India, years earlier.

Intriguing mystery, with Suchet in his usual top form and the normally high production values. If you see this, concentrate. concentrate hard. It's not easy to follow. I was reminded of an Inspector Morse episode where I couldn't figure out whodunit and asked a friend, who answered, "I not only know whodunit, I don't know who was killed."

A half hour longer than it needed to be

[speaksmyname · 5/10 · 2 April 2024]

It really felt like the writers had to "stretch" this one to make it fit into a two hour paid time slot, since for the first half hour... nothing happens of any significance. There are flashback scenes in India, random scenes with various characters (all of whom are confusing), Poirot walking, Poirot having tea, Poirot sitting down to read a book. Lots of wasted shots of tea pouring, people walking up and down streets, going up and down stairs, staring around rooms, etc. That time could better have been employed developing the characters so the audience can tell them apart. As others have mentioned, it also gives away the likely murderer and part of the motive much too early. The book is far better and less hard to follow; I found myself very confused and just wanting to get to the end so I could figure out exactly the motives involved. Not one of the series' best.

Some Cavities

[tedg · 30 January 2008]

Except for two elements, I found this among the better of the David Suchet versions. Its a remarkably complex mystery and it is sketched out well enough. The business about the open appointment book could have been made clearer earlier.

The characters are less outrageously drawn than usual. Its perhaps less entertaining that way, but when it is done, it distracts from the core value of the project. Timing, diversions and deception and incredible planning — all hallmarks of the best Christie. The sets astound me every time I see these. Its amazing the trouble they go through on exteriors.

What I disliked was the way they bludgeoned us with the title. In the books, such things are subtle. Here, perhaps 20 times we see two schoolgirls playing hopscotch, often overlain on events. Its absolutely frustrating, and one wonders about how stupid the adapter thought we were.

The other absolutely superfluous think involved lengthy old newsreels about the prince visiting India. It was of no consequence in world affairs then, some nitwit on tour. But it has nothing whatever to do with this story. None. None whatever.

Now that I write about its flaws, maybe this isn't among the best.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

goof...?

[howardgoode · 9/10 · 31 July 2019]

Poirot in his kitchen appears to be standing at a very modern stainless steel sink...with mixer taps...? A bit to modern for the times..!!?

"Oh, yes, I am. Very odd. That is to say, I am methodical, orderly, and logical, and I do not like to distort facts to support a theory."

[bensonmum2 · 6/10 · 27 February 2017]

Poirot's dentist, Henry Morley, is found dead of a gunshot wound on the same day Poirot had an appointment. Morley's death appears to have been a suicide. But when two other patients who visited Morely on the same day turn up dead, the coincidences are too much and Poirot suspects there is something more sinister going on. Can Poirot stop a murderer who has already killed three times?

I'm going to sound like parrot here and echo a lot of what others have written about One, Two, Buckle My Shoe on IMDb. I agree with others who have written that the plot can be a bit confusing. There's lot going on and a lot of characters to keep up with. This is an instance where the book is much, much better because Christie had ample time and space to explain things in a detail the movie couldn't. It would have been hours long. Next, I agree with what others have written about the scenes set in India at the very beginning of the movie. These scenes give away way too much of the mystery. The surprise factor is gone. Finally, Poirot makes too many assumptions for my taste. There are things that he knows with seeming certainty about the murders that he shouldn't. There is no solid evidence presented for much of what he says in his final denouement.

Still, this is a decent enough episode. The murderer in this episode is as brutal as any Christie wrote about. The death of one of the characters is especially violent. Of course nothing is shown, but the implication is there nonetheless. As always, sets, costuming, locations, and every technical aspect you can think of are top notch. The acting is as strong as ever. I think Suchet does a particularly good job. No one else really stood out, but all were solid.

Overall, not the best episode for the reasons I've listed. Still, this is Poirot so there's usually something to enjoy. I'll give One, Two, Buckle My Shoe a 6/10.

good story that be failed by director

[ab-saeed · 6/10 · 18 March 2020]

There is one big mistake in this episode : mr amberioti 'the blackmail' he knew mr blunt then blunt can't replace self to dentist in cristi's novel she wrote that mr blunt make up his face for visit amberioti but in this episode we did'nt saw this important things

Clean, Convoluted, a Little Dull.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 31 May 2014]

I can't see that this is one of the more successful episodes. Of course it has the usual virtues. There is the fussy Poirot, the sardonic Japp, the surfaces of the houses and street and other objects so clean that you could eat from them, perform surgery on them. But the lovely, comforting, and sensual Miss Lemon is elsewhere, and so is Hastings.

It begins -- after the masked initial murder -- with Poirot visiting the dentist. He looks very uncomfortable. It's understandable. Who doesn't jump when the dentist says, "Now turn your head this way a little?" But that's about all the humor.

The story is exceedingly hard to follow, full of impersonations, tricks, greed, snobbery, multiple red herrings, and one of Poirot's long explanations at the end, when he reveals all the clues that have been held back from the viewer.

It's not at all badly done, but there are other, better renditions of the stories, including the two-hour versions like this one.

Decent adaptation but clunky and hard to follow

[donlessnau-591-637730 · 6/10 · 24 October 2020]

It remained pretty faithful to the novel in its way but I thought the story line was never really smooth. It seemed to start and stop and was very clunky, probably because I think they left out some important people in the novel and tried too hard to be complicated. Not one of the better adaptations.

