User Reviews

As most other reviewers seem to agree, this adaptation of 'After The Funeral' is very good indeed. Always one of my favourite Poirot stories I was worried that it might be 'messed about with'. Well, it was a little bit but ONLY a little bit and the end the result was thoroughly entertaining. David Suchet continues to be well nigh faultless as Poirot and (as others have pointed out) the other star of this show is Monica Dolan who surely could not be bettered as Miss Gilchrist. I also really enjoyed Fiona Glasscott who was spot on as the cutting Rosamund Shane but really, the casting was quite impeccable throughout!

One point is knocked off for the adaptors not being able to resist cramming too many revelations into the final fifteen minutes. The business with the will and house deeds was all a bit unnecessary although I didn't mind how they tightened up the structure of the Abernethie family (in the book the family tree IS really quite complicated). The final moments when the murderer is revealed however are really incredibly well done and I found the very end, when they all leave Enderby, quite touching. This is really one of the very best of the Poirot series so far.

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".

Considerable fun can be had at the expense of the big super-duper Hollywood productions of Agatha Christie's Poirot stories from the 1970s. COLOSSAL STUPENDOUS STAR-STUDDED CAST! and all that. Yet, after watching a few of these very well-done British TV episodes, I'm beginning to wonder if it doesn't help to see Famous Faces in the subordinate roles. At least a viewer can keep the character apart. A horde of strange faces is always confusing, either on the screen or on the subway.

In this instance, "After the Funeral," the writers haven't given us much chance. The nervous voice-over of the family solicitor introduces us to more than half a dozen characters, or should I say "suspects", without giving them more than a minute's worth of presentation. Very rude.

And the curious and mysterious events follow very quickly too, in piles, heaped on one another, beginning with the cremation of the family patriarch. ("Very odd for an English gentleman, n'est pas?") A will is read, but it turns out to be false. Then another will appears. And a false letter from the patriarch. And all sorts of facts, many or most of them red herrings, are hidden from the viewer. Confusion leads to still more confusion.

I DID fully understand the ritual exposition at the end, when Poirot has gathered all the relevant faces, most of them still a little strange, in the parlor and explains all. Yet, the story itself, twisted and anfractuous as it is, isn't up to Agatha Christie's best. There are too MANY red herrings. And Poirot needs a sidekick to talk things over with. I mean, Holmes had Watson. Charlie Chan had Number One Son. I guess Columbo didn't have a sidekick. He was his own sidekick.

These stories would move along a clearer path if there were scenes like those after the murder on the Orient Express. (I'm talking about the STAR-STUDDED STUPENDOUS MOVIE, not the novel.) In it, Poirot and his sidekick interview each suspect or set of suspects at some length. And even before that, we've gotten to know their characters so we have a good idea of who's who, if not what's what.

This kind of formal exposition isn't essential. Some of the better examples of the TV series didn't have them either -- "Death on the Nile" or "Murder in Mesopotamia" -- but in those cases the suspects were still well differentiated and I never felt overwhelmed by their sheer volume.

Imagine if this story had been squeezed from 95 minutes into 50! Hand me my headache powder, please!

One of the best things about watching a good Agatha Christie drama, is the sport to look for the murderer in the right direction, which in my case, is almost never correct. Even remembering that always something from the past, an impersonation, a secret (family)bond or a smart slight of hand plays a part, it's always something else that turns out to have happened.

In this case, there is some subtle hinting to nuns, who might have been dressed up family members, but the dress up was of another kind. And the beauty is, that the first scene, which seemed quite oddly acted, WAS in fact oddly acted in the drama itself.

So big bonus points for the plotting; but what makes this episode of the series remarkable are the production values (great castle, furniture, good lighting and terrific music) and the acting. David Suchet IS Poirot with no doubt whatsoever, and uses all the nuances available to him for this ondimensional yet complex character. Michael Fassbender is stunnigly handsome and gives unexpected depth to the troubled nephew, who falls in love with his idealistic though clumsy niece, a charming Lucy Punch. Geraldine James as Georges mother makes every second count as she realizes she knows something but is unsure what.

Monica Dolan makes the acting class complete, as the mousey maid who dreams of a teashop, and grabs the opportunity in a savage way. It is to her credit that we understand her character's motives, and are unsure about her mental state: is she really gaga, or just very cunning? And that for a tea shop!

