Dead Man's Mirror

 Dead Man's Mirror (Murder in the Mews; 1937) by Agatha Christie

Short collection of three novellas--one of many variations of US editions of the original collection, Murder in the Mews. We see various themes which Christie liked to use in her stories--from the clues that Poirot finds important that Riddle, Japp, and other officials tend to brush off or overlook--to the beautiful woman as victim (in the vein of Evil Under the Sun or Death on the Nile). Christie is still the master of misdirection and it's easy to look where she wants you to look rather than at the genuine clues. ★★★★

"Dead Man's Mirror": Poirot is summoned by Gervase Chevenix-Gore to come and help him with a delicate family matter. But there is no time for the men to meet because just after Poirot arrives at Hamborough Close, his host's body is discovered in the body. On the face of it, it is suicide--doors and window locked, the gun just below the man's hand, and a note with the word "Sorry." Poirot, however, believes the room tells a different story and works to prove that murder has occurred. As he tells Major Riddle, the Chief Constable, everything depends on the mirror....

"Murder in the Mews": A second locked room mystery in this collection. Mrs. Allen, a young widow, is found shot to death in her locked sitting/bedroom in the flat she shares with a friend. The gun is in her hand--but again, suicide is impossible. The gun is in her right hand--she was shot in the left temple. Though the gun is in her hand, it wasn't gripped firmly enough to produce fingerprints. And then there's the cigarettes and the enamel from a man's cufflink. Japp sees murder and thinks he's got his man. But Poirot sees other clues that point in a different direction...

"Triangle at Rhodes": While vacationing at Rhodes during the slow season, Poirot becomes involved in 
a murder resulting from a love triangle that seems to focus on Valentine Chantray--a beautiful young woman who attracts young men like bees to flowers. When Valentine is poisoned in an apparent murder gone wrong, Poirot reveals that everyone has been looking a the wrong triangle...

1st line (first story): The flat was a modern one.

Last line (last story): "She chose--to remain..."
****************

Deaths = 7 (four natural; two shot; one poisoned)

Hercule Poirot & the Greenshore Folly

 Hercule Poirot & the Greenshore Folly (2013) by Agatha Christie
(Originally written in 1954)

Mrs. Ariadne Oliver has been asked to devise a Murder Hunt for a village fete being held on the grounds of Sir George and Lady Stubbs. But as she works to put together an interesting little puzzle for the villagers, she gets the sense that something is not right and she calls upon her friend Hercule Poirot to come and check out the situation. He, too, finds discrepancies in the behavior of those staying/living at the Stubbs home. But neither of them thought that the Girl Guide who had volunteered to play the murder victim in the fete game would wind up fulfilling the part of a real corpse. Then Lady Stubbs disappears. But Poirot and the local police inspector have no success in tracking down the corpse or finding the missing woman. It isn't until another death occurs and Mrs. Oliver makes a chance remark that Poirot finally begins to see a pattern that leads him to the solution.

Greenshore Folly is a novella originally written in 1954 with the intention of donating it as a church fundraiser. But Christie decided to hold on to it and develop it further--turning it into Dead Man's Folly (published in 1954). All of the bones are there, but the full novel fleshes out characters and relationships far more than Christie was able to do in the shorter work. It was interesting to look at the story in its initial form and to see how Christie filled it in to create a full-fledge novel. Not quite as engaging as the later work, but a fine first draft. ★★★

First line: It was Miss Lemon, Poirot's efficient secretary, who took the telephone call.

Last line: "There are some things that one has to face quite alone..."
****************

Deaths = 5 (two strangled; one drowned; one natural; one in war)

Destination Unknown

 Destination Unknown (aka So Many Steps to Death; 1955) by Agatha Christie

Destination Unknown is one of Agatha Christie's non-series books. As seems to be usual for her stand-alone books, this is a foray into spy/thriller territory. This time we have scientists and chemists and medical researchers disappearing at an alarming rate. In the Cold-War-Era climate, this is particularly disturbing and England's secret service becomes especially interested when a young scientist by the name of Thomas Betterton vanishes. They suspect that his wife knows where to find him even though she does quite a good job of portraying the wife at her wit's end. When she suddenly decides to leave England for her health on "doctor's orders" they decide to keep close tabs on her.  Then her plane crashes and she isn't expected to live.

Enter Hilary Craven. Hilary's husband has deserted her for another woman and her daughter has just died from a long illness. She thinks that taking a trip will somehow change her life. But when she arrives in Morocco she finds that what she has been trying to run away from is herself...and you can't do that. Thinking that she has nothing left to live for, she goes from pharmacy to pharmacy gathering enough sleeping pills to end her life. But Hilary has caught the eye of one of the secret service men...or rather her red hair has. And he offers her a bargain...take an assignment that means almost certain death (and which might just get her interested in living again) rather than taking pills which may not be as pleasant a way out as she anticipates.

What is wanted is for Hilary to take the place of Mrs. Thomas Betterton and her particular shade of red hair makes her the perfect candidate. The scientist's wife is definitely not going to survive her injuries and Hilary is to take on her persona. If anyone contacts her about joining her husband, she is to follow along and lead the agents to where the scientists have been taken. It will be dangerous and she's going to have to be letter-perfect in her role. Will she do it?  Hilary decides she will.  Off towards a destination unknown.

Generally speaking, I haven't been as big a fan of Christie's stand-alone novels as I am of Poirot and Miss Marple and Tommy & Tuppence. The one big exception is And Then There Were None (aka Ten Little Indians, etc), which I think is absolutely awesome. But this one is pretty darn good. Christie loves to take the standard of various plots in the mystery/detective world and give them her own little twist. Here she does it with the "scientists defecting to the other side" motif. Only....are they? Or, rather, are they going where they think they are and for the purpose that they believe in? That's the real question.

