tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post8881896078778544249..comments2024-03-28T10:08:52.537+01:00Comments on Investigating Agatha Christie's Poirot: Episode-by-episode: Evil Under the SunEirikhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-32573963805398113962024-02-05T19:52:40.100+01:002024-02-05T19:52:40.100+01:00Is there a subtle French joke in the movie? When P...Is there a subtle French joke in the movie? When Poirot says to Hastings on the balcony that Hastings does not need to watch over him like "a mother chicken," Hastings responds, correcting him, "Hen." Poirot merely responds, "Bon." I wonder if that is because Poirot thinks that Hastings has said, "Hein," a French expression that means something like, "Right" or, "Okay." If so, it's a wonderfully subtle little joke. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-73513406538248015782022-09-19T16:15:01.372+02:002022-09-19T16:15:01.372+02:00Favorite line of this episode: Miss Lemon to Poir...Favorite line of this episode: Miss Lemon to Poirot, “I didn’t know the Argentine HAD a cuisine!” LOL!!!Poir-Oh!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-57560655395875912502022-07-04T07:28:05.689+02:002022-07-04T07:28:05.689+02:00The bellboy is played by Paul Ready, who went on t...The bellboy is played by Paul Ready, who went on to receive great acclaim as poor Mr Goodsir in The Terror. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-53710944226781978882020-11-08T20:17:05.911+01:002020-11-08T20:17:05.911+01:00A decent adaptation but pales in comparison to the...A decent adaptation but pales in comparison to the terrific film version. Sorry, but the actor playing Patrick Redfern is a very poor substitute for Nicholas Clay CJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12937312863597687063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-26998720749699368822020-10-25T02:31:39.544+02:002020-10-25T02:31:39.544+02:00Perhaps because it was becoming increasingly diffi...Perhaps because it was becoming increasingly difficult to work them into the plots and a desire for getting closer to the text?<br /><br />The speed with which Japp arrives is ludicrous. Even if Poirot's immediate action upon hearing of the murder is to ring Japp and he happens to be sitting in Scotland Yard on standby for immediate action when called it would still take hours to get down to the Devon coast yet here he seems to arrive in time for the initial investigation of the crime scene. It's one thing for a local police officer to call in for help from London when the case turns out to be especially complicated (as in the Murder of Roger Ackroyd) but quite another to turn to there just because a body has been found.Tim Roll-Pickeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12589024696145675963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-13329022192454659602020-05-02T11:11:11.151+02:002020-05-02T11:11:11.151+02:00I disagree. You may be a Poirot series maniac, but...I disagree. You may be a Poirot series maniac, but 1982 movie is better in every respect. True, it may not be a faithful Poirot movie and Ustinov may not be Hercules Agatha Christie wished to be, but everything, from production to use of locations and actorship is superior. This doesn't make the series movie bad. But it falls short of Ustinov movie.eMTehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00903852137504065490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-9264776609880818282020-05-02T11:03:42.626+02:002020-05-02T11:03:42.626+02:00Because audience liked Japp and - from some time -...Because audience liked Japp and - from some time - producers were keen to involve the big four in every movie where it's possible. At least this would be my pattern of thought. So why they were ditched is a mystery to me.eMTehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00903852137504065490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-14411961282722305332018-11-06T20:48:15.590+01:002018-11-06T20:48:15.590+01:00In one key scene Poirot is invited to join someone...In one key scene Poirot is invited to join someone on a boat...in the knowledge that the invitation will be refused because of his seasickness.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14124693843367360803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-22705031917191040482017-11-03T07:44:23.241+01:002017-11-03T07:44:23.241+01:00And it will be 12 year before we see Miss Lemon ag...And it will be 12 year before we see Miss Lemon againToby Flendersonhttp://tflenderson69.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-43708446419201371042017-02-18T00:02:24.463+01:002017-02-18T00:02:24.463+01:00I like this version much better than the 1982 vers...I like this version much better than the 1982 version with Ustinov (except that Diana Rigg was deliciously wicked in the 1982 version). This one has a better setting and doesn't over-glamorize the hotel guests. Of course Peter Ustinov was only a mediocre Poirot as well (too clownish).In this version Poirot stands out as beautifully citified and crisp in spite of the health spa setting.<br /><br />Regarding changes to the story, I disliked the restaurant subplot as unnecessary, but it does give a reason for Poirot to be somewhere unlikely for him, and it showcases Miss Lemon again. I disliked the brimstone preaching scene at the beginning as also being unnecessary. If they wanted to increase his chance of being a suspect they could have just had him explain his breakdown and show disgust at Arlena's behavior. I realize British TV pretty much always shows clergy as useless or demented but I felt it was overkill. I liked the change of Linda to Lionel as the Linda subplot was too unbelievable. I liked adding the smuggling subplot as well.