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.
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.