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.

GKCfan 17 Nov 08 at 9:25 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I have to respectfully disagree– I think that Christie made the motive very clear. Poirot declares in his summation that Mrs. Boynton "was not an ordinary blackmailer... she would have toyed with her victim for a while, and then revealed the truth in the most spectacular manner." Mrs. Boynton's character is emphasized in the stage version: she knows that she doesn't have long to live, so she needs to do something to maintain her earthly immortality. In the stage version, she tries to keep her family in her shadow forever. In the book, I believe that Mrs. Boynton knows that she hasn't got much longer, and Sarah King points out that "she was not feared and hated over a vast stretch of land... She was the petty tyrant of one isolated family!" I believe that Mrs. Boynton wished to gain immortality by becoming known as the woman who destroyed the career of a very prominent person. Everyone remembers the center of a scandal– everyone knows the name of a poltician's mistress and things of that nature. Mrs. Boynton's name would've been in all the papers, maybe even the history books. This was Mrs. Boynton's motive in acting as she did: she wanted infamy, and she wanted the perverse pleasure of grinding a rich and powerful person into the dirt. Incidentally, we never learn the crime for which the killer was convicted in America. It could have been prostitution, theft, or even murder! Of course, if the killer was released while still relatively young, the charge might only have been manslaughter, but the killer might have exploited the court's sympathies for a reduced charge. A person who's killed once before might not be willing to wait and take the chance that Mrs. Boynton's would die sooner rather than later.

S_Sigerson 17 Nov 08 at 8:36 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Once again Mrs. Boynton never actually threatened (either directly or in a round about way) to reveal the secret. If the murderer did know Mrs. Boynton's heath issues (and from her physical appearance it would not be hard to guess)all the murderer needed to do is sit back and leave nature takes its course. And there is no evidence Mrs. Boynton actually "hated" the murderer or hated the person enough to try and ruin their life. Yes, Mrs. Boynton was a sadistic, petty, selfish and took pleasure is making poeople squirm, but that doesn't prove she would actually go after the murderer to try and destroy them. The murderer did not gain financially from Mrs. Boynton's death. So given Mrs. Boynton's personality, health issues and the fact the murderer did not gain financially from her death leads me to the same conclusion - weak motivation.

Marc_Anton 17 Nov 08 at 7:41 p.m. GMT

Anyway, Mrs. B. could not have kept her hold on the murderer for very long because, as doctor Gerard said after the murder, she was in a very bad health and would not live 'a week, a month or perhaps a year'. But perhaps the murderer didn't know this. Also the murderer must have spend a lot of energy (and perhaps money) to hide the tracks of his/her earlier life, the life that Mrs. B. threatend to reveal. The murderer could not risk to have that past to be uncovered, in real or only in threats. Even Poirot says that Mrs. B. wanted the pleasure of torturing her vitim for a while and then enjoy revealing the truth in the most spectacular fashion.

And yes, Mrs. B. was a pathetic bully with no life. Didn't Sarah King see her as 'a pathetic ineffectual figure. To be born with such a lust for power, such a desire for domination - and to achieve only a petty domestic tyranny!'

Perhaps this is one of the books that, with a little rewriting, could have a completely different outcome, with a different motive and murderer. I think we had this kind of discussion before once, I think the book then was Murder in Mesopotamia.

S_Sigerson 17 Nov 08 at 7:19 p.m. GMT

Perhaps, but once again you have to think of Mrs. Boynton's psychological makeup. Not only was she sadistic, but obese and lazy as well. It is one thing to sit there and give someone "I know your past" stare with a mean spirited smirk and quite another to actually go about "exposing" them, which would take energy and more importantly time. Mrs. Boynton was too self-involved to spend her "precious" time running about screaming from roof tops about someone's past. And given the tenacity of the murderer in Appointment with Death (the novel) I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they would have simply told Mrs. Boynton had she threatened to expose the secret to simply tell her “go ahead do it and go to the devil". The person was strong and more than likely could overcome any backlash had the secret been revealed. I don’t think the person in question was afraid of someone like Mrs. Boynton who was nothing more than a pathetic bully with no life. No, Agatha Christie should have thought more about the characters and motivation. Had she the book might have been a perfect 10 instead of a 7 or 8.

squatty 17 Nov 08 at 7:03 p.m. GMT

This is pure assumption on my part but wouldnt that kind of mental blackmail be shorter term than financial blackmail, and would only be used for some kind of sadistic pleasure. My feeling is that, if she'd have survived, Mrs Boynton could only have carried on the blackmail for a short while and then would have had the "pleasure" of watching the fall out after she exposes the secret. Looking at the character of the murderer, that seems a reasonable motive for their crime

S_Sigerson 17 Nov 08 at 6:57 p.m. GMT

More than likely the "secret" would have been revealed because revealing the "secret" would haved benefited someone. Once again in Appointment with Death revealing the "secret" would have served no purpose. Quite the contrary it would have ruined Mrs. Boynton's fun.

squatty 17 Nov 08 at 6:50 p.m. GMT

Going off at a slight tangent but has anyone read the Inspector Morse novel "Death Is Now My Neighbour". It is remarkably similar to AWD in that the main murder was committed to protect a secret from the past. The actual secrets are similar as well - I'm sure Colin Dexter must have been influenced by AWD.

