Poirot (TV Series) Murder in Mesopotamia (2001) User Reviews

Wonderful setting, but a ridiculous plot point

[bensonmum2 · 6/10 · 22 April 2008]

Summoned to Baghdad at the behest of a Russian Countess, Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) instead finds himself mixed up in a murder at a nearby archaeological dig. This is, however, no ordinary murder. With only one entrance to the room the woman was found in and several witnesses to the fact that no on entered or exited, Poirot will have to come up with a clever solution to trap a clever killer.

Even with my 6/10 rating, I feel I may have overrated Murder in Mesopotamia. It's got some good points - the exotic Tunisian locations standing in for Iraq, David Suchet, the archaeological dig setting, and an interesting, if improbable, means of murder. And there's something extra appealing about a locked room type mystery. But Murder in Mesopotamia suffers from one hugely ridiculous plot point that I am completely unable to overlook. It's not really the fault of the makers of this adaptation - instead, I lay the blame squarely at Agatha Christie's original work. - BIG SPOILERS AHEAD - Are we really supposed to believe that Mrs. Leidner could marry a man and not realize he was her supposedly dead first husband? I cannot fathom something so far-fetched as this actually happening. I don't care how much his face has changed, I'm unwilling to take that kind of leap in logic. I've always thought it was one of the silliest things Christie ever wrote. Unless she was a complete idiot, surely Mrs. Leidner would have realized at some point that she had married the same man twice. - END OF BIG SPOILERS

"This investigation is marching more slowly than I had expected"

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 23 March 2008]

Hercule Poirot receives a telegram from the Russian countess he had met in a previous adventure (see the episode "Double Clue" for more info) asking him to come to Bagdad to help her on an urgent matter. He does, but she is nowhere to be found. But the journey is not all for naught; pretty soon he gets caught up in the investigation of the murder of the wife of an esteemed archaeologist working in the area. The woman had been receiving threatening anonymous letters that seemed to have been written by her long considered dead first husband, and, much like an archaeologist, Poirot thinks that he must dig into the past in order to solve the mystery.

My one-line summary is a quote from Poirot himself, and it gives you an idea of the pacing of this episode. Not that it is bad, mind you; the production values are great (easily on par with the theatrically released Ustinov film "Appointment With Death"), and the killing method itself is haunting and cruelly ingenious. However, there is also a crucial timing inconsistency in this episode: not wanting to spoil anything, I'll just say that something that lasts about 10 seconds when it happens for the first time, lasts at least 30 seconds when Poirot's customary narration at the end replays it from another perspective. Comedic highlight: Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night. (**1/2)

Good, if rather slow adaptation of a wonderful book!

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 29 June 2009]

Murder in Mesopotamia, I have always considered one of the better Poirot books, as it is very creepy and has an ingenious ending. There is no doubt that the TV adaptation is visually striking, with some lovely photography and a very haunting music score. As always David Suchet is impeccable as Hercule Poirot, the comedic highlight of the episode being Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night, and Hugh Fraser is good as the rather naive Captain Hastings. The remainder of the cast turn in decent performances, but are careful not to overshadow the two leads, a danger in some Christie adaptations. Some of the episode was quite creepy, a juxtaposition of an episode as tragic as Five Little Pigs, an episode that I enjoyed a lot more than this one. What made it creepy in particular, putting aside the music was when Louise Leidner sees the ghostly face through the window. About the adaptation, it was fairly faithful to the book, but I will say that there were three things I didn't like. The main problem was the pacing, it is rather slow, and there are some scenes where very little happens. I didn't like the fact also that they made Joseph Mercado a murderer. In the book, I see him as a rather nervous character, but the intervention of the idea of making him a murderer, and under-developing that, made him a less appealing character, though I am glad they didn't miss his drug addiction. (I also noticed that the writers left out the fact that Mrs Mercado in the book falls into hysteria when she believes she is the murderer's next victim.) The other thing that wasn't so impressive was that I felt that it may have been more effective if the adaptation had been in the viewpoint of Amy Leatheran, like it was in the book, Amy somehow seemed less sensitive in the adaptation. On the whole, despite some misjudgements on the writers' behalf, I liked Murder in Mesopotamia. 7/10 Bethany Cox.

