Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

Appointment With Death

go_leafs_nation 23 Sep 08 at 10:43 a.m. GMT

I asked this question on the old website, but I didn't get an answer before the new one came up (love this one, by the way).

AWD with David Suchet has many changes in it. But what role does Sister Agnieszka, the Polish nun, play???

Login or register to add posts and reply

81 replies

Reverse order

GKCfan 10 Feb 10 at 5:57 a.m. GMT

Yes, the Boyton family is at the center of "Appointment With Death."

floraberastury 09 Feb 10 at 8:22 p.m. GMT

appointment with death is the one with the Boyton family right? im asking this since im in argentina sometimes the titles can change...

well, i haven't seen this adaption but i know that on the book, they describe miss Pierce as a sort of nun or something like that, but i do not know if she appears also in this adaptation, witch in this case, it couldn't be her.

OK, hope i could answer u re question! love

go_leafs_nation 05 May 09 at 7:12 p.m. GMT

Yes, that's a very good point. I notice now that, with no proof whatsoever, and with a filmsy case, Poirot manages to get the guilty party (in more than one subplot) to confess. It's just wrong- Poirot is a detective. Leave the intuition to Mrs. Oliver...

Carlyle 05 May 09 at 8:54 a.m. GMT

I think Cheryl Campbell did what she could, but the script didn´t do mrs Boynton justice at all. I also miss the "I never forget anything"-line and I miss the plot in the book. The new one in the film was sort of okey in its own way (though I don´t understand how Poirot could find it out since he doesn´t seem to do any detecting at all).

Tommy_A_Jones 04 May 09 at 1:25 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

How intrigueing! Britain hasn't seen nthis as I have said but I thought the whole solution hinges on the "I do not forget a thing" line

go_leafs_nation 04 May 09 at 11:16 a.m. GMT

I disagree there when it comes to Cheryl Campbell. I thought she did an excellent job as "mean old Mrs. Boynton". But I did miss that classic "I never forget anything" line!

The script is written rather poorly, but the direction is magnificent! I forget who the director was, but he/she masterfully built up suspense with resourceful camera techniques. But I do have complaints about the lighting here and there- at times, some characters seem to have a halo around them.

But I am sad to see that my prediction came true- as Tim Curry was in this episode, I predicted it would be far from faithful, citing previous examples (Cards on the Table, The Mystery of the Blue Train, The Sittaford Mystery, etc.). Now I see I was sadly right.

Carlyle 22 Apr 09 at 7:46 p.m. GMT

I saw it again the other day, and this time tried to forget the book. But I have to admit I still don´t like it. I think the script is badly written. In the beginning the scenes feel connected, but after a while it feels as if the are placed upon each other like bricks. Every scene for itself in a way. And I also felt the episode was cheating a bit. Some of the clues (Copes name for example) was held back from me. Also the end where the truth is about to be revealed was sloppy. No suspence, Poirot just blurted out the truth and... well... nothing. However I enjoyed the portrait of dame Celia Westholme. She felt like a genuine character. Some of the dialogue was very good, but unfortunately most of the dialogue felt... well, like a mix of different myths and stories. About appointments with death, about John the Baptiste, about Gilgamesh, about God... to much!!! But my biggest dissapointment, and now I have to link back to the book, is mrs Boynton of course. Cheryl Campbell is not to blame, once again the script. The characther of mrs Boynton is pure evil in the book, but in the film she is just... mean... wicked. And that is not enough! Yes, the past does contain some evil, but not the mrs Boynton sort of evil at all in my opinion...

go_leafs_nation 20 Apr 09 at 10:49 p.m. GMT

I appreciate your opinion. Personally, as an adaptation of the novel, I consider Appointment With Death to be unforgivable. However, it creates suspense and intrigue in its quite altered storyline in a way Peter Ustinov's version never quite did. Cinematically, it's quite fun to watch. From a conservative literary view, it's a travesty.

Sanna 20 Apr 09 at 1:19 p.m. GMT

I'm probably sticking my head/hands in a bee's nest here, but I loved Appointment (the TV episode). It has the most wonderful cinematography and atmosphere and I love the religious touch they've put in. And yes, I h-a-v-e read the book.

I'm glad to hear that Suchet apparently share my feelings about it, he stated in a BBC radio program some days ago, that he was very fond and proud of this episode.

aranea_draco 13 Apr 09 at 2:36 a.m. GMT

The new AWD is horrendous!  So much was changed from the original story I was in shock at what can only be described as a slipshod production. Guy Andrews' AWD is just not worthy of comment.

Whilst AWD starring Peter Ustinov was more in line with the book as a majority of the scripting was taken from the stage play version of AWD and therefore kept the tone of the book and I was surprised they didnt utilise the stage play again.

Dungbettle Excrement is the only worthy review for this!

Tommy_A_Jones 01 Apr 09 at 2:43 p.m. GMT

Britain hasn't seeen it yet from your views perhaps DS is fed up with Poirot and is now just doing them to finance his other work.