S_Sigerson 17 Nov 08 at 6:41 p.m. GMT

There were successful people in the 30's who had a "murky past" that lived quite nicely. Like today it depends on who you are and who you know. Nothing in life really changes. Look at Wallis Simpson, she cheated on her second husband with the future King of England. And She went on to live a very nice life with a chateau in France.

S_Sigerson 17 Nov 08 at 6:28 p.m. GMT

Given Mrs. Boynton's character it doen't make sense. If Mrs. Boynton did reveal the secret she would no longer have control over the person. She liked to make people suffer...period. Once the secret was out Mrs. Boynton would no longer have a hold over the person. I think the murderer in the book knew Mrs. Boynton pretty well and would not risk their life and kill Mrs. Boynton. Which is why I firmly believe the motivation in the novel is weak and I do not buy it.

squatty 16 Nov 08 at 11:37 a.m. GMT

I found the motive totally plausable - particularly considering the period when the book was written. Nowadays, the murderer may have got away with having their murky past revealed but back in the 30s, I can believe that it could have been a motive for murder.

burr 16 Nov 08 at 8:39 a.m. GMT

As marc anton has mentioned before, I think Mrs.Boynton only enjoys the knowledge of having power over someone, to have someone into her hands without any action necessary. She really makes the most of it to watch someone suffer, knowing that she is responsible for it. Just to watch the fear, gave her everything she needed.

Marc_Anton 16 Nov 08 at 7:14 a.m. GMT

True, Mrs. Boynton never threatened the murderer (at least we don't know about it) but perhaps her greatest pleasure came from letting the murderer know that she had the knowledge and the power to do so.

** PERHAPS SPOILER **

But I guess the murderer was very sensitive on this point and acted out of a fear that Mrs. Boynton might use this knowledge eventually in some or other way. Mrs. B. might not have access to a newspapers but she might have started a rumour, enough to ruin a career. The murderer must have had other public enemies too who would have been only too eager to follow and investigate these rumours.

Yes, their meeting was coincidental but Mrs. B. saw opportunities everywhere and played with her victims. She was not active in the manipulation of her victims but used what she found on her parth. She was physically a very passive woman but mentally I think not. She was a quick thinker who could easilly spot someones vulnerable spot. She did not blackmail for money because she was obviously a woman of independent means. And she did not have to go to England to expose the murderer's secret since she was dealing with an obviously very public figure, even in the Middle East they knew who he/she was.

No, I think the murderer had a lot to hide and to loose and was bold enough to take any form of swift action toward someone who had the knowledge and ways to ruin reputation and career. It was a murder out of a form of panic.

There are other examples in Christie's work where the murderer acts out of fear of having some dark secret revealed. So it made sense to me but I can understand when you see it differently.

S_Sigerson 15 Nov 08 at 9:27 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

The problem is Mrs. Boynton never actually threatened the murderer with exposure. Granted Mrs. Boynton was extremely sadistic towards her own family, but that alone doesn't prove anything. And Mrs. Boynton lived in America and the murderer did not. It was a fluke that their paths crossed. I doubt Mrs. Boynon would ever move to England. So what is Mrs. boynton going to do? Take out a full page ad in the London Times exposing the murderer's secret? I don't think so. I don't envision Mrs. Boynton wasting her time and energy especislly since she was obese and lazy. I do think she got a perverse pleasure seeing the murderer squirm, but once again that deson't mean she would jet off to England and expose the murderer's deep dark secret to British public. Had Mrs. Boynton attempted blackmail or some other odious act then the murder would have made sense..

Marc_Anton 15 Nov 08 at 9:43 a.m. GMT

 ** PERHAPS A SPOILER **

Mmm...I found the motive in Appointment with Death (public exposure) more believable than in some other Christie novels; some people will go to great (or any) lenghts to preserve image, especially when the victim is a morally insane woman who is hated by many. It would feel like a kind of 'service to society'

I think we still can relate to that when nowadays so many careers of popsingers, moviestars, politicians and other public figures can be shattered by the the public outcry on some aspects of their private life. And in the 1930s even more so, there are many examples of that. No, I didn't have any problems with that.

