PodBill Just what I expected

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Richard Bailey I am simply adding to the already list of hugely positive reviews there are for After the Funeral. It's a very good Poirot novel, but there are so many key elements here that make this production so particularly fine. In terms of setting the house used looks so good, it's so in keeping for the period, the music is fantastic too, there have been a few occasions where the music has been too loud and too obtrusive, not here it fits in well. As it should be though, this one is all about the acting, and it's flawless, there is some fun provided by Timothy and Maud, there is the serious side from Michael Fassbender, the sadness from Susannah, but it's the villain that's the star of the piece, I won't name them just in case, but they are are totally brilliant, and steals the show. As far as Poirot is concerned they don't come much better then this one.

faterson I enjoyed the TV version of _After the Funeral_ more than the book, but that's not saying much, because I didn't appreciate the novel very much. It features one of the best plot devices, in terms of the whodunnit, from among all of Agatha Christie books. Yet that is, at the same time, a pitfall: the whodunnit is so memorable that if you've only watched or read it once, you're likely to remember it for the rest of your life. Nope, it's not *quite* as memorable as in _Murder on the Orient Express_ or _And Then There Were None_, but it does belong to that highly memorable category.This means that in order to retain the reader's or viewer's interest for a *repeated* reading or viewing, the book or film in question must offer more than the whodunnit itself. In this respect, I thought that the novel, whose writing I found rather dreary, failed; but the TV rendition succeeded.There is a severe limitation imposed on the episodes of the acclaimed _Poirot_ TV series starring David Suchet: none of the episodes is permitted to exceed 90 minutes or so of runtime. Yet this is definitely not enough runtime for some of Agatha Christie's finest whodunnits, such as _Evil Under the Sun_ or _Death on the Nile_. The David Suchet versions of these mysteries positively suffer due to the necessity of being squeezed into 90 minutes or so of runtime, whereas the same mysteries starring Peter Ustinov, being allowing to extend luxuriously to the full Hollywood greatness of 120+ minutes of runtime, do justice to Agatha Christie's original books.Fortunately, what is a weakness and limitation for bringing Christie's finest mysteries to the screen, is an advantage in relation to her lesser works, such as _After the Funeral_. There is so much non-essential stuff in this novel that the TV makers could very well afford to pick and choose only the most important facets of the story. Even so, you can feel the unwholesome pressure of the 90 minutes of runtime in the too hurried introduction of the various family members a.k.a. crime suspects at the very beginning of the episode. Yet thereafter, the story on the screen "hangs together" much better, to my mind, than the rather unnecessarily sprawling original novel.This is to a great extent thanks to excellent acting performances by the ensemble here. The acting in the TV version is outstanding -- yet Christie's writing in the underlying book is mediocre at best. So even at the pure level of craftsmanship, the film surpasses the book. The main star of this TV episode definitely is not David Suchet but Monica Dolan, delivering the clue(s) to unravel the mystery.At the same time, while watching _After the Funeral_, you can't help feeling you're watching a "parlour game": a smart one, to be sure, but rather removed from real life. The actors' performances are admirable, yet simultaneously somewhat too stagy, theatrical, and stuffy. You're watching an exquisitely crafted *artificial* product here.You might also frequently feel like you're watching a *historical* movie, due to the flawless recreation of the 1930s, mainly in terms of resplendent costuming, period vehicles, etc. Even Monica Dolan's drab costumes are resplendent in how suitably drab they are.In fact, that is another reason as to why the TV version of _After the Funeral_ is more enjoyable to watch than it is to read the original book: the book is engulfed in a depressive post-World War II mood, with Christie constantly lamenting as to the state of the world. You get to hear *some* of it in the TV version, too, but in tolerable doses (mainly from the mouth of a cranky hypochondriac); after all, this is still the inter-war period, and the Great Depression doesn't affect parlour games in English countryside estates all that much.David Suchet's ("French British") enunciation, sudden radiant smiles, and mannerisms are as flawless as ever in this episode. At the same time, I do not see Suchet as the ideal Poirot *physically*: he seems too fat and rotund for my vision of Poirot. Yes, the Poirot I have always envisioned is a rather small, fussy man, but by no means have I ever imagined him to be fat and rotund. Just like Peter Ustinov is too tall to fit Poirot physically, yet he captures him very well *mentally*, in the same way, I find Suchet to be too fat and rotund to fit Poirot physically, yet again, he captures Poirot brilliantly in terms of his mentality. To my eyes, two great actors -- Ustinov and Suchet -- have blessed us with two different portrayals of Poirot, each distinctly their own: and both actors have somehow managed to hit home with their portrayal, despite what one might describe as their "physical incongruities".

