SPOILERS: The problem with Linnet is - she's always had her own way. She isn't spiteful or vindictive, life has been good to her so she's always tried to be kind to others. But she is still vain and spoiled, and though she doesn't try to hurt people won't let the fact that someone may be hurt by her actions stop her from going after it. She's got beauty, money, brains and charm, and if she hasn't got what she wants one way she'll get it another. She's never learned how to not reach her hand out or to let well enough alone. That's why.....she did go after Simon as soon as she realised she wanted him - she knew how Jackie felt, she knew that she could choose to just step aside and leave well enough alone, but she went on ahead and went after him. That's why she believed that she'd succeeded in stealing Simon from Jackie, but she tried to lie to herself about it, saying "even before he met me he was beginning to realise he'd made a mistake"; "they weren't suited to each other in any way"; "could he have made Jackie happy if he'd married her after realising he loved me and not her?"; and "what's the point of looking back, you have to look to the future". And that's also why she got so upset when Jackie was stalking them - because she felt guilty that she had stolen her best friends fiancé. The problem with Simon is that he's just too simple - he doesn't think about the seriousness of what he does, he just focuses on the things he wants, namely money and the lifestyle that comes with money. He never even really liked Linnet - thought she was bossy and possessive (in the book he talked about how clingy Jackie was "this man is mine, he belongs to me" and it becomes clear later on he was actually talking about Linnet") and was embarrassed by how she was going after him, but he liked the thought of her money. Then he just got an idea of marrying her and inheriting her money in a year, and then just started to see it as a "nothing venture, nothing had" scenario and justified it'd be the only chance he'd get to get that much money. He didn't even have the brains to think up the idea even if he had the physical speed and strength to enact it - it was all Jackie's plan. It's even (in the book) the reason why he was unemployed at the beginning - he tried to do something dodgy with money and got found out at once - he "just thought that was how things were done in the city". And the problem with Jackie is - she can't say no to Simon. She could see Linnet was after him and was hurt by her friends, but she could see that Simon was tempted by the money and that worried her because she knew he couldn't say no to it, that he'd either go off with Linnet or would always be thinking about Linnet's money when he married her. Then when she realised he'd made up his mind to marry and kill Linnet she knew she couldn't stop him and knew he didn't have the brains to pull it off. Even though Linnet betrayed her by deliberately going after Simon she didn't want to kill her friend. She knew that she could stop or pull back - but she let that moment pass her by because she loved Simon too much. That look she was giving Linnet when Linnet tried talking to her - at first it seems like a "you just couldn't let me have one thing, could you?", then it seems more like "I don't want to hurt you Linnet" look, then it looks like a combination of "you were my friend, couldn't you have left us alone? I don't want to hurt you" look.
21:53 Yeah but that's a whole lot of extra work she suddenly has to do - either individually packing up everyone's rooms or arranging it all, not getting to come on the first part of the boat trip because she now has to meet everyone at another stop with a whole lot of luggage, and it was all at the spur of the moment so any plans she had for her own relaxation or work she already has to do has to be put on hole, she wasn't asked if it was ok before she did it, and it was just announced suddenly so now she can't say anything but "happy to miss". And then there's the issue that all of a sudden everyone has to come on this boat trip no matter what other plans they may have. This is what I mean about Linnet - she tries to be kind to others but she doesn't even think about how her actions may hurt or at least inconvenience them because she's always been able to have anything she wanted. In the book she's having a country house redone and mentions that she's have some delapidated old cottages on the estate torn down and having new ones built, and then adds that they needed to go anyhow because they'd overlook the swimming pool she was having added to the gardens. Most of the people who owned the cottages were happy about it because it meant a lot of troubles off their mind (not having to worry about the house falling down around them or having to worry about the money it would cost to get them fixed), but some were actually angry about it - for numerous legitimate reasons, i.e. they may have heard that they were being moved because of the swimming pool and felt that the pool was more important than them, they didn't like the idea of a rich young woman suddenly just swarming in and telling them that she's doing all of this to their houses, or they just saw it as a "why don't you worry about your own house and we'll worry about ours?" but either way, Linnet couldn't understand why even some of them would be angry about it, kept saying to herself "Why can't they see it's for their own good?" See what I mean?