I agree S Sigerson, my only critisism is that actions and explainations in a mystery plot (novels and films) should fit within the logic of things, for the rest it is pure escapism and entertainement. This is fiction, when you want to have real life, get one.

S_Sigerson 15 Nov 08 at 9:14 a.m. GMT

Appointment with Death was one of Christie's best novels except for the weak motive. Everything else - setting, tension etc. were quite good. I do think the adaptation with David Suchet was more powerful and the motive more believable. I can't quite bring myself to believe someone would commit murder for the motive given in the book version of Appointment with Death. I have never really taken issue with changes that are made and accept sometimes changes are unavoidable. Perhaps if I had vested interest in the Christie Estate I might feel otherwise. Fortunately I have the luxury of being a fan and sitting back and just enjoying Poirot without being overly critical. Besides to be honest after I finish reading a mystery/crime fiction I tend to forget the details so most of the time I don't even realize changes were even made. For me mysteries are pure escapism. Nothing more; nothing less.

Marc_Anton 15 Nov 08 at 5:44 a.m. GMT

DrDavid, yes I know what you mean, that was the reason I was away from the Forum for a very long time; sometimes there are more important things in life than to figure out who was the best Poirot or if the new Marple TV-versions do Christie justice.

You are right, Ustinov was never a good Poirot. In my opinion, Christie gave Poirot a certain dignity that Ustinov lacked. I always found him very untidy in his behaviour, something you would never associate with Poirot. AWD was really the last of the 'best' Poirots, it went downhill very quickly from there. Unlike David Suchet, I think Ustinov never bothered to make Poirot 'his own', it was just another job for him (or so it looks).

You can't really call me a Christie obsessive (though it might look I am one); actually, I don't even find her a good (crime)writer. But I am fascinated by Christie as a publishing phenomena and her everlasting appeal in media. What makes a writer with so many flaws still popular with every new generation? That is what this Forum is all about.

(By the way: where is the edit function ? It comes and it goes)

drdavid 14 Nov 08 at 8:03 p.m. GMT

marc anton meant to write here more often but have been distracted ~ by life , mainly. I do beleive that AWD had a limited cinema release although like most people I caught up with it on tv and later bought the video ( I dont even know if it ever had a dvd release) now a much sought after item, yes really. Ustinov, for me, never fitted the Poirot suit very well and not only in AWD but in all his other Christie films he looks clearly bored ( and often superior) to the activity around him, though I was very fond of Dead Man's Folly (my first ever Christie book). Sorry I mistook your homeland but then I felt I needed more clues. What fun to one day meeting up with another Christie obsessive

Marc_Anton 08 Nov 08 at 11 a.m. GMT

I can't believe the Ustinov version Appointment with Death was a big screen release (but you must be right).Can you imagine go out of the house, find a parking space (with difficulty), buy a cinema ticket and see THAT? It sounds like someting for an old topic 'You know you are an Christie-nut when.....' It must have been a very limite release.

Kathy Bates sounds like a good idea when you hang on to the idea that Mrs Boynton must be obese. But perhaps in the next century because with two versions I think this novel has been served well enough. And by that time Kathy Bates will not be around anyway.

Santonix 08 Nov 08 at 9:59 a.m. GMT

GKCfan

Perhaps my pick to play Mrs. Boynton would have been Kathy Bates. With the right wig and make-up she'd have just about the right look, plus she's very good at playing twisted characters.

Heavens, yes! I said this on the previous site. Surely the woman who brought James Caan such misery could do the same for the Boynton children! I don't see that she would be out of the price range, either. She does Lifetime movies, after all.

vansittart 06 Nov 08 at 8 p.m. GMT

I agree, Ustinov AWD was a bit of a damp squib. Lauren Bacall was very enjoyable and I didn't mind Piper Laurie as Mrs B though she was a bit inclined to be too much the pantomime villain (and at least we did get the 'I never forget a face' dialogue). The rest of them were pretty forgettable though. At least they spared us the awful Hastings from the Ustinov TV movies! Talking of those, I re-watched most of them recently on DVD and agree that they have not dated well. I did quite like 'Dead Mans Folly' though, thanks to some of the casting (esp Mrs Folliat).

squatty 06 Nov 08 at 7:45 p.m. GMT

If I remember correctly the Ustinov Appointment with Death was actually a big screen release and was directed by Michael Winner. I just found the whole film terribly slow and the dramatic climaxes non-existant. I agree with Marc Anton that PU looked bored all the way through the film and even the comedy moments that he normally excelled at were flat.

GKCfan 06 Nov 08 at 3:51 p.m. GMT

Perhaps my pick to play Mrs. Boynton would have been Kathy Bates. With the right wig and make-up she'd have just about the right look, plus she's very good at playing twisted characters.

