Poirot (TV Series) Three Act Tragedy (2010) User Reviews

A decent first outing for Season 12

[Iain-215 · 8/10 · 17 January 2010]

'Three Act Tragedy' is quite an early Poirot novel and one of Christie's most artificial in that it (and its characters) are set out in the tradition of a theatrical entertainment and two of the lead characters are actors. To be honest, in my opinion its not one of her best. The cast of suspects are mostly two (or even one) dimensional and the motive for two of the murders are very difficult to swallow. Still, it has its bright points and one of these is humour, particularly in the leading character of Sir Charles Cartwright - very much an Actor who plays various roles in 'real life' and tires quickly of them whether its as a sailor or a detective.

This new adaptation of the novel from the established 'Suchet as Poirot' stable retains much of this humour and I was very impressed with Martin Shaw's assumption of the role of Sir Charles. Here he is a friend of Poirots (the character of Mr Satterthwaite having been cut) who is personally involved from the outset. The production goes in for a few 'thirties touches' such as whirling newspapers and racing train journeys but I didn't mind them and felt they added appropriately to the atmosphere. The story was generally very faithful, it looked wonderful as always and was well acted on the whole. I particularly enjoyed Kimberley Nixon as Egg and Kate Ashfield who was quite perfect as the perceptive Miss Wills. It was a pity that such performers as Anna Carteret and Jane Asher didn't get more to do, as what they DID do was very good but then their roles in the book are very small.

I enjoyed this and hopefully it bodes well for the new season of Poirot.

Solid episode to the twelfth series

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 8 March 2011]

I have been a huge of Agatha Christie Poirot for a while now, and while Three Act Tragedy is not the best of the series it was still very good. In all fairness, the book wasn't one of Christie's best either, it was a very good one with a very memorable character in Charles Cartwright and an interesting story, but due to some motives being I agree not as easy to follow as one would think it isn't a masterpiece like Murder of Roger Ackroyd(very disappointingly adapted might I say on a side-note).

The direction is occasionally a little flat though also with some inspired touches of over-theatricality and I was very disappointed that Jane Asher wasn't given as much to do as she deserves, yes her character is quite small but still.

What I did love about Three Act Tragedy were the production values. True, it has a glossier and more cinematic(dare I say) feel than some of the older episodes, but I thought the photography was very good and the scenery, costumes and lighting were breathtaking. The music is lovely too, haunting yet elegant and beautiful too. The dialogue is well-done, very poignant in the denouncement, and the pace while deliberately slow to start with(the book starts slow as well) is fine. The story still remains interesting and when it comes to the adapting it is fairly faithful and not as bland as the Peter Ustinov film, which still had its good points.

The acting is very good and the characters are written very well overall. David Suchet is outstanding, no surprise he always is, but it was Martin Shaw I enjoyed the most. His character was always one of the book's main merits and Shaw's performance was gleefully enjoyable with a commanding voice and well-judged mannerisms. He like the dialogue is very moving at the end. Overall, a solid episode in the twelfth series and an above decent adaptation. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Latest version of this tale is excellent in all respects...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 20 June 2011]

I began watching this and had the feeling I'd seen the story before or read it years ago. Then I realized I had seen another version made in 1986 with Tony Curtis and Peter Ustinov essaying the principal roles.

In this version, MARTIN SHAW (an actor who strongly resembles Claude Rains both physically and in manner), does a standout job as Sir Charles, an actor who is famous for his dinner parties for his wealthy friends and theater associates. David SUCHET is Hercule Poirot, who suspects that a second death among Sir Charles' associates is tied somehow to the first one which was judged to be death from natural causes.

Plot development is typical of any tale by Agatha Christie--with lots of clues along with the usual red herrings. And it's given more serious treatment than the former version with Tony Curtis as the wealthy party giver.

The production gets meticulous production design, gorgeous outdoor settings, all photographed in vivid color so that it has all the trappings of a Grade A movie suitable for the big screen.

