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.
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.