Poirot (TV Series) Third Girl (2008) User Reviews

An above decent adaptation of a decent book

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 20 May 2010]

I have made no secret of loving Agatha Christie whether it is her books or this series. Agatha Christie:Poirot is such a classy, well made and adeptly acted series, it is something that I never miss an episode of and there are even some episodes that I watch more than once for many reasons whether it is the production values, the music, a scene that moved me deeply or the acting. Five Little Pigs is a good example of pretty much all those things.

Back on target, the book Third Girl is not what I consider among The Queen of Crime's best. It is entertaining and it is a good read, but it is not something I deem as a masterpiece of literature like I would with say The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. The adaptation itself is above decent, I for one don't think it a problem if it deviated as a lot of scenes like the trailing of the suspects were very entertaining. Though the last 20 minutes are a little bloated in an attempt to cram a lot of twists and turns and some of the secondary characters aren't as well fleshed out as they could have been. But it is sumptuously filmed with beautiful photography, exquisite costumes and well chosen locations. The music is good too, as are the script and direction. And I was impressed with the acting too. Jemima Rooper does a good job as Norma I loved how comic the opening scene was, but it is the performances of David Suchet and Zoe Wannamaker I enjoyed most, Suchet is outstanding of course but Wannamaker is absolutely brilliant as Ariadne Oliver, quite simply a breath of fresh air.

Overall, an above decent adaptation(even with the flaws) of a decent book. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Actually, surprisingly well-done!

[tml_pohlak_13 · 9/10 · 27 October 2008]

My "job", when reviewing Agatha Christie films, is fairly simple. Most of the time, when a film is faithful to the book, it gets a positive rating, and when it is a complete rewrite, I pan it. But now we come to a difficult situation where I must admit that "Third Girl" was not faithful to the novel, but it was still very good.

I have to say, I really enjoyed "Third Girl"! Now, let's be fair to Agatha Christie. "Third Girl" was not her best book. Entertaining? Definitely. Good? Oh yes. Great? Not quite. Many coincidences occur throughout, and even Mrs. Oliver's appearances are entirely incredible- she's the "deus ex machina" of the book.

In THIRD GIRL, not much happened. So, if there ever was a Christie that could use some spicing up for TV, it was definitely this one. I was perfectly open to changes, and I am so glad it turned out so well! David Suchet is once more flawless as Poirot. Zoe Wanamaker simply shines as Ariadne Oliver, adding a third brilliant performance as the famous novelist (alongside "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" and "Cards on the Table").

The opening scene with Norma ("You're too old, Monsieur Poirot") was so well-done! It was very comic, and grabbed my attention immediately. Norma mentions Mrs. Oliver by name, saying she recommended Poirot to her. This makes his subsequent visit to Mrs. Oliver far more credible. This is one of the ways the incredible coincidences in the novel are "ironed out", so to speak.

Now, the film takes more than a few liberties. If you thought the book was flawless and want a faithful adaptation, you may be disappointed. But it is very entertaining as it is. The few things that ARE close to the book (ex: Mrs. Oliver trying out her hand at trailing suspects; the very first scene) are done very well indeed.

In short, THIRD GIRL spices up a rather drawn-out novel very neatly for television. If you're open to changes in this film, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Atmospheric but overloaded

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 29 October 2008]

The "Third Girl" of the title, Norma Restarick, is actually the third resident of a London flat, which she shares with 2 other girls, and which also happens to be exactly above the apartment of the popular crime novelist Ariadne Oliver. One night, Norma confesses to Mrs. Oliver that she "might" have committed a murder, and soon enough a dead body does turn up in their building. The police think it's suicide, but Mrs. Oliver's good friend, Hercule Poirot, has his doubts....

"The Third Girl" is atmospheric and well-made, however the last 20 minutes are so jam-packed with shocking revelations and false identities, and they're all explained by Poirot is such rapid-fire fashion, that it's almost impossible to follow everything on the first viewing. And the viewer is not really played fair with - some of Poirot's conclusions seem to come out of investigations that we hadn't seen him doing. This is possibly the most complicated episode of the series since "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe". I also have to agree with another comment - Zoë Wanamaker outshines the entire supporting cast and the scene where she wakes up after having been hit on the head is a marvel. Another very well-done bit is the flashback of a suicide ("Can you save me?"), but on the whole "The Third Girl" would not be included among my favorite "Poirot" episodes. (***)

Excellent human drama for which screenwriter Flannery deserves the credit

[sissoed · 9/10 · 19 July 2010]

In this review I am going to give everything away.

