"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Review

 

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Review

I just realized something. I have never read Agatha Christie's 1932 novel, "Peril at End House". I find this ironic, considering that I have seen the 1990 television movie adaptation of this novel at least three or four times. One of these days, I will get around to reading Christie's novel and comparing it to the television adaptation. Right now, I am going to focus on the latter.

Directed by Renny Rye and adapted by Clive Exton, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" is the first full-length television movie aired on "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT". It is also about Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot's efforts to prevent the murder of a young socialite, during his vacation in Cornwall. The movie begins with Poirot and his friend Arthur Hastings arriving at a Cornish seaside resort for their vacation. While conversing with socialite Magdala "Nick" Buckley on the resort's grounds, Poirot notices that someone had fired a bullet into the brim of her floppy hat. Poirot exposes the bullet hole to Nick, who finds it difficult to believe that someone wants to kill her. She points out that aside from her house - End House - has no real assets. Poirot decides to investigate her inner circle, who includes the following:

*Charles Vyse - Nick's cousin and an attorney
*Mr. and Mrs. Croft - an Australian couple that has leased the lodge near End House, who had suggested Nick make a will six months earlier
*Freddie Rice - a close friend of Nick's, who is also an abused wife
*Jim Lazarus - an art dealer in love with Nick
*Commander George Challenger - a Royal Navy officer who is also attracted to Nick

Poirot eventually advises Nick to invite a relative to stay with her for a few weeks. Nick invites her distant cousin Maggie Buckley. Unfortunately, someone kills Maggie, after she makes the mistake of wearing Nick's dress shawl during an evening party. Even worse, the killer eventually achieves his/her goal by sending a box of poisoned chocolates to Nick, while she was recuperating at a local hospital.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" possessed a certain plot device that Christie had used in several of her novels. I would describe this plot device. But to do so would spoil the rest of the story. It took me years to spot this plot device. And I should be surprised that I have not come across anyone else who has spotted it. And yet . . . I am not. The fact that it took me several years to spot this particular plot device only tells me that Christie has utilized it with great effect in some of her more interesting and well-written mysteries. Thankfully, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" proved to be one of those well-written mysteries.

I must admit that Clive Exton did a pretty damn good job in adapting Christie's novel for the television screen. He stuck very closely to the original novel's plot . . . with a few changes that did no harm to the overall movie. Both Exton and Rye presented a well-paced production to the audiences. They set up the story with Poirot and Hastings' arrival to Cornwall and continued on with without any haste or dragging feet. The only time the movie threatened to put me to sleep occurred between the story's second murder and the revelation of the killer . . . . when the story threatened to ground to a halt. I have one last problem - namely the appearance of Chief Inspector Japp. I realize that Japp did appear in the novel. But his appearance merely dealt with Poirot's request that he investigate the Crofts, whom the Belgian detective suspected of being forgers. The cinematic Japp immediately appeared following Maggie Buckley's death as the main police investigator. And Cornwall is not under Scotland Yard's main jurisdiction.

The production values for "PERIL AT END HOUSE" proved to be top-notch. Rye shot the film's exterior scenes in Salcombe, Devon; instead of the county of Cornwall. I found that curious. However, both he and cinematographer Peter Bartlett certainly took advantage of the movie's setting with Bartlett's photography of Salcombe's charming, Old World style. This was especially apparent in the movie's opening sequence that featured Poirot and Hasting's arrival by airplane. Actually, production designer Mike Oxley did an excellent job of recreating an English vacation resort in the early 1930s. The production practically reeked of the Art Deco style of that time period. However, I was especially impressed by Linda Mattock's costume designs. I was especially impressed by those costumes worn by actresses Polly Walker, Pauline Moran and Alison Sterling. My only complaints about the movie's visual styles were the actresses' hairstyles. No one seemed capable of re-creating the early 1930s soft bob. The actresses either wore a chignon or in the case of Sterling, a Dutch Boy bob made famous by actress Louise Brooks in the late 1920s.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" featured some solid performances by the cast. David Suchet gave his usual excellent portrayal of Hercule Poirot. I was especially impressed by the on-screen chemistry he managed to produce with Polly Walker. The latter gave a standout performance as the killer's main target, Madgala "Nick" Buckley. Walker did an excellent job of transforming Nick from the charming "Bright Young Thing" to a wary and frightened woman, who realizes that someone is trying to kill her. Alison Sterling was also excellent as one of Nick's closest friends, "Freddie" Rice. Next to Walker's Nick, Sterling gave an interesting and skillful portrayal of the very complex Freddie. Hugh Fraser, Pauline Moran and Philip Jackson were also excellent as Arthur Hastings, Miss Lemon and Chief Inspector Japp. All three, along with Suchet, managed to re-create their usual magic. The movie also featured solid performances from Paul Geoffrey (whom I found particularly convincing as an early 30s social animal), John Harding, Christopher Baines and Elizabeth Downes. I found the Australian accents utilized by Jeremy Young and Carol Macready, who portrayed the Crofts, rather wince inducing. But since their accents were supposed to be fake in the first place, I guess I had no problems.