Marc_Anton 06 Nov 08 at 12:53 p.m. GMT

Like some other Christie versions from the 1980s with Ustinov as Poirot (and Helen Hayes as Miss Marple), they were surprisingly loyal to the original novel (if you care for that kind of thing). The downside was that they were very badly acted and miscast, despite an occasional 'big' name; most of the cast was made of B-television actors. Also, production values were very low and most of them look dated when you watch them now. It proves that 'loyal' does not automatically means 'good'. The best of the lot was Murder is Easy, it still more or less stands up today and casting was a bit better (but only just). But the others look very depressing due to their lack of imagination and creativity.

go_leafs_nation 06 Nov 08 at 10:49 a.m. GMT

Personally, I didn't enjoy the Ustinov version much. Out of the two, it's definately the more faithful version. But that doesn't mean it's faithful. It's like "Marple"'s great grandpa, if you know what I mean.

What did I not like about it? Pretty much everything from Poirot dressing up to a random police chase. (At least, I think that was in this one. I haven't seen it in a while.) Perhaps the highlight of the entire film was Lauren Bacall, who outshone the entire cast, including Ustinov.

Marc_Anton 06 Nov 08 at 10:01 a.m. GMT

Dr.David, I was less than impressed with Piper Laurie in the earlier Ustinov-version. She is too petite in my opinion and was heavily padded to give her some weight (as was Cheryll Campbell). She also over-acted, using her voice in a kind of contralto growl that didn’t really suited her. She just wasn't formidable enough. I guess it is a difficult role to cast. The description in the novel is ‘an extremely obese woman’ with cold, evil eyes. Perhaps it is hard to find an actress who is AND overweight AND who oozes evil from every pore (Dawn French won’t do).

There are not so many actresses around who can do this. Perhaps they should forget the overweight look and use someone who is good in evil roles: I am thinking of they type of Mrs. Danvers in Hitchc*ck’s Rebecca or the actress who played Claude Raines’ mother in Notorious (long ago).

I found the Ustinov version rather bland myself, especially the Boynton (step) children. The best thing for me was Lauren Bacall though a bit of a caricature (not her fault but the script). Peter Ustinov looked bored, not very convincing.

Your detective work was a bit off the mark (sorry!). It is not Wales or the UK but The Netherlands, in the coastal city of The Hague, quite a windy and rainy town (we are used to it). the invitation still stands though.

drdavid 05 Nov 08 at 8:37 p.m. GMT

so a country where it rains most of the time, doing a little detective work, marc anton I come up with the UK and then Wales as my own experiences of Wales are that it is the wettest and greenest country I have evr been to, although I am told it rains quite a lot in New Zealand too. It would be great to get out of this chat room for a real chat but as we are still within the auspices of AWD I wonder did you ever watch the Ustinov with the magnificent Piper Laurie as La Boynton?

Marc_Anton 28 Oct 08 at 6:07 a.m. GMT

True, the book is not first class Christie but it has some very smart observations of (disfunctional) family life. The denouement is one of the longest in Christie's oeuvre, there is even a very complicated time line that reads as a train table: who was where and and when did he/se arrive there? And all this almost to the minute! It was as if Christie realised that she had worked herself into a rather impossible situation and she needed all her skills to write herself out of there, and make it credible for the intelligent reader.

Also, I think the character of the murderer was not sufficiently developed. The murderer was always somewhere in the background and Poirot did not have one interesting conversation with him/her (I will not spoil it here) BEFORE the murder, so we learned nothing about this person's motivations. You accept it eventually but when you look at it closer, it all goes a bit against your own logic. Since about everybody had a reason to kill Mrs. Boynton, this was one of those books where you could point to any other of the characters as a murderer without too much reworking of the actual intrigue and plot.

But that was all in the book and we are talking FILM here. I always try to watch a film or TV-play with an open mind, like there was no original novel or theatre play as a source. I rarely make comparisons, because it is very hard to make a faithfull screen adaptation of any book. Have you ever listened to an complete Audio adaptation of a Christie book? It takes 5 or 6 CDs, and Christie novels are normally not very long (compared to other novels). So to boil it down to 90 minutes is a very difficult task, you lose some and you win some.