You want art? - Don't watch TV

[Philby-3 · 13 April 2003]

After 12 years of playing Poirot, David Suchet has the part off pat, and it is hard to imagine anyone doing it better. This 2000 TV film is an adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1936 novel of the same name and the location – an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia – and is made the more authentic by Christie's first hand experience with her husband, archaeologist Max Mallowan. Despite the exotic locale however the story is the familiar country house murder mystery in which by observation and deduction the great detective finds the culprit without a lot of help from his sidekick, the jolly Hastings (Hugh Fraser) or anybody else.

What is quite striking about this story as filmed is the utter flatness of all the other characters. To some extent this is a product of the fact that none of the actors is well known, but the script doesn't help either. They are simply boring (the Arabs are non-starters). Their function is to listen to Poriot, provide him with information or disinformation and to die when necessary. Actually one of the victims (Ms Leidner) has an interesting past but she is too pathetic to hold our sympathy. Perhaps the producers were trying to save money on salaries but the cast are not a prepossessing lot.

On the other hand the production values (for a TV movie) aren't bad and much of the film was shot in Tunisia around a real `dig'. (Iraq, alas, was not available). Hercule Poirot, always immaculately dressed and amusingly fussy, can always hold our attention even if he is to a large extent the puppetmaster. Although he makes mistakes along the way we can be assured the characters will fit his theories in the end.

Lousy art but good television.

Death in the desert

[grantss · 8/10 · 28 May 2016]

Hercule Poirot is in Baghdad, Iraq, to meet an old acquaintance when he is invited to a nearby archaeological dig by his old friend Captain Hastings. The dig is being led by famed archaeologist, Dr Leidner. He is accompanied by his beautiful wife, her nurse - Amy Leatheran, his long-time archaeological partner - Richard Carey, his assistant - Anne Johnson, a priest - Father Lavigny, another archaeologist - Joseph Mercado, his wife and a team of local workers. The night before Poirot arrives one of the locals is murdered on the dig site. A short time after arriving the site, Mrs Leidner is spooked by a mask at her window, leading her to confide to Poirot that she is receiving death threats. They are purported from her long-dead first husband but she suspects they are from his brother. The next day, Mrs Leidner is found dead in her room, having received a savage blow to the head. There is only one way into her room, through the main courtyard, a very public place, and nobody saw anyone enter her room. How on earth was she then murdered? More importantly, who did it?

The usual intrigue, this time in a very exotic setting. Great location and scenery. Plot has a rather far-fetched backstory, but is very interesting nonetheless. Murder method is rather ingenious and very difficult to work out in advance. Once it is revealed, however, the murderer is easy to figure out.

Hugely enjoyable Poirot mystery - despite the slower-than-usual pace and implausible denouement.

[WelshFilmCraze · 9/10 · 31 May 2010]

I'll start by saying I'm a very big fan of all the Poirot mysteries. I find the locations, writing and acting along with the costumes excellent in every episode and Hercule Poirot is a character that David Suchet was born to play, having said that I don't hold anything against Albert Finney & Peter Ustinov, It's just that I feel Suchet after over 20 years has made the role his own.

In 'Murder in Mesopotamia' Hercule Poirot (Suchet) accompanies his sometimes rather naive friend Captain Hastings (Hugh Fraser) to a dig in Iraq and becomes involved in - and attempts to solve the murder of an Archeologist's Wife, who had been receiving threatening anonymous letters.

As I say in my summary - The story takes a long time to reach its conclusion, but I was quite happy enjoying the beautiful surroundings of Tunisia (Filling in for Iraq) and the solid acting by all to really care, though others might.

One plot point which did disappoint me was the revelation of the Killer(s) - which I found to be highly unlikely, but that's not a criticism of the production at all as Agatha Christie herself wrote the rather implausible denouement.

Highly Recommended!

implausible but good production values

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 20 May 2014]

You can't expect a prolific author like Agatha Christie to hit a home run every time. And indeed, with Murder in Mesopotamia, she doesn't come up with a very believable denouement.

Poirot and Hastings go to a dig in Iraq (filmed in Tunisia). A woman there, a Mrs. Leidner, tells them an odd story. After the death of her first husband in a train accident, she continued to receive threatening letters from him whenever she began to see someone. She has always suspected his younger brother. However, she has now remarried.

Mrs. Leidner winds up dead, and other murders follow. Poirot tries to find a motive -- the woman wasn't very well liked, so there are a few suspects. And what about these letters? Agatha Christie knew something about archaeological digs thanks to her husband, Max Mallowan. And she knew how to write a good story. But she asks a little too much of the reader in this one.

