Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

bob the moo Although IMDb lists this feature length outing as the first episode of the third season, it is actually a stand-alone episode which was made to mark 100 years since the birth of Christie. I know this because early doors I did have to do some Googling to understand the context because the film is the very first book where Poirot makes an appearance and as it fit into the flow of the season. The plot sees Hastings having only previously met Poirot once but by chance reunited with him as the little Belgian and others have temporarily been granted entry into the UK to escape the war. Whenever the residence where Hastings is staying experiences a death, he suggests they involve Poirot to help with the investigation.The change in time appears to have had other impacts too because this special is not quite as good as the previous two seasons had been. The change in dynamic and relationship is an impact but it is not particularly negative in the grand scheme of things but it does jar a little when watching in the context of the previous episodes; Hastings is a darker character in the wake of the war and Poirot's relationship with him is perhaps too superficial (as one would expect) so the humor between them is not as evident. The plot is engaging but not all of it makes sense and as part of filling out two hours, there is a lot more in the way of red herrings than normal which by definition means that the mystery becomes less accessible and less straightforward. These factors are small things though because, although clearly different from the episodes before, the film still works very well and delivers in the ways it normally does – even if that is not quite as well as we are used to.The cast remain very good although understandably there is some restrictions on their characters as we "get the gang together" as it were. Suchet is as good as ever even in a younger appearance; I liked that he retained the character but made it work a few steps earlier in the line – for example his fussy, irritable streak is more gently shown with an attention to detail. Fraser has less of a comedic role, which is a shame as he is very good at that, but he does make for more of a rounded character. Jackson is solid in support as usual but is less used. The supporting cast are generally pretty good although in a way I went for them less because to me they were part of the "fuller" film feel and thus worked a little against the fresher, more accessible plots than I had enjoyed of late.The Mysterious Affair at Styles is still a very enjoyable film that is a nice addition to the episodes even if it clunks a little bit against the flow. The essence is still there even if it must be said the longer running time and the change in the dynamics does rather reduce the fresh humor of the episodes and how accessible they were.

TheLittleSongbird The Mysterious Affair at Styles(the book to introduce the quintessential detective) is not my favourite Agatha Christie novel, but it was a great read with memorable characters, fine atmosphere and a carefully-constructed plot. This adaptation of the book is not my favourite episode of the wonderful Agatha Christie:Poirot series, but it is ever bit as compelling as the book and more.The characters are still memorable, Poirot is still the clever and eccentric detective we know and love, Hastings is appropriately naive and Japp is still amusing. Supporting cast wise, Albert especially is very shifty. The plot is very clever and careful, with the odd logical lapse, and sticks fairly faithfully to that of the book. And the atmosphere is also there, not haunting as it is in Hickory Dickory Dock, One, Two, Buckle My Buckle or The ABC Murders, but a lot of scenes left an impression, especially Emily Inglethorp's death scene and the final solution.On its own terms, The Mysterious Affair at Styles works wonders. The adaptation is shot in a very sumptuous visual style with interesting camera-angles, luxurious costumes and breathtaking scenery and evoking of the period. The music is not the best there is in these adaptations, but it is still beautiful and haunting as it should be, the dialogue is thoughtful and intelligent with the odd spot of humour and the direction is very well done making this episode I feel one of the better-directed early episodes.The cast are also magnificent. David Suchet is an outstanding Poirot and nails everything about the detective down to the appearance, accent and mannerisms. Hugh Fraser gives one of his better performances of the series and Phillip Jackson is a joy. The supporting cast are high-calibre across the board, with Michael Cronin, Robert Calf and Gillian Barge particularly standing out.In conclusion, a fine adaptation and one of my favourites of the series. 9/10 Bethany Cox

tedg Most of these dramatizations are inadequate and any written by Exton wash the wonder of Christie out of the thing. So the production then has to depend on luxurious sets and supposedly interesting characters.That's not enough for me. But I do have to report that the director here has done some clever things. The lighting is atypically superb for TeeVee. There are some very nicely conceived shots that indicate Poirot's vision.But the most interesting thing is how this director has created Poirot. He's at least slightly different in every episode, and very different in this one. The excuse, probably is that it is the earliest story.Here he is human before being officious. He is tentative, not annoying. He is certain, not vain.Its not played for comedy as usual. He's an earnest inquiring eye (and hand).Most of these are trash. But at least this one is colored well.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

jamesraeburn2003 World War One 1917: Lieutenant Hastings (Hugh Fraser) is on sick leave from the army after being wounded in France. His old friend John Cavendish (David Rintoul) invites him to stay at the Cavendish country estate, Styles Court, where there's tension in the family. Cavendish's mother Emily Ingelthorpe (Gillian Barge) has married Albert Ingelthorpe (Michael Cronin) a man twenty years younger than her, and the family believes that he can only be after one thing - her money. That night Emily dies a painful death and the subsequent autopsy reveals that she has been poisoned. In the neighbouring village of Styles St Mary, a number of Belgian refugees have taken up residence including Hastings' old friend Hercule Poirot (David Suchet), the eccentric but clever sleuth who is called in to investigate the murder."The Mysterious Affair At Styles" (1920) was Agatha Christie's first novel and it also introduced her most famous creation to the world, the eccentric little Belgian detective with the egg-shaped head and eccentric mannerisms. This film was made to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Christie's birth in 1890 which fell in 1990. The period detail of World War One was superbly depicted in this film (just look at those automobiles!) Ross Devenish directed the film with care and style while David Suchet, Hugh Fraser and Philip Jackson offered their usual excellent performances. Great care was taken with the supporting cast in which Michael Cronin stands out as the somewhat shifty looking Albert Ingelthorpe."The Mysterious Affair At Styles" has recently been reissued on video and DVD, catch it while you can!