DrDavid, drop in any time, you are welcome! I don't have an open fire (but in my country it rains most of the time) but I have lots (LOTS) of books and films and I love to discuss and analyse them with everybody who shares a passion for (crime) literature and cinema.

drdavid 27 Oct 08 at 6:40 p.m. GMT

marc anton, I am in awe with your authoritative review of this sadly bowdlerised version of one of Agatha's fun books set in her beloved Utopia of Archaeologicville. I bought the recent set of Poirot's to resee Cat Among the Pigoens and Third Girl as I thought they were both such odd adapatations. Agatha's books just don't always make good telly as they should be taken in large doses in comfy armchairs on rainy afternoons or winter evenings accompanied by large whiskies or cups of cocoa depending on preference. I reread AWD after watching the DVD while visiting an aged parent who lives in the country so I could read it with relatively little interruption. The book is not 1st class Christie and is definitely a book of two parts. The first, and much more interesting, is the setting up of the dynamic of the ghastly Boynton family (similar in many ways to the family in Ordeal by Innocence)and Agatha's wonderful atmospheric writing of the locations she loves. The second half is the academic explanation by Poirot. He barely features in the first half of the book at all.You go along with the explanation because that is how we read Poirot, though there are several French intellectuals that have taken his explanations, especially The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, to task and proved him wrong !!! sacre bleu. I need to take you out for a drink, marc anton, as a thank you for making this, sadly crumbling site still stimulating

Marc_Anton 27 Oct 08 at 7:11 a.m. GMT

Strange that you can't even open a Hide Spoiler Reply (not even your own) once you logged in!

Perhaps the problem with filming the Middle East Christie novels you have to spend a lot of precious 90-minute screen time on local cultural background before you can move into the actual story, like in Murder in Mesopotamia and to a lesser degree (because it was on a boat) in Death on the Nile. What is the use of going to Morocco or Tunesia when you can't offer pictures of spectacular views and oriental detail?

Anyway, I agree with Vansittart, this version could have done without one or two subplots. When they would have lost the nun and the stock market thing and spent more time on developing the main drama, it would have been so much more interesting. Now it stayed quite shallow, and even some good acting could not help it. Perhaps the writers underestimate the intelligence of the viewers and are affraid to bore us with too little action. The opening of the film looked like a version of The Mummy 3 (or 4).

Indeed, Elizabeth McGovern had a lot of dignity, much more than Lauren Bacall in an earlier version. Remember Bacall stumbling into the men's section at the Jerusalem Wailing Wall?. The young McGovern used to have a bit of a doll faced appearence but now in her late 40s, is become more and more beautiful and a very good actress too.

Perhaps physical abuse is easier to film than mental and psychological torment (or at least you have to work harder to make it believable, something the writer of this screenplay had no intention to do so), but it has been done in other major plays and films and can make an unsettling impact that stays with you for days.

Short: if you started with  Appointment with Death out of the last four Poirots TV-plays (something I advise to do so), I promise you, things will only improve (when flawed). For me, I don't think I will return to this episode.

GKCfan 26 Oct 08 at 7:20 p.m. GMT

Unfortunately, the four new Poirots won't be released in the U.S. for at least two months, possibly more, so I won't be able to provide my own opinion for a while. When it comes to Agatha Christie, I prefer to be forewarned of dramatic changes beforehand, so I don't mind hearing about the shake-ups.

vansittart 26 Oct 08 at 5:49 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Well, I have now also managed to view 'Appointment With Death' and thought I might add my opinion. As a standalone mystery drama I thought it worked well enough but anyone looking for a faithful adaptation of the book will, of course be disappointed. Its a pity that we didn't get to go to Petra for this film (the Ustinov version didn't manage to get there either) but I thought the dig setting was a reasonable enough substitute. Whilst I liked Cheryl Campbell as Lady B, I felt that we didn't really get to see enough of her. This character is the most interesting thing about the book and I felt that the adaptation took a rather obvious route in making her torture of the children physical as well as mental - as a result she actually became LESS interesting IMO. Other performances I enjoyed were Elizabeth McGovern as a very different Westholme and the two Boynton daughters (I'd have liked to see Carol developed as fully as Jinny - there was real potential there). As often happens with these ITV adaptations (Marple as well as Poirot), the whole thing is crammed too full of unnecessary and superfluous subplots. I shook my head sadly at the 'white slave trading' subplot and the 'missing child' subplot (repeating the 'Mrs McGinty' ambiguous Christian name idea) and especially the batty Nanny subplot (poor old Angela Pleasance with only about 2 words to say in the whole thing!). Oddly enough these things bothered me more than the changes to the murderers, method and motive perhaps because of the quiet dignity of McGovern's performance. I wish they hadn't bothered with the 'Death on the Nile' double death at the end though or Poirot disappearing like Harley Quin into the mists in the final frames. All in all then, I enjoyed this well enough whilst lamenting that it could have been much better. Certainly the weakest of the four episodes this season for me.

Marc_Anton 26 Oct 08 at 5:08 a.m. GMT

You know I don't mind any changes, as long as they are logical. I want to be entertained and surprised. I read all the Christie books so a 'faithful' film version will not hold any surprises, it will be boring. Besides, if you can't stand it, don't watch it! For me books always come first.

