Peter Ustinov returns as Hercules Poirot in this murder mystery.
It's based on Agatha Christie's THREE-ACT TRAGEDY, one of her poorer mysteries, and the makers of this TV movie have taken considerable liberties. The motive for murder is reduced from bad to rubbish; Jonathan Cecil appears as a nebbishy Hastings, whereas the character did not appear in the novel; the setting is changed from Cornwall to Acapulco to little purpose, since almost all of it is shot on interior sets; and Tony Curtis plays a great star of movies and the Broadway stage.
Mostly, though, the obvious problem is the great amount of exposition, with the characters introduced by long-winded description of who they are, followed by sizable discussions of what happened. Sidney Lumet, in MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, solved this inherent problem with Christie's writing by showing the audience, with the narrator explaining what is going on.
Because Christie wrote her mysteries by writing the book, then deciding who had actually done the deed, then going back to insert the appropriate clues, this was a possible outcome from the beginning. In changing the ending without much in the way of explanation, this version fouls up. I have never been a fan of Miss Christie's prose or characterizations. Her puzzle construction was peerless, and this does not play well with the rules of the game. Even less does it offer much for the performers or the viewer.
It's based on Agatha Christie's THREE-ACT TRAGEDY, one of her poorer mysteries, and the makers of this TV movie have taken considerable liberties. The motive for murder is reduced from bad to rubbish; Jonathan Cecil appears as a nebbishy Hastings, whereas the character did not appear in the novel; the setting is changed from Cornwall to Acapulco to little purpose, since almost all of it is shot on interior sets; and Tony Curtis plays a great star of movies and the Broadway stage.
Mostly, though, the obvious problem is the great amount of exposition, with the characters introduced by long-winded description of who they are, followed by sizable discussions of what happened. Sidney Lumet, in MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, solved this inherent problem with Christie's writing by showing the audience, with the narrator explaining what is going on.
Because Christie wrote her mysteries by writing the book, then deciding who had actually done the deed, then going back to insert the appropriate clues, this was a possible outcome from the beginning. In changing the ending without much in the way of explanation, this version fouls up. I have never been a fan of Miss Christie's prose or characterizations. Her puzzle construction was peerless, and this does not play well with the rules of the game. Even less does it offer much for the performers or the viewer.