I saw this last night and was surprised -- I usually don't find Poirot very appealing. Too little heart. But in this he is all heart. Where did this come from? I haven't read the book, so I read reviews of it. It is poorly thought of. So I researched the screenwriter, Peter Flannery -- turns out he is a playwright, was writer-in-residence for the Royal Shakespeare Co. Everything good in this adaptation comes from him. He made this a story about the psychological mistreatment of a young girl and Poirot's compassion for her and his outrage at those who mistreated her with such emotional cruelty. Here's Flannery's story:

Norma is the only child of Andrew Restarick and his wife (Mommy), who is heiress to a grand country-house estate. They have a nanny (nanny 1). Andrew's older brother runs a family firm in London. When Norma is about 5, Andrew and 'nanny 1' have an affair. 'Nanny 1' gets pregnant and leaves suddenly, and is replaced by 'nanny 2'.

Then Andrew deserts his wife and Norma, for South Africa to seek fortune. Mommy is so distraught she destroys every picture of Norma's father. One afternoon she decides to get into a warm bath and cut her wrists; her timing indicates that she might be counting on Norma and nanny 2, who are out on an excursion, to be home in time to save her. Mommy has given nanny 2 firm instructions to be home by a particular time. But Norma and nanny 2 pass an ice-cream vendor on the way back, and Norma insists on getting some, which makes them late. 5-year-old Norma gets home, goes happily running upstairs with her ice-cream to see Mommy, and discovers Mommy dying; Mommy's last words to her daughter are "save me" -- but it is too late. Norma blames herself; if only she had not insisted on ice-cream, she would have been there in time to save her mother.

"Nanny 1,' having kept her pregnancy secret, has founded a girls' school, and Norma is sent there. Norma grows up deeply troubled and unhappy. Presumably, Norma's secret half- sister, 5 years younger, and not openly acknowledged by her mother the headmistress, also goes there. The half-sister becomes consumed with jealousy over Norma's vast inheritance, which she feels she could get if Norma were dead.

15 or 20 years pass, during which Andrew never comes back or contacts Norma. 'Nanny 2' has become mostly-unemployed, tending to alcoholism, in a London flat. Then Andrew's older brother dies, and Andrew returns to take over the business. Except it is not really Andrew; Andrew had also died, in South Africa, shortly after his older brother. A friend of his in South Africa, having heard from Andrew that Mommy had destroyed all pictures of Andrew and then killed herself, decides to impersonate Andrew, sell the business quickly, and disappear with the cash. He finds Norma and pretends to be a repentant father. An uncle of Mommy, Sir Roderick, who lives at the estate with Norma, who would have seen the deception, has gone blind, so is not a danger. The fake Andrew finds 'nanny 2,' who might expose the deception, and bribes/threatens her into silence. He also finds the half- sister. But the business turns out to be worthless; it still has an impressive office, and one secretary, but this is an empty front. The fake Andrew starts thinking that if Norma died, he could split the inheritance with the half-sister. The fake Andrew and the secretary start a romance, the secretary thinking he is the real Andrew.

Sir Roderick now takes-up with a younger woman and Norma, excluded, decides to seek lodgings in London, as the 'third girl' sharing a flat. The fake Andrew persuades the secretary to take a flat in the same building as 'nanny 2.' The half- sister (her relationship to Norma still secret from Norma) moves in as the second girl, and Norma the third. Another flat in the building is occupied by an older woman, a famous mystery- novelist, who takes an interest in the girls, who is a friend of Poirot.

The half-sister goes to work on Norma's fragile emotional state, serving ice cream at a party and flirting heavily with Norma's boyfriend. She wants either to drive Norma to suicide, or to get Norma into such a state that it will be easy to make a murder look like suicide. When 'nanny 2' sends a note to the fake Andrew threatening exposure, he tells the half-sister, and the half-sister decides to murder 'nanny 2' in a way that looks like wrist-slitting (the same way Norma's mother died) with Norma so confused that Norma will think she murdered 'nanny 2'. Thus Norma will think herself guilty of two bloody deaths, of her mother and her nanny. Before the death is discovered by anyone else, a distraught Norma asks the mystery-writer for a referral to a detective and Poirot is named. Without an appointment, Norma bursts in on Poirot, then suddenly flees without explaining anything.