In a way the new Marples are better than the Poirots in that respect, even when they are very unlike the original novels. At least you see Marple react when she notices something phony or out of place, Poirot is too bland. I can't tell (yet) if it is the actress/actor who is responsible or the script. The strong point of the Poirot novels (and earlier tv episodes) was that Christie makes it all sound very logical, even when the situation was often highly unrealistic. Crime fiction of that era was never like reality and it stretched the limits of our logic and imagination. When it is presented well and intelligently, we buy it.

Part of the 'problem' is that now that most of the novels are filmed, also the weaker ones get screen treatment. Sometimes you can't fix a broken clock, the original material was not very good in the first place.

Did you notice that David Suchet's acting is getting a bit repetitious? His reveal-it-all-speech at the denouement is built the same way: he starts calm and then gets this very agressive and angry tone and at the end he almost shouts at the murderer. Perhaps this is more a lack of direction than a poor script because Poirot has a lot of text at this point and Suchet always had his way with words. It is like someone told him: "OK David, do you shtik like you did it the last time, it worked then."

It confirms that the basis of any good film or tv play is an intelligent script. Perhaps that is lacking because production values and acting quality have never been better in the last episodes, they look very costly, with a great eye for detail in sets, props and costumes.

GKCfan 25 Oct 08 at 8:52 p.m. GMT

Great review, Marc Anton! I think that a major problem with a lot of the new Poirots and Marples is more than just the radical changes to the plots, it's the fact that the screenwriters don't try to delve into the psychology of the characters. Poirot rarely has much physical or forensic proof, his conclusions are usually drawn entirely from insights on behavior and mental make-up, and when the screenwriters don't provide logical motives or change actions, it becomes impossible to tell how Poirot knows that a suspect could or couldn't have done something.

Marc_Anton 25 Oct 08 at 2:04 p.m. GMT

Nothing wrong with Murder She Wrote but there is a big difference between a professional detective like Poirot and an English teacher from Maine: you expect a more clever solution and the Christie-public (readers and viewers) has somewhat higher expectations. They are not so easily fooled.

I can't tell why my first tries were rejected, I threw out a lot of text so THE WORD must have been in one of those lines. By the way, I found out how to make paragraphs: you have to do that in the edit function AFTER you published the text.

SPOILER About the nun and all the praying she did: maybe she was a Religious evil slave trader! END SPOILER

I normally like Cheryl Campbell, in other parts she is really outstanding. Her first line as Lady Boynton about the newspapers sounds like a poor man's Lady Bracknell with a lousy American accent. And Judy Parfit (Death on the Nile) is one of the really great British actresses of today. By the way, in the film Dolores Claybourn she is more than perfect as a bossy American. Maybe you need a really grotesque actress as Lady Boynton and these are hard to find.

I would like to see Poirot do more detection. Perhaps it is because he has no side kicks anymore though even with Ariadne Oliver on his side you don't really see him at work. Mind you, the last thing I want is a 'Jessica Fletcher Ah-Ha moment' just 10 minutes before the end. But Christie spent so much effort in using and hiding all these little clues in her plots, at least Poirot must give us viewers a chance to say 'Now why did I not see that myself?' At present I feel that he comes with too much information just out of the blue, if you know what I mean. Is Poirot getting old? I don't hope so.

go_leafs_nation 25 Oct 08 at 1:15 p.m. GMT

By the way, a comment on Sister Agnieszka: I appreciated that they at least TRIED to get her to speak Polish, rather than German. However, her Polish was extremely and obviously flawed, and her English accent did not sound like a Polish accent at all (My parents have heavy Polish accents, and so, comparison is extremely easy).

go_leafs_nation 25 Oct 08 at 1 p.m. GMT

[Applause] Why the post was rejected, I can't tell. You made some very insightful comments. Poirot does tend to use less and less detection, now that I think of it. Like you said, it's like "Murder She Wrote". But I LOVE "Murder, She Wrote". Anyhow, your comment on Cheryl Campbell's Mrs. Boynton is very insightful. Personally, I enjoyed the portrayal very much, but I can see why you say she "overacted". SPOILERS! As for the nun, it's just another cheap trick, I'd say, to fool the viewer into thinking she was a real nun. I dislike it very much when a movie uses cheap tricks to deceive an intelligent viewer (such as in AT BERTRAM'S HOTEL: those who have seen it may know what I mean). END OF SPOILERS!

Marc_Anton 25 Oct 08 at 11:43 a.m. GMT

(Hurray, that went all right, now let's see if I can publish part 2)

Acting in Appointment with Death was more or less ok, some roles hardly had any screen time to develop. Cheryl Campbell (usually a good actress) did what most English actresses do when they have to play an American: overacting! It was the same with Judy Parfit in Death on the Nile, the accent is all wrong and they use stock gestures like from old Hollywood movies. It made Lady Boynton more a comic caricature than a frightening domestic sadist. Can't they use good American actresses to play American characters? They could find Elliot Gould for the Blue Train and David Soul for Death on the Nile to play Americans.