Although I guessed "who dun it" long before the tale was over, I admired the way Christie dropped her clues and set the stage for one of her more intricate stories of deception and murder among the jet set. And MARTIN SHAW does a standout job in an excellent cast of British actors.

It ends on a rather tragic note, with Poirot realizing how close he came to death himself.

A great addition to a great series

[dpayne-9 · 9/10 · 6 February 2011]

While I too am a long-time viewer of this ITV series and a much-avowed fan, I must disagree a bit with the previous writer who said this is not one of the series' best. "Three Act Tragedy" really is one of the best films of the long-running Poirot series. Agatha Christie's story, filmed once before for American TV as "Murder in Three Acts" (the original title of the first American publication of the book) in sunny Acapulco with an oddly contemporary setting, is a classic of misdirection with one of those twist endings the author is never properly celebrated for.

The story presented here is an absolute marvel of authenticity, with only a few changes made (Mr. Satterthwaite is deleted and the murderer's modus operandi is changed a bit here, negating the book's most evasive clue, "am worried about M"). Otherwise, "Three Act Tragedy" is pure perfection.

Directed with a combination of astonishing period elegance and artfully ironic noir camera work by Ashley Pearce (who directed the well-done "Mrs. McGinty's Dead) and scripted with great eloquence by Nick Dear (who also scripted "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" as well as two of the series' best later entries, "The Hollow" and "Cards on the Table"), it's hard not to be impressed with this film.

The slowness of the film's first half that the previous writer refers to is present in the book as well. This is due to the fact that the investigations, such as they are, are not manned by Poirot but rather by amateurs – amateurs who get nowhere fast (or slow) and provide more red herrings than usual for a Christie story.

What makes the film of "Three Act Tragedy" exceptional, though, is a tremendous ensemble cast, expertly led by the magisterial Martin Shaw (Inspector George Gently, Adam Dalgliesh, Judge John Deed and a bunch of other British TV detectives), who gives an astonishing performance of the performance of a lifetime here. Many others, including Kimberley Nixon as Egg, Kate Ashfield as Miss Wills and Tom Wisdom as Oliver Manders, give wonderfully notable performances here as well.

Suffice it to say, David Suchet is exceptional as Poirot, offering a performance that is as impassioned and world-weary as his character is written in the book. "Three Act Tragedy" really does rank among the very best work for all concerned in this terrific series, which still has a little way to go before "Curtain."

Intriguing, and one of the better later-season Poirots

[grantss · 8/10 · 20 June 2016]

Hercule Poirot is invited by a friend, the famous actor Sir Charles Cartwright to a dinner party. At the party, while drinking cocktails, one of the guests, Reverend Babbington, collapses and dies. Sir Charles says to Poirot that he thinks he was poisoned but the contents of his glass are free of anything toxic, and the event is put down to natural causes. Even Poirot does not suspect foul play. Then a month later, Sir Bartholemew Strange, a friend of Sir Charles, dies during a dinner party. This time it is clear that he was murdered - poisoned. Poirot suspects that the two deaths are linked and revisits his conclusion that the death of Reverend Babbington was due to natural causes. Sir Bartholomew's butler, Ellis, is the prime suspect but he has fled and is nowhere to be found. Poirot doesn't believe that the case is that simple.

Quite intriguing, and one of the better later-season Poirots. The later seasons suffer from the lack of Hastings, Japp and/or Lemon as they gave a warmer, more engaging feel to the stories. Without them the stories feel a bit cold and matter-of-fact.

However, here we have Sir Charles Cartwright, ably played by Martin Shaw, who wants to test his sleuthing abilities, having played so many detectives on stage. Moreover, we have his delightful girlfriend "Egg", played by the gorgeous Kimberley Nixon. Nixon gives the episode a wonderful energy and is utterly mesmerizing.

Ultimate plot is quite credible and not at all far-fetched, unlike many of the Poirot mysteries. The murderer is difficult to spot, but the clues are mostly all there.

