03:18 They seemed vital to me. They conveyed how the past remains vividly alive in memory, not just Poirot's client but others as well. But also, that memories slip away. The older a memory, the more indistinct. 06:38 The governess also seemed to me more strained, carrying (as she believes) a terrible secret. In fact I thought the show made it oh so vividly clear how everyone's life was blighted by the murder. To kill one person is to do more than end one life, but also shatter the lives around them. Such was an important theme explored in POIROT. 06:52 Amyas is NOT her father. He is her brother in law. 09:41 Totally disagree. That gives us a real glimpse of what what truly going on between the two--the way they interacted, even at genuinely intimate moments. 09:59 Honestly, I thought this made so much more sense than Phillip in the book. That all three men were in love with Caroline was a bit much, and frankly I didn't really believe much in the book's Phillip. But this version...! I loved the nuances therein, not least that he's not only in deep mourning over the person he loved, but feels deeply guilty because he liked Caroline, regarded her as one of his best friends, has never gotten over the shock and betrayal. Now, at the end, to learn the truth was such a deep further shock to his system...! And it made his feelings about that household parallel that of the daughter, the beloved golden time when he could visit his favorite people on Earth. It was startlingly fine improvement! 10:57 Again, this struck me as an improvement. The daughter's entire past was poisoned, and Poirot restored it to her. While having her threaten to kill Elsa not only made the climax more dramatic, it emphasized just how wretched Elsa was in that she tried to goad her into doing it, and how very different the daughter really was--she was no killer, nowhere near so selfish. She wanted the parents of her memories back. And she got them. I found that far more moving than (frankly very stupid) worries about homocidal tendencies when we are ALL related murderers, geniuses, perverts, and saints. In the book she's just intensely curious and prejudiced, with no strong emotional factor at all. Personally I regard this as THE best Poirot episode.
You answered these points wonderfully. Though I have not read the book - to me these differences from the book work just fine. Having seen all of the David Suchet Poirot episodes this one is so very emotional and nostalgic and heart breaking. And with the brilliant musical score on top of all of the other great elements of this episode it is my absolute favorite Poirot. It is sad and haunting and beautiful.
this is an interesting episode. Toby Stephens is the son of Maggie Smith who was in Two of the Ustinov Poirot movies(Evil under the Sun and Death on the Nile), Rachael Stirling is the daughter of Diana Rigg who was also in Evil under the Sun and Talula Riley was in The Moving Finger episode of Marple.
I love both the book and the adaptation. It's one of the most underrated Poirot stories in my view. The music used for the adaptation - both the Gnossienne No.1 piece by Erik Satie and the original music by Christopher Gunning - were outstanding and fitted the production perfectly. I agree with your points about the plot changes. The big disappointment for me was that the adaptation didn't use the big clue provided by Crale's painting. In the book, Poirot know the solution as soon as he saw it. A shame they couldn't find a way to portray that.
This was the only episode of the "new" Poirot that I really liked. I have always been curious to know how David Suchet felt about the change. What did he like better - the lighter, more humorous earlier episodes or the later darker, edgier, more sexual ones? Does anyone know?
Wow, thanks so much for saying that! I'm really happy to hear you're enjoying the reviews. I think I watched 'Ten Little Indians' for the first time a little while before starting this channel, so that's why I haven't been back to it yet, but I'll definitely add it to the list. I still have yet to see either the 1974 version, the 1989 version or the miniseries. The 1945 film is the one I'm most familiar with, so it would be fun to go through all of them at some point to compare.
@@HildebrandProductions oh, you will LOVE ( I think ) the latest miniseries! One of the reasons I enjoy your reviews ( of anything ) is that you really seem to be, I want to say passionate about doing this, but maybe closer to "gently" interested and respectful of the material ( such as on you other Columbo / Poirot/ etc reviews... I really appreciate your style, feels very conversational.
I'll have to track down a copy of the miniseries. I've only seen the trailer for it, and it appears to match the tone of the novel that I've always loved while reading it. I very much appreciate your feedback! I love getting to share my thoughts on subjects I'm interested in, and it means a lot that these videos are being enjoyed.
@@garyseven4441 I almost loved it. I do feel the mundanity of the evil was lost by turning them all into absolute monsters. My own favorite is the Soviet Era Russian adaptation.
Hastings disappeared from Poirot’s life for a long time, after he married and moved to South America to run his ranch. He does return in the final Poirot book, “Curtain”.
Five Little Pigs remains one of my favourite of the many Poirot stories, both as a novel and as a television adaptation - that never fails to move me.
It's amazing.
I loved the novel and was very impressed with this adaptation. It seemed more like a movie than a serial television show.
03:18 They seemed vital to me. They conveyed how the past remains vividly alive in memory, not just Poirot's client but others as well. But also, that memories slip away. The older a memory, the more indistinct.