Hilary Craven is a very intelligent and likeable character. It is easy to see why she might have been full of despair, but being the type of woman she is, it's also easy to see why she would take up the challenge offered her by Jessop. It's not that she despises life in general--she just wants a reason for living. As she says to herself when contemplating suicide:

The reality of herself and what she could bear, and what she could not bear. One could bear things, Hilary thought, so long as there was a reason for bearing them. (p. 31)

And Jessop provides that for her. The plot--her taking on another woman's persona, especially with such a short time to learn her part--may be a bit shaky, but it's got enough grounding to make the reader willing to believe it. There are other interesting characters--including Jessop; Andrew Peters, a young American scientist; and Mrs. Calvin Baker, an American tourist who's not quite what she seems. Mrs. Baker may not be on the side of the angels, but I did enjoy the persona she embodied. A fun and quick read. ★★★★

First line: The man behind the desk moved a heavy glass paperweight four inches to the right. [sound a bit like Poirot, needing things positioned just so]

W: Nobody's so gullible as scientists. All the phony mediums say so.  Can't quite see why.

J: Oh, yes, it would be so. They think they know, you see. That's always dangerous.

~Wharton; Jessop (p. 3)

"I'm handicapped," said the man behind the desk bitterly. "I never believe anybody." ~Jessop (p. 5)

I don't go in for being sorry for people. For one thing it's insulting. One is only sorry for people if they are sorry for themselves. Self-pity is the biggest stumbling block in our world today.

~Jessop (p. 53)

E: When one has at last reached freedom, can one even contemplate going back?

HC: But if it is not possible to go back, or to choose to go back, then it is not freedom!

~Ericsson; Hilary Craven (p. 120-1)

Last line: "You Frenchmen are so well-read," said Jessop.
****************

Deaths = one natural; one plane crash; one poisoned

A Pocket Full of Rye

 A Pocket Full of Rye (1953) by Agatha Christie

London businessman Rex Fortescue, a wily wheeler-dealer, has stepped on a lot of toes on his way up the financial ladder. But could any of the people he bamboozled have had access to his morning tea? 

Not long after Fortescue's glamorous secretary brings him a cup of his special blend in his very special china tea cup, he gasps out, "What did you put in the tea?!" and falls unconscious. An ambulance (or two) is called in and so is Inspector Neele of the Yard (though Fortescue hasn't died...yet). Neele begins asking questions of the office staff while waiting to hear from the hospital about the man's condition. When the call comes, it's to tell Neele that Fortescue is dead--most certainly poisoned and the doctor is nearly certain that it's taxine poisoning. Taxine is slow-acting (so the tea is not the culprit) and comes from yew leaves. And the name of Fortescue's home is Yew Lodge, named so because of the yew trees all about.

So...it would seem that the poison was administered at home. When it's discovered that his widow had a lover and anticipated inheriting a tidy sum upon Fortescue's death, she becomes the prime suspect. At least until she winds up poisoned as well. Then Inspector Neele and Sergeant Hay find themselves needing to dig deeper. One of the clues found upon Fortescue was a handful of rye in his pocket. The connection is made that Rex (meaning "king") was in his counting house when he became ill and that his "queen" was in the parlor having bread (scones) and honey when she died. Is this merely a case of an unbalanced mind using the old nursery rhyme to select their victims. When the maid is strangled while in the garden and found with a clothes pin "nipping her nose," it would certainly seem so. And when Miss Jane Marple arrives (the maid Gladys had previously been in Miss Marple's service), she tells Neele to look for blackbirds--for their most certainly must be blackbirds.

And there are...dead blackbirds were left on Fortescue's desk at home. Dead blackbirds were stuffed into a pie. And at one point Fortescue had swindled a man over something called the Blackbird Mine and possibly left him to die in Africa. The man's widow had sworn vengeance and vowed to train their children to seek revenge if she couldn't get it. Has vengeance come from that quarter? Miss Marple manages to get into the house and ask the questions that the police can't and she helps Neele see that there is more to a nursery rhyme than meets the eye.

Rex Fortescue isn't the only wily one connected to this story. The author was pretty wily herself. I read all the Christie mysteries that the Wabash Carnegie Library had back when I first discovered her (nearly 40 years ago!) and I'm sure this was one of them. And she fooled me again. I thought for sure I remembered which red herring I fell for when I first read it and, by golly, she wasn't going to get me with that again. And she didn't. But I fell for another one. She's that good. And that's one of the reasons why I can reread her books with such enjoyment. If it's been long enough since the last reading, then there's a good chance I'll be mystified all over again. Great fun!

The one small quibble I have is that Miss Marple shows up so very late in the book. Of course, she's tied to the maid, so that makes sense and there really isn't any other way to make her presence plausible--but if it's going to be a Miss Marple mystery, I'd like to see more of her. Even with that small disappointment, it's still a great read and a great mystery. ★★★★

First line: It was Miss Summers turn to make the tea.

Last line: And then, displacing both of these emotions, there came a surge of triumph--the triumph some specialist might feel who has successfully reconstructed an extinct animal from a fragment of jawbone and a couple of teeth.
***************************

Deaths = 5 (two poisoned; one strangled; one in war; one shot)

They Do It with Mirrors

 Murder With Mirrors (aka They Do It With Mirrors; 1952) by Agatha Christie

American Ruth Van Rydock comes to England on one of her flying visits--to see her sister Carrie Louise Serrocold and her dear friend Miss Jane Marple. While at lunch with Miss Marple, she tells her friend that she's worried about Carrie Louise. something is not quite right at Stonygates where Carrie Louise lives in England. She can't say quite what, but she's sure that it involves danger of some sort for her sister. She tells Miss Marple that she has told Carrie Louise all about their "dear friend, Jane--all alone and in need after the war" and, if Carrie Louise asks (as she's bound to do) Jane to come for a visit, will she go? Will she go and use her knack for unraveling problems and understanding people to figure out what's wrong at Stonygates? 

Miss Marple agrees and when the invitation comes she is prompt to accept. She finds a house full of people including Louis Serrocold, Carrie Louise's current husband; Mildred Strete, Carrie Louise's widowed daughter; Stephen Restarick, her stepson from a second marriage; Gina Hudd, her granddaughter, and Gina's husband Walter (an unhappy, misplaced American); Juliet Bellever, housekeeper and devoted companion to Carrie Louise; and a whole institute full of delinquent boys that Louis Serrocold is endeavoring to rehabilitate. One of the boys, Edgar Lawson, has shown signs of improvement and is acting as Louis's secretary. In conversations with all of them, Miss Marple picks up little eddies of discontent and menace of a sort, but she can't quite identify the causes and the focus.