The Adventure Of The Insane Wife.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 13 January 2011]

You have to admire Agatha Christie. She was evidently reserved in real life, except for a disappearance that might have been an episode in one of her stories, but she was keen, perceptive, and witty. She must have zipped through the London Times Crosswords in a few minutes. It takes that kind of skill to construct her puzzles. And, though she wasn't exactly a barrel of laughs, who else but a person of some drollery would come up with names for British towns like Deep Mulching and Tutin and Loomouth? This, however, is not her funniest hour. It's a serious case of multiple murders, three to be exact, all apparently unrelated except that the agent of death in all cases was nicotine sulfate.

Martin Shaw plays Sir Charles, the world famous actor, who hosts a soirée at which a clergyman who rarely drinks drops dead after a sip of his cocktail. But there is no poison in the glass. So, mes amis, he has perhaps died of old age? But, mais non. One of the other guests hosts an almost identical party with the same participants a bit later and, mon Dieu, the host himself, a psychiatrist in charge of a loony bin, drops dead of nicotine poisoning and again no poison in his glass! There can be this time no doubt that the murder it has been committed. But by whom, and why? Hercule Poirot, he does not know.

Sir Charles evidently wasn't at the second party but was in the south of France. He is, however, pretty deeply involved in the shenanigans. I don't want to give too much away, but Sir Charles is extravagantly in love with one of those delicate English blonds who goes by the nickname of Egg. It is Sir Charles' most fervent wish that they be married, and she's willing enough, but Sir Charles, actor that he is, has never laid an egg in his life and he doesn't get to begin now.

Martin Shaw, as Sir Charles, is magnificent. Not at first. At first, your impression is that he is a third-rate Claude Raines. His face seems to be made of layers of flab from which two baggy eyes peer, watery and blue. His lips look as if they may have been slightly scarred by fire. His voice is not much more than a strangled effort at speech with intimations of disdain.

But, man, he takes over the picture. He moves about like the self-confident actor he's supposed to be. He's really magnetic. I couldn't wait for his next line to hear that prolonged drawl.

David Suchet has the role of Poirot in his pocket. I doubt that by now, after some twenty years, he needs to work on the character very much. He's getting a little older, noticeably, and his features are turning into lumps with points protruding here and there but it has in no way affected his performance or made it less convincing.

The episode is up there with the best of them.

Much deeper looking back

[brndshoun · 10/10 · 8 August 2017]

It wasn't until looking back, that I realized how much deeper this story is than many of her others. This story shows the depth of Poirot as a person. This man who remained much of a mystery himself through all the novels. Poirot had so few true friends in his life. Sir Charles was a person Poirot felt warmly about, one of his closet friends, of which he could count friends on one hand. The story winds through the usual machinations of the Poirot stories. The end was what touched me, some may think the words "It could have been me" was Poirot's usual fascination with himself. But, I think the meaning of his words were his realization that "his friend" was so unfeeling that at the first murder Sir Charles just wanted someone to die, it didn't matter if had been a man he has claimed to be a friend, that Sir Charles was so devoid of humanity and the mask had fooled Poirot for so long.

Fine adaptation, but not one of the series' best

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 13 March 2011]

This particular story is not included among my Agatha Christie favorites: it's clever, especially regarding the way it fools you about the connection between the murders, but seems to lack emotional depth and most of the supporting characters are not very well-developed; the exceptions to the rule are Charles and "Egg". Peter Ustinov also made a version of this tale, in 1986, called "Murder In Three Acts", and I have to admit that I thought those two pivotal characters were brought to life more vividly in that film: the role of Charles requires a certain larger-than-life flamboyance that Tony Curtis did bring, but Martin Shaw plays him a little too low-key, while Emma Samms was a livelier Egg than Kimberley Nixon; Kate Ashfield is well-cast as the observant mystery writer, but her role is pretty minor. Where this version definitely has the edge over the older one is Ashley Pearce's direction, which is both ambitious and inventive, with lots of theater-related gimmicks. The production is elegant, the music is sweeping and Suchet is superb - but then again, all that is par for the course for this long-running series. **1/2 out of 4.