As Poirot, David Suchet is marvelous, as is Hugh Fraser as Hastings, who constantly is giving Poirot woman advice since he's a married man.

We can forgive Christie's occasional slip-up -- the story is still intriguing and entertaining.

C'est impossible!

[hamsa-43622 · 8/10 · 4 July 2016]

OK, I might be in the minority here, but this is one of my favorites from both the series and the books. This adaptation is quite faithful to the original, save the addition of Hastings. And Hugh Fraser as Hastings is always such a delight to watch that I would hardly call that a minus.

Poirot and Hastings are out in Iraq on an archaeological dig, when the lead archaeologist's wife is murdered. This wife was married in her youth to a shady figure who seems to have been stalking her from the grave for decades. Naturally, this purportedly dead ex-husband and a mysterious brother he had are first on Poirot's list of suspects when she is found murdered. Is a member of the expedition this ex-husband or his brother, skulking around with the aid of a different name and some expertly-performed plastic surgery? Or is the motive for the murder altogether different?

I wouldn't consider this the best supporting cast in a Poirot by any means, but they weren't the worst either. Everyone certainly came across exactly as described in the book, for example Ron Berglas who does a fine job as Dr. Leidner, but Barbara Barnes isn't convincing as Louise Leidner. Louise's characterization is beautifully done in the book - charming and lovely, complicated to the extent where people are unable to make out whether she's a liar or a humbug, a victim or a villain. The contradictory accounts Poirot receives about Louise add to the layeredness of her characterization, and render the murderer and his motive foggy at best, indecipherable at worst. But with this miscast part we have just a very one-note, flat performance.

The denouement is certainly wildly implausible, but it's a work of fiction - meant to entertain, not to be taken seriously. Overall, this was a great adaptation that was true to the original and beautifully shot - highly recommended!

Murder in Mesopotamia

[Ian_Jules · 7/10 · 2 June 2012]

Unfortunately, this is one of the lesser Suchet 'Poirot' films in my opinion. The flaws are not, for the most part, with the film as a film. The production values are first rate, far better than as seen in many US television series. No expense appears to have been spared in finding a suitable shooting location and it is beautifully photographed. I have to assume that many of the archaeological artifacts shown are in fact props or replicas, but they too are well-rendered. And while a few reviewers have said the 100-minute film moves rather slowly, I can't say that I have any particular issues on the score of pacing or structure.

Acting is another aspect that rarely, if ever, lets down with this series and this film is no exception. The performances are generally excellent, although few of the episodic/supporting characters get to shine. The interaction between David Suchet's Poirot and Hugh Fraser's Captain Hastings is particularly amusing and well-done.

Among the supporting cast, the only characterization I didn't warm to was that of Dr. Liedner. It might just have been his questionable American accent, but something just wasn't quite there about his performance for me. This is compounded by the character's lack of development.

To be honest, this is one of the Christie novels I've not yet read, so I don't know if this also true of the source material, but Liedner just doesn't seem that well developed to me. As another reviewer said, it's enough of a stretch that his wife married him without realizing she was the same person as her first husband--but an even better question would be why Liedner initially faked his death. The basic conceit could actually be believable of a story set in current times, now that you can get surgery to completely alter your physical features--but that still doesn't explain an individual's motives pretending to be dead. Why did Liedner, after telling his wife he had survived the war, decide to shed his identity and pretend he had been killed in a chance railway accident. Unless I missed something, it's never adequately explained. He apparently had a mentally unstable brother, so perhaps mental problems run in the family, because the only possible explanation for the root of this murder's actions is that he is possibly psychopathic and simply enjoys controlling and terrorizing people, along with his intense insecurity/jealousy. I mention jealousy because, after he goes to the trouble of spontaneously abandoning his identity and then wooing and marrying his wife all over again, he kills her essentially because she falls in love with another man. I guess that's in character, because the whole time until she married him again he kept sending her threatening letters every time she saw someone else--but it still doesn't explain why disappear in the first place. The whole story would make much more sense if a reason were given as to why he *had* to disappear or seem to be no longer alive; something that meant he couldn't be with his wife for many years. This would also better explain the jealous notes: if he couldn't be with her, no one else would be either. This would make sense of his wanting her but not going near her for years on end.

