Customer Reviews

Agathie Christie's Poirot - Cards on the Table

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

'Cards on the Table' is one of my favourite Poirot novels, but this TV film has made a ghastly mess of the original story. Characters have been changed, or entirely replaced by other characters. A character who killed someone by accident in the book, is in this film version made out to have killed deliberately. The two girls have their roles swapped,so that the one who is the murderer in the book, is the innocent one in the film. The girl who is supposed to be guilty (but who in the film is made out to be innocent) turns out to be the daugther of one of the other characters (in the book they aren't related at all). And I need hardly say that there is no mention whatsoever of gay porn in the book. Most annoying of all, Superintendant Battle, who is one of Agatha Christie's best creations, does not appear in this film version at all.

The whole thing is absolutely maddening. If you watch this, do not imagine that it bears any resemblance at all to the original book, because it doesn't.

"Cards On the Table" gets a lot of negative reviews for the way it derivates from the original novel. Specifically, people take issue with the homosexual elements added to the story. However, despite these changes, the screenplay is surprisingly faithful to the book otherwise. How is this possible? Well, mostly because the final "twists" are added on top of the original storyline. For example, a man in the book who was having an affair with a woman, turns out to be having an affair with the woman's husband. Does this dramatically change the story? Well, I suppose if you are freaked out by the overt depiction of homosexuality in an Agatha Christie film then you will find this appalling. But it's ultimately an adaption. If you don't like it, go read the novel. It remains there, unspoiled.

Otherwise, this in an engaging production, nicely shot and well cast. Zoe Wannamaker makes a somewhat more morose Mrs. Oliver than I pictured, but she has left room to play it a little lighter in future productions. Suchet has deepened the character of Poirot, and he looks more and more like a haunted man. I suspect he is preparing the character for the depths he will reach in "Curtain." The storyline, while not one of Christie's most inventive or engaging, is serviceable. The changes give it a bit of energy the rather pedestrian climax of the novel lacked. The Suchet series has been so wonderfully faithful to the Christie canon--are we really going to freak out when they make some changes to the stories? The victim's homosexuality was strongly hinted at in the Christie novel, and the screenwriter ran with that. All in all, I found the adaption engaging, interesting, and respectful. A good screenplay is more than word-for-word translation of a novel.

David Suchet, who has played the villain in other films, is, as usual, superb as Hercule Poirot in this somewhat unusual tale. Poirot is invited together with four people, his friend the crime novelist Adriane Oliver, who adds some humor to the adventure, and two police officers, to an evening with the rather strange, very rich, Mr. Shaitana, apparently a Syrian. Shaitana tells Poirot that he is unusual in that he enjoys taking pictures of people and collecting murderers, not their pictures, but the people themselves. After a sumptuous meal, he has his guests play bridge, while he watches them for some time. However, after a while, he sits down in a large chair with high side arms that conceal him from view, and is later, after the several bridge games, found dead, stabbed through the heart. The police find that he has also been drugged. Poirot spend the rest of the film interviewing the guests, and discovers that each of them has a secret that Shaitana apparently knew about, them even though they tried to hide the secrets. Poirot has to find out why Shaitana invited these guests to his home, who drugged him, who stabbed him, and why.

The film is different than the book, book is still delightful.

"Cards on the Table" is a 90-minute film, part of Series 10 of "Agatha Christie's Poirot, that originally aired on Britain's ITV in 2006. Based on Christie's 1936 novel of the same name, this story introduced the character of mystery novelist Ariadne Oliver. Poirot is invited by London's richest man, the sinister Mr. Shaitana (Alexander Siddig), to his home for a dinner party, as is Poirot's friend Ariadne Oliver (Zoë Wannamaker). They are joined by police Superintendent Wheeler (David Westhead), Colonel Hughes (Robert Pugh), whom he suspects works for the Secret Service, Dr. Roberts (Alex Jennings), a physician, Mrs. Lorrimer (Lesley Manville), a cool middle-aged woman, Ann Meredith (Lyndsey Marshall), a nervous young woman, and adventurer Major Despard (Tristan Gemmill).

Mr. Shaitana steers the dinner conversation to murder, suggesting ways that one might commit the crime. After dinner, Mr. Shaitana divides the guests into two groups of four and shows them to bridge tables in separate rooms. The sleuths -Poirot, Wheeler, Hughes, and Oliver- are in one room, and they wonder what the other group may have in common. Mr. Shaitana does not play bridge but tries to ensure that his guests enjoy themselves before falling asleep in a chair. At the end of the evening, as the guests say their goodbyes, it is discovered that Shaitana has been murdered, a stiletto driven through his heart while he slept. The four guests who played bridge in that room are the suspects, and the four sleuths must find the killer.

This is the most contrived set-up I've seen in an Agatha Christie novel, which is saying something. Mr. Shaitana is rich, bored, and amoral. He amuses himself with real-life games. He invited four different kinds of detective to dinner, along with four people he knew had killed someone. As if he had a death wish, he then dropped clues that he knew the killer's sins. It's intriguing, though. All four had motive and opportunity to kill Shaitana, so Poirot looks for clues in the secrets of their pasts. He is fairly humorless here, so Ariadne Oliver, a good-natured parody of a mystery novelist, offers some welcome comic relief. Zoë Wannamaker is pitch-perfect. So there are five mysteries to investigate, including the murder of Mr. Shaitana. The story unfolds nicely until the final act.