This is the story of a child born to utterly self-centered parents, living with a self-centered and thoughtless great-uncle. Their emotional mistreatment of her leaves her vulnerable to be taken advantage of by two unscrupulous deceivers, a false-father and a false-friend. Poirot's goal here is not so much to solve a murder, but to protect an abused girl and give her a chance to restore her emotional well-being -- which he does! Thank-you Peter Flannery for transforming a second-rate novel into a first- rate drama.

Intriguing murder mystery with good emotional, psychological and comedic aspects to it

[grantss · 9/10 · 12 June 2016]

Hercule Poirot is visited by Miss Norma Restarick who claims she thinks she murdered someone, and asks for Poirot to save her. Sensing that Poirot does not understand, Miss Restarick flees. Later that evening the body of a neighbour to Miss Restarick, Nanny Seagram, is found with her wrists slashed - an apparent suicide. Poirot assists the Police and suspects it is murder. He is assisted in his investigations by Ariandne Oliver, a crime writer and friend. The main suspect is Miss Restarick - when she was a child her mother died in similar circumstances and Nanny Seagram was her nanny. Miss Restarick has even confessed to Nanny Seagram's murder...

One of the better Poirot mysteries. Not just a plain murder mystery but, due to Norma Restarick's state of mind, has some interesting psychological aspects to it. There is also some good emotional content.

The murder mystery side is also good, of course: many twists and turns and delicious intrigue.

One of the highlights of the episode is Zoe Wanamaker as Ariadne Oliver. With Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon out of the picture, Oliver is Poirot's new sidekick, and yin to his yang. Much of Poirot's thinking is beyond her and she makes this clear. This, and some other character traits of Ms Oliver, make for some great comedy, helped by a wonderful performance by Zoe Wanamaker.

A decent re-working of a difficult piece

[Iain-215 · 7/10 · 19 October 2008]

'Third Girl' is generally accepted as being one of Christie's weaker plots. A tremendous suspension of disbelief is required in order to accept one or two elements of the denouement and, to be honest, there is also the problem that not a great deal actually happens for much of the story other than Poirot trying to track down the elusive 'Third Girl'. Where the book does score is in its quirky (and sometimes embarrassing) descriptions of London in the 'swinging' sixties and Christie's observations on the youth of that time. Of course the Suchet Poirot series is firmly entrenched in the late thirties and so the sixties aspect had to disappear completely in this adaptation. Whilst the film still works there is no denying that such characters as David Baker, Frances Carey and arguably Norma Restarick herself become less interesting as a result.

Did well brought up young girls share flats in London in the late thirties? Well, I've just re-watched 'A Room With A View' where Lucy Honeychurch threatens to go and do just that so, yes - if they could do it in that period they must also have done so in Poirot's Art Deco period! The screenwriters have changed the plot quite a bit (although they keep the murderer(s) and general motive much the same) but I think this is for the better on the whole. The last fifteen minutes or so are still rather confusing (especially the private tutor subplot) but, generally speaking, it all works.

Zoe Wanamaker is back as Ariadne Oliver and I think this is her best performance yet. She gets a much more active role and there is a brilliant scene where she tracks a suspect that is almost exactly as it is written in the book! In fact, Wanamaker was the acting highlight in this film for me. Many of the other performances were a bit lacking in my opinion. Unfortunately I found myself not really caring about Jemima Rooper's Norma, finding her rather irritating instead and the important roles of Andrew, Frances and David were also rather forgettable. I did like Lucy Liemann however in the small role of the social climbing secretary Sonia! So, not one of the best acted Poirots of the season but a clever re-working of one of the weaker novels that I look forward to watching again.

Atmospheric, with a true victim.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 25 March 2019]

If I'm honest, I'd say the book is decent, but instantly forgettable, as nothing truly memorable happens. This is a fine adaptation, that in my humble opinion improves on the book.

It is a super stylish episode, with terrific sets and some super stylish clothes. The direction is impressive, as it's super sinister and deep. It's directed in a way that throws you off course.

Suchet and Wanamaker are both excellent, they bounce of one another so well. Jemima Rooper I find so impressive, she really does capture the sense of victim, it really is a fine performance, you empathise with her throughout.

I wouldn't say it's one of the best, it isn't, but it's a fine episode nonetheless. 8/10

"Let the game be played out."