Intensely stylish and enjoyable adaptation.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 17 November 2015]

This is a truly fine adaptation, of what I'd argue is not one of my favourite novels. I didn't remember it being as grizzly as this, the crimes really are quite cynical, and quite macabre, especially the killer's purpose. There is plenty of misdirection to keep you guessing, coupled with a good mix of red herrings, it's a clever mystery.

Glowing production values, the sets are lavish, Sir Charles's room where the guests meet initially is out of this world. Some wonderful clothes on show, the fashion show Cynthia put on for Egg was expertly done, with some sublime haute couture.

Expertly acted, with some superb performances, I must stress that Martin Shaw is as good as I've ever seen him, he is a commanding presence, truly excellent.

An excellent adaptation. I suppose if you've not read the book you'll struggle to guess the outcome. 8/10

"We eliminate the suspects one by one. We do not scatter around like the puppies."

[bensonmum2 · 6/10 · 3 April 2017]

While enjoying a cocktail at a dinner party, the local vicar keels over. The man was harmless enough with no enemies and there was no sign of any sort of poison in his drink. Sometime later, a second man dies at a dinner party in a similar manner. Most of the same guests at the first party were also present at the second party. Additional tests are run and it's determined that the second man died of nicotine poisoning. Poirot realizes he made a mistake with the first death and is determined to set things right. He's on the trail of a killer who has already killed twice.

I should probably say upfront that I've never been a big fan of the book on which this episode is based. There were so many of Agatha Christie's other works that appealed to me more than this one. Even though I've only rated Three Act Tragedy a 6/10, that's not bad considering my preconceived notions about the work. There are things that I enjoyed, like all of the theater trappings that fit with the theater theme of the story. It's an interesting story device. Also, I always prefer a Poirot episode where all the potential suspects are gathered together to hear the final denouement. Having the denouement on a theater stage was very fitting. And how could you not enjoy Poirot's grand entrance? As Poirot would say, "Magnifique". Finally, there are a number of red herrings and other attempts to put Poirot off the scent that I found enjoyable. The whole bit about all the nonsense of the sanatorium is a perfect example.

So, what are my problems with Three Act Tragedy? I'll keep this short and only discuss one – the character Sir Charles Cartwright as played by Martin Shaw. Don't misunderstand, I think Shaw did a fantastic job. My problem is with the character as presented in this movie. I cannot imagine a world where the Cartwright presented here would be close friends with Poirot. They have little in common and are not alike at all. For example, scenes where Cartwright insults his hired help do not seem like something Poirot would be comfortable with. Yet he just sits there like he enjoys and endorses the ridicule heaped on this poor woman. This is not the Poirot I've been familiar with for over 40 years. Their friendship never seemed real. This one issue I had with Three Act Tragedy really hurt my enjoyment of the whole thing.

It's not Ustinov's version...

[jlpicard1701E · 10/10 · 13 January 2011]

If you think you are dealing with the Peter Ustinov/Tony Curtis version, then you are completely wrong.

This is a much, much more mature approach to the Novel and a far more "tragic" one at that (pardon the pun).

In this one the part that Tony Curtis played, is covered by Martin Shaw (ITV "The Professionals", Roman Polanski's "Macbeth", and "Inspector George Gently"), an aging actor who wants to shine once more.

Yet, despite all the glamor and glitz in the theatrical society in which he dwells, a murder has been committed.

Enter his close friend Hercule Poirot, who abhors mystery plays, since he always knows their endings before time.

Despite being a bit more lighthearted than the other episodes in Season 12, there is a vague cloud of tragedy looming throughout.