The other way around: Beautiful American Elizabeth McGovern was a very convincing and tragic Dame Celia Westholm, she underplayed the part with great effect. The men were all a bit soppy but perhaps they were meant to be.

SPOILER The nun did an awful lot of praying, even in the privacy of her room (considering that she was not a real nun but an evil slave trader) END SPOILER

The murder method was a lot of hokum, but it was also in the novel, so I don't mind. In this case the murder was completely justified and my sympathies were with the murderer(s). To sum up: it was a nice little piece of escapism, in my view the weakest of the last four episodes, I rather enjoyed Third Girl, Cat Among the Pigeons and Mrs. McGinty's Dead. And yes, when I visit an archaeological dig (and I did), I always take my dinner jacket with me.  

Marc_Anton 25 Oct 08 at 11:42 a.m. GMT

Let's give it another try!

I watched Appointment With Death last night, it was ok (sort of). Again this strange photography, like in Mrs. McGinty's Dead, the sun bounces off every person and object and makes everything look very hazy. There were a lot of actors who played parts in various Miss Marple episodes, I counted at least 5 and maybe I missed one or two.

Perhaps it is time to open a fresh tin of Thespians, it is getting a bit confusing seeing the same faces all the time in various Marple and Poirot-episodes. Again there was too much confusion around too little plot, this time Poirot rounded up no less than four cases (the head of John the Baptist, the nun, the stock market affair and the murder). It was almost funny: one down, three more to go, and all in just over a quarter of an hour.

Poirot tends to do very little detection lately; you ask yourself during the denouement 'How does he KNOW all this?' Mere guesswork? He works more on intuition nowadays instead of using the little grey cells. It is becoming more and more like an episode of Murder She Wrote: Poirot makes some vague statements and happily for him, and for us, the murderer flows over with one confession after another. You almost want to scream: 'Shut up! He doesn't have a shred of proof, you will walk free!'

Again the camera was lying: what you see in the flashback of the murder is not the same what you saw earlier in the story. It is a cheap way of deceiving the intelligent viewer. (End of Part 1: no naughty words in this one)

go_leafs_nation 25 Oct 08 at 11:26 a.m. GMT

There I agree. The film was interesting, yes. But it was nothing in comparison to "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" or even "Cat Among the Pigeons". But the choice of the accomplice made me see red. If there was going to BE an "accomplice", I would've liked ANYONE else to assume that role. David Suchet's acting was splendid, as always. Cheryll Capmbell is the evil Mrs. Boynton from the book in flesh and blood. Tim Curry fans, set your heart at ease. His acting was another bright spot, despite the fact his character never appeared in the book. Now, I somewhat enjoyed this adaptation up until the denouement. The final outcome was what infuriated me the most. What would've been a somewhat positive rating (but with severe critiscism) all of a sudden changed to a mostly negative one. If you have not seen AWD: do not expect anything close to the book. I suggest watching it as if it was some other mystery program, and only AFTERWARDS compare it to the novel. I found it mildly entertaining, but overall, a horrendous adaptation.

Marc_Anton 25 Oct 08 at 5:26 a.m. GMT

Thank you for your kind words. Well, I still have my text, I saved it just to make sure it would not get lost because of this ridiculous word-filter. Since then I have gone over this text several times to find out where the 'naughty word' is hidden but I am affraid I can not discover it (maybe Poirot could give me a hand!). It is obviously a very normal everyday word but in the eyes of the pure-language-police it must be something very damaging to the clean mind. It is very strange because I have been posting a lot the last days and all my other posts are accepted.

As I said, my personal view on Appointment with Death was rather lengthy and the word is somewhere hidden in a name or a combination of letters. Sigh.....! I will give it another try later in the day. I will eventually let you know what the 'dirty word was', we can all have a good laugh! I hope that somehow we will find a way to get back to the new version of Appointment with Death, it was interesting, to say the least. 

go_leafs_nation 24 Oct 08 at 9:56 p.m. GMT

Well, now I'm sad that I'll never get to read what would've been a brilliant post. A "dirty words" list would be helpful. It's happened to me once or twice on other forums, where I did not use any "bad word" at all, and yet, my post was rejected. It can get very annoying.

Aurora 24 Oct 08 at 11:18 a.m. GMT

I agree. Let's have a list somewhere on the site in a format which protects the easily offended (e.g. B*****d, The L Word)but will save those of us who use words correctly from wasting time writing long posts only to have them rejected. As I've said elsewhere on this site if the name of a major UK airline owned by Richard Branson is on there then I think someone really needs to get a life.