Then Christian Gulbrandsen, Carrie Louise's stepson from her first marriage, arrives unexpectedly. Since he is one of the trustees of the Gulbrandsen Institute and executors of the Gulbrandsen Trust, everyone assumes that some sort of business must have brought him back to England so abruptly. Miss Marple overhears a bit of his conversation with Serrocold--only enough to verify that there is something that concerns Carrie Louise. But before Christian can do much of anything, there is a scene between Serrocold and Edgar in Louis's study. A scene that is noisy enough to draw everyone's attention and which results in shots being fired. However, when the everything is over, the person who has been shot is Christian Gulbrandsen who had gone to his room to write a letter to the other Gulbrandsen trustee. It looks like Christian was shot because he was about to reveal that someone has been systematically poisoning Carrie Louise. And, if true, there's a wide field to choose from who might benefit from her death. But did anyone need money badly enough to poison sweet Carrie Louise? It isn't until Miss Marple remembers the old conjuring trick with mirrors that she sees the full picture of the plot.

For this outing, I actually listened to Joan Hickson's audio novel version from Hoopla even though I own the book in two editions (the one pictured above as well as a digest-sized edition by Pocket Books). I'll address the audio novel first and then talk a bit about the book itself. While I love Joan Hickson as Miss Marple and, for me, she will always be the Miss Marple, I have to say that her audio novel is more like storytime with Miss Marple rather than a performance of the book. There is some small attempt to give a different intonation to the male characters, but in actuality this is just Joan Hickson reading us the story. There nothing wrong with that--I like being read to. But if you're expecting a vocal performance that will give definition to each character, then you will probably be disappointed.

The mystery is a good bit of misdirection for first-time readers. I found that even though this isn't one of Christie's "big" plots (once read, never forgotten) and it had been quite some time since I last read it, I still remembered a great deal of the details. It didn't take long to be absolutely certain who did it and why. I gave more attention this time to the characters and appreciating how much Christie could tell us in her brief descriptions. I also like that Miss Marple is in it from the beginning and is really, truly the star of the show throughout. ★★★★

First line: Mrs. Van Rydock moved a little back from the mirror and sighed.

Last lines: "I don't suppose you can," said Miss Marple. "It was all a long time ago..."
********************

Deaths = 6 (one shot; one hanged; two hit on head; two drowned)

Mrs. McGinty's Dead

 Mrs. McGinty's Dead (1952) by Agatha Christie

Mrs. McGinty's dead!
How did she die?
Down on one knee, just like I!

The old children's rhyme comes to life (or rather death...) when Mrs. McGinty, a woman who made her living cleaning for others (down on her knees, as it were) is found killed. She was hit over the head by an unknown weapon and apparently for her small savings of about thirty pounds. All signs point to her lodger, James Bentley. Bentley is an ineffectual man who had recently lost his job and was badly in need of money. But would a man hide the money under a rock in the backyard? 

Even though the evidence pointed to Bentley and a jury of his peers found him guilty and the man has already been sentence to hang in a very short time, Superintendent Spence isn't happy about the verdict. He can't say why exactly, but he doesn't think Bentley did it. So, he calls on his old friend Hercule Poirot and puts the case before him. Poirot is interested enough to go stay in the village of Broadhinny to see if he can spot anything that Spence missed. The detective's attention is drawn to two things: the bottle of ink that Mrs. McGinty bought two days before her death and a newspaper article cut out of the paper used to wrap her shoes. When he discovers that the article featured four women who were involved with old murder mysteries, he's sure he has found a trail to follow. And when a second woman, who had said she recognized one of the photographs associated with the article, is killed, Poirot knows he's on the right track. But he won't be able to name the killer until he can figure out which photograph both Mrs. McGinty and Mrs. Upward recognized.

I had a good time reading the book and then also listening to Hugh Fraser narrate it on Hoopla. He does excellent voice work and manages to give everyone their own vocal qualities. Given how large the cast of characters is, this is quite a feat. It's always fun to listen to "Captain Hastings" narrate an Agatha Christie story. The novel was a palate cleanser after the Beeding I just finished. It was so nice to sink into a nice straightforward detective story after Beeding's spy-thriller. Christie does it again--clues strewn about in such a way that you don't necessarily pick up on the right ones...or, if you do, you don't look at them the right way. We've got four women from the past, one of whom just might be hanging out in Broadhinny, and we've got to figure out where she's hiding. Or do we? Somebody killed Mrs. McGinty for her money. Or did they? She recognized a photograph and if we find the right photograph, we'll know who the killer is. Or will we? Christie managed to keep me in the dark (mostly) until the reveal. I had my suspicions, but couldn't quite put the clues together properly. 

While I enjoyed the scenes with Mrs. Oliver and Robin Upward wrangling over his adaptation of her book to the stage, I'm not sure she fits in well to the story. I mean, yes, she does provide one of the means (can't be more specific without a spoiler) by which Poirot begins to see daylight, but otherwise she really doesn't add to the investigation. In other appearances, she provides more information and data that Poirot needs and she seems a little more integral to the plot. But overall another great outing with Poirot. ★★★★

First line: Hercule Poirot came out of the Vielle Grand'mere restaurant in Soho.

Last line: "He's a murderer all right!" He added: "Cocky enough for anything!"
********************

Deaths = 7 (two hit on head; two natural; one poisoned; one hanged; one strangled)

Row, Row, Row Your Boat, Gently Down the Nile

 

Please know that if you have not read the book or seen any filmed version (especially the one from 2022), then there will be spoilers. You have been warned.

So, after listening to David Suchet narrate the audio edition of Death on the Nile, I decided to watch Peter Ustinov in the star-studded 1978 film. And that led me on a continuous boat ride down the Nile in 2004 and 2022. And, taking a little detour from book reviews, I'd like to share my thoughts on these three adaptations. [And, brother, do I have thoughts--especially on the most recent version. Hold on to your asps!] All three manage (to greater or lesser degrees) to remain faithful to aspects of the original novel] while all take liberties with the material in some way as well.