06:38 The governess also seemed to me more strained, carrying (as she believes) a terrible secret. In fact I thought the show made it oh so vividly clear how everyone's life was blighted by the murder. To kill one person is to do more than end one life, but also shatter the lives around them. Such was an important theme explored in POIROT.
06:52 Amyas is NOT her father. He is her brother in law.
09:41 Totally disagree. That gives us a real glimpse of what what truly going on between the two--the way they interacted, even at genuinely intimate moments.
09:59 Honestly, I thought this made so much more sense than Phillip in the book. That all three men were in love with Caroline was a bit much, and frankly I didn't really believe much in the book's Phillip. But this version...! I loved the nuances therein, not least that he's not only in deep mourning over the person he loved, but feels deeply guilty because he liked Caroline, regarded her as one of his best friends, has never gotten over the shock and betrayal. Now, at the end, to learn the truth was such a deep further shock to his system...! And it made his feelings about that household parallel that of the daughter, the beloved golden time when he could visit his favorite people on Earth. It was startlingly fine improvement!
10:57 Again, this struck me as an improvement. The daughter's entire past was poisoned, and Poirot restored it to her. While having her threaten to kill Elsa not only made the climax more dramatic, it emphasized just how wretched Elsa was in that she tried to goad her into doing it, and how very different the daughter really was--she was no killer, nowhere near so selfish. She wanted the parents of her memories back. And she got them. I found that far more moving than (frankly very stupid) worries about homocidal tendencies when we are ALL related murderers, geniuses, perverts, and saints. In the book she's just intensely curious and prejudiced, with no strong emotional factor at all.
Personally I regard this as THE best Poirot episode.
You answered these points wonderfully. Though I have not read the book - to me these differences from the book work just fine. Having seen all of the David Suchet Poirot episodes this one is so very emotional and nostalgic and heart breaking. And with the brilliant musical score on top of all of the other great elements of this episode it is my absolute favorite Poirot. It is sad and haunting and beautiful.
I love five little pigs but sometimes find it difficult to watch because it’s so sad 💔
This was the one that hooked me. Never managed to get into the series with the regular cast but the movies were beautiful and entertaining.
this is an interesting episode. Toby Stephens is the son of Maggie Smith who was in Two of the Ustinov Poirot movies(Evil under the Sun and Death on the Nile), Rachael Stirling is the daughter of Diana Rigg who was also in Evil under the Sun and Talula Riley was in The Moving Finger episode of Marple.
Stirling also played Griselda Clement in Murder at the Vicarage.
I love both the book and the adaptation. It's one of the most underrated Poirot stories in my view. The music used for the adaptation - both the Gnossienne No.1 piece by Erik Satie and the original music by Christopher Gunning - were outstanding and fitted the production perfectly. I agree with your points about the plot changes. The big disappointment for me was that the adaptation didn't use the big clue provided by Crale's painting. In the book, Poirot know the solution as soon as he saw it. A shame they couldn't find a way to portray that.
That's true, the significance of the painting in general is downplayed far more than I would have expected.
Who could possibly paint that?
I don't mind the changes they made. I think it is an absolutely beautiful adaptation. Interesting review.
This was the only episode of the "new" Poirot that I really liked. I have always been curious to know how David Suchet felt about the change. What did he like better - the lighter, more humorous earlier episodes or the later darker, edgier, more sexual ones? Does anyone know?
Read his book, Poirot and me 😉
Absolutely my favourite reviewer, thanks so much esp for the Poirot episodes. Any chance of you reviewing the 1965 version of 10 Little Indians?
Wow, thanks so much for saying that! I'm really happy to hear you're enjoying the reviews. I think I watched 'Ten Little Indians' for the first time a little while before starting this channel, so that's why I haven't been back to it yet, but I'll definitely add it to the list. I still have yet to see either the 1974 version, the 1989 version or the miniseries. The 1945 film is the one I'm most familiar with, so it would be fun to go through all of them at some point to compare.
@@HildebrandProductions oh, you will LOVE ( I think ) the latest miniseries! One of the reasons I enjoy your reviews ( of anything ) is that you really seem to be, I want to say passionate about doing this, but maybe closer to "gently" interested and respectful of the material ( such as on you other Columbo / Poirot/ etc reviews... I really appreciate your style, feels very conversational.
I'll have to track down a copy of the miniseries. I've only seen the trailer for it, and it appears to match the tone of the novel that I've always loved while reading it.
I very much appreciate your feedback! I love getting to share my thoughts on subjects I'm interested in, and it means a lot that these videos are being enjoyed.
@@garyseven4441 I almost loved it. I do feel the mundanity of the evil was lost by turning them all into absolute monsters. My own favorite is the Soviet Era Russian adaptation.
Another great review! Thanks!
Thank you!
Hastings disappeared from Poirot’s life for a long time, after he married and moved to South America to run his ranch. He does return in the final Poirot book, “Curtain”.
The Toby Stephens character was more plausible to me with the change. I agree though that the book ending is better.