You should check out the David Suchet Poirot's. They filmed every Poirot story with him and he is often considered the definitive Poirot-actor. There are countless great ones: ABC murders, Evil under the sun, Three little pigs, Peril at end house, After the funeral, Hickory dickory dock...
Other Agatha Christie movie adaptations: Miss Marple (1980s tv series starring Joan Hickson) Endless Night (1978 - has neither Hercule Poirot nor Miss Marple as the detective) Poirot (13 seasons tv series, combination of novels and of short stories so episodes vary from roughly 60 minutes to roughly 90 minutes, starring David Suchet) Marple (6 part series from the 2000s and 2010s - two different actresses playing Miss Marple, Geraldine McEwan for season 1-3, Julia McKenzie for seasons 4-6, enough differences in their portrayals to make it like two different series, each had a few episodes that werent' originally Miss Marple stories ) Murder on The Orient Express (1974 starring Albert Finney) Death on the Nile (1978 starring Peter Ustinov) Crooked House (2017 - no Poirot or Marple there) Evil Under the Sun (1981 starring Peter Ustinov) The Mirror Crack'd (1980 starring Angela Lansbury) A Caribbean Mystery (1985 starring Helen Hayes) Witness for the Prosecution (1957 - directed by Billy Wilder and starring Marlene Dietrich) A Haunting in Venice (2023 - based extremely loosely on A Halloween Party) Murder She Said (1962 - Agatha christie liked Margaret Rutherford as an actress but not her portrayal of miss Marple) Murder at the Gallop (1963 starring Margaret Rutherford) Murder Most Foul (1964 starring Margaret Rutherford) Murder Ahoy (1964 starring Margaret Rutherford - even though the portrayal of Miss Marple is all wrong they're still really fun to watch) And Then There Were None (2015 - a dark miniseries retelling of already Christie's darkest novel) Why Didn't They Ask Evans? (2022 - a bit lighter than the more recent ones) Witness for the Prosecution (2016 - I think some say the tv series was based more on the short story, the 50s movie more on the play, either way this series is darker than the play) Ordeal by Innocence (2018 - again a dark retelling, some pretty big changes) The Pale Horse (2020 - once again some biggish changes in a dark retelling) The ABC Murders (2018 - John Malkovich as an older, sadder Poirot) Partners in Crime (2015 - Christie's last official detectives, a couple called Tommy and Tuppence) Partners in Crime (1983 - see above but made in the 1980s)
The 70s movie with Peter Ustinov fun as well - very different, truer to the original book but still with some changes. Makes it all the more interesting. Sadly some racist moments in it - it was the 70s and Agatha Christie could come up with a good plot but was sadly (and I'm saying this as a fan of her book) a racist old bag. It's a pity as well - she'd spent a lot of time in places like Egypt and Mesopotamia (her husband was an archeologist), you'd think she'd have learned more but I guess she just saw what she wanted to see.
Well, I haven't seen a whole lot of your reactions, so I don't know if it's true if you talk about sxx a normal amount, or a lot... personally I don't think it matters. Some people are just fuddy-duddys. But in regards to the very sexual nature of the people dancing, remember, it's jazz. Real jazz, not that modern smooth jazz like Kenny G, or anything that's been watered down. I've never been a fan, probably because of the crappy modern stuff. But if I had lived in those hedonistic 20s and 30s... when jazz was about sxx and drugs... yeah, I'd have been a fan.
You should definitely watch "Evil Under the Sun" as well. Agatha Christie was a BRILLIANT writer and the adaption to Evil is so great ❤❤❤❤
thank you. I will check for it.