First up, the beautifully shot, beautifully cast 1978 film starring Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot. Does Ustinov look the least bit like my image of the Belgian detective? No. But he's the first Poirot I ever saw on film and I have a great fondness for him. He adds a quirky note to Poirot's self-importance that I find charming. The supporting cast is spectacular from Bette Davis and David Niven to Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, and Mia Farrow to Olivia Hussey and George Kennedy. Simon MacCorkindale and Lois Chiles may not have been as big a name draw for me at the time I first watched this, but I did think they did well in their parts. 

David Niven is a smooth, debonair Colonel Race who is ever-ready for action as evidenced by his swift rescue when Poirot taps out an SOS on the communicating wall and Race comes running to stab a cobra before it can strike (one of the instances that stray from the original). 

What are you doing here?

One of my favorite (non-canonical) scenes is when Salome Otterborne leads Race onto the dance floor to dance the tango as it ought to be danced. Race just doesn't know what to do with her.

Shall we dance? Am I dancing?

Speaking of Salome Otterborne...Angela Lansbury is spectacular as the oversexed, alcoholic author with grudge against the victim. Mia Farrow gives us an incredible performance as a woman scorned walking on a knife's edge of emotion. And then there is Mrs. Van Schuyler and Miss Bowers. The exchanges between Bette Davis and Maggie Smith are gold.

Mrs. Van Schuyler: How would a little trip down the Nile suit you?
Miss Bowers: There's nothing I would dislike more. There are two things in the world I can't abide: it's heat and heathens.
Mrs. Van Schuyler: Good. Then we'll go. Bowers, pack.

And at the end of the film...

Mrs. Van Schuyler: Come on, Bowers, time to go. This place is beginning to resemble a mortuary.
Miss Bowers: Thank God you'll be in one yourself before too long, you bloody old fossil!

Beyond the incredible cast, there is the amazing cinematography. They take advantage of angles that not only make for beautiful shots, but enhance the storyline. Shot on location, we get terrific footage of the sites along Nile as well as the river itself.

And what of the faithfulness to the original? Well, overall, the 1978 film is pretty faithful. We lose some of the passengers (the Allertons, mother & son; James Fanthorpe, and Guido Richetti) as well as Fleetwood, an engineer on the boat who just happened to be the maid Louise's ex-lover. Colonel Race is the one who is there on behalf of Linnett's British solicitors and interferes when Pennington tries to get her to sign papers without reading them. And the subplot of jewel thefts has gone by the wayside. We have Mrs. Van Schuyler the kleptomaniac doing all the stealing. The extra murders run according to schedule, though the discovery of the maid's body takes place a little differently (and takes place a little differently in all three films). And then there's Simon Doyle. Simon has way more bravado in the wrap-up scene then he is given credit for in Christie's original work. The confrontation with Doyle takes place off-stage, as it were, in the book and he immediately cracks. In the film's grand finale, Doyle tries very hard to brazen his way out and does well until Poirot threatens him with the fictional "Moulage test." No such bluff takes place in the book. But--given the needs that visual media have that the written word does not, this is a very faithful rendering of Christie's story.

Death on the Nile, Take Two!

We couldn't get everyone in front of the camera at the same time.

In 2004 David Suchet takes his own little trip down the Nile. With a television budget, Poirot wasn't surrounded by near as many big name actors, but we do have David Soul of original Starsky & Hutch fame and we get to see Emily Blunt in role of chief victim, Linnett Ridgeway. And...having brought her up...can I just say that a: I don't see Linnett as a platinum blonde (perhaps because of the 1978 film) and b: Emily Blunt is not convincing as a platinum blonde.

Oh no! I put on the wrong wig.

 She looks like she's wearing an ill-fitting wig that belongs to somebody else. And she's a spoiled rich b---- to her core. In the 1978 film, Lois Chiles gives Linnett a bit of humanity at the beginning. She seems ready to help her friend Jackie until she actually sees Simon and decides she wants him and is going to have him. The scene in 2004 is cut to such an extent that I never got the sense that Linnett was very connected to Jackie. J.J. Feild does the boyish look of Simon very well, but I didn't feel like he got the character quite right during the period where he was supposed to be fed up with Jackie.

Aren't' I just so boyishly cute?

The rest of cast are very good and this version retains more of the original characters. This Jackie isn't quite on the razor's edge of emotion that Mia Farrow's version walks, nor do I get the depth of emotion behind Emma Griffiths Malin's cry of "I shall die if I can't marry him" that I do from Mia. But the rest of her performance is quite strong. Among the other characters, I find myself very taken with this particular Dr. Bessner as well as Cornelia Robson and I like them as a couple (though I do feel a bit sorry when Mr. Ferguson gets pipped at the post by the good doctor). James Fox as Colonel Race here is a little more understated than Niven's version, but I can easily see him as the unobtrusive intelligence officer. The scene where he travels across the desert incognito to join Poirot is quite nice.

Once again the filming of the scenery and locations is superb. Beautiful shots and we get a real sense of the trip down the Nile. We also have a great deal of fidelity to the source material. We've kept most of the characters (Fleetwood, Louise's ex and James Fanthorpe, representative of Linnett's British law firm, still don't appear) and the jewel theft subplot is back in play. We even get the private breakdown of Doyle instead of the grand wrap-up scene with all the suspects as well as the exit of Doyle and Jackie as per the book rather than in the middle of Poirot's explanation in the lounge. Considering that this was made for television and does not have near the length of early film, it manages to keep the plotlines pretty much intact and even includes some of what was left out in 1978. A fine production.

Which brings us to the final trip down the Nile: In which Kenneth Branagh and company does whatever the heck they want with Poirot and all the other characters and even throws a bonus wrench into the production.