<br /><br />As to mistakes: the original storyline requires too tight of a timeline to do the murder. It doesn't make sense that the pair of culprits would tie themselves down to only a 20-30 minute window. It doesn't make sense that Arlena would not become impatient and sneak out to peek at what Christine was doing on the beach. And yes, Miss Brewster's vertigo is never mentioned, but Poirot only says that she "like the rest of us" would not want to climb the ladder.<br /><br />Incidentally, that marvelous Sea Tractor which is used at high tide is actually in use at Burgh Island. But it was invented in 1969!Lisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-81934760920541803792017-02-17T23:43:30.735+01:002017-02-17T23:43:30.735+01:00Part of the Bigbury-on-Sea resort is called the Bu...Part of the Bigbury-on-Sea resort is called the Burgh Island Causeway. Tidal islands that are accessible at low tide have strips of land connecting them to the mainland which are called tidal causeways.<br />Lisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-2752763167054950762016-09-07T21:31:34.086+02:002016-09-07T21:31:34.086+02:00I don't know if I watched some cut version, bu...I don't know if I watched some cut version, but there are two big mistakes (at least in the movie I saw).<br /><br /> The first one is that Ms Brewster's vertigo is never mentioned. During the explanation poirot says that redfern chose ms brewster on purpose to go in the boat with him because she wouldn't climb the ladder. But as vertigo is never mentioned this statement doesn't mean anything, especially since ms brewster is an amateur athlete.<br /><br />Secondly, again in the explanation, poirot asks hastings if he remembers that mrs redfern told them that she was a teacher (and a teacher found alice corrigan's body). Mrs redfern never said that on screen.<br /><br />I liked the major barry subplot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-28438281060504283612015-12-07T19:25:11.195+01:002015-12-07T19:25:11.195+01:00actress playing miss lemon overacts in this episod...actress playing miss lemon overacts in this episode, more than usual. <br />other than that, this is a solid episode. murder plot is (while way too complicated to be executed by any real murderers) is ingenious and tight. and its presentation is well done. unlike in some other episodes, there are no big holes in solution, or cheating concealments from viewers. sittingnuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08409176960405641998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-13162723206849945712015-06-05T15:47:36.605+02:002015-06-05T15:47:36.605+02:00Yeah, that's one of the conundrums of the seri...Yeah, that's one of the conundrums of the series. I suppose they wanted to include Japp since this was the only episode in which they could include the main "family" that season (the only other episode was Murder in Mesopotamia). It doesn't make sense, and I think that's one of the reasons the new producers in Series Nine decided to ditch Japp and Lemon.Eirikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-9942203379624372072015-06-05T15:44:09.176+02:002015-06-05T15:44:09.176+02:00I agree. But then, they did use the location that ...I agree. But then, they did use the location that Chrisite based her story on, so I suppose that was more important than the accuracy of the term.Eirikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-86606583995275676262015-06-05T15:43:14.671+02:002015-06-05T15:43:14.671+02:00True. But by making her male, and having Poirot po...True. But by making her male, and having Poirot point out that the murderer could have the hands of a young man, Lionel becomes a more obvious suspect than Linda was in the book. Eirikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06440717274193966716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-77277511068758970502015-03-25T23:33:53.533+01:002015-03-25T23:33:53.533+01:00Why is Japp in this story? Devon is not under the...Why is Japp in this story? Devon is not under the direct jurisdiction of Scotland Yard. I don't know the name of the actress portraying Arlena Marshall. But her performance seemed like a second-rate version of Diana Rigg's performance in the 1982 movie.The Rush Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13667282586023023623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-3469170658594228902015-02-18T18:37:15.534+01:002015-02-18T18:37:15.534+01:00The production team don't seem to understand w...The production team don't seem to understand what a causeway is. It should be elevated above the sea - that's the whole point. They're not natural formations but artificial roads across the water. Even in the book, the causeway is only submerged at high tide.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-7205593736046961092015-02-18T18:23:49.744+01:002015-02-18T18:23:49.744+01:00"Also, making the child (Linda/Lionel) a man ..."Also, making the child (Linda/Lionel) a man provides a handy extra suspect."<br /><br />Linda's a suspect in the book anyway. The murderers deliberately set her up as one.