If there was any more than this in the novel Exton should not have excised it. If there wasn't, a little more back-story of some sort should have been added to better explain Liedner. I also found the presentation of the flashbacks slightly clumsy in terms of the visuals used, and the clue of the unfinished letter Ms. Johnson found could have been better staged. Again, not sure if that's in the novel, but as far as I'm concerned, if a change needs to be made to enhance the characters, drama, or presentation, particularly if it's to help the story translate to the visual medium, then that change should be made. The purists can simply reread the novel time and again if that's the only thing that's going to make them happy. I would rather a film that works in its own right than one that adheres religiously to its source text. And I feel that this one, although a solid piece, has some short comings, some because of the adaptation and some probably not.

On a much nicer note, I enjoy going back and watching the episodes with Hastings from time to time. His character is always warm and pleasurable, and while I think the Poirot films made after this one are for the most part superior to it, Hugh Fraser is always excellent. I believe this episode from 2001 is the last in which Hastings

has appeared as yet.

This is a solid but not excellent film, with some story issues that probably result more from the source material than the adaptation. Fans should, of course, view and decide for themselves if they have not done. However, for newcomers or those wishing to hit the highlights, there are many I'd recommend over this. Along with most of the '80s and '90s episodes, I would also recommend over this title any film made from 2008 on, including the much unfairly maligned 'Appointment with Death', which I think is a far better attempt at archaeologically-theme mystery than this one. For the films between this one and 2008, to be honest I would have to go back and view all of those again before judging them relative to this one.

7/10: Don't be fooled into thinking I despised this film. I just think there are considerably stronger ones about.

Finally on screen!!

[binapiraeus · 10/10 · 6 November 2014]

It's a mystery worth being solved by Poirot himself why one of the VERY greatest novels Agatha Christie ever wrote had never been filmed before - but the magnificent TV series starring David Suchet, which 'took care' of literally EVERY one of Poirot's cases, finally fixed that in 2001. And the result - as was almost to be expected, considering the great expertise that everyone involved in the series had already acquired at that point - is a most STUNNING piece of TV art (which can easily compete with even the most expensive and most successful movies of its era), equally suspenseful as the novel (and that IS saying something...), with a wonderful performance, as always, by David Suchet, the undeniably BEST Poirot in film and TV history, and literally a LOVE for every little detail to be authentic 30s' style.

The settings are exotic once more here: an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia (due to the political circumstances at the time, the episode was shot in Tunisia, but actually at a REAL dig), with an expedition team consisting of various nationalities - and, of course, also all the human weaknesses that show so very clearly when a group of people is living so close together: passion, jealousy, hatred, drugs, theft... And together they all lead inevitably to - murder...

And once again, Poirot 'happens' to be at the scene of the crime; he came to Bagdad at the request of a Baroness, an 'old flame' of his (we're getting to know entirely new things about him!), and visits the dig with his friend Hastings, whose nephew happens to work there... Of course, all this wasn't in the book, but never mind - all the rest WAS; and it simply COULDN'T have been brought to the screen in a more clever, more stylish, and even more entertaining way! And in a way that lets us guess literally until the last moment about the identity of the murderer...

So, of course, we mustn't spoil anything for those who haven't seen it yet - the only thing I believe I can state with certainty is that this is one of the VERY best episodes of the whole series (which ran for 25 years!); a REAL treat for every fan of Agatha Christie, of Hercule Poirot, and of murder mysteries in general!

Quite good entertainment but not the best Poirot by a long way.

[jamesraeburn2003 · 6/10 · 25 August 2023]

Hercule Poirot and Captain Hastings visit an archaeological site in Iraq where the latter's nephew, Bill Coleman (played by Jeremy Turner-Welch), is working. They arrive to the news of an Arab small-time crook and drug dealer having been murdered. In addition, Louise Leidner (played by Barbara Barnes), the wife of the head of the expedition team, Dr Eric Leidner (played by Ron Berglas), has been frightened by a sinister face that appears at her window at night. She reveals that she has also been the recipient of threatening letters, which are signed by Frank Bosner, a young man she had married during the war in a whirlwind romance. Bosner was due to be executed as a spy, but had evaded capture and then was believed killed in a train crash. She suspects that Bosner's younger brother, William, could be behind it. The letters arrived whenever she showed an interest in other men. However, upon her marriage to Dr Leidner, they stopped but began again when she showed affection towards Richard Carey (played by Christopher Bowen), one of her husband's key colleagues. When Louise is found dead in her room as a result of a head injury, Poirot questions how her murderer could have committed the crime unseen since her room adjoins a busy courtyard. In addition, the windows were locked and barred and there was nowhere in the room where the killer could have hidden. Poirot believes that William Bosner could be masquerading as a member of the expedition staff and killed Louise in a crime of passion. But which one of them could he be? Meanwhile, Joe Mercado is attacked by the brother of the murdered drug dealer and he subsequently commits suicide leaving a note in which he says that drug addiction had led him to murder. That solves one mystery, but Anne Johnson (played by Dinah Stabb), one of Dr Leidner's closest friends and colleagues, is murdered in a horrific way before Poirot is able to present the solution to the case...