I think you all know how the story ends, but differently from its Ustinov's predecessor, there is no tapping on Poirot's back and a "Jolly good show, old chap!" feeling, but rather a doubt, a terrible doubt. Could Poirot have been among the victims this time? A very valid question that leaves you pondering about how easy it is to be next on the list of a desperate murderer...

Gloomy, truly gloomy. But the performances given in this one are all truly excellent, charged with sincere emotionality and natural concern.

S12E01: Three Act Tragedy: Engaging mystery and an enjoyable sense of artificiality to the delivery, even if it is more event-driven than usual (SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS)

[bob the moo · 24 April 2015]

With several murders occurring across the running time of this film, there is a lot more going on than perhaps is the norm in these films. In addition to this the film does move quite quickly from the initial setup to the first murder, then around it and onto the next; the investigation with Poirot is equally brisk and has a nice energy which is brought to it by his partnering with his actor friend Sir Chares Cartwright. All of this gives this particular film a very event- driven feel, and less of a sense of being able to "walk round" in the mystery and characters. While a little different, I must admit I still enjoyed the mystery and the way it did have a brisk movement to it.

The denouncement is made clear too quickly I thought, but it is still satisfying as it unfolds, leading to a particularly memorable series of reactions from Poirot. This conclusion is aided by an aspect of the production which is consistent throughout, and one that I really enjoyed; the theatrical production. Perhaps this is not the right word, but I really liked the novelty and effect of having so much of the production having the feel of being staged, rather than wholly existing in the real world – it fitted with the actorly character of Cartwright, but also added an unusual feeling to the film itself. Whether it is the framing of scenes, or the use of specifically presented moments such as objects against black backgrounds, I found the style to be refreshingly different from the norm. Of course I think part of its value is that it is different, and I guess if I had it much longer than one film, I would dislike it – so I can understand why it did not work for everyone, but for me I thought the way it was delivered by Pearce was great.

The cast also work well for him. With good strong moments of drama and comedic touch, Suchet continues to be rewarded (and reward) with a character he has played for so long. Shaw is right there with him, playing his sidekick role very well, and mostly convincing in the final moments too – with an actor cliché and yet a certain amount of humanity too. The supporting cast are understandably use less than I would have liked as a result of these two leading the way, but Nixon, Malik, Asher, Ashfield, and others are all solid in their roles.

It perhaps is not as detailed or intriguing as other Poirot films, mainly due to the pace and events it has to delivery, but it is satisfying in its delivery, and in particular I enjoyed the visual artificiality of it all, with its unique style very much standing out from the other films in the series.

Best of Season 12

[Filmguy2001 · 7/10 · 9 February 2012]

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

An excellent adaptation, very well acted, great sets but...the story itself is lacking. Every trick seen here Christie has used in other places and usually better. Because of this, although I enjoyed the adaptation, for the first time in the entire series, I thought the murderer, the method of murder, and the motive were all obvious very early on and I kept waiting for Poirot to catch on to the obvious.

The acting is excellent and Martin Shaw who play Adam Dalgliesh in a couple of PD James adaptations is especially fun to watch. Not one of the best Christie stories, but I think the best adaptation in season 12.

Fair to middling, minus one

[atrickyone · 4/10 · 21 June 2023]

I've never been a fan of Martin Shaw. Even back in his "The Professionals" days he was outclassed by Lewis Collins. I saw him in a couple of episodes of Inspector George Gently and later an episode of something where he was a judge. The problem is that Shaw never inhabits a character. You can always see the moving parts, a man pretending to be someone else. In this Poirot outing he's worse than ever. Fake accent, poor facial expressions, stilted speech. He must be a brilliant colleague because as an actor he's an almost total failure. That aside, the show itself isn't half bad. I should know by now that if Shaw is in something, it's a definite avoid.