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-65782335442522862772015-02-18T17:59:39.602+01:002015-02-18T17:59:39.602+01:00This opens with one of those scenes where a charac...This opens with one of those scenes where a character does something they wouldn't normally do entirely for the viewer's benefit. In this case, the unidentified (at this point) cyclist screams on discovering the body, even though there's no-one around to hear. Once you know who she really is, there's no reason for her to scream or make any pretence at shock when she's alone.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-61622033529021272582015-02-18T17:53:26.654+01:002015-02-18T17:53:26.654+01:00Depends on the pathogen. They all have different i...Depends on the pathogen. They all have different incubation periods and some can be that quick.Stuart Farquharnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-64130280280970942672014-11-27T05:34:31.837+01:002014-11-27T05:34:31.837+01:00I enjoy how Christie set up these so-called seduct...I enjoy how Christie set up these so-called seductresses - these women with very glamorous, sexy appearances, controversial-for-the-time careers, (like acting), a tendency to have affairs, often without caring if the man is married, and the apparent ability to make men do what they want - and then - low and behold - THEY turn out to be the men's victims, not the other way around. (Elsa Greer is another example, whom I consider luckier than Arlena, Linnet Ridgeway, or Valentine Chantry - Amyas only wanted to have sex with Elsa and then discard her - he didn't need to steal her money or kill her.)<br /><br />Of course, back when the books were published, the twists of "Arlena was Patrick's victim" and "there was nothing special about Elsa to Amyas" were surprises because back then, women like that were likely thought of by many people as evil. Today, critics and viewers have a tendency to laud such characters as feminist or empowered - simply because they engage in behavior that was traditionally taboo for women. Because it's taboo doesn't mean it's healthy for the women, or will make them happy! I think Christie shows with Arlena particularly that such women aren't having affairs because they're strong but because they're needy. And if nothing else, their lives seem to revolve around men...and there's a lack of solidarity with other women.<br /><br />I think Steven Moffitt and Mark Gattis were trying to go for something similar in Scandal in Belgravia, too. Everyone talks about Irene being so strong, but the use of sex as power really turned against her in the end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-24828692898165089162014-08-30T22:25:58.263+02:002014-08-30T22:25:58.263+02:00The suspension-of-disbelief issue: if it really wa...The suspension-of-disbelief issue: if it really was from El Ranchero, food poisoning wouldn't happen that soon after ingesting the food.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-19604241948799805722014-08-30T05:13:34.316+02:002014-08-30T05:13:34.316+02:00Miss Lemon: "We might have lost you the other...Miss Lemon: "We might have lost you the other night. It doesn't even bear thinking about." So restrained, and yet, such love there. (The question comes to mind: would Vera Rossakoff do the health regime thing or would she continue to prepare the lavish picnics?)<br /><br />Hastings seems like quite the gamesman / outdoorsman - but I think they've been consistent with that. Poirot has the "little gray cells" but Hastings does better in crisis situations that require strength or involve physical danger.<br /><br />Isn't this, however, about the only episode where the tendency to seasickness is a big issue for Poirot? In Death on the Nile, Bond Robbery, and Problem at Sea, it's downplayed almost to the point of being eliminated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8555477445321605035.post-70851536568985912882014-08-30T05:02:45.640+02:002014-08-30T05:02:45.640+02:00"I particularly enjoy Pauline Moran's dis..."I particularly enjoy Pauline Moran's display of utter shock when her employer is admitted to hospital - she is obviously concerned and wants him to be all right, a display of the affection she has for him. Her concern for his health equally so."<br /><br />Agreeing absolutely with the above. And the whole "El Ranchero" business, which is rather silly in and of itself, is worth it just for that. Miss Lemon has practically hypnotized herself into believing she's Madame Poirot - I don't mean that in a negative way, I mean she really has taken it upon herself to look after Poirot like a wife would. And in a way, so has Hastings. I love the concern they both show for Poirot (it's Hastings to the rescue when Poirot is nearly strangled!) And it is very nice to have Poirot actually give credit to both his associates. (Hasn't Hastings been made more competent than i the books?)<br /><br />I am confused about something: Hastings has already been to Argentina, obviously...is he supposed to be married to Bella? If he is, what does it say about their marriage that he's always in England?<br /><br />And think of the funny irony of the whole El Ranchero business: if anyone collapsed at dinner within a mile of Poirot, he'd assume it was poisoning. And yet, when it happened to him, everyone assumed it was natural causes. I can see that he didn't want to believe he had a health problem...but you would think he would have jumped to the conclusion that someone was out to get him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com