All in all, Murder In Mesopotamia emerges as quite good entertainment even though it is by no means one of the best in the series. Everyone in the cast seem well chosen for their parts, but nobody really sets the screen alight here. David Suchet is still the definitive Poirot and there is an amusing subplot explaining how he happened to be in Iraq when this case came along. He had received a telegram from his old flame, Countess Vera Rossakoff, asking him to meet her in Baghdad because she urgently needed his assistance. Only, he arrived to find that she had left for Shanghai leaving only a message at the hotel asking him to pay her bill! Fans of the series will recall that the character had appeared in The Double Clue nearly a decade before, an episode in which we saw a romantic side to Poirot. The solution to the case when it comes is satisfactory, if perhaps a little implausible and as ever the crime is reconstructed by use of flashbacks from the perspective of Poirot as he explains to the assembled suspects how he arrived at the truth and whom is responsible for the crimes. The production values are of the usual high standard we expect from this series. There is lavish location photography in Tunisia by Kevin Rowley and the direction by Tom Clegg is competent.

No bones about murder at this archaeological dig

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 12 June 2019]

"Murder in Mesopotamia" is another Hercule Poirot mystery set in the Middle East. This one takes place around an archaeological dig in Iraq, not far from Baghdad. Agatha Christie spent two decades living and helping on archaeology sites alongside her second husband, Max Mallowan. He was a renowned archaeologist, and Christie took to the work, travel and trade with fervor. So, when she sets her mysteries around digs, and other foreign sites, she is something of an expert on the venues.

The plot for this film is probably the most far-out of any Christie tale. The story background is very far-fetched, and the whole mystery setting seems weird. Yet, with all that, at its conclusion, the story didn't seem very complex. Only the method of the main murder was difficult to imagine for a time.

Captain Hastings brought Poirot along for a visit to the dig where he was going for two weeks to be with his nephew. One aside is Poirot's trying to reconnect with a friend, Countess Rosakoff, who sent him a message from a hotel in Baghdad. He keeps missing her but in the end is pleased to pick up her unpaid hotel bill.

Here are some favorite lines from the film.

Captain Hastings, "I say, Poirot, was that tasteless of me, mentioning the countess?" Hercule Poirot, "Could you ever be tasteless, Hastings?" Hastings, smiling, "No!"

Captain Hastings, 'Pretty ruddy silly, if you ask me." Hercule Poirot, "Ah, well, if only people would ask you, Hastings, they would refrain from the ruddy silliness, huh?"

Hercule Poirot, "But facts, Hastings, facts. These are the cobbles that make up the road along which we travel."

Hercule Poirot, "However deep one buries an unpleasantness, a dog, he will always root it out again."

Dr. Leidner, "You'd have made a good archaeologist, Mr. Poirot. You have the gift of recreating the past.

Poirot in the desert (sort of)

[safenoe · 7/10 · 5 February 2024]

Murder in Mesopotamia is an episode I watched just today, as I'm catching up on episodes of Poirot, and here some of the filming is in Tunisia with the rest in the United Kingdom, England to be exact. This episode has various plot of points, the subject of some criticism, but for me I enjoyed the scenery and the sunshine.

Hichem Rostom plays the Hotel Receptionist, Zoubeir Bornaz plays the Police Sergeant, Dejeb Magri played the Murdered Man, and Hammadi Maaroufi played the Workman.

Anyway, I sometimes wonder about the ending and how the killer was caught, but some will be dissatisfied I guess init.

The only feature length Poirot I'd class as poor.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 5/10 · 12 October 2015]

This is possibly the only Poirot I find difficult to get through, as a novel it's pretty good, full of colour with strong characters, to me though something was lost in translation. The adaptation is so bland, it's actually quite boring, the characters somehow aren't real or genuine.

The murder itself (first one) and its explanation are very far fetched, almost beyond belief, I mean I don't always remember people, but in this particular instance I'm sure some mannerisms or actions would trigger something. However I do like the imagination shown in the killing of Mrs Leidner, it was certainly inventive and different. A few too many liberties with the book, Hastings did not need to be in this one, he doesn't really add anything to it.