Marc_Anton 23 Oct 08 at 8:26 p.m. GMT

I saw Appointment with Death and tried to post my rather lengthy view on this episode but unfortunately my post was (again) refused. I must have used a 'naughty' word (unintentionally) somewhere. Really, this nonsence must stop! I am not surprised there is so little action on this Forum, when you have to look over your texts with a magnifying glass to see if there are no 'inappropriate' terms used. It is is not very stimulating when you spend time and effort on a contribution and the word-blocker prevents you from publishing it.  Is it to protect the 12-year olds on this Forum from being exposed to 'dirty' words? You will be surprised the words kids know (and use) nowadays!  Could the moderator/editor of this Forum come up with a list of 'forbidden words' we are not allowed to use? It would be most helpfull. Well, I see now that at least there is an edit function, that is an improvement. ...

squatty 23 Oct 08 at 5:32 p.m. GMT

Something is going terribly wrong with the current season of Poirot. Is it beaause new writers or production team are trying to put their own stamp on the series? I actually think this is very disrespectful of the previous standards set. The writers and producers of Morse changed most series but they always stuck to the production values that led to the series being such a great success. It would be awful if the great series of Poirot has its reputation ruined by these very shoddy episodes. I re-watched Taken At The Flood the other day and the gulf in quality between that film and the latest ones is enormous.

Aurora 23 Oct 08 at 5:14 p.m. GMT

Go Leafs, I totally agree. It was soooo bad I fell asleep at the first attempt but my husband said it was such a train reck of an adaptation I had to try again. Even great actors playing brilliants roles (DS, Cheryl Campbell) couldn't save this from Room 101. Please don't let this be "the 20th aniversary of David Suchet" show. It just does not do him or any of the previous ones justice. In my view, the worst so far.

go_leafs_nation 22 Oct 08 at 11:55 p.m. GMT

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.

geoffas 08 Oct 08 at 8:46 p.m. GMT

squatty

Geoffas - is that the colection that is due to go sale in the UK? The listings I have seen for Poirot 7 in the UK do not include Appointment With Death

Yes,it was released Oct 6. I got mine from Play.com. You're right it isn't listed but is indeed included!

squatty 08 Oct 08 at 6:08 p.m. GMT

Geoffas - is that the colection that is due to go sale in the UK? The listings I have seen for Poirot 7 in the UK do not include Appointment With Death

wolfbridge 08 Oct 08 at 12:16 p.m. GMT

yes there are no extras. who needs em anyway. also got my Marple Set 3 today.

geoffas 08 Oct 08 at 10:13 a.m. GMT

I can confirm that Appointment with Death is included in the new Poirot 7 collection. I haven't watched it yet. There don't appear to be any extras.

shanty_sleuth 01 Oct 08 at 7:30 p.m. GMT

Was it shown again in Sweden?

wolfbridge 01 Oct 08 at 1:41 p.m. GMT

Appointment with Death - just had it. It was excellent :)

I didnt read the book and probably never will in this lifetime.

shanty_sleuth 01 Oct 08 at 2:16 a.m. GMT

I can answer that. Tim Curry is in it, as Lord Boyton, Lady Boynton's husband and the head archaeologist of the dig to unearth the head of St. John the Baptist in Syria. Apparently his character is quite oblivious to his wife's evilness.

go_leafs_nation 30 Sep 08 at 8:56 p.m. GMT

Just one last question. There were rumours at one point that Tim Curry would be in it. Did he end up appearing after all?

geoffas 30 Sep 08 at 11:19 a.m. GMT

I understand that Appointment with Death is being held back to be shown next year to mark 20 years of David Suchet's Poirot. It looks as if it may be on the DVD set to be released on 6/10 as it's being adverstised as a 4 DVD set.

GKCfan 30 Sep 08 at 4:40 a.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I just didn't want "Appointment" to devolve to the disgusting depths of McEwan's "Nemesis."

go_leafs_nation 30 Sep 08 at 1 a.m. GMT

Thanks, Sanna. I'm not looking forward particularily to the final episode. But at least I might not shoot my TV now. :)

Sanna 29 Sep 08 at 10:57 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

Ok, can't wait for a reply, sorry ;) Her being a nun is a cover-up, she's actually involved in white-slave trade.

Sanna 29 Sep 08 at 10:11 a.m. GMT

GoLeafs, do you want a regular spoiler or just a hint?

littlegrey76 23 Sep 08 at 3:08 p.m. GMT

someone can tell me when the new episodes will be airing in italy?

Malavasi the italian distributors don't answer me or wasn't able to answer me about this question.

M_Hercule_Poirot 23 Sep 08 at 11:23 a.m. GMT

I'm sorry I can't answer your question but I have one of my own. Is the DS version of AWD airing in England in early October?