[bensonmum2 · 7/10 · 5 April 2017]

In Third Girl, Poirot is visited by a young woman, Norma Restarick, and is told that she may have committed murder. She simply says to Poirot, "Save me". Poirot, with the assistance of Ariadne Oliver, begins investigating and quickly determines that, despite her repeated claims, Norma did not commit murder. Instead, he discovers a girl from a broken home, a mother who committed suicide, a father who has just recently returned, a questionable boyfriend, and a rather large inheritance.

It's not often I will say this, but this version of Third Girl is actually better than Agatha Christie's original work. Granted, I don't remember every little detail, but I do remember not caring for the book very much. I didn't care for the modern setting and the story wasn't all that compelling or memorable. Screenwriter Peter Flannery has actually improved on Christie's work. Unthinkable! His plot is more in line with Christie's other work than the original. All of the character relationships, red herrings, and family drama I so love about Christie are here. The final denouement is more than satisfying. Poirot ties everything together and only uses one (maybe two) vital piece of information that was not available to the viewer. Third Girl is also more violent than a lot of the other episodes. I've often commented that watching Agatha Christie is like watching a toned down Italian Giallo. There's more blood here than usual. Another plus for Third Girl (and I can't believe I'm saying this) is Zoe Wanamaker as Mrs Oliver. This is the best I've seen of her so far. Instead of being annoying as she so often is, here she's entertaining and contributes in a useful way to the plot. Watching her tail the "Peacock" was a highlight.

The thing that keeps me from rating Third Girl higher is the acting. These Poirot episodes usually feature first rate performances, but not here. Jemina Roper who played Norma is especially poor. I didn't care for her performance at all. I don't know if it was here or the direction she was given, but her performance was lacking. Important supporting cast members Tom Mison, James Wilby, and Matilda Sturridge (despite being devastatingly beautiful) are not as strong as they needed to be.

S11E3: Third Girl: Comes together in the end, but the structure worked against me – although the involvement of Wanamaker's Oliver livens it up

[bob the moo · 19 April 2015]

Norma Restarick is the third girl in a flat sharing arrangement, and she comes to the attention of Poirot when she comes looking for help with a murder she committed – although she leaves before she can elaborate. Turns out the contact came via friend Ariadne Oliver, who fills in some of the details from a party she attended in the girl's flat the night that Norma found herself standing over the body of a former nanny (who lives in the same block), with a knife in her hands. Although it appears a suicide, Norma's confession is puzzling, and Poirot begins to look into the proceedings.

Third Girl comes after the very enjoyable episode of Cat Among the Pigeons, which has great color and structure to it, making a satisfying mystery. Perhaps following one so closely from the other did not help this film by comparison, because it was the structure of the telling of this one that limited me. I should be more flexible maybe, but the way that the story unfolds rather distracted me because there seemed to be too much going on that felt detached from other things – so I ended up wondering what thread to following, what is the connection, and is there even a connection to begin with? Perhaps this was me, but at times I struggled to follow the connections – particularly where they really amounted to nothing. This is not usual – to have dead ends or red herrings, but here I thought the delivery did not keep me close to the core but rather made it hard to see where the core was. Towards the end it does come together well, although due to the delivery it doesn't always link back quite as neatly and satisfyingly as I would have liked, but it does still work as a finale.

The delivery as a production is hard to fault because it looks great; the sense of time and place is very well done, and the cinematography and direction are very classy and precise – no distracting soft focus or fuzzy presentation here. The cast match this; Suchet not only doing good work (with very convincing rage towards the end) but also working well again with Wanamaker. I confess I miss the characters of Hastings, Japp, and Lemon, but it is hard to actually feel their absence when the films delivery good leads and some good supporting turns such as Oliver. Rooper works her character well, despite how variable and unstable she is; Burton-Hill, Sturridge, Liemann, and Mison are all good in support, while Bowles provides the bigger name cameo.

Third Girl is not a weak film in the season – it is far too professionally produced for that, but it does have issues in the construction of the narrative that really work against me getting drawn into it. In the end it all comes together and produces an engaging resolution, but not quite as satisfying as the ones that make you realize all of the clues were right there in front of us all along.

intriguing

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 4 April 2015]

Poirot is approached by a young woman, Norma Restarick, who tells him that she thinks she killed someone. She then changes her mind and runs away before he hears the story. commenting that he's "too old." Poirot's friend, the author Ariadne Oliver, happens to live in the same apartment building as Norma -- in fact, she recommended Poirot to her. Norma, she says, is the "third girl" in an apartment. Norma has an ex-nanny, Miss Seagram, in the building also, and she was found dead, ruled a suicide. Ariadne doubts that.