For some reason, "PERIL AT END HOUSE" has never become a big favorite of mine. It is a well done adaptation of Christie's novel. And I found it visually attractive, thanks to the movie's production team. The movie also featured some excellent performances - especially from David Suchet, Polly Walker and Alison Sterling. Naturally, it is not perfect. But that is not the problem. I cannot explain my lack of enthusiasm for "PERIL AT END HOUSE". I can only assume that I found nothing particularly mind blowing or fascinating about its plot. It is simply a good, solid murder mystery that has managed to entertain me on a few occasions. Perhaps . . . that is enough.

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from "PERIL AT END HOUSE", the 1990 television adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1932 novel. The movie starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot:

"PERIL AT END HOUSE" (1990) Photo Gallery

"THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" (1990) Review

"THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" (1990) Review

As a long time reader of Agatha Christie's novels, I have been well aware of her first novel that was published in 1920, namely "The Mysterious Affair at Styles". I read the novel once. But if I must be honest, I never became a fan of it.

Due to my lackluster feelings for the novel, it took me a while to watch the television adaptation of it, which aired on ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" back in 1990. But eventually I got around to it and was amazed to discover that it had been the second Christie novel to be adapted as a feature-length film on that series. Another amazing aspect of "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" is that it is the first of two or three episodes that was not set during the 1930s decade. In the case of this film, it was set in 1917, during World War I.

The movie opens in London with Captain Arthur Hastings on sick leave from military duty. Hastings seemed to be suffering from a mild case of post traumatic stress disorder. An encounter with an old friend named John Cavendish leads him to eagerly accept the latter's invitation to visit his family's estate - Styles - in Essex. During his visit, Hasting's meets John's family:

*Emily Inglethorp, John's wealthy stepmother and mistress of Styles
*Alfred Inglethorp, her much younger new husband, who is viewed as a fortune hunter
*Mary Cavendish, John's wife
*Lawrence Cavendish, John's younger brother
*Evelyn Howard, Mrs. Inglethorp's companion, who dislikes Mr. Inglethorp
*Cynthia Murdoch, the orphaned daughter of a family friend

Hastings also reunites with an old acquaintance he had met before the war - a Belgian detective named Hercule Poirot, who has become a war refugee. Due to Mrs. Inglethorp's generosity, Poirot has managed to find a place in the nearby village to harbor his fellow Belgian refugees in the area.

When the Styles Court's residents wake up to find Mrs. Inglethorp dying of strychnine poisoning, they learn from the local doctor that she had been murdered. Hastings recruits the help of Poirot to investigate the murder. They discover that John Cavendish will automatically inherit Styles Court upon his stepmother's death, due to being the estate's vested Remainderman. His brother Lawrence will also inherit a nice sum of money. However, the income left to Mrs. Inglethorp by the late Mr. Cavendish would be distributed, according to her will. However, Mrs. Inglethorp was heard arguing with a man about his infidelity - either her stepson John or her husband Alfred. She made a new will after the quarrel, but no one can find it. Two suspects would end up falling under the suspicions of the law before Poirot can reveal the murderer.

"THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" is the kind of adaptation that most fans of Christie's novel absolutely adore. Due to Clive Exton's script, it is a detailed and nearly faithful adaptation of the novel. And for most moviegoers and television viewers these days, a faithful adaptation to a literary source is very important to the quality of a production. My view on the matter is a bit more ambiguous. It all depends on whether a faithful adaptation translate well to the movie or television screen. In the case of "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES", I would say that Clive Exton's faithful adaptation served the story rather well. But the only reason I harbor this view is that I cannot think of a way how any change might serve the story. Because honestly? Christie's 1920 novel did not exactly rock my boat. And I can say the same about this television movie.

"THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" is not a terrible story. It is a pretty solid tale that made it a little difficult for me to guess the murderer's identity. The story also featured mildly interesting characters that actually left me wondering about their fates. I especially found the stormy marriage between John and Mary Cavendish particularly interesting. And I also found myself scratching my head over Mrs. Inglethorp's marriage to the younger and obviously unlikable Alfred Inglethorp. I had originally assumed that this tale featured the first meeting between Poirot and Hastings. But as it turned out, the two men first met during a murder investigation in Belgium before the war. Pity. Come to think of it, "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" did not feature the first meeting between Poirot and Scotland Yard Inspector Japp. They had first met before the war, as well. But the story did feature the first meeting between Hastings and Japp.