The locations are stunning, Tunisia was used as a double for Iraq, and it looks incredible, it's a beautiful land. It had the sunshine that was much needed in Evil under the Sun.

This Poirot features what I'd class as one of the darkest moments, the death of poor Mrs Johnson, what a horrible way to go. I was frightened to drink a glass of water for weeks.

I very rarely watch a Poirot without commenting on the high quality of acting, in this one though I find some of the characters really flat, Ron Berglas's Doctor Leidner is the high point.

I wanted so much more from this one. 5/10

Totally lack of atmosphere

[merrywater · 4/10 · 31 July 2015]

OK, at least the plot and the setting are fairly true to the book. Otherwise, I wouldn't count this episode to the better half of the television adaptations of Christie's Poirot stories.

Murder in Mesopotamia happened to be the first Christie that I ever read. I believe I was 14 years old at the time. The atmosphere of it made a certain impact on me. The original story is told in the first person, by the nurse, and Poirot enters just about halfway through the novel. Despite the presence of the buffoonish character Bill Coleman, the rest of the characters appear to be on verge of nervous breakdown. The atmosphere is thus extraordinary tense.

Now, of course the TV adaptation ignores all of this, and instead lightens up the events, even throwing in Hastings, who wasn't meant to be a part of the plot at all.

The main protagonist of the story is the first victim, Mrs Leidner. Her personality is rather well outlined in the novel: an extremely attractive, alluring, scheming, paranoid, yet thoughtful woman. A complex nature, one might say. In this adaptation, on the other hand, a masculine, palpably not attractive and rather everyday woman plays the part. This omits the prerequisite of the plot quite effectively. Why would any man really become such a jealous fanatic over such a woman?

To fill in all sorts of gaps created by the producer and the director, drivel like Poirot hunting a mosquito in his room, and a sub-plot of him having a vain love interest in a Russian lady, are added.

Only one actor made a relatively decent effort, viz. the guy who played the murderer. He could have been the right choice for a serious adaptation of this, somewhat forgotten, but still great Christie novel.

Decent on its own merits, but a mediocre adaptation of Chrisite's novel

[kdmagnusson · 5/10 · 4 October 2006]

This episode of David Suchet's Poirot series is entertaining enough, but strays quite a bit from Dame Agatha's novel. Nurse Leatheran is removed from her role as narrator and assistant to the great detective, similar to that of Dr. Sheppard in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (the same adjustment is made in the TV adaptation of that book). The assistant role is then mostly filled by Captain Hastings, who does not appear at all in the novel. At least two members of the archaeological team (and therefore that many potential suspects) are removed from the story, and some that are left in (including the main victim) are not developed even to the degree that they are in the novel. Christie is always fairly minimalist in her character development; characters are explained only as much as the plot requires, and this adaptation falls short even to that degree. To satisfy TV's blood lust, I guess, there is also an additional murder in this adaptation. Most of the changes to the story have the effect of granting Monsieur Poirot additional screen time and importance, which is understandable for TV, especially given how good Suchet is in this role, but is very far from the novel, in which Poirot does not appear until after the first murder, well into the story.

Those who have problems with the more recent Geraldine McEwan "Miss Marple" series might not like this very much either, though it does at least resemble the original in most important plot points. It's not bad, but in my opinion, the story as originally written was much more interesting.

Murder in Mesopotamia??

[aphtoret · 3/10 · 28 March 2014]

Worst adaptation ever! If screenwriters have such wonderful ideas about how Christie should have written her stories, they are more than welcome to write their own books! This story was nicely narrated by a nurse and Poirot was supposed to enter the scene a little bit later. Hastings did not appear in the original. I gather that all the unfortunate changes of this adaptation are for viewers to "enjoy" the duo. If you consider the narrative structure of the original, the changes were quite important, and they totally failed to capture the novel's atmosphere . Really, this show changing the endings, the new adaptations of Miss Marple doing the same thing and even the Poirot and Marple manga!!! I guess the grandson has to bleed the copyrights dry before they expire...

Slowish but professional

[rmax304823 · 2 January 2004]

David Suchet's interpretation of Poirot is "cool" and suits a "cool medium."