Poirot learns from Norma's father that he was abroad most of Norma's childhood. Her mother committed suicide, and Norma tells Poirot that she blames herself.

Sure that Miss Seagram's death was not suicide, Poirot has Norma help him set a trap to catch the killer.

A complicated story very well done, with a good cast that has Zoe Wanamaker as Ariadne, who is excellent. Ariadne really gets involved in this, searching the nanny's apartment, trailing a suspect, and being mugged! It's not one of Poirot's most fascinating cases, so the writers here have charged it up to make it more interesting. This is a case where I think they succeeded and didn't ruin the story.

Beautiful costumes and production values as usual, and the marvelous David Suchet.

Thank goodness Wanamaker is in this

[Paularoc · 7/10 · 25 July 2012]

This is the second time I've watched this show and both times my reaction has been "Boy, this sure is a lot better than the book." It has been too many decades for me to remember why I disliked the book so, but I do remember much disliking it, perhaps because it was set in the 1960s. Of course, the film doesn't have that problem. It has been a couple of weeks since I saw this and the performance I most remember is Wanamaker's - this show really allowed her to shine as Mrs. Oliver. Peter Bowles also does a nice job as the essentially uncaring great uncle. The rest of the supporting cast is okay but not particularly memorable nor is the storyline itself. One certainly feels terribly sorry for Norma Restarick but she is not an especially engaging character. As usual with these Poirot films, I thought production values good and especially enjoyed the sets and costumes. But the real reason to watch this is Zoë Wanamaker.

A Deep, Tragic and Simultaneously Wonderful Production and Story

[lydiajefferies · 10/10 · 17 December 2013]

Having not read the Agatha Christie novel (which I understand has an unusually low reputation), I watched 'Third Girl' without a clue as to its plot. Already a David Suchet's Poirot convert, I had usually high expectations of this - I was watching it from my box-set. After watching it, both my mother and I agreed that it was one of the best Agatha Christie's Poirot episodes, along with 'Murder on the Orient Express'. As always, David Suchet enchants as the compassionately stunning Hercule Poirot, and this time, Zoe Wanamaker co-stars as the formidable Ariadne Oliver, a crime-writer. Both turn the plot over like fine soil, growing from it flowers most beautiful and utterly compelling. The visual nature of the production is phenomenal, with many observe-and-discover scenes working one's little grey cells. The supporting cast is remarkably diverse, with a subsequent elegance resulting from their talent - as well as peppering the 1930s setting with glamorous thrill. The chase scene with Ariadne Oliver is superb, and the wonderful location within the walkway of pillars is a banquet for the eyes. However, the general plot is not all light-hearted fun and games, for behind its seeming innocence, there lies a tragic coldness brought to a chillingly sharp point by the cast. To conclude, I believe this drama to be a masterpiece for the senses, a workout for the brain, and a philosophical quandary to ponder both during and after watching it. Five stars, ten out of ten, one hundred percent.

There May Be a Spat When Three Girls Share a Flat

[WeatherViolet · 7/10 · 18 July 2010]

Around 1942, Ariadne Oliver (Zoë Wanamaker), a famous author, resides at Borodine Court, at which three young ladies rent an upstairs flat.

Claudia Reece-Holland (Clemency Burton-Hill), the "First Girl," is employed as Secretary to Andrew Restarick (James Wilby), manager at Joshua Restarick & Sons Limited. She also sees Andrew socially.

Frances Cary (Matilda Sturridge), the "Second Girl," is involved with David Baker (Tom Mison), a Painter, also known as "the Peacock."

Norma Restarick (Jemima Rooper), the "Third Girl," has a history of emotional problems, as her father, Andrew Restarick, abandoned her wealthy mother, Mary, when Norma was five, and heads to South Africa, before returning one year ago to assume responsibilities for the family business after his brother passes. She also admires David, whom Ariadne mistrusts.

Norma enters the office of Hercule Poirot (David Suchet), to be announced by his Valet, George (David Yelland). She confesses to a murder when a body is discovered in a nearby London apartment. Ariadne Oliver joins forces with Poirot and Inspector Nelson (John Warnaby) to investigate, but Norma confides only to Poirot, asking him to save her.

