I could not recall that I had watched this movie before.It is nice to see old Istanbul scenes.Especially the scene while ship departs the port.There are many famous actors,actresses suprisingly.Sean Connery and Anthony Perkins are the ones who suprised me much.The main character Poirot is played terribly, someone could have performed better.
[deleted]
I disagree. While I liked Ustinov as Poirot, I thought Finney was brilliant.
shareFinney WAS brilliant in this. Well put, lastmidnite2.
Susana Miranda, whatever happened to you?
Yeah, Finney was great. He may have to do a lot more work than Suchet to get his body hunched and to sound like Poirot, and occasionally you can see the effort being made, which is bad, but he's a better actor.
shareI have to agree that Finney is poor as Poirot, Suchet is far superior in the role. I am watching the film as I type and am getting more and more annoyed with Finney. I am a big fan of Finney in general just not in this role.
shareUstinov is the poorest Poirot ever possible. Seriously.
I love Albert Finney in the role. But have to agree that Suchet is unparalleled. He's the best Poirot we can ever get.
"When in doubt, I find retracing my steps to be a wise place to begin."-Albus Dumbledore
[deleted]
I much prefer David Suchet who is Poirot in my eyes, but I actually liked Albert Finney here and loved the film.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeleine Kahn(CLUE, 1985)
Albert Finney's performance in this film is (for me) puzzling. He is a superb actor, Lumet was a wonderful director so the two of them must have deliberately decided to go for a wildly over the top portrayal of Poirot but I'm not sure why.
It's a pity Finney doesn't like to do interviews because I'd love to know the reason he played the part so flamboyantly.
He is absolutely dreadful!
Completely over the top and so removed of the fetishism of the Poirot character.
Personally, I thought Finney's Poirot was the best. Ustinov was second. Suchet's is absolutely the worst. Poirot IS over the top, starting with Christie's novels. Suchet barely even acts at all.
shareYes, David Suchet is and will be the best Poirot ever. I don't know why Finney played his role so over the top.
Tiocfaidh ár Lá!
I like Albert Finney..and David Suchet.and remember that he had to convince as Poirot in a 2 hr movie...David Suchet had whole seasons to work with...It makes it easier to play in some ways....You could say the same thing about actors playing Sherlock HOlmes in movies, vs the BBC series
It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices
I thought Finney did a good job here. I felt that all the actors seemed to be going a little over the top. It was like they were all playing parts for the stage.
That being said, NOBODY can ever top David Suchet in the part.
if u have read any christie books ull be aware that finney nailed poirot to a t...im amazed at the criticism of him he was superb...in her first book with poirot she described him as an odd character...hence finneys interpretation,..far better than ustinovs
shareJust watched MOTOE version played by Suchet and am now reading the book (finally after seeing the Finney version in 1974).
My impressions (for what they're worth):
Finney is MUCH more fun to watch. Suchet (at least in this story) was a grump! Finney has fun, he's charming and uses his "just an ignorant Belgian" routine enough to disarm his opponents who realize that he's deadly serious and ultra-professional about crime.
I absolutely LOVE the "reveal" scene at the end when Finney presents his 2 solutions. It's fun, quotable and brilliantly acted. Suchet's version made me want to get a root canal to cheer up.
I agree that Finney's version is better than Ustinov's too. He is magnetic and very watchable. Ustinov and Suchet (sorry Suchet fans), not so much. With Finney I want to see more. Not so with the others. And this is coming from someone who thinks Jeremy Brett will NEVER be beat as Sherlock Holmes (so I'm not opposed to TV versions of these types of characters).
Watch the TV version and the movie version. You will find the movie more refreshing, light hearted and fun than the TV one-at least for this story. In Suchet's defense-how could a TV series hope to compete with the budgets of a 1970's Hollywood movie anyway?
Have you seen any of the earlier Suchet adaptations, particularly the ones with Hastings, Japp, and Miss Lemon? There you will find a much more charming and fun Poirot than in some of the recent adaptations, like the most recent MOTOE. I've been watching Suchet's Poirot on PBS for years, and I was very surprised at the change!
shareNo I have not, but I'm very glad to hear your perspective. As a huge Sherlock Holmes (Granada TV version) fan I WANT to like this version of Poirot, but I earnestly watched MOTOE looking to compare it favorably with my dearly loved classic movie version and was disappointed.