But his underplaying, which is fine in a delicate tea-cozy kind of way on a one-hour show, doesn't give much of a kick to a two-hour special. It DOES have nice location shooting. And a couple of fine performances. The local police chief is excellent, and whoever plays Dr. Leidner does a good job of looking no more than a bit distracted during the scene in which Poirot gathers all the suspects together in the room and tears Leidner's life to shreds.

But I'm used to seeing Poirot played by Albert Finney and Peter Ustinov, using impossibly comic accents and broad gestures, bringing loud presences to the big screen. It isn't that I dislike Suchet's performance. He's a marvelous actor. His "Freud" was unforgettable and he makes an engaging villain too. But seeing Finney and Ustinov so many times, it's like having listened to Glenn Gould play the Goldberg Variations so often that other interpretations seem rather pale.

The plot's pretty thick actually. Christie laid out the floor plan of the station in her novel so you could more easily keep track of the spatial relationships involved. At least I think she did. I might be confusing it with another of her novels. But you can still follow the thread because of the deliberate pace. It doesn't exactly rocket along.

It occurs to me that most of Christie's murders are sort of genteel. Poisons are common and all that. Nobody's brains get splattered all over the walls as they would in a good old-fashioned American detective story where a love affair is what goes on between a man and his.45.

But here was have poor Mrs. Johnson gulping down half a tumbler of poison before realizing what it is. And what is it? Nothing subtle. Hydrochloric acid which, if you have to go, is definitely NOT the best way to do it, since it will definitely frost your pyloric sphincter for you.

The character of Father Levigny was undoubtedly fashioned after the real-life Jesuit archaeologist and philosopher Teilhard de Chardin, who had a hand or foot in almost everything of importance at the time, winning the Legion of Honor in WWI, present at the discovery of Peking man and the fraudulent Piltdown man, conceptualizer of the noosphere, and on and on.

Anyway, this may not be the best version of a Christie mystery but I found it enjoyable.

Murder in Mesopotamia

[Prismark10 · 5/10 · 16 February 2019]

Murder in Mesopotamia is great production values and good use of location shooting in Tunisia which stands in for Baghdad and the area around an archaeological dig.

Poirot has rushed to Baghdad in order to meet a Russian Countess who is not there when he arrives. Hastings is there though, he has popped over to visit his nice but dim nephew who is helping out at an archaeological dig.

The dig is led by renowned American archaeologist, Dr Leidner. His wife is visiting the dig accompanied by a nurse. Also with him are his two long term archaeological associates Richard Carey and Anne Johnson. There is a priest Father Lavigny who is a linguist expert plus a few others and locals helping out.

When Poirot arrives, a local crook is murdered. Mrs Leidner confides to Poirot why she has been feeling nervous. She has received threatening letters from her long dead first husband. Dr Leidner then finds his wife dead in their room with a blow to the head. The room was locked and no one was seen going in or out.

When Anne Johnson things she has it figured, she finds herself in danger. Poirot meanwhile thinks that no one has a worthwhile alibi.

There was a lot of money spent on this episode. It looks beautiful even though there is not enough of a story for a feature length film. Poirot chasing around a fly in the middle of a night is pure padding.

The biggest problem is that the story falls apart, so do a lot of the characters back story. The murderer could never had planned where the victim could had landed because of gravity. There is a sense of randomness where the Mrs Leidner would had fallen. As for the rest, Agatha Christie was having a laugh wasn't she?

S8E2: Murder in Mesopotamia: Quite flat mystery with a quite ridiculous denouncement, although still entertaining and well presented (SPOILERS)

[bob the moo · 10 March 2015]

When the Countess Rossakoff sends him a telegram requesting help, Poirot heads out to Baghdad; Hastings joins in order to visit his nephew who is out at an archaeological dig not a million miles away. With the Countess not at the hotel when they arrive, Poirot joins Hastings at the dig, only to find that the police are also on the scene (not Japp this time – not even these writers could squeeze him into this scenario). Seems a worker has been murdered – which is of interest, but nothing requiring the attention of Poirot. With some tensions and odd relationships within the dig camp, Poirot is observation of some oddities – details of which he must try to piece together when one of the group is murdered.