Poirot makes the rounds, questioning suspects, as the wealthy Sir Roderick Horsfield (Peter Bowles), a Great Uncle of Norma and former politician, engaged to his young Secretary, Sonia Benson (Lucy Liemann), investigating who would benefit if Mary and Norma were removed from the picture.

He also travels to the Meadowfield School, founded in 1919, two years after Norma's birth, by Miss Battersby (Haydn Gwynne), a former employee of the Restarick family.

Ariadne Oliver's investigation takes her to The Merry Shamrock Cafe, after dealing with Bus Ticket Inspector (Simon Hill), to follow a lead. Daphne the Waitress (Tessa Bell-Briggs) assists Ariadne, as do Nurse (Ysobel Gonzalez) and Policeman (Sean Kingsley), once Ariadne is knocked unconscious and left for dead.

Young Norma Restarick's (Jade Longley) memories return in flashback sequences, involving Mary Restarick (Juliet Howland), the mother of Norma, and Nanny Lavinia Seagram (Caroline O'Neill), who had cared for the child.

At Horsfield Estate, near Cross Hedges, Alf Renny (Tim Stern), the Valet, welcomes guests, as Sir Roderick Horsfield and Sonia Benson host a reception to announce their engagement, which Hercule Poirot attends with Ariadne Oliver, Andrew Restarick attends with Claudia Reece-Holland, and David Baker attends with Frances Cary.

But, after Norma Restarick, the "Third Girl," arrives, confrontations persist, and another body is discovered on the premises.

How will Poirot tie together three murders appearing as suicides during his extensive showdown sequence, which contains three additional plot twists, as some facts don't appear as they seem.

The Water, She Is As Thick As Blood!

[rmax304823 · 5/10 · 12 May 2014]

It's a longish, twisted tale full of intrigues, impersonations, murder, and downright rudeness, and I was lost through most of it. It begins with a young lady (Rooper) blaming herself for the apparent suicide of an ex nanny neighbor. Then multiple diverse characters are introduced: a bohemian artist, a blind ex army officer, an elderly lady who writes mysteries, a scheming phantom. Missing are Hasting, Japp, and the sweet Miss Lemon.

From the torpid opening -- the discovery of the suicide -- the story shows us people following each other, casting glances, getting bopped on the head, posing "in the buff", and listening in on other people's phone calls. There is the odd outburst of hysteria in the acting but otherwise it kind of drags. And the climax is an explosion of exposition that last almost as long as the rest of the movie.

I didn't get much joy from it but some of the performances were well above the anticipated. Poirot is Poirot, of course, but the desolate young Rooper does well in the role of the put-upon victim and her features are outstanding. She's prognathous and from some angles seems all jaw, like a grouper fish. Another young lady, her supposed friend (Mathilda Sturridge, great name), resembles her own caricature. Her hair style is a sort of Afro and her face is a kewpie doll's plump visage, with the huge, plump, all-encompassing lips of a limpet. Both of them in their separate ways, are unforgettable.

The actors who really seem to inhabit their roles are the blind aristocrat (Bowles) and the Mistress of the school that Poirot visits. That would be Haydn Gwynne. She's thoroughly convincing. Every twitch delivers. It's a splendid performance in a small part, right in the middle of all these pedestrian goings on.

The semi-retired Poirot solves another tangled mystery

[SimonJack · 9/10 · 18 July 2022]

"Third Girl" is based on an Agatha Christie novel in her series about the Belgian-born super sleuth Hercule Poirot. David Suchet continues in the role that he has clearly defined for Christie and TV fans after some 20 years. Now, Hercule is in semi-retirement - he can never fully retire for there is always a crime popping up somewhere that needs his little grey cells to solve. So, gone from his circle are the familiar Captain Hastings, Miss Lemon, and Chief Inspector Japp of his younger years and the TV series that was based mostly on the many short stories Christie wrote with Poirot as the hero.

Now, Poirot has a butler-valet-man-servant named George, played very well by David Yelland. As this story opens, Poirot has just sat down for a snack with all of his dishes neatly arranged, and he has picked up a book, apparently fresh off the press. It's title is "Crime Fiction Writers: A Critical Analysis," and the author is none other than "Hercule Poirot, The Celebrated Detective." But, George interrupts him because there is a frantic young lady at the door who thinks she may have killed someone.