SPOILERS:
The problem with Linnet is - she's always had her own way. She isn't spiteful or vindictive, life has been good to her so she's always tried to be kind to others. But she is still vain and spoiled, and though she doesn't try to hurt people won't let the fact that someone may be hurt by her actions stop her from going after it. She's got beauty, money, brains and charm, and if she hasn't got what she wants one way she'll get it another. She's never learned how to not reach her hand out or to let well enough alone. That's why.....she did go after Simon as soon as she realised she wanted him - she knew how Jackie felt, she knew that she could choose to just step aside and leave well enough alone, but she went on ahead and went after him. That's why she believed that she'd succeeded in stealing Simon from Jackie, but she tried to lie to herself about it, saying "even before he met me he was beginning to realise he'd made a mistake"; "they weren't suited to each other in any way"; "could he have made Jackie happy if he'd married her after realising he loved me and not her?"; and "what's the point of looking back, you have to look to the future". And that's also why she got so upset when Jackie was stalking them - because she felt guilty that she had stolen her best friends fiancé.
The problem with Simon is that he's just too simple - he doesn't think about the seriousness of what he does, he just focuses on the things he wants, namely money and the lifestyle that comes with money. He never even really liked Linnet - thought she was bossy and possessive (in the book he talked about how clingy Jackie was "this man is mine, he belongs to me" and it becomes clear later on he was actually talking about Linnet") and was embarrassed by how she was going after him, but he liked the thought of her money. Then he just got an idea of marrying her and inheriting her money in a year, and then just started to see it as a "nothing venture, nothing had" scenario and justified it'd be the only chance he'd get to get that much money. He didn't even have the brains to think up the idea even if he had the physical speed and strength to enact it - it was all Jackie's plan. It's even (in the book) the reason why he was unemployed at the beginning - he tried to do something dodgy with money and got found out at once - he "just thought that was how things were done in the city".
And the problem with Jackie is - she can't say no to Simon. She could see Linnet was after him and was hurt by her friends, but she could see that Simon was tempted by the money and that worried her because she knew he couldn't say no to it, that he'd either go off with Linnet or would always be thinking about Linnet's money when he married her. Then when she realised he'd made up his mind to marry and kill Linnet she knew she couldn't stop him and knew he didn't have the brains to pull it off. Even though Linnet betrayed her by deliberately going after Simon she didn't want to kill her friend. She knew that she could stop or pull back - but she let that moment pass her by because she loved Simon too much. That look she was giving Linnet when Linnet tried talking to her - at first it seems like a "you just couldn't let me have one thing, could you?", then it seems more like "I don't want to hurt you Linnet" look, then it looks like a combination of "you were my friend, couldn't you have left us alone? I don't want to hurt you" look.
the 3rd movie is also incredible!! cant wait for you to watch it!
ok thanks! I can't wait to see it.
In the book the singers a writer. Actually there are so many charecters that are combinded in this that you should just read the book.
thank you for this info.
21:53 Yeah but that's a whole lot of extra work she suddenly has to do - either individually packing up everyone's rooms or arranging it all, not getting to come on the first part of the boat trip because she now has to meet everyone at another stop with a whole lot of luggage, and it was all at the spur of the moment so any plans she had for her own relaxation or work she already has to do has to be put on hole, she wasn't asked if it was ok before she did it, and it was just announced suddenly so now she can't say anything but "happy to miss". And then there's the issue that all of a sudden everyone has to come on this boat trip no matter what other plans they may have.
This is what I mean about Linnet - she tries to be kind to others but she doesn't even think about how her actions may hurt or at least inconvenience them because she's always been able to have anything she wanted. In the book she's having a country house redone and mentions that she's have some delapidated old cottages on the estate torn down and having new ones built, and then adds that they needed to go anyhow because they'd overlook the swimming pool she was having added to the gardens. Most of the people who owned the cottages were happy about it because it meant a lot of troubles off their mind (not having to worry about the house falling down around them or having to worry about the money it would cost to get them fixed), but some were actually angry about it - for numerous legitimate reasons, i.e. they may have heard that they were being moved because of the swimming pool and felt that the pool was more important than them, they didn't like the idea of a rich young woman suddenly just swarming in and telling them that she's doing all of this to their houses, or they just saw it as a "why don't you worry about your own house and we'll worry about ours?" but either way, Linnet couldn't understand why even some of them would be angry about it, kept saying to herself "Why can't they see it's for their own good?"
See what I mean?
Excellent reaction - you had it figured out way before I did!
Thank you so much! I was lock in because I love these types! ok later.