The solution in Agatha Christie's book is weak, so I can understand why the screenwriters might change it. There is little reason to accept one solution over another; they all make equally good suspects. Unfortunately, the film's writers have chosen a solution that is salacious, silly, and makes even less sense than Christie's. It comes out of the blue and is a let-down. There is another scant subplot involving Superintendent Wheeler that seems to exist for no reason. The series' writers made a lot of conspicuous and superfluous changes to Christies' plots in this season, which only served to clutter the plots and undermine Poirot's charm. Poirot also got a new apartment, with some rather heavy furnishings, in this episode. But "Cards on the Table" is quite good until the last 15 minutes.

This was my very first David Suchet 'Poiroit' and I can see why the man has been doing this role for the better part of twenty years - he captures the effete diminutive detective with finesse and panaché.

However, I would be deceitful if I said I haven't forgotten Albert Finney's incomparable definitive definition of the role; you'd have to be completely unaware of it not to be playing in the background of your mind. Still, Suchet's interpretation is completely engaging and very enjoyable, particularly in contrast to the very first time I 'met' him as a psychotic manipulative murderer. An indelible performance that, unfortunately, tainted my view of the man for nearly as long as he's played the role of the Belgian sleuth.

It's still a difficult film to review because I'm one-hundred-percent certain that the character developed considerably over those many years. Already screened three other Poirot productions since this one, all out of order, and the interpretations are noticeably different. Mannerisms, timing, humor - or lack thereof - all different.

To properly gauge this film, I suspect I'll have to purchase the entire series and watch them in the order they were created to truly grasp the evolution of the character.

Growth is not something you can capture with a snapshot, especially with such an extensive archive of material.

For this film, Poiroit confronts a strange mystery - the death of a very wealthy and cultured gentleman from origins unknown. Shaitana, the toast of society, has announced a dinner party. To be invited is considered an honor, so Poirot takes it as a compliment when his would-be host insists on his presence. Already the invited guest list includes high-ranking police officials, politicians, the famous and the infamous - but none of whom, seemingly, have any known connections to their mysterious host. Dinner, drinks, fascinating company, and a promised surprise is what's offered.

How can he refuse?

The party makes for a pleasant, if motley, group of disconnected characters. And with the end of the meal, everyone retires to mingle, have drinks, and play card games. Without a sound and no witnesses, sitting no more than fifteen feet from any one person, the host is found dead - stabbed in the heart. Surprise.

Who killed him is only part of the mystery. Perhaps the more important question - why?

Thoroughly enjoyable. Although I'm now challenged to pick up the entire run. An extremely costly expenditure under normal conditions, but magnified out of proportion when money is very tight, like now. Still, it might be worth it.

Movie Note: I see how difficult it was for hardcore fans of the novels to get past the alterations to the source material. As a fan of both the written word and film productions, it's ofttimes extremely challenging to separate and appreciate each for their own merits. Acceptance is, in my opinion, a requirement for the more advanced cinephile who isn't tied to dogmatic inflexibility. My two pennies in that regard.

This Mystery was the first Poirot to disappoint me. ( I haven't seen all of them). The screenwriter did not seem to capture Agatha Christie's style. The show moved too slowly. David Suchet, himself, appeared to be a little uncomfortable in the role of Poirot. At times the plot was rushed beyond understanding and some how, or other,it managed to confuse me. The usual logical progression of details just wasn't there. I have seen most Poirot shows and as a rule I find them pleasant and with a bit if British humor thrown in. Cards On The Table just didn't have it.

I read the book before I saw the movie. I can't believe it could be so different. They killed off Rhonda Dawe instead of Anne Meridith and made Dr. Roberts gay. Next time I hope they read the book before they make the movie. The only good thing in it was Mrs. Oliver.

I have seen about four of these movies and tv series
with this actor. The Mrs. Oliver versions are better
constructed and less derivative.
This one has a house full of guests who most
can be suspected( even the Scotland Yard inspector).
Finding the murderer among murderers is a fine mystery here.
The accidental death, the poisoning and the pushing down the stairs
make for an interesting plot.
The acting in this one is also better than in most.
I liked the resulting suspense.

I just watched "Cards on the Table" and am, once again, outraged by the blatant inclusion of homosexual characters in novels wherein they did not originally appear. If you want to write about homosexuality or make movies about the subject, write or make your own. It is shameful and cowardly to hijack the work of an established author (who is now dead and can't defend her work) in order to append a particular agenda. Although Agatha Christie was not the best writer I ever read she sold millions of copies of her stories and has a world-wide devoted fan base. We like her stories as they were written and when we buy a televised version we expect to see the story more or less as Christie wrote it. Of course we all understand that changes have to be made from print medium to TV or movie medium. As long as the changes enhance the story and move it along - as long as they are necessary in other words - I don't think most Christie fans will object.

However, the inclusion of homosexual characters in this and in other of the later Poirot releases doesn't have anything to do with Christie's stories. They don't move the story along in any way and are instead a gratuitous addition to and twisting of Christie's plots. It is the sneaky underhandedness of this attempt to cash in on the world-wide reputation of Agatha Christie and her huge built-in audience that infuriates me. It is comtemptible and intellectually dishonest.

In the future I will no longer buy every Christie DVD offered without previewing it as I was once able to do in the certainty that I would undoubtedly enjoy it. Who knows what agenda next will be appended since there is apparently an open season on Christie's works. Not only homosexuality but torture (Appointment with Death) and who knows what else will be included in future DVDs.

I would like to make it clear that I am not objecting to portrayals of homosexualty as such. What I am objecting to is having them snuck in where they don't belong. Agatha Christie is not an unknown. Her fans do not want her books to be rewritten.

I'm getting the entire series - bit by bit. That's how much I like Suchet and Poirot.