I think I will read some more of the originals, and see if I can get hold of those earlier versions of Suchet.
I am now about 80% done with the book and I will also make this claim: The Finney version is much closer to the book version of the character than the Suchet I just saw. The book has a light touch (even though it's about murder) which is exactly what the movie displayed. The TV version was heavy and somewhat depressing.
[deleted]
The newer Poirot movies with Suchet are crap and much too dark. But even though this movie is better and Finney might be "funnier" to some, it doesn't mean his portrayal was good or even close to the book. I read the book before I saw the movie or tv series, so neither affected my idea of Poirot. But after I saw both, I could only conclude that Suchet beats everyone and Finney was just too ridiculous. I even prefer Ustinov.
shareif u have read any christie books ull be aware that finney nailed poirot to a t.
I just have to say that Agatha Christie herself loved Finney's portrayal of Poirot. She thought he nailed her vision of him.
sharewho's john moffat anyway? is the same person as he is david suchet?
I listened to Poirot - Mrs McGinty's Dead on bbc4 extra.
Finney was nominated for an Oscar and was universally acclaimed. Christie herself thought he was terrific. He still is the best Poirot ever...a real character, great charisma, and too bad they won't make another movie with him.
share100% agreed. I would love to have seen Finney play Poirot several more times.
I think the thing, comparing him with Suchet is this- Suchet seems a bit too fascinated with the characters eccentricities, while Finney seemed to grasp that those eccentricities were to be used to disarm the suspects. If you notice Finney's portrayal carefully-when he's really working (like examining the victim's cabin for the 1st time) his accent is a little less pronounced. He becomes very serious and not as "cute". I think this is brilliant acting. You can tell with Finney, that beneath the "ignorant Belgian" routine there is an extremely efficient detecting machine fully functioning and if you are an evil doer-watch out!
All that aside, a Suchet Poirot is better to me than a Ustinov one any day. I might like Suchet better if I saw some of the ones with Japp, Miss Lemon, etc that have been referred to, but I haven't seen them yet.
Finny took a couple scenes to get used to but he grows on you. over the top but (for me anyway) in a good way. I guess its one of those 'love it or hate' performances
shareGiven that Ms. Christie herself came to heartily dislike Poirot, her "approval" of Finney's portrayal could be something of a left-handed compliment. I found him intensely irritating.
shareI prefer Finney's version BECAUSE it is not a likeable character. That was the whole point! Finney is such an intelligent actor that he understands that Poirot's little quirks and all of those things we values and treasures are outside of the comprehensibility of the onlooker. What he loves about himself is what we either fail to comprehend or find offputting. He is after all a person most unusual and outside the norm. He has to be. If we understand him completely then he must not be a genius at all.
Suchet has a different challenge. He works in television, where the storytelling is structured around the likeability of the characters. People watch episode after episode, because they return to the characters that they begin to view as friends. So Suchet is pretty much forced to create for Poirot a "normality", with which the viewer can identify. Notice how much more moral his Poirot is than Christie's, and how much more normal he seems relative to the way other characters are written. Sure, he still seems somewhat eccentric, but not too much. If anything, most of his likes, dislikes and annoyances are completely comprehensible to us.
One other quibble I have with Suchet's Poirot is the reliance on the cheap joke, which has a lot to do with the writing to which Suchet is subjected. Like the food-related humor and Suchet's mugging. All aimed at the viewer not too intelligent. And you'll notice that the most of the cheap jokes are at the expense of the strangeness of Hastings and miss Lemon, against which Poirot's normalcy is underscored. Again, completely misses the point.
Finney's Poirot is precisely the right man. We don't like him; we don't understand him; we are somewhat repulsed by him; something makes him tick but we're never sure exactly what it is. Our only role is to beat him at his game and discover the killer first. It is not empathy!
[deleted]
At first, I thought he was going to be too over-the-top but at the end I was convinced. Anyway, that's how Poirot should be: firstly, you dismiss him as ridiculous then you see the brain.
" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris