If you’re new to the site and would like to get involved please click on one of the buttons in the box below.


ChristieFanForLife ✭✭✭✭


Last Active
  • Re: Sleeping Murder

    Interesting little tidbit about the book. Agatha Christie thought about titling the story "Cover Her Face" but since there was already another book with that same title used by P.D. James, Christie decided to name it Sleeping Murder. I like both titles but Sleeping Murder is probably better, considering the fact that the quote from the Duchess of Malfi is already used in the story. The title fits this murder-in-retrospect mystery, looking back into the past into a murder that has been lying dormant for so many years and is now awaken beginning with Gwenda returning to the house she was brought up in.

  • Re: Sleeping Murder

    I watched the 1987 version of "Sleeping Murder" (with Joan Hickson) yesterday and one of the things that stuck out to me is that the film doesn't have many flashbacks--there is only 1 flashback scene. What does anyone think about that? I know that with many people today, they would consider the lack of flashbacks a letdown and because of that it would probably lose their attention. But because we live in such a fast-paced and microwave society with such a short attention span, a plethora of dialogue like we have in the film that returns to the past would be considered boring. It's just interesting that the film doesn't depend on flashbacks.
  • Re: Agatha Christie's grave

    Seems like Agatha Christie and her legacy doesn't really matter all too much to her family. And it goes to show with the way her adaptations are being done today. Not only that but with a new series of Poirot books being written, though Christie wrote Curtain for a reason. Looks like it's all about money. Receiving money. Bringing the money in, not putting the money out such as taking care of Christie's grave. And when you look at this forum, it's as dead as a doornail. What happened to the exciting discussions on the books and films? That's why I don't frequent as much as I use to. By the time I got here, all of the exciting discussions had dwindled and it's worse now then before. No wonder some have left, specifically Griselda whom I enjoyed discussing Christie with. What are the moderators doing so the excited discussions can happen once again? The forum is a shadow of its former self. 
  • Re: NEW Murder on the Orient Express

    Did anyone get the impression that the new Murder On The Orient Express film should have felt more claustrophobic then it was? In the book everything took place on that train and I felt that was one aspect that made the book a memorable one. We have Cards On The Table in which a murder occurs in a room with only 4 suspects, but the difference between Orient Express and Cards On The Table is that previous all takes place in one location but not so with the latter. I read a review in which the reviewer said, "Still, a little more claustrophobia may have boosted the suspense. It doesn't always feel like we're on a tight train with a killer." That's what sets Orient Express from other train mysteries from Christie such as The Mystery of the Blue Train or a murder on a plane like Death In The Clouds. The murder, the suspects, the interviews/interrogations, the clues/red herrings, and the drawing room-like denouement all takes place in that train, not outside. So the scene where all the suspects gather at the table outside resembling Last Supper portrait is creative, it just doesn't have that affect that it would have on that train. And the action sequences took a huge chunk of that claustrophobic feel away, diminishing the suspense in my opinion. It was all wrong. 
  • Re: NEW Murder on the Orient Express

    P_Lombard said:
    I would give the movie three out of five stars. It had many strengths, but also had some glaring weaknesses.

    -After Ratchett's death, the movie began to rush through the investigation. As a result, many of the clues were either eliminated or rushed through. Many of the details that explain why the characters behave as they do or that help Poirot to solve the mystery are eliminated. 

    I give it 2 out of 5 stars. Still prefer the book THEN the 1974 version which is still the best adaptation of the book, despite some of its flaws

    I felt the middle of the film was disjointed, spliced with ridiculous action-scenes and the interviews felt short and rushed. If only the beginning was cut, and middle scenes like the “Katherine” angle (which didn't go anywhere), Poirot’s inner struggle, and ridiculous action sequences (almost like a Robert Downey Jr. version of Sherlock Holmes) and more attention was placed on the interviews/interrogations themselves along with a longer film running time, I feel like the pay off clearly would have been more powerful. One complaint that I’ve heard was many viewers didn’t feel they were involved in the solving of the mystery; the clues weren’t all there and they felt cheated. You have to present all the clues and not rush through them or leave things unexplained and left out in the cold. To get to that big payoff, you have to keep the viewers involved and invested in the mystery. I found the ending powerful and it could be because I already know the conclusion (which I always found powerful) and on top of that the music in that scene moved me. With the middle crammed together with too many things, I can see how viewers lost interest and if they do, how can they feel the power of the ending? You lost them way before the mystery’s solution. More emphasis should have been on the clues and interviews themselves. That’s the key to a mystery. That’s the key to keep an audience interested whenever a mystery is adapted onscreen. And screenwriters and directors, you can still film interview/interrogation scenes in such a way for a 21st century audience that won’t bore or deter them if that’s something you’re worried about when filming a true whodunit. Because great visuals and cinematography just isn’t enough for a mystery.