Okay . . . look. "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" is a pretty solid story. It is filled with competent performances from the cast, including David Suchet, Hugh Fraser, and Philip Jackson as Poirot, Hastings and Japp. I was especially impressed by Gillian Barge as Emily Inglethorp, Michael Cronin as Alfred Inglethorp, Joanna McCallum. I was especially impressed by David Rintoul and Beatie Edney as the emotional John and Mary Cavendish. I do have to give kudos to production designer Rob Harris of his re-creation of World War I England and also costume designer Linda Mattock. But in the end, this television adaptation of Christie's story no more wowed me than the 1920 novel did. The most interesting aspects of "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" proved to be the World War I setting and that it served as the beginning of Poirot's relationship with both Hastings and Japp.

Before one comes away with the idea that I disliked "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES", I do not. Like I have been stating throughout this review, it is a pretty solid production. I am certain that many "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" fans would love this movie, due to screenwriter Clive Exton's faithful adaptation. I liked the movie. But if I must be honest, my true reaction to it was simply - "Eh, not bad."

"THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" (1990) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES", the 1990 television adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1920 novel. The movie starred David Suchet as Hercule Poirot: 


"THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES" (1990) Photo Gallery

"Adapting AGATHA CHRISTIE"

"ADAPTING AGATHA CHRISTIE"

Ever since the release of the BBC recent adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel, "And Then There Were None", television viewers and critics have been praising the production for being a faithful adaptation. In fact these critics and fans have been in such rapture over the production that some of them have failed to noticed that the three-part miniseries was not completely faithful. As long as the production followed Christie’s original ending, they were satisfied. 

Mind you, I thought this new production, "AND THEN THERE WERE NONE" was top notch, I have found myself growing somewhat annoyed over this attitude. Why do so many people insist that a movie/television production should be faithful to the novel it is adapting? I honestly believe that it should not matter. Not really. I believe that sometimes, it's a good thing to make some changes from the original novel (or play). Sometimes, it's good to remain faithful to the source novel. Sometimes, what is in a novel does not translate well to the television or movie screen.

A good example are the two adaptations of Christie’s 1941 novel, “Evil Under the Sun”. The 1982 adaptation, which starred Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot, made some major changes in regard to characters and a minor subplot. The 2001 television adaptation, which starred David Suchet, was somewhat more faithful . . . but not completely. In my personal view, I believe that the Ustinov version was a lot better . . . more entertaining. Why? If I have to be brutally honest, I am not a big fan of Christie’s 1941 novel. No matter how many times I tried to like it (and I tried), it simply bored me. 

In regard to the adaptations of "And Then There Were None", there are only two adaptations that I really enjoyed - Rene Clair's 1945 adaptation and this new version. The 1945 film is actually an adaptation of the 1943 stage play written by Christie. Because the play first opened in the middle of World War II, Christie had decided to change the ending in order to spare wartime theater goers the story’s nihilistic ending. Two years later, director Rene Clair and 20th Century Fox decided to adapt Christie’s stage play, instead of the novel. Several other movie adaptations – including the 1996 and the 1974 – did the same. As far as I know, only the Russian 1987 adaptation followed Christie’s original ending. 

And how do I care about these numerous adaptations? I have seen both the 1966 and 1974 movies. I am not a fan of either. Personally, I found them rather cheap. I have never seen the 1987 Russian film. As for the 1945 and 2015 versions . . . I am a big fan of both. That’s right . . . both of them. I do not care that 2015 miniseries stuck to Christie's original novel, despite some changes, and Clair’s 1945 movie did not. I simply happen to enjoy BOTH versions. Why? Both versions were made with skill and style. And I found both versions fascinating, despite the fact that they have different endings. 

I do not believe it should matter that a movie or television ALWAYS adhere to the novel it is adapting. What should matter is whether the director, writer or both are wise enough to realize whether it is a good idea to be completely faithful or to make changes . . . for the sake of the production. If producer John Bradbourne and director Guy Hamilton can make a superior adaptation of “Evil Under the Sun” by utilizing major changes to Christie’s original story and if there can be two outstanding versions of "AND THEN THERE WERE NONE" . . . with different endings, I really do not see the need for any film or television production to blindly adhere to every aspect of a novel it is adapting.