Problematic

[Kaiketi · 5 June 2015]

SPOILERS AHEAD!

A somewhat nice Poirot movie but with at least 2 problems with the plot.

1) This can be debated over but to me it seems illogical to assume that A) the blackmailer (the Indian male character) didn't recognize the rich bankers face when he was impersonating the dentist, and B) banker taking a HUGE risk of getting recognized by the blackmailer.

2) This is a BIG problem. I haven't read the book, maybe the author got away with this detail in a non-visual story (book). The shooting of the dentist is ridiculous. A human is shot with a pistol close range. There seems to be only entry wound. No blood or other "material" splatter. The body is dragged to other room. Then the killer, the banker, "services" the Indian blackmailer and injects lethal dose of novocaine and adrenaline. The dentist patient leaves. Then killer drags the body of the dentist back from the other room. The end result however is that the body is found in a pool of blood, which couldn't come from anything other than the victims head bullet wound. Awfully nice of the dead corpse to start bleeding only after many minutes and being dragged around few times. This just doesn't happen in real life. Maybe the author wasn't very knowledgeable with what happens when you shoot someone.. I don't know, you would assume that she would had researched these things, though this wouldn't be the first HUGE error in authors Poirot stories, there's plenty of them, if you're sharp enough. ;)

The reason why the story is so convoluted and made hard to follow, is that the identity of the lady killer has to be kept somewhat secret.. I noticed it early though. :) In a novel there's no problem because we can't see the faces, so when Poirot meets a certain character, he doesn't know how that persons face should look like, but in a movie, we have already seen the character and notice the different face. That's why this movie is made hard to follow.

Good mystery spoiled by early scenes

[aramis-112-804880 · 4 April 2023]

We can probably understand why someone would kill a dentist, but what happened to the seemingly scatterbrained missionary woman with the loose shoe buckle? Poirot must find out.

I suppose the unnecessary and wasted scenes up front were to make the story clearer. Or to further muddy a convoluted plot. One or the other.

Murder stories should be mystifying. Christie was a queen of mystification and misdirection. The early scenes are unnecessary. Cut to Poirot.

Once the story gets to where the book starts (Poirot's fear of the dentist) things rattle along well. There is momentary confusion, but that's part of the fun.

S4: Plays it a bit more serious again with longer episodes but still engaging and satisfying results

[bob the moo · 28 April 2014]

I'm not sure of the reason but this fourth season sees a shorter run than previous seasons, with essentially only 3 episodes, albeit all of them feature length. I guess this was primarily motivated by the desire to tell some bigger stories that couldn't easily be adapted down into 50 minutes without losing a great deal along the way; at least it feels this way because the quality remains high and certainly doesn't suggest ITV artificially puffing out a flagship show for the sake of it. This is not to say there are not changes though and, as with the previous season I did get the feeling that were was a certain weight behind the show and the tone of it was leaning away from the light entertainment roots and focused more on its serious side.

This tonal shift is a bit of a shame for me because I very much liked the twinkle and mischief in the early season, but it is not a real loss because these episodes still retain touches of it but instead provide a much more sturdy experience. The elements of the mystery, the deduction and the reveal are played much more to the fore and it is a positive thing given the extended nature of these episodes – the light touch may have hurt these in a way that it did not so much in the shorter more accessible episodes. The three stories have good detail within them and the time is well used mostly to fill out characters, provide a range of suspects and witnesses and then allow Poirot to pick through them. I have seen some similar ITV event shows do the same approach but without the material being as strong and lots of guests in cameo roles giving the impression that it has all been puffed out for the sake of it. This is not the case here – the longer run time feels justified and none of the 3 stories feel baggy or padded out in any way.

Some elements of the delivery could have been better, with some dated touches (such as the slow-motion children playing in Buckle My Shoe) and perhaps a bit more effort put it to showcase the locations a bit more, but generally the key thing for me is that the longer running time doesn't hurt how accessible it is. Although convoluted, the plots never push away as they are delivered here – and the deeper Poirot goes the more engaged I became, which sounds obvious but in some other Christie adaptations it feels like the opposite can be true, the viewer is told just to hang around and all will be revealed. As per previous seasons, these stories take the viewer with them.

Locations, sets, costumes and general period design remain really good and it is interesting to read online the locations used to stand-in for others. Direction remains solid but not overly self-important; it may be the age of the episodes but the cinematography often feels a bit murky and lacking life – perhaps it can be remastered at some point. Performances continue to be strong and of course Suchet is really great in the title role, his nuances, mannerisms and comic timing are excellent – whatever the material gives him, he makes the best of it. For whatever reason we only get to see Fraser's Hastings in the first episode; perhaps it is the lean away from the comic tone or perhaps it was just his character wasn't in these stories originally – but whatever he is welcome and very well played when he is around and I missed him in the episodes he was not in, even if they were fine without him. Jackson's Jap is more of a consistent presence although he is a bit more "in service of plot" so doesn't always get so much to do – although I did enjoy his scenes in his modest home in the third episode. Support casts for each episode contain one or two familiar faces but they are never distract from the actual narrative and at no point does any of the casting feeling like it was for the sake of anything other than making the episodes work – ie not PR, ratings or otherwise.

Season 4 of Poirot may shift its weight towards more serious story- telling so that the comic edge is there but less evident, but it is still a quality product with good adaptations which keep the mystery but also keep it accessible so the viewer is engaged not just watching and waiting. All other aspects of the production, from performances through to set design remain of a very high standard indeed.