Exceptionally Excellent Episode of Hercule Poirot

[marlene_rantz · 9/10 · 2 July 2014]

You may add me to the list of admirers of this episode of Hercule Poirot. I found it to be an exceptionally excellent episode: plot-wise and acting-wise! David Suchet was exceptionally excellent, but then, David Suchet is always excellent! Even his summation of the crime was exceptionally excellent! The entire supporting cast was excellent, and now I, too, would like to say a good word about Martin Shaw. I agree with every reviewer who applauded his performance. I had never seen him before this episode of Hercule Poirot, but based on his so excellent performance, I would have to say, without a doubt, that he is an excellent actor! I definitely would recommend watching this episode!

Martin Shaw rules in Theatreland!

[igorlongo · 10/10 · 16 April 2010]

If the direction of this episode is sometimes a bit flat and ( willingly and deliberately,I must say) over-theatrical,the day is saved by the excellent script and by the great acting of Martin Shaw,an endearing,very ironic ham.Suchet is the usual supreme himself,Miss Nixon is a fresh and very promising ingénue and Kate Ashfield is a very intelligent and penetrating Muriel Wills.A very good appetizer for the new season! The story is very faithful to the novel,the final is duly melancholic,the only problem is the exceedingly phoniness of some scenes,certainly due to some budget restrictions,but even more to the decision to give to the movie a sort of theatrical aspect.All considered,if sometimes people seems to walk about among stage props and painted scenery,it could be taken as a signature of the director and not as a real mistake.

a famous actor, poison, and Poirot

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 17 August 2015]

Reverend Babbington and his wife attend a party at the home of Sir Charles Cartwright, a great actor in the style of Ralph Richardson or John Gielgud. While there, the reverend chokes to death although he doesn't seem to have been poisoned.

Later on, another friend of the actor's, Sir Bartholomew Strange, dies of poisoning at a dinner party that he is giving.

Poirot offers to help Superintendent Crossfield, and in this he's supported by Cartwright. Poirot discovers that a butler was hired for the night and seemed to be enjoying some in joke with the doctor. The butler is gone, and Poirot suspects he is the killer.

Then there is a third death, that of a sanitarium patient who wrote to Poirot, which links to the doctor's murder. Somebody is hiding something, but what? And is the vicar's death part of this?

This is a pretty good story, which was done as a TV movie previously starring Peter Ustinov and Tony Curtis.

The acting is very good, though I admit I'm not a fan of Martin Shaw. In this I felt he wasn't bombastic enough in his role -- Tony Curtis played the character as a real divo. Kimberley Nixon, Kate Ashfield, Jane Asher, and Tom Wisdom are wonderful.

And Suchet, of course, is perfection himself as Poirot, as are the period production values.

This is an interesting story, and it gets season 12 off to a good start.

The Scenery Is the Star

[Littlelep · 9 November 2018]

If the director had eased the actors out of the production and just let the audience see the background, it would have made for a better hour and a half.

In this story, we see Poirot not at his best, in every way. He is in awe of Martin Shaw's character, Sir Charles, and misses until way too late what the audience surely saw early on. Martin Shaw himself seems to be taking great pleasure in what should have made him uneasy, to say the least. Deranged, as Poirot would finally detect? Obviously. But even human? Not. Smiling his way through the episode until the end. It got to be unnerving to the audience. No acting involved; just showing up and smiling.

As mentioned by others, the direction in this episode was grating on true Poirot enthusiasts. Newspapers gliding through the air and other untypical devices. Then there is the "sobbing" by poor Kimberly Nixon that went on without tears and just body spasms for what seemed like hours. It is that that makes me skip "Three Act Tragedy" when I am deciding which episode of Poirot to watch before bedtime. It is enough to give one nightmares!

A Graceful Masterpiece

[Venge · 10/10 · 12 December 2020]

I have always felt that "Three Act Tragedy" was one of Christie's hidden Poirot gems, that has never received the attention it deserves. The plot is ingenious, and holds the reader to the very end. This "Poirot" series adaptation is a magnificent recreation of the book, and the characters simply come alive from it's pages. Martin Shaw plays the aging actor, Sir Charles Cartwright, to perfection, Kimberley Nixon is radiant as the rich and spoiled "Egg", and the rest of the supporting cast are equally strong in their various roles. To envisage this book, and now the movie adaptation, one must imagine oneself at the theatre, viewing a murder mystery in 3 acts. Tension builds slowly, and it is not until the closing moments of the last act that the truth is revealed. Holding sway throughout, as if made for the role of his lifetime, is David Suchet, who is not "playing" Poirot, but who "is" Poirot.