aramis-112-804880 After the funeral of a wealthy old fellow, a dotty great aunt makes the announcement that he was murdered. No one pays her much mind until she's done in, more brutally, with an axe. The family solicitor decides this is a job for Poirot, before the whole family is done it.Not only is there the double murder, Poirot has to deal with a drastically changed will -- or is it a fake? Or can it be that the whole family is lying? In Agatha Christie's world, characters only exist to have something to hide.Later "Poirot" episodes can go off the rails. While the show never strived for the fidelity of, say, the Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes, "Poirot" shows after the turn of the century occasionally leave Agatha Christie in their dust while they pursue ridiculous little stories of their own.One change that has helped the "Poirot" series as a whole is keeping it in an ideal 1930s. The music is invariably good, the sets and clothes are fabulous (and look like they've never been lived in). The Great Depression might be referred to, but no one actually suffers from it.Keeping the setting in the 1930s has been a positive boon to some episodes (such as "Third Girl" and "Cat Among the Pigeons" both lesser and later Christie books but which rank among the better late "Poirot" episodes). "After the Funeral" originally had characters facing post-Second World War shortages. These characters, however, still live in a sort of "Downton Abbey" mindset.Also welcome in "After the Funeral" is the element of humor often shoehorned into the earlier "Poirot" episodes. The later, feature-length "Poirot" episodes often forget that murder can be a heavy subject and a spoon full of sugar will help the medicine go down.While this episode (unlike others in the series, such as the abysmal "Appointment with Death") does show fidelity to the source, at least where the murderer and the victims are concerned, some characters have been altered, and I think for the better. Most notably, one character has been changed to an aspiring missionary, leading to tough and ultimately touching lifestyle decisions. It's probably another case where certain people will come down hard on "Poirot" for "religious overtones" stating, without foundation, that Poirot was not a religious characters in the books. I can only say they have not read the books very carefully. Christie might disguise it in Poirot's pidgin-French phrases like "le Bon Dieu" but it's a rich mine to be excavated. The religious overtones in this episode are not at all preachy in the way of shows who shoehorn in environmentalist messages about saving the planet and the coming "Global Warming" apocalypse. I, for one, think it's healthy to see characters wrestling realistically with the problems of faith that are so dear to so many people. For people whose faith is unfaith, Christians are either Elmer Gantry or Ned Flanders. People without faith in their lives, especially in the entertainment industry, can often stereotype people of faith as driven by guilt, or mindlessly cheerful, or utter hypocrites. It's nice to see the rare television episode where the vast middle ground is explored, however slightly. On the whole, despite (and perhaps because of) the changes from the original book, "After the Funeral" is a quite good later "Poirot" episode, not nearly as dark as gloomy as usual. Kudos. It's a keeper.

jbarnes3 I saw this film on the A&E channel this past weekend. The mystery was okay, I was not able to guess the culprit before the end. But I enjoyed the characters and their development much more than the mystery. There was a mystery about some of them, especially George Abernathie, performed by the wonderful Michael Fassbender, and George's cousin, Susannah. In fact, the story of those two characters left me wanting to know more. From what I've tried to glee about the Agatha Christie book of the same title, I think this film did not follow it to the letter. Very good performances by the actors involved, especially Fassbender and the lady who played Cora/companion.