You should check out the David Suchet Poirot's. They filmed every Poirot story with him and he is often considered the definitive Poirot-actor. There are countless great ones: ABC murders, Evil under the sun, Three little pigs, Peril at end house, After the funeral, Hickory dickory dock...
First time watch. Very entertaining.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Try “Dead Again” Branagh does a 90’s LA noir. His Hamlet is also amazing but 4+ hours. It has an intermission and everything.
thank you for the info, I would like to check out the Hamlet as well! ok later.
39:59 In other words she's basically he daughter in law ever mother dreams of
When are you doing the 3rd movie?
it on my list, it will happen I just don't know when exact. I have some other videos to get done, but I can't wait for that one!!
Other Agatha Christie movie adaptations:
Miss Marple (1980s tv series starring Joan Hickson)
Endless Night (1978 - has neither Hercule Poirot nor Miss Marple as the detective)
Poirot (13 seasons tv series, combination of novels and of short stories so episodes vary from roughly 60 minutes to roughly 90 minutes, starring David Suchet)
Marple (6 part series from the 2000s and 2010s - two different actresses playing Miss Marple, Geraldine McEwan for season 1-3, Julia McKenzie for seasons 4-6, enough differences in their portrayals to make it like two different series, each had a few episodes that werent' originally Miss Marple stories )
Murder on The Orient Express (1974 starring Albert Finney)
Death on the Nile (1978 starring Peter Ustinov)
Crooked House (2017 - no Poirot or Marple there)
Evil Under the Sun (1981 starring Peter Ustinov)
The Mirror Crack'd (1980 starring Angela Lansbury)
A Caribbean Mystery (1985 starring Helen Hayes)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957 - directed by Billy Wilder and starring Marlene Dietrich)
A Haunting in Venice (2023 - based extremely loosely on A Halloween Party)
Murder She Said (1962 - Agatha christie liked Margaret Rutherford as an actress but not her portrayal of miss Marple)
Murder at the Gallop (1963 starring Margaret Rutherford)
Murder Most Foul (1964 starring Margaret Rutherford)
Murder Ahoy (1964 starring Margaret Rutherford - even though the portrayal of Miss Marple is all wrong they're still really fun to watch)
And Then There Were None (2015 - a dark miniseries retelling of already Christie's darkest novel)
Why Didn't They Ask Evans? (2022 - a bit lighter than the more recent ones)
Witness for the Prosecution (2016 - I think some say the tv series was based more on the short story, the 50s movie more on the play, either way this series is darker than the play)
Ordeal by Innocence (2018 - again a dark retelling, some pretty big changes)
The Pale Horse (2020 - once again some biggish changes in a dark retelling)
The ABC Murders (2018 - John Malkovich as an older, sadder Poirot)
Partners in Crime (2015 - Christie's last official detectives, a couple called Tommy and Tuppence)
Partners in Crime (1983 - see above but made in the 1980s)
thank you for your time.
The 70s movie with Peter Ustinov fun as well - very different, truer to the original book but still with some changes. Makes it all the more interesting. Sadly some racist moments in it - it was the 70s and Agatha Christie could come up with a good plot but was sadly (and I'm saying this as a fan of her book) a racist old bag. It's a pity as well - she'd spent a lot of time in places like Egypt and Mesopotamia (her husband was an archeologist), you'd think she'd have learned more but I guess she just saw what she wanted to see.
Did you watch the 3rd one?
at some point I will.
Well, I haven't seen a whole lot of your reactions, so I don't know if it's true if you talk about sxx a normal amount, or a lot... personally I don't think it matters. Some people are just fuddy-duddys. But in regards to the very sexual nature of the people dancing, remember, it's jazz. Real jazz, not that modern smooth jazz like Kenny G, or anything that's been watered down. I've never been a fan, probably because of the crappy modern stuff. But if I had lived in those hedonistic 20s and 30s... when jazz was about sxx and drugs... yeah, I'd have been a fan.
yeah, and that scene was heavily s*x driven. which was fine, he was dancing with his lady.
If you enjoy this one you should also watch the third one “A Haunting in Venice” b/c it’s really good as well.