So....when Branagh took up the Poirot mantle in Orient Express, I decided I appreciated it for what it was and even appreciated the fact that it was fairly faithful to the original. Despite the fact that I thought that mustache was going to come off the screen and get me like some weird mutant growth in a 1950s B-movie sci-fi horror adventure. And the fact that Poirot is NOT an action hero. If today's audience wants a 1920s/30s action hero detective, then how about we dust off Sexton Blake or one of his friends that regularly got bashed over the head, tied up, gassed, and what-have-you but still managed to fight their way through to a victory at the end?! 

Sorry, I digress. Anyway. About Branagh's Death on the Nile...those two quibbles are still there. The mustache doesn't seem quite as distracting, but it still is. And, again, Poirot is NOT an action hero. There is absolutely no need for the chase scene through the boat with killer shooting at him and dousing part of him with boiling water (which doesn't seem to phase him a bit). Seriously. Quit with heroics already. Now we'll approach the film in the same way as the others.

Isn't this the best honeymoon ever? I'm taking everybody who has a reason to hate me along.

The cast. The cast is amazing from Gal Gadot as Linnett to Dawn French as Bowers. We've got Annette Bening and Armie Hammer and Tom Bateman and Jennifer Saunders. I'm sure that if I were up on more recent actors (spoiler alert--I'm not, not even a little bit) that all of these names and the names I haven't mentioned are bigger than I think. Taking the film as a film (and not thinking about it as an Agatha Christie story), the portrayals are terrific. I believe in these characters and who they're supposed to be. Well--mostly (we'll get to my quibbles when I talk about fidelity to the source). Not many complaints here. I am a little curious about that whole Marie Van Schuyler as Linnett's godmother business. It's so very contrived. In fact, making everybody "friendly" enough to deliberately take them on the whole honeymoon trip seems contrived. But then, Christie setting up practically everybody on the boat to have have motive and just happen to be on the same boat with them is a bit contrived as well....sigh.

So...the filming itself. The costumes are sumptuous. The scenery is beautiful (even if you can definitely tell when CGI gets used--honestly, the alligator jumping up to eat the birds?). And you still get the feeling that you've been on a boat ride down the Nile (even though you really weren't--obviously because you weren't there....but neither were they). And the plot is fine--if you don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters.

So, yeah, fidelity let's talk about tha---

Why aren't you on the train?

Wait. What?! What the heck is Bouc doing in the middle of this story? And flying a kite for heaven's sake.  And therein lies my first, biggest, I-just-can't-with-this-movie moment. MAJOR SPOILER coming!!! So...not only do we have Monsieur Bouc (who, by the way is much younger than I ever expected in these films) in the middle of a Christie plot where he does not belong! Not only that--we're going to make him be the jewel thief and lie his head off to his friend Poirot. Not only that--we're going to make him the one who sees the blackmailing maid get killed. Not only that--we're going to kill him right in front of Poirot. And that's on top of rearranging and merging characters. For instance the doctor is now also the lord that Linnett almost married and he's also kept some of Ferguson's characteristics. We've changed the whole Bowers/Van Schuyler dynamic. Bouc and his mother have taken on the Allertons' roles. We've completely changed Salome and Rosalie Otterborne's characters (and I'm not talking about diversifying them). Sure, Salome is a dynamic jazz singer. That's awesome. But she's not anything like the character as written--and neither is Rosalie. And let's just talk about Rosalie for minute and, yes, this is about the diversity thing.

So...at one point we learn that when spoiled, rich Linnett was a young girl, she objected to "colored people" swimming in the same pool as her. We're supposed to believe that with the upbringing that produced that spoiled, segregationist viewpoint that Linnett would go to a school which would actually allow "colored" girls in and (if they did) that Linnett would suddenly have made friends with Rosalie and "made it all right for the other girls to be friends too"???? Seriously? What version of rich, white America does Branagh and company think existed during that time period? 

Back to Bouc....So, not only do we have that whole disturbing bit mentioned above. But Bouc's mother has hired Poirot to dig up the dirt on Rosalie and what Bouc's up to. Really? Poirot--the world's greatest detective (according to him) is doing background checks on potential brides now?

I come back to this--even more strongly in this second film. Agatha Christie did not write this Poirot. He's not a run-of-the-mill private eye who takes on divorce cases and trivial checks on potential girlfriends/boyfriends. He wouldn't stoop to that. He wouldn't do that to a friend. And, here's the point, Bouc is his friend. His mother isn't. Maybe (I stress maybe), Poirot would take on a case for a friend that he wouldn't normally touch. But not for the friend's mommy. And the presentation of his findings in this film? Ick. And, I say again, Christie did not write an action hero. She wrote a thinking man who uses his little grey cells. If you're going to film a story about that character, then by golly let's have that character. The way he was written. He doesn't need to be an action man and he doesn't need whatever angsty backstory you want to tack on to him. Christie's books have never been out of print. Apparently, people like her stories the way she wrote them. Call me a stick in the mud. But I'd like a bit more fidelity to what she envisioned. And if you want a quirky detective with great thought processes AND action hero abilities who has angst, then create that character and write some stories for him. 

Climbing down off my soapbox now.

I enjoyed Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express for what it was. But I can't say the same for Death on the Nile. Too many changes. Too much fiddling with Poirot. 

For a different take on the 2022 film. please check out Brad's review over at Ah Sweet Mystery! He's a lot more positive than me. 

Crooked House

 Crooked House (1948) by Agatha Christie

At the end of World War II, Charles Hayward meets Sophia Leonides in Egypt and falls in love. He realizes that they haven't really had a chance to get to know each other properly, so he tells her that once he winds things up in Egypt he'd like to come and visit her back in England. That way they can see if they still feel the same way back in the normal world. 

It takes him two years to get things settled and when he returns to England he finds that Sophia's grandfather Aristide Leonides, a wealthy entrepreneur, has just died. When he and Sophia meet, she tells him that she fears that her grandfather has been murdered. The family doctor apparently agrees that there's been some monkey business because he refuses to sign the death certificate and now Scotland Yard is involved. Fortunately Charles's father is the Assistant Commission of Scotland Yard, so Charles has an in with the detectives (he's also served in military intelligence so can sleuth on his own). She says that she can't even think about marriage until the cloud is cleared from the family. 