HB_Starlet 31 Mar 09 at 1:26 p.m. GMT

go_leafs_nation

I'm going to be ill... I just saw APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH. After a very promising first 1/2 hour (I agree with the comments thus far- Cheryll Campbell was a perfect Mrs. Boynton), the production rapidly decreased into cheap Hollywood-ish junk. SPOILERS! I also can't believe they had the NERVE to change the killer! The "accomplice" is really the brains of the operation, and the identity just shocked me! Why, oh, why has Poirot turned to such blasphemy??? END OF SPOILERS! Now, this is not to say the movie was not enjoyable. It was decent entertainment (thank David Suchet and Cheryll Campbell for that; Tim Curry did O.K. despite his non-existant role), but it was at the same time horrendous. I can't believe studio bigwigs actually thought Agatha Christie needed such drastic "improvement". My predictions were correct after all. I am very disappointed.

I completely agree. The novel, which is one of my favourites, was butchered. I still have to see the other 3 new episodes, but after watching this, I'm dreading to do it. "Cat Among The Pigeons" is another of my favourites and I'm dreading to discover what they did to it...

RobinHerne 27 Feb 09 at 6:28 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Arriving late at the feast, but...

The TV adaptation is not a good one as the changes seem somewhat pointless and didn't really add anything to the plot.

As to the matter of motivation in the book... I find it plausible. The killer is an individual who has made a name from being a moral crusader. The reader is never told the exact nature of her shady past. Yes, some real life people from that period did brazen out having a criminal conviction, but it is quite possible that the killer's conviction was for something so shocking that she genuinely didn't feel she could brazen it out and maintain her career.

Her desire to kill Mrs Boynton may not have been the simple wish to silence a potential emotional blackmailer, but as much driven by revenge. Mrs B was a vile woman, and who can say just how far a person of that temperament may have gone in abusing her former position of authority?

In terms of how the TV version changed the motive... it could have been kept more in keeping with the spirit of the original work, perhaps by having Mrs Boynton as a retired Superintendant from one of the brutal Homes for 'Fallen Women' that were quite common in that day. The killer could then have been one of those unfortunate women, still killing in part to keep her secret and part for revenge on an abusive old monster.

I was very impressed by the actress who played her ~ it took quite some time to even recognise her from previous roles in Christie dramas.

Robin

Tommy_A_Jones 27 Feb 09 at 3:22 p.m. GMT

a b cust Why don't you write to David Suchet and ask him why he agreed to doing it and while you asre at it why he agreed to the 'Cards Adaptation as That was a disgrace (I haven't read Appointment with Death or seen the Suchet adapt but hgave read 'Cards On The Table and hated the adapt, You could get your answer and tell the rest of us what his response was. I seem to remember on the old site you saying you are in show Bussiness and you knew something that made in your view (Though not in your words) the choice of the new Miss Marple a bad one but stopped short of telling us what it was. 

a_b_cust 20 Jan 09 at 7:55 p.m. GMT

i have not read all the responses but i have to get it off my chest and say i too have had the misfortune of seeing this adaptation and just felt cheated. I could understand if it was abad novel that needed adapting, but it wasn't. it was great. What made it worse is that i thought the performances were good, and the story wasnt that bad. it just was not a christie story so why bother making it at all. commision a one off with another detective and leave poirot be. id love to know what suchet's thoughts were, as to me it demeaned all his previous work. i understand it is his desire to make the entire poirot canon. well he never will now, as apart from the title and a few character names this is not a christie. My suspicion is that now christie's daughter Rosalind is dead, who kept to her mother's integrity, her estate are just lazily cashing in on everything they can - hence the rubbish marples, the camp knee jerk to the pink pound, and the monopoly on the plays. Agatha christie is becoming a comodity and its sad.  

S_Sigerson 18 Nov 08 at 4:32 p.m. GMT

You either have a strong argument or not. However, the point is moot and I have no problem ending this disucssion. I have said what I wanted to say and have presented a strong argument that supports my claim, which is backed up other people who are experts in this field.

Marc_Anton 18 Nov 08 at 3:40 p.m. GMT

I think this discussion stranded in a difference of opinion about the motive of the murderer. Some found the motive acceptable, other found the motive a bit weak and not convincing. Happily there are all kinds of indications in the novel to support and defend our different points of view. Perhaps it is time to move to a new novel or story. After all, this is the Film and Television post here. As for myself, I think I am done with Appointment with Death for the moment.

S_Sigerson 18 Nov 08 at 2:41 p.m. GMT

The quote GK used is from Poirot and it is only his opinion. Poirot is not infallible. You cannot use only one quote. You need to read the entire story and look at the big picture. All because at the very end Christie has Poirot whip out that passage doesn't mean it's true or logical. Once again there is no direct evidence the murderer felt threatened enough to commit murder. Quite the contrary if you go by Mrs. Boynton's pyschological make-up and her actions throughout the entire story. In addition to the actions of the murderer and his/her interaction with Mrs. Boynton. After reading the book I still think the motivation is weak. And quite a few experts share my opinion.

go_leafs_nation 18 Nov 08 at 10:49 a.m. GMT

Wow, what an interesting discussion! I agree with GKCfan here. It was emphasized in the book.

GKCfan 17 Nov 08 at 9:26 p.m. GMT

Marc Anton, you're right that about a year and a half ago we had a discussion on the old board about the ending of "Murder in Mesopotamia." I continue to believe that the solution is possible, although rather improbable. Remember the dictim of Sherlock Holmes: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Implausibility does not rule out possibility: sometimes we have to just allow for an unlikely circumstance.