Well, this is another tale of very good intrigue, mystery and excellence on the part of Dame Christie. And, old friend and mystery writer Ariadne Oliver has a big part of this film. While Ms. Oliver occasionally comes up with something that tweaks Poirot's grey cells and helps him in solving an occasional crime, she is much more often way off base. Well, she doesn't even get to first base in this mystery. But that's all part of the fun, and I think humor that Christie and/or the screenplay writers relish in these stories.

About two-thirds of the way into the film, I had a suspicion about one of the characters that proved to be true, but I couldn't see the surprise conclusion of this case coming at all. Hurray for you, Agatha Christie, and for you Hercule Poirot. What super entertainment!

Here are some favorite lines from this TV film.

Ariadne Oliver, "Well, what did you find out at Cross Hedges?" Hercule Poirot, "Nothing." Miss Oliver, "How dreadfully dull." Poirot, "Not at all. The fact that Poirot discovered nothing means that there is a great deal that is being concealed."

George, "If you will, sir, the first time I clapped eyes on her, I thought the young lady had birds in her attic." Poirot, "Thank you very much, George. Coffee for two, if you please."

Ariadne Oliver, "Was that a tear?" Poirot, "Oh, no, no, madame. It is merely the breeze."

Third Girl is First Class

[wattozarah · 10/10 · 17 January 2023]

If perusing a list of top ten Poirot films, one is unlikely to see 'Third Girl' mentioned. In my opinion it's up there with the best. I'm here to explain why, in a rough n' ready way.

The film begins with jaunty music, setting us up for a show brimming with classy acts (the entire cast works very well off each other), tension, humour and romance, held together by a strong story. Agatha Christie deserves much credit for the quality and drawing power of stories which, handled by able people, can produce television gems.

I've had a think about why this film in particular grabs my attention. Perhaps it's the music - mystical, powerful and tense, in turn. Or is it eccentric Madame Oliver's delicious (and dangerous) decision to turn detective? More likely a combination of all the elements that produce an exciting story. The excellent 'Third Girl' herself - sometimes as confused as the audience - plays her part in a game which Poirot orchestrates, trying to draw the murderer into his web. I was hooked by it all, so good job team.

Adding to the Christie Canon

[aramis-112-804880 · 6/10 · 19 April 2018]

Don't let them ever tell you they did all Christie's Poirot stories. They didn't. "The Labors of Hercules" was one tale entwining elements from several stories in a short story collection. Oh, but we were talking about "Third Girl."

Admittedly, "Third Girl" was not one of Christie's better works. A very late "Poirot" story, the little Belgian detective showed more vigor than in some earlier novels (specifically THE CLOCKS); but Ariadne Oliver still carries too much of the story and gets herself conked in the head for meddling.

The novel is set in the 1960s. Since the makers of "Poirot" wisely keep the detective in the 1930s, this upsets some of the novel's plot points. A fellow in the novel who continues harkening back to World War II, for instance, and who is losing his sight and hearing is changed to a blind man (though as compensation they make him cleverer than he was in the book).

Possibly due to time constraints, some major characters are eliminated. Possibly also due to the fact that this version is visual, the book's description of a character who plays another character by clever use of makeup and wigs had to be substantially altered. That makes sense, since Christie got away (so to speak) with murder with that character in the book.

The best decision being to keep Poirot in the thirties, the worst must surely have been to make Poirot novels one-shot movies running about an hour and a half. Christie herself said a publisher once told her not to put so much plot in one of her novels, so part of the problem is hers: if they do "Poirot" novels as two- (or, in some cases, three-) parters, they'll have to pad. But for many of the novels, this also means telescoping plots, eliminating characters necessary to the denouement.

Christie did not handle the 1960s well in novels. As a child of nine when the 1960s ended, I found the sort of hippy characters the novel dealt with absolutely revolting (by the time I reached their age young people were wearing ties, collar bars and suspenders, and the world was a better place for it). So I applaud shifting the story thirty years earlier.

Other alterations from novel to film are indefensible. As certain websites detail these I won't do it here, other than to warn you murder victims are changed willy-nilly; a romance ending one way ends another (in the book it's more shocking while the writers of this episode chose to make the romance more conventional and, in the end, unbelievable).