The family...the entire family has lived with Aristide at house called the Three Gables. His young second wife, Brenda; Sophia's parents Philp Leonides & Magda West (her stage name, being an actress) as well as her younger brother (Eustace) and sister (Josephine); Philip's older brother Roger and his wife Clemency, a scientist; Edith de Haviland, Aristide's sister-in-law; Laurence Brown, the children's tutor; and Janet Rowe, nanny to the Aristide children, cum cook to the household. When it is proved that the head of the household was poisoned with eyedrops substituted for his insulin, suspicion falls upon them all. They'd love for the killer to be Brenda--no one likes the spoiled young woman who was young enough to be Aristide's granddaughter instead of his wife. But Charles, who manages to wander through the house like he belongs there--asking questions and learning the lie of the land, soon realizes that none of them really think she did do it. So, who did?

Charles finds an ally in young Josephine, a born snoop who seems to know everything that happens in the house. She's on the case and gives Charles clues ever so often--whenever she's feeling generous. Her snooping reveals that Roger, who had been put in charge of one of Aristide's businesses, was about to leave the country with his wife, running away from bankruptcy. He'd had an argument with his father the night of the murder. Brenda has been writing love letters to Laurence Brown (whose admiration for the young widow has been apparent). Magda was upset that her father-in-law wouldn't back a play. Sophia even had a motive--revealed when the will everyone expects to be valid turns up unsigned and another will (lodged with an old friend of Aristides instead of his lawyer) is produced naming Sophia as his sole heir. Edith de Haviland never liked her brother-in-law, but had her dislike tuned into something more? In fact, who hated the old man enough to poison him? 

I hadn't read this one since my first Christie binge back in the 80s or so. I own several copies, but I elected to listen to the audio version narrated by Hugh Fraser so I could listen on the way to work and while I did other things. It was very interesting to listen to "Hastings" read this non-Poirot mystery. As per usual, Fraser does an excellent job with all the voices. He's a delightful narrator who gets the tone of the Christie novels just right.

The mystery itself is very good as well. Lots of red herrings and I didn't pick up on the two clues that should have told me who the killer was if I'd just paid attention to them properly. I did feel that Charles could have been a stronger character--stronger just in himself, but also a stronger detective. He does seem a bit slow on the uptake for someone who had worked in intelligence. But that's a minor quibble. The scenes with Magda are fun. She's always playing a part and you never know who she's going to be for her next appearance. I'm glad I revisited this one and that Hugh Fraser was my tour guide for the adventure. ★★★★

First line: I first came to know Sophia Leonides in Egypt towards the end of the war.

Last line: "I've thought so for some time. Poor child..."
*********************

Deaths = two poisoned; two fell from height (in car crash)

*Cover shown above is the dustjacket which belongs to the hardback edition I own. Unfortunately, I don't own the dustjacket. Picture courtesy of Facsimile Dustjackets LLC.

The Hollow/Murder After Hours

 The Hollow/Murder After Hours (1946) by Agatha Christie

 Agatha Christie gives us a nice little country house murder. Lady Lucy Angkatell invites a group of friends and relatives that is sure to cause tension somewhere...and it mostly revolves around Dr. John Christow. Christow is a brilliant doctor with a terrific manner with patients and some innovative ideas about a cure for a deadly disease. But he's not really any good with personal relations. His wife Gerda worships him and is exactly what he thought he wanted yet he treats her poorly. Henrietta Savernake, a sculptor, is his mistress--because she's more vital and intelligent than Gerda, but he wants her to focus only on him (and not her art)...like Gerda does. Edward Angkatell has always loved Henrietta and hates Christow because Henrietta won't agree to marry him. Others at the house party include Midge Hardcastle, poor relation who must work for her living, who is in love with Edward; David Angkatell, a young intellectual, who feels like an outsider in the family and seems to hate everyone--including Christow. Thrown into the mix is Veronica Cray--Christow's first love who wanted him to give up his life's work as a doctor and come with her to America while she became a Hollywood star. He told her no. She's back in England and determined to get him back. She isn't pleased when he tells her no again.

And then...after he spends a late night at Cray's nearby cottage and then is summoned back in the morning--where he tells her that there most definitely isn't anything doing...he's found dead by the swimming pool, shot to death. And his wife Gerda is standing over him with a gun in her hand. Just at that moment, Hercule Poirot (also staying in another nearby cottage and who has been invited to lunch) comes to the scene...a scene that he initially feels has been staged (as a little joke) for the "great detective" and, as the investigation unfolds, still feels staged, though he's not quite certain by whom and to what purpose. But once the little grey cells have the chance to ponder all of the clues--both real and red herrings--he is able to resolve the question.

I enjoyed this one more for the characters than for the mystery (I spotted what was going on quite early--long before Poirot makes any indication that he knows the culprit, even if he can't prove it yet). Not that the mystery isn't interesting--it is. Christie does some interesting things with the plot and clue placement. But anyone who thinks Christie only does cardboard cutouts and her characters have no depth should really take a look at this one. The standard characters are given motivations and emotional lives that really resonate on the page...and even Gudgeon, the butler who has few scenes, is more than just the wooden-faced, typical butler. But my favorite has to be Lady Angkatell. Probably because with her apparent non sequiturs that have a way of hitting the nail on the head every time she reminds me a great deal of the Dowager Duchess in Sayers' Lord Peter Wimsey mysteries. And I adore the Dowager. Lucy Angkatell is a bit more frightening than the Dowager--she definitely seems to know what she's about in putting together certain persons. But in general she does appear to want what's best for everyone (even if what she thinks is best isn't necessarily what they think is best). A very good mystery that I found most interesting and fun. ★★★★

First line: At 6:13 a.m. on a Friday morning Lucy Angkatell's big blue eyes opened upon another day, and as always, she was at once wide awake and began immediately to deal with the problems conjured up by her incredibly active mind.