Three Act Tragedy

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 11 March 2018]

This one took a while to get going and the director had to resort to various visual flourishes to recreate Poirot's thoughts.

Martin Shaw almost steps in to the Hastings role here. Shaw plays Sir Charles Cartwright, a famous actor who holds a party where a vicar dies after sipping a drink. Although Poirot was present, there seems to be nothing untowards his death.

In another party where Sir Charles was not present, his friend Sir Bartholomew Strange dies after sipping a drink. This time Poirot investigates even though there is no poison in the glass, Poirot thinks the two deaths might be connected.

Sir Charles helps Poirot investigate the crime and the reveal takes place in the theatre.

There is rather a starry cast but most of the characters are painted rather bland and the epsiode needed to be faster paced.

Not one of the best

[eklund-par · 8/10 · 5 July 2010]

It is hard to say anything bad about the Poirot/Suchet films/episodes, since in my opinion they represent TV at its best. Well-produced, well-played and a deep respect for the original work by Mrs Christie. This episode however is not among the best in the series. It strangely fails to exploit the fine scenery and environments and instead has a sort of staged indoor quality to it. Compared to e.g. Death on the Nile it seems almost low-budget. The acting is mostly top quality although the usually brilliant Suchet himself seems a bit uninspired sometimes. The first half is a bit dull, but it gets better. The story itself is perhaps a bit artificial and not among Christies best, and therefore you can't blame it all on the cast and crew.

Martin Shaw steals the show

[Paularoc · 7/10 · 18 July 2012]

The later television Poirots are just not as engaging as the earlier ones and often are lacking in humor and that certainly is the case with this one. Even so, this one has a lot going for it – first and foremost Martin Shaw playing the retired renowned actor Sir Charles Cartwright. Secondly, the magnificent sets – the Crow's Nest mansion in Cornwall is something to see and all the other 1930s flourishes are so very good, and lastly the strong supporting cast. Martin Shaw is so dominating that it is hard for me to recall Suchet's Poirot at all except for the very last scene which is a corker and perfectly sums up Poirot's egocentric (and somewhat endearing) view of the world – "It might have been me." The storyline itself requires a more than usual suspension of belief – the first murder for sure, but it does have a good plot twist although discernible if one were trying to spot it (I just let the show unfold and don't try to beat the great Poirot to it). I had forgotten that Mr. Satterthwaite played an important role in the book. I liked this character and it's too bad it was eliminated in the film. But it is Suchet's show after all and Poirot needs to be prominent in every show – quite rightly.

The semi-retired Poirot solves another tangled mystery

[SimonJack · 8/10 · 10 October 2022]

None of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot mystery films are bad, especially those with David Suchet as Poirot. But "Three Act Tragedy" is one of the few weaker films. The book was first published in the USA in 1934, under the title, "Murder in Three Acts;" then in England in 1935, under Christie's original title and that of the film. The movie doesn't include the character Mr. Satterthwaithe, a friend of Poirot's who helps Poirot investigate in the book. That aspect seems to be added to role of Sir Charles in the film.

Much of the story takes place in The Crow's Nest. It's a place owned by Poirot's friend and retired actor, Sir Charles Cartwright.

But, this is one of the less intriguing and interesting Poirot mysteries for a couple of reasons. Sir Charles Cartwright's character has almost as much screen time as does Poirot. And, as played by Martin Shaw, his boisterousness and overbearing take-charge persona is way overdone and becomes irritating. Further, the screenplay seems to be intentional in that regard, and Poirot seems to go along with Sir Charles leading the questioning much of the time and taking charge of things.

