Poirot: After the Funeral (2006)

After The Funeral was absolutely superb, and by far the best episode of the season. I was disappointed with Cards On the Table, that started off so well but let down considerably by the last half hour, and I didn't know what to think of Taken At the Flood, though I do remember being confused at the end. After the Funeral as I've said is one of my all time favourite Poirot episodes, up there with Five Little Pigs, Sad Cypress and The ABC Murders. I was afraid that they would ruin the story, but instead it is very faithful to the book. Now I will say I don't mind changes to books, and try not to compare movies and TV adaptations to their sources, except when the book is a masterpiece and the adaptation doesn't do it justice. That's why I disliked some of the Marples like Nemesis and Sleeping Murder, and so far out of the Poirots The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Taken At the Flood and Cards on the Table are the only ones that really did disappoint. Everything else ranges from good to outstanding, even the recent Appointment with Death, despite the many deviations from the book, which I admit isn't a favourite, was surprisingly good, thanks to the marvellous production values, stellar ensemble performances and outstanding music score. Back to After the Funeral, the production values are fantastic. It has a really cinematic feel to it, and the stunning photography and splendid scenery and costumes made it a visual feast for the eyes. The music was very stirring and even haunting, and the entire cast give wonderful performances. David Suchet is impeccable as always as Poirot, and Geraldine James and Anna Calder Marshall are just as terrific. But for me, the standout was Monica Dolan as Mrs Gilchrist, she is up there with Donald Sumpter and Polly Walker as the best supporting actor/actress in a Poirot episode, that's how good her performance was. All in all, a must see, one of the best Poirot episodes by far, and one of the more faithful ones too. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Considerable fun can be had at the expense of the big super-duper Hollywood productions of Agatha Christie's Poirot stories from the 1970s. COLOSSAL STUPENDOUS STAR-STUDDED CAST! and all that. Yet, after watching a few of these very well-done British TV episodes, I'm beginning to wonder if it doesn't help to see Famous Faces in the subordinate roles. At least a viewer can keep the character apart. A horde of strange faces is always confusing, either on the screen or on the subway.In this instance, "After the Funeral," the writers haven't given us much chance. The nervous voice-over of the family solicitor introduces us to more than half a dozen characters, or should I say "suspects", without giving them more than a minute's worth of presentation. Very rude.And the curious and mysterious events follow very quickly too, in piles, heaped on one another, beginning with the cremation of the family patriarch. ("Very odd for an English gentleman, n'est pas?") A will is read, but it turns out to be false. Then another will appears. And a false letter from the patriarch. And all sorts of facts, many or most of them red herrings, are hidden from the viewer. Confusion leads to still more confusion.I DID fully understand the ritual exposition at the end, when Poirot has gathered all the relevant faces, most of them still a little strange, in the parlor and explains all. Yet, the story itself, twisted and anfractuous as it is, isn't up to Agatha Christie's best. There are too MANY red herrings. And Poirot needs a sidekick to talk things over with. I mean, Holmes had Watson. Charlie Chan had Number One Son. I guess Columbo didn't have a sidekick. He was his own sidekick.These stories would move along a clearer path if there were scenes like those after the murder on the Orient Express. (I'm talking about the STAR-STUDDED STUPENDOUS MOVIE, not the novel.) In it, Poirot and his sidekick interview each suspect or set of suspects at some length. And even before that, we've gotten to know their characters so we have a good idea of who's who, if not what's what.This kind of formal exposition isn't essential. Some of the better examples of the TV series didn't have them either -- "Death on the Nile" or "Murder in Mesopotamia" -- but in those cases the suspects were still well differentiated and I never felt overwhelmed by their sheer volume.Imagine if this story had been squeezed from 95 minutes into 50! Hand me my headache powder, please!

As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout! One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.

The last episode I have seen of this series was the last made at this writing. And it is the best I have seen, fully cinematic, and a competent mystery after a decade of mostly wasted opportunities. With this episode, I have seen three of the four from season 12 and all are excellent.This one is a contender for the best, based on a very subtle trick that is played on the viewer, a trick that is the cinematic equivalent of the sort of literary clue Agatha would have used. The solution to the murder has to do with a character playing a part, a redhead, incidentally. Two of our suspects are actors, and that allows us to have a scene in the middle of all the suspects, family members who benefited from the will.The scene is wonderful. It is on a stage where a play has just finished with a murder. The characters lounge on the set. This is mirrored at the end with the constant Poirot device where all the suspects are collected, and the murderer (and other villains) revealed. In this case, the room is marvelously overblown but strictly reminiscent of the stage we saw earlier. Lest we miss the clue, that room contains a dollhouse. And yes, that dollhouse contains a clue.One of the red herrings is a pair of nuns who pop up in suspicious places. Guess what we see in the background of the behind the scenes in that play? An actress playing a nun. She's so subliminal you probably wouldn't have noticed her. Its a great, great piece of mystery stagecraft. Notice that the woman suspect's hair (she's in the foreground) though normally brown is lit to be red. Another clue.Overall, the way the camera is managed is very well considered. Half the time it is expository mode. Christie mysteries are very talkie. The other half of the time the camera is in Hitchcock-dePalma mode. Curiously examining as Poirot would.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.