Your mind, Lucy, goes so fast, that to keep pace with it your conversation takes the most amazing leaps. All the connecting links are left out. (Midge Hardcastle; p. 7)

He's just down from Oxford--or perhaps Cambridge. Boys of that age are so difficult--especially when they are intellectual. David is very intellectual. One wishes that they could put off being intellectual until they were rather older. (Lucy Angkatell; p. 9)

Queer, thought Henrietta, how things can seep into you without your knowing it. (p. 22)

The truth of it was that he was completely illogical. He didn't know what he wanted. [about John Christow; p. 37)

[about being an artist] You don't understand, John. I don't think I could ever make you understand. You don't know what it is to want something--to look at it day after day --that line of the neck--those muscles--the angle where the head goes forward--that heaviness round the jaw. I've been looking at them, wanting them--every time I saw Gerda. In the end I just had to have them. (Henrietta Savernake; pp. 39-40)

If I were dead, the first thing you'd do, with the tears streaming down your face, would be to start modelling some damned mourning woman or some figure of grief (John Christow; p. 48)

And suddenly one of those moments of intense happiness came to her--a sense of the loveliness of the world--of her own intense enjoyment of that world. (p. 55)

When one has to spend every day of one's life in a damnable little box, being polite to rude women, calling them madam, pulling frocks over their heads, smiling and swallowing their damned cheek whatever they like to say to one--well, one does want to cuss! (Midge; p. 56)

Sculpture isn't a thing you set out to do and succeed in. It's a thing that gets at you, that nags at you--and haunts you--so that, sooner or later, you've got to make terms with it. (Henrietta; p. 60)

You see what you're looking at, yes. You're--you're like a searchlight. a powerful beam turned onto the one spot where your interest is, and behind it and each side of it, darkness! (Henrietta; p. 72)

I can't stand just now, being reminded of happiness. Don't you understand? A time when one didn't know what was coming. When one said confidently, everything is going to be lovely! Some people are wise--they never expect to be happy. I did. (Henrietta; p. 122)

...possibly she believes what is told her. I think if one has not a great deal of intelligence, it is wise to do that. (Lucy Angkatell; p. 134)

What made Lady Angkatell dangerous, he thought, was the fact that hose intuitive, wild guesses of hers might often be right. With a careless (seemingly careless?) word she built up a picture--and if parts of the picture was right, wouldn't you, in spite of yourself, believe in the other half of the picture? (pp. 137-8)

[on whether he is an "artist" as a detective] ...on the whole, I would say no. I have known crimes that were artistic--they were, you understand, supreme exercises of imagination--but the solving of them--no, it is not the creative power that is needed. What is required is a passion for the truth. (Poirot; pp. 152-3)

These foreigners, thought Grange, don't know how to make tea--you can't teach 'em. But he did not mind much. He was in a condition of pessimism when one more thing that was unsatisfactory actually afforded him a kind of grim satisfaction. (pp. 218-9)

Yes, she thought, that was what despair was. A cold thing--a thing of infinite coldness and loneliness. (p. 237)

You do not understand. To you it is unbearable that anyone should be hurt.  But to some minds there is something more unbearable still--not to know. (Poirot; p. 250)

Last line: She said under her breath, "John, forgive me--forgive me for what I can't help doing--"

******************
Deaths = 2 (one shot; one poisoned)

There Is a Tide (Taken at the Flood)

 There Is a Tide [aka Taken at the Flood] (March 1948) by Agatha Christie

During the war, Gordon Cloade had met a young widow and married her. Just two weeks into the marriage a bomb hit his London home--killing everyone but Rosaleen Cloade and her brother David Hunter. Previous to his marriage, Cloade had served as the financial buffer for his family. He provided capital for new ventures, money for unexpected expenses, and promised to see everyone taken care of in his will. But he hadn't had a chance to write a new will since marrying Rosaleen...which means his widow scooped the pot. Rosaleen seems inclined to help her inlaws, but she is firmly under brother David's thumb and he believes in "finders keepers."

During another air raid, Hercule Poirot is sheltering with men from the Concordia Club and listens to Major Porter comment on the death of Cloade. Cloade's widow was previously married to Porter's best friend, Robert Underhay. The marriage wasn't a happy one and while Robert supposedly died in Africa, he had confided to Porter that "If a report of my death gets back that will make Rosaleen a widow, which is what she wants...maybe a Mr. Enoch Arden will turn up somewhere a thousand miles or soa away and start life anew." 

So...when a Mr. Enoch Arden shows up in the village where the Cloades live and Rosaleen and David have taken up residence, one wonders if Underhay has come back. And when Arden is found murdered one evening after having met with David in the morning, one wonders if David has silenced the one man who could throw a spanner into the inheritance works. But more death follows and it will take Hercule Poirot to figure out the twists and turns that lead to the real killer.

I read this once before...long ago and far away when a pre-teen and I was making my way through every Agatha Christie our Carnegie Library had on the shelves. At the time, I awarded four stars (with no explanation because past Bev didn't believe in reviews). Present Bev does not disagree. The plot is very nice and twisty. Just when I thought I'd figured it out, Dame Agatha would throw another curve ball and I'd change mind. So, actually, I would give the mystery plot five stars. But...there are two quibbles. First, Poirot does not show up (after the initial scene with the club bore telling his story about Underhay) until way late in the book. And then there's not quite enough of him. Two--that ending. Even in 1948, I can't believe a woman who had been in the WRENS would go back to a man who nearly strangled her to death because if he couldn't have her, then no one could. Seriously? I mean, yes, there are women who stay in relationships when they really shouldn't. But usually it's because they think they'll change him. Or they're too scared to leave. This gal says (when she's still free and could just walk away): "When you caught hold of me by the throat and said if I wasn't for you, no one should have me--well--I knew then that I was your woman!" Agatha, honey, I'm not buying it. ★★★★

First line: In every club there is a club bore.

Last line: "But you see, Rowley, I do love you--and you've had such a hell of a time--and I've never, really, cared much for being safe...."

******************

Deaths =  9 (six wartime; one hit on head; one shot; one poisoned)

Nemesis

 Nemesis (1971) by Agatha Christie (Read by Joan Hickson)

Several years ago Miss Jane Marple and Jason Rafiel shared a murderous adventure in the Caribbean. Miss Marple had shown up in Rafiel's room late one night with a pink wooly scarf around her neck and, in the persona of Nemesis, had asked him to help prevent another murder. When Rafiel began making plans to see justice done in another matter, he included Miss Marple (all unawares) in those plans. So, when Rafiel dies Miss Marple has an invitation to visit his solicitors where she will receive an unusual request through a letter he left with Mr. Broadribb:

Our code word, my dear lady, is Nemesis....I want you to investigate a certain crime. I have ordered a certain sum to be placed so that if you accept this request and as a result of your investigation this crime is properly elucidated, the money will become yours absolutely.

