Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

bensonmum2 While recovering from injuries received during the War, Lieutenant Hastings is invited to visit an old friend in his mother's, Mrs. Inglethorp, country estate. The household is in a state because of the mother's recent marriage to a strange man 20 years her junior. One night, Mrs. Inglethorp is taken ill and dies. The cause of death - poisoning. The family suspects the new husband, but he wasn't at home on the night of the murder. Looking for help in solving the mystery, Lieutenant Hastings calls on a war refugee from Belgium living in the village. He's an odd bird, but a great detective named Hercule Poirot.The Mysterious Affair at Styles isn't one of the great Christie works, but it's fun enough with interesting characters and a "nice" murder. I say it's not great because there are two things that really bug me (at least in this presentation of the story). First, the murderer makes the most illogical mistake imaginable. Why did he leave the incriminating piece of evidence where it could be found? Second, Poirot makes an awful lot of suppositions that just happen to be right. He's more clairvoyant here than usual.But none of that matters much when the rest of the episode is so good and fun. It's a real hoot watching Poirot march his fellow Belgian refugees through the streets of a small English village. They look like penguins on parade. It's also a treat to see Hastings and Poirot renew an old friendship. It's a really nice moment. And, it's also a joy to watch Japp and Poirot working together on their first English case. The only thing missing was Miss Lemon. I only wish they would have filmed The Mysterious Affair at Styles first. It would have nicely set-up everything to follow. For someone new to the series, I'd suggest going straight to S3E1 to start. Overall, a 7/10 from me.

anbudmor Everything about this episode fits in well the the series generally. It is very well produced and acted, and generally enjoyable to watch.The problem with the episode lies in the fact that the culprit decides to leave the most inculpatory pieces of evidence at the scene of the crime. The culprit broke into a locked room where the victim had died to retrieve a letter that proves his guilt. When he hears Poirot and some others coming to the room he decides to tear up the letter in 3- strips, crush them lengthwise and leave them with some other pieces of crushed paper in a vase on the mantelpiece. He then escapes through a second door before Poirot et al. arrive.Why the hell didn't he just take the letter? What he should have done is so obvious that it spoils the episode. Fortunately this information is only revealed to the audience at the end of the show, so one gets to enjoy most of the episode before the incredible action of the perpetrator is revealed.

bob the moo Although IMDb lists this feature length outing as the first episode of the third season, it is actually a stand-alone episode which was made to mark 100 years since the birth of Christie. I know this because early doors I did have to do some Googling to understand the context because the film is the very first book where Poirot makes an appearance and as it fit into the flow of the season. The plot sees Hastings having only previously met Poirot once but by chance reunited with him as the little Belgian and others have temporarily been granted entry into the UK to escape the war. Whenever the residence where Hastings is staying experiences a death, he suggests they involve Poirot to help with the investigation.The change in time appears to have had other impacts too because this special is not quite as good as the previous two seasons had been. The change in dynamic and relationship is an impact but it is not particularly negative in the grand scheme of things but it does jar a little when watching in the context of the previous episodes; Hastings is a darker character in the wake of the war and Poirot's relationship with him is perhaps too superficial (as one would expect) so the humor between them is not as evident. The plot is engaging but not all of it makes sense and as part of filling out two hours, there is a lot more in the way of red herrings than normal which by definition means that the mystery becomes less accessible and less straightforward. These factors are small things though because, although clearly different from the episodes before, the film still works very well and delivers in the ways it normally does – even if that is not quite as well as we are used to.The cast remain very good although understandably there is some restrictions on their characters as we "get the gang together" as it were. Suchet is as good as ever even in a younger appearance; I liked that he retained the character but made it work a few steps earlier in the line – for example his fussy, irritable streak is more gently shown with an attention to detail. Fraser has less of a comedic role, which is a shame as he is very good at that, but he does make for more of a rounded character. Jackson is solid in support as usual but is less used. The supporting cast are generally pretty good although in a way I went for them less because to me they were part of the "fuller" film feel and thus worked a little against the fresher, more accessible plots than I had enjoyed of late.The Mysterious Affair at Styles is still a very enjoyable film that is a nice addition to the episodes even if it clunks a little bit against the flow. The essence is still there even if it must be said the longer running time and the change in the dynamics does rather reduce the fresh humor of the episodes and how accessible they were.

tedg Most of these dramatizations are inadequate and any written by Exton wash the wonder of Christie out of the thing. So the production then has to depend on luxurious sets and supposedly interesting characters.That's not enough for me. But I do have to report that the director here has done some clever things. The lighting is atypically superb for TeeVee. There are some very nicely conceived shots that indicate Poirot's vision.But the most interesting thing is how this director has created Poirot. He's at least slightly different in every episode, and very different in this one. The excuse, probably is that it is the earliest story.Here he is human before being officious. He is tentative, not annoying. He is certain, not vain.Its not played for comedy as usual. He's an earnest inquiring eye (and hand).Most of these are trash. But at least this one is colored well.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.