Another aspect is that Superintendent Crossfield is barely in on the investigation. This was one of a very few of the Agatha Christie stories in movies that I could guess the culprit fairly on. But, what wasn't clear was the connections between murders, which Suchet's Poirot explains nicely at the end.

Here are some favorite lines from this film.

Hermione Lytton Gore, aka, Egg, "I find most people disgusting when it comes to money." Hercule Poirot, "Ah, mademoiselle, so many people are disgusting about so many things."

Hercule Poirot, "What is time to the face of death?"

Miss Muriel Wills, aka author Anthony Astor, "I can see now, I should have gone to the place. Don't judge me too harshly." Hercule Poirot, "Ah, mademoiselle, I investigate. I do not judge."

Not As Good As Ustinov Version

[mwidunn · 6/10 · 29 June 2011]

If ever David Suchet "mailed in" a Poirot performance, it was this one. In fact, the whole episode -- running a little over 1 hr. and 20 min. (no commercials)?! -- seemed designed to get the whole story over with as soon as possible. There's no development. People just stand there within their blocking and say their lines to each other.

Christie's stories pretty much tell themselves. If one leaves them alone and lets the actors act and lets the arts staff revel in the period piecework, then viewers can have a comfortable, enjoyable -- and, most importantly, FUN -- night of Mystery Theater. But, alas, for the past decade we've had to suffer through amateurish directors, hack writers, and intrusive music scores.

This episode is not so bad, albeit rushed (as I've said), though there are some hackneyed touches: the cards falling down the screen infront of Suchet's face; the bright halo on the screen of things the director wanted viewers to take note of; the screaming patients at the mental ward. (See "The A.B.C. Murders" for a masterful use of these types of film conceits.)

I have to say, except for the silly transposition of Poirot into the 1980's, I would much rather sit down and watch the Peter Ustinov version of this book. It patiently tells the story. But, more importantly: It has fun telling the story and laying out the conundrum of a harmless, old minister who was apparently poisoned . . . then, not poisoned . . . then, yes, actually poisoned . . . but, why?

And, as an outsider, I must say that British T.V. filmmaking has become much, much, MUCH too dreary. Now, every episode of Poirot has to be some kind of re-make of "Gosford Hall."

So, while not as horrendously, stupendously, magnificently, shambolically, atrociously, like-vomit-in-a-baby's-diarrheal-diaper-sprayed-with-skunk-juice bad as Suchet's "Murder on the Orient Express," this episode is nonetheless not that great, either. Indeed, a quick, unmemorable yawn.

Get the Peter Ustinov version; make a bowl of popcorn; and, enjoy a good telling of this mystery yarn from one of the best: Dame Agatha! You'll thank me.

Agatha Christie resorts to impersonation, again

[surangaf · 2/10 · 17 January 2016]

Oh well! Another impersonation plot by Agatha Christie. This utterly unbelievable plot device seems to have been her fall-back option when she ran out of ideas. And she seems to have run out ideas pretty often, given how frequently she use it. In fact, if a story by her has actors as characters, almost without exception there is sure to be some impersonation plot (though device is resorted to even without actors as characters). In contrast, I doubt if there ever were more than handful of real murders that involved impersonation, out of hundreds of thousands committed.

Regular viewers and readers, familiar with Christie and the marked camera avoidance of butler's features, would have guessed the murderer very early. I for one, was hoping Christie, or adapters, would have twisted the plot to make someone else the murderer given his obviousness, making his impersonation just part of a practical joke gone wrong. No luck.

Poirot does some real investigations here and does find solid evidence, in contrast most other episodes.

One note: It was in fact legally possible, in UK, to divorce insane persons since 1920s. The plot of 2 movies named 'A Bill of Divorcement'(silent one in 1922 and Katharine Hepburn's debut movie in 1932), and their source play, were explicitly based on the that possibility.