And that's pretty much all she's told about Rafiel's request. There's a crime to be investigated--either one that already occurred and justice was not done OR one that will occur and the wealthy businessman wanted to be sure justice would be done. The solicitor, Mr. Broadribb, knows no more about it than she does. 

She decides to take on the task and makes some tentative efforts to learn more about Mr. Rafiel's life (beyond what she knows from their brief encounter in the Caribbean). Her best bet is to try and find Rafiel's former employees and see what they can tell her. She meets, as if by accident, Rafiel's former secretary who tells her that there had been some scandal involving the businessman's son, but she knows little beyond the fact that there was a scandal. Miss Marple cannot find the valet/masseur who attended him and she begins to think her investigation will be over before it's barely begun when she receives two more communications.

The first is another letter from Rafiel telling her that since she's accepted his request, she will receive a second message in two days time. She does and it is from a tour company telling her that Mr. Rafiel had reserved a space for her on their Tour No. 37 of Famous Houses and Gardens in Britain. Miss Marple doesn't know if the purpose of the tour is to introduce her to one of her fellow passengers of to take her to a particular place where crime has happened...or will happen, but she is prepared to find out. She meets several people who are able to tell her more about the scandal surrounding Michael Rafiel. Two girls--including one named Verity that Michael supposedly love--disappeared several years ago. Verity was found strangled with her face beaten in. The other girl was never found. And Michael was convicted of Verity's murder. But when one of Miss Marple's fellow passengers is killed by a falling boulder, she decides that her job must be to find out the truth of Verity's death--because Miss Elizabeth Temple knew Verity and had told Miss Marple that she was on a pilgrimage to find out the truth as well?

This is one time that Dame Agatha didn't pull the wool over my eyes. I recognized the clues and picked up on the culprit right away. But that didn't detract from my enjoyment. Nemesis is enjoyable for a reason that normally doesn't attract me. Often I find when an author takes a favorite detective and places them outside their normal locale that I don't much care for the story (most of the Nero Wolfe stories that take him out of the brownstone for extended periods of time--Death of a Dude and The Black Mountain, for instance). But taking Miss Marple out of St. Mary Mead and placing her on the bus tour, put her at the center of the action for most of the novel and I liked that a lot. It was interesting to watch her go from having no idea what Jason Rafiel wanted her to investigate to picking up pieces bit by bit and finally fitting them all together. Excellent read. ★★★★

~~~One interesting note--in the novel, Rafiel promises Miss Marple 20,000 pounds if she successfully unravels the mystery and sees justice done. I watched the Marple episode with Geraldine McEwan after I finished the novel and among the changes made to the story was the reduction of the sum to a mere 500 pounds. I just wonder why they cheated Miss Marple out of 19,500 pounds of her inheritance?

First line: In the afternoon it was the custom of Miss Jane Marple to unfold her second newspaper.

Last line: "It must have been another of Mr. Rafiel's little jokes," said Mr. Broadribb.

**************

Deaths = 7 (one natural; two plane crash; two poisoned; one strangled; one hit by boulder)

Cat Among the Pigeons

 Cat Among the Pigeons (1959) by Agatha Christie; read by Hugh Fraser

We open at the beginning of the summer term at Meadowbank, the British girls' school--the one every mother is anxious to get her girl into. Miss Bulstrode, the founding headmistress, is preparing to retire and name her successor. She watches with anticipation as the new group of girls arrive. These include Princess Shaista, a disconcertingly mature Middle Eastern princess; Julia Upjohn, a girl whose aunt has paid the fees so she can attend the exclusive school; and her new friend Jennifer Sutcliffe, who spent the summer in the Princess's kingdom of Ramat. There are also several new staff members in residence including the inquisitive new French instructor, the equally nosy new games mistress, and Miss Bulstrode's new secretary as well as a brand new sports pavilion that is the pride of the school.

Over the summer, there was a revolution in Ramat and Prince Ali Yusuf, the endangered ruler, had entrusted both his jewels and his life to his friend and pilot, Bob Rawlinson. Bob successfully concealed the glittering treasure amongst his sister and niece's possessions (that would be Jennifer and her mama) while they were away from their hotel room, but the two men perished when their plane crashed in the escape attempt. Rawlinson wasn't able to deliver a message indicating where the jewels were hidden, so no one knows their whereabouts. Or do they?

Not long after the school year begins, things take deadly turn when Miss Springer, the games mistress is found shot to death late one night in the new pavilion. What was she doing at the sports pavilion at one o'clock in the morning? And why would anyone want to shoot her? The police investigate, but cannot find anything of interest in the building--so, if there was anything then it was taken by Miss Springer's killer. The first death is followed by another (in the pavilion!) and a kidnapping. It isn't until Julia Upjohn is wise enough to figure out what the killer is looking for and then consults her aunt's friend Hercule Poirot that they are able to spot the "cat among the pigeons."

Dame Agatha never ceases to entertain. This book has it all...international espionage, missing jewels, kidnapping...and, of course, murder. It was truly delightful to take a break from James L. Swanson's Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln's Killer for a little mystery and mayhem in a British girls' school. Working at an educational institution myself, I always enjoy a good academic mystery. It's a bit disappointing that Poirot comes in late to the game, but when he does his little grey cells are firing on all cylinders and he soon gets right to the heart of the matter. I really liked Julia and the way she puts two and two together to solve part of the mystery. As always, Dame Agatha pulls off a bit of sleight of hand and had me suspecting the wrong person. One of these days, I'll guess correctly.  ★★★★

First line: It was the opening day of the summer term at Meadowbank school.

Last line: "A most unusual woman."

**************

Deaths = 6 (two plane accident; two shot; two hit on the head)