I have not read the book of this film and I guess, in some ways, it is better not to have done so if you want to be able to just enjoy the film, since most criticisms of this episode seems to be about it not being the book. The action moves to Iraq, where only two of the regular cast have made the trip – although of course Poirot is one of them, otherwise we could all go home at the start. The mystery starts as the last couple have, with an event that may (or may not) link into later events. From here we have the introduction to the dig characters and, although there are more than enough suspects, none of them really stand out as particularly interesting characters; some are too obviously shifty, while others are just quite bland. Matching this the mystery is not the most engaging; there are lots of clues and threads, but there is not the sense of it being complex but rather a series of simple pieces that we get presented, then we get the whole at the end. Now, part of me likes this because it makes for easier and more accessible episodes, but this does have a limit and I think this episode was close to that limit. As others have said, there is the feeling of clues being presented and discussed rather than lots of little nuggets and tit- bits. This style gives it a rather flat feel because I didn't feel quite as drawn in – although this is perhaps also down to the characters as well.

This feeling wasn't helped much by the solution to the mystery. I do not know for sure if it is the same in the book (I suspect it is), but the idea that someone would never suspect that a man was actually her former husband of some 15 years prior just seems incredibly unlikely. I can buy that the "ravages of time" may have changed the person, but eyes, mannerisms, other physical aspects – these do not change as easily as some facial features. In the reveal, Poirot is quick to point out that the husband (and ex- husband) never left the roof – a point made so obviously that it seemed a placeholder to come back to – which indeed it was. The way it is delivered, I got to the window idea just before Poirot, but confused myself since the only person I thought was on the roof was her husband, and I thought "but how could he also be her ex-husband" – however it turns out to be the case. An odd solution and not the most satisfying as a result of this.

The presentation of the overall episode is good though; perhaps the heat of the location does not come through as it could have, it has a good location feel, and the score throughout is enjoyable and well pitched. Performances vary. Suchet is good as ever, and has some nice comedic moments, although I am not sure his pride would allow him to scurry across the globe after the Countess, nor that he would put up with paying her bill at the end – maybe this is in the book too, but it seemed like misjudged comedy and plot device to me. Fraser doesn't have much to do, but is okay; speaking of misjudged moments though, I thought a snippy scene involving him and his marriage was poorly done, not by the cast but by the writers. Beyond these two leads, the cast is okay, but nobody really stood out; perhaps understandably, Arab characters are just background and little else. Nobody is really bad (although Hastings' nephew is a bit wet) but just there is not a lot of sparks in the supporting performances with the exception of Clifford (just because her character is a bit petulant); even Mitchell, in the Japp role, doesn't really make it his own.

Murder in Mesopotamia is okay, but probably not too much more than that. The mystery is not simple, but yet it is presented in a rather flat manner, where clues are laid out with a bit less complexity and care than I would like, and although it was more accessible due to this clarity, I didn't feel like I was being drawn into it as much as I should have been. It still delivers all the basic elements fans of the Suchet series will be looking for, and the production is well mounted with locations, period feel, and score – but it doesn't fizz or spark much, and I doubt many people will watch the solution without saying "what? Yes but – no, how?" or similar words.

awful mystery drama

[egypt24 · 1/10 · 2 February 2005]

Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.

Bludgeoned

[tedg · 22 May 2008]

Clive Exton is a curse. Well, he's hardly unique in his offense, but he's who has ruined this day for me.

Its because he is the adapter who has taken an enriching thing and bastardized it. Agatha Christie as enriching? Yes, if you care about how narrative is put together. Her narrative constructions took the idea of a in-story reader and elaborated it in ways that opened the technique. The detective story is a means for folding the reader into the story. He watches, and constructs a narrative from artifacts, discoveries, filling in the gaps. We watch both, him constructing while we do and the events that surround his constructing.

At the end of the Poirot stories, though all sorts of strange tricks have been pulled by everyone, the end the same, by Poirot telling the story to the participants of the story. Many of those now readers are surprised.

This dynamic in the books is supported by some internal dialog. We don't see the story, we see what is going on in Poirot's mind as he gets bits of the story. How this is conveyed to the screen is one of the most intriguing problems in cinema. Some of the Christie adapters try interesting strategies. Exton bulldozes over all the worthy superstructure of the book, and merely gives us a story already formed.

We do not engage, we merely watch our silly TeeVee, and plan to be surprised and amused at the end.

Its a cinematic travesty.

Many of her stories have unique characteristics, unlike, say, Sayers and Gardener. The deal here is that she was the wife of a Mideast archaeologist who wrote about a Mideast archaeologist who has a deep secret associated with a former marriage with that woman, and which bears violent fruit.

So this is an especially rich work, and Exton is an especially blunt instrument.

Other than that, other than the soul and lungs and bones having been ripped out, this is pretty. It has comparatively rich sets and less than stellar characterizations.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.