Furthermore, the writers chose to give another character a suicide, probably because it makes a gruesome visual; but that leads to an entirely ridiculous climax that implies Poirot must be running the entire British police, to have them stage the whole thing.

Sure, it's theatrical; but aren't they supposed to be dramatizing Christie, rather than rewriting her yarns into what what amounts to entirely new stories starring characters of the same name in some alternate universe?

This episode is stylish. It looks sumptuous. It's ghoulish at times (if you read the novel, the wrong times). I like the 1930s ambience. I can see the necessity for changing some characters and twisting the storyline in new directions. But I could have written this book into a better two-part "Poirot" than the writers have done making into a movie.

In Hollywood, writers are stupid. They wondered how to film "Chicago" with characters bursting into song. First of all, they bought a MUSICAL!. Second, the problem never bothered Astaire or Kelly. Third, they never even considered that movies these days are chock full of background music (certainly unrealistic!) that dictate how viewers are to feel, since writers are too lazy to let this come through clever writing.

I assume writers for English television are equally stupid; they think they're cleverer than a successful, even monumental, writer like Christie. In that respect, they remind me of police in the book who are always arresting the wrong chaps and second-guessing Poirot, Marple, et al.

The writers of this story were, to be fair, in an untenable position: they had to change the time-frame in which the novel, and therefore the story, takes place; they have to collapse the novel's plot into a comfortable hour-and-a-half slot; and they had a major character who convincingly portrayed two characters in a novel, a feat possible on the stage but impossible on a television program. Unfortunately, the way they chose to go changed the meaning of the novel beyond repair. So not only did the makers of "Poirot" not do the stories in THE LABORS OF HERCULES, they also didn't do THIRD GIRL. They did their own story under the same title, and too much of it is ill-thought-out bunkum.

Third Girl

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 20 January 2019]

Crime writer Ariadne Oliver told a disturbed young woman Norma Restarick to visit Hercules Poirot. Norma thinks that she has killed someone and needs help. However she thinks that Poirot is too old and runs away.

Ariadne tells Poirot that Norma is the third girl in a flat sharing arrangement. She had met Norma at a party that night, there was a young man who could not take his eyes of her.

Her former nanny lives in the same block of flats and she had also died that night, committed what seems to be suicide. Her wrists were slashed. Yet Norma who found the body feels responsible.

Norma's father comes to visit her, until recently he had been in Africa for 20 years. Norma has been fragile when her mother killed herself when she was a child. Her flatmates see to be concerned about her although one of them seems nonplussed. She is working for Norma's father and might also be involved with him.

Poirot takes an interest. He realises that Norma has suffered two traumatic events in her life, both with suicides. He visits the Restarick family home in the country, owned by Norma's great-uncle, Sir Roderick. He is a first world war veteran who is also blind. He is also in love with his much younger assistant.

Poirot discovers that Norma stands to inherit a fortune so there are a lot of people who stand to gain if Norma goes to the gallows.

There are plenty of red herrings and lots of clues but it does rely on too many coincidences and some of it is risible. Norma is in a flat as a third girl where the the first leaseholder works with her father. The nanny lives in the same building. Her father returns after 20 years but the story wants to tell you very few people remain from the old days who would had known him.

I did like Poirot's rage at the behaviour of some of the people he has had to deal with. The exposition comes across well. In fact I did like how Peter Flannery structured the mystery.

Move on. Nothing to See Here!

[mwidunn · 1/10 · 29 June 2011]

Drearily shot, with a repetitive flashback sequence of a child being beaten and abused in a bathtub . . . shown over . . . and, over . . . and, over.

Moreover, the camera is not a "friend" to Ms. Jemima Rooper.

Some recent Poirots have had a tendency of taking themselves too seriously. This one definitely does. Paradoxical -- since the story as it is is totally forgettable.

Let me just put it to you this way: Poirot as Psychotherapist.

Which three words did Dr. Seuss use to describe the Grinch? "Stink, stank, stunk"? Yes, that applies here. I'll pass on this one.

Two fatal mistake

[themayarules · 3/10 · 30 May 2017]

As a big fan of poirot, miss marple, and mystery and crime series i found two error in this episode FIRST in the episode called sad cypress at the end poirot said that he always hated tea and don't drink tea but in this episode he is drinking tea and when they went to the big house he was drinking tea, also when the crime writer was knocked out and they stole her handbag it appears in her hand later the same bag