Spoiled by Suchet

For all the Suchet lovers: he should be good at it by now. He's made a career of playing the same character. That's not meant with disrespect. Even though I personally find the TV Poirot boring, he must be doing something right to have such a loyal following.

I think comparing the TV Poirot with MOTOE film Poirot is comparing apples and oranges. If you are a fan of Suchet and you've been watching him for 20 years or however long, you are going to naturally prefer him. No one else will seem right in the part. If you watch the movie with Finney without having preconceived ideas about the character or who or what he's "supposed" to be like, you more than likely will see the brilliance of his performance. Lumet made a very version that stands on its own merit. It was a product of its time and the vision of its director.

I also just saw Suchet's version of Murder on the Orient Express, and I thought he was terrible.

Poirot was always supposed to be quirky, somewhat eccentric, a little odd (even the way he was described in the original novels), but Suchet was none of that. He was just ... there, delivering lines.

Even Agatha Christie thought Albert Finney came the closest to her imagined Poirot, so how could Suchet's rendition be even close?

I fully agree : Finney brings much too parody in Poirot's character in a movie that wasn't a comedy at all. At the contrary, in this marvellous whodunit movies' parody that is Murder by Death, James Coco gave a great comic version of our dear Belgian detective !

What amazed me when I discovered Ustinov's Poirot, especially in Death on Nile, was that he made me forget how much he wasn't physically the character - and that's a brilliant performance. Finney looked very much like Poirot and however, for me, he missed the point : the subtle mix of light and seriousness that makes our detective just a bit ridiculous - with his quirkes and vanity - but nevertheless highly credible in his professional side.

That's precisely why my favorite is and will always be David Suchet, because he perfectly impersonates Poirot physically and intelectually in the way I felt in Agatha Christie's books.




"Don't act, be !" (Kate Winslet)

FInney came off as rude and too abrupt, very unlike the Poirot character in the books.

Ariane67:
"What amazed me when I discovered Ustinov's Poirot, especially in Death on Nile, was that he made me forget how much he wasn't physically the character - and that's a brilliant performance. Finney looked very much like Poirot and however, for me, he missed the point : the subtle mix of light and seriousness that makes our detective just a bit ridiculous - with his quirkes and vanity - but nevertheless highly credible in his professional side. That's precisely why my favorite is and will always be David Suchet, because he perfectly impersonates Poirot physically and intelectually in the way I felt in Agatha Christie's books."


Avenger-16:
"To me, David Suchet is the only actor who has ever captured the character of Poirot; he is also the only actor who has ever bothered to take the character seriously and it shows - I thought that Albert Finney's performance was dreadful, over the top and quite hammy. Also all of that padding showed - his speech was affected because of the cheek pads which he wore, his hair was over- oiled and quite repulsive, and his manner was abrasive, quite unlike the descriptions of Poirot who uses 'the little grey cells' to arrive at a solution, and behaves at all times with the utmost Gaelic courtesy. Ustinov is better, but at times parodies the character, although he does it in such an amusing way that he gets away with it. I think that Agatha Christie would have been absolutely delighted with David Suchet's performances and it is a pity that she did not live to see either Suchet's Poirot or Joan Hickson's Miss Marple. Both gave definitive performances, and I cannot see any way upon which either of them could be bettered."



Streetlegal:
"Finney's portayal is confusing-I can't believe that it was unintentionally over the top because he is too good an actor to accidentally come up with an absurd performance so it has to have been a conscious decision to play Poirot so flamboyantly. The same applies to the make-up, it must have been deliberately unrealistic so the only explanation I can think of is Finney and Sidney Lumet decided to go for a wildly OTT depiction of Poirot-perhaps that was a wise decision for the film because it is rather slow paced and Finney is certainly entertaining. It is an absurd performance but a deliberately absurd one. A lesser actor and director could accidentally have made fools of themselves but Finney and Lumet must have known what they were doing."



I agree with these posts.

Now, this is a matter of personal taste, I don't expect to convert anyone...

My 2 favorite Poirots are David Suchet & Peter Ustinov, in no particular order.

I thought Suchet was perfect, and totally convincing as this rather bizarre, eccentric person. Then I saw him being interviewed on PBS and I was totally floored. David Suchet is NOTHING like that! It was mind-boggling. The look, the manner, the VOICE, it's all a total fabrication (the same way Ann Guilbert's "Grandma Yetta" is on "THE NANNY"). And yet, when he does the part, it seems so real, the real Suchet seems like a put-on. That's spooky. (It was particularly spooky when Suchet, as himself, out of make-up, would suddenly slip into Poirot's character to address the TV audience.)

By comparison, Peter Ustinov looks like he's not wearing any make-up at all. I've seen him in other things, I know he's NOT like that, but when he's onscreen, he just comes across so natural, I totally believe it, and forget he's any other way.

Albert Finney, however, FEELS like a fabrication. Everything about his Poirot seems a put-on. Perhaps this WAS deliberate? Generally, I admire just about everything about the film "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS"... except Finney. It makes me wish they'd thought of Ustinov 4 years earlier. I'm SO GLAD Finney turned down "DEATH ON THE NILE"!! That and "EVIL UNDER THE SUN" remain my 2 all-time favorite Agatha Christie films.

And now, something I'm sure will baffle or offend many purists... I'd rate Aldred Molina 3rd. I've seen his version of "ORIENT EXPRESS" 3 times so far, and enjoyed it IMMENSELY, especially the 2nd & 3rd time, once the shock of the "updating" wore off. I compare it to a Hammer Films adaptation. It's NOT "authentic"-- but it WORKS for what it is. And I'd rate it BETTER than 2 out of 3 of Ustinov's CBS-TV movies. (By the way, "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" was a potentially good film... but MURDERED by really bad directing & editing. Damn shame, it was written by Anthony Shaeffer, who also did "NILE" and "SUN".)

Tony Randall is bottom of the barrel. The crazy thing is, if you ignore the fact that "THE ALPHABET MURDERS" is more like "HELP!" without the music (or comedy) than "Agatha Christie", it's not a completely terrible film, and has a PILE of fantastic character actors in it. But Randall is the WORST thing about it, while the sub-plot of "Hastings" (Robert Morley) trying to get him OUT of the country for diplomatic reasons is just monstrously stupid, and keeps getting in the way of the plot. (There were a LOT of completely crazy films in the late 60's...)