Philomena McDonagh, the screenwriter of this travesty, must have a very high opinion of herself, feeling that Agatha Christie was very lacking in the way she developed her characters, and laid out the main aspects of the plot. For dear Philomena changes the nature of characters entirely, adds completely unnecessary details that really make no sense, thinking no doubt, that she is improving on the "old girl's" rather tawdry bit of storytelling.

Susan Banks, one of the more striking and central characters of the novel, brilliant, shrewd and rather ruthless, becomes some whining, mealy-mouthed missionary obsessed do-gooder. Susan Banks was married in the novel, and completely devoted to her rather sick and deranged husband, but he has been completely dropped as unnecessary.

Then we come to the fake will. Oh please! What fake will? Agatha Christie would never have stooped to such a corny and overplayed plot device, but that didn't stop dear, sweet Philomena from including it in her "version" of the novel. No! We have the original will mysteriously disappear, only to reappear in an overly large Doll House, which also was not a part of the original novel. Doll House? Fake Will? Oh, and just for good measure, she has the deed to the estate going missing as well. None of this balderdash was in the original novel, and there is absolutely no need for it to be added to this retelling of the story.

But then, I forget. Philomena knows far better than mere Dame Agatha Christie how this story SHOULD have been told. "My god, we need a doll house!" she thought, for where else would the newly imagined missing will suddenly and mysteriously show up. Pathetic.

The Poirot series has, by and large, been very faithful to the original novels. David Suchet is masterful as Hercule Poirot, and even in this travesty, the supporting cast is quite well played. The settings as well are simply wonderful. So what a disappointment that this particular episode, of a book that is truly one of my favorite Poirot mysteries, goes so badly off the rails.

The last episode I have seen of this series was the last made at this writing. And it is the best I have seen, fully cinematic, and a competent mystery after a decade of mostly wasted opportunities. With this episode, I have seen three of the four from season 12 and all are excellent.

This one is a contender for the best, based on a very subtle trick that is played on the viewer, a trick that is the cinematic equivalent of the sort of literary clue Agatha would have used. The solution to the murder has to do with a character playing a part, a redhead, incidentally. Two of our suspects are actors, and that allows us to have a scene in the middle of all the suspects, family members who benefited from the will.

The scene is wonderful. It is on a stage where a play has just finished with a murder. The characters lounge on the set. This is mirrored at the end with the constant Poirot device where all the suspects are collected, and the murderer (and other villains) revealed. In this case, the room is marvelously overblown but strictly reminiscent of the stage we saw earlier. Lest we miss the clue, that room contains a dollhouse. And yes, that dollhouse contains a clue.

One of the red herrings is a pair of nuns who pop up in suspicious places. Guess what we see in the background of the behind the scenes in that play? An actress playing a nun. She's so subliminal you probably wouldn't have noticed her. Its a great, great piece of mystery stagecraft. Notice that the woman suspect's hair (she's in the foreground) though normally brown is lit to be red. Another clue.

Overall, the way the camera is managed is very well considered. Half the time it is expository mode. Christie mysteries are very talkie. The other half of the time the camera is in Hitchcock-dePalma mode. Curiously examining as Poirot would.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Richard Abernethie, a very wealthy man, has died and his relatives have assembled for his funeral. Included in the funeral party is Abernathie's youngest sister Cora Galaccio. While none of the family has seen Cora in at least 20 years, they all agree that Cora was always a bit different. So when Cora says something about Abemethie having been murdered, most laugh it off as one of Cora's eccentricities. But someone is obviously taking Cora seriously. The next day, Cora is found dead in her bed having been beaten violently. Is there a connection between the two deaths? It's up to Hercule Poirot to find a killer.

After the Funeral is one of the most well put together episodes of the entire Poirot series. I've always been a fan of this particular Agatha Christie book and, from what I remember, the movie is as faithful to Christie's source material as any of the Poirot installments. The mystery is top notch with plenty of clues, suspects, and red herrings. And as I've written before, I always enjoy an Christie story where Hercule Poirot gathers everyone together in a drawing room for the final reveal. It might be old fashioned, but that's the way I like it. Getting beyond the plot, technically and artistically After the Funeral is a winner. Sets, editing, direction, and cinematography are as good as you'll find in one of these movies. The acting is equally impressive. I've come to expect an enjoyable performance from David Suchet as Poirot and he doesn't disappoint here. The rest of the cast is just as strong with Monica Dolan giving an especially noteworthy performance. Other than a minor quibble with the rapid fire way the characters are introduced, I've got no real complaints. It's a good show all the way around.

An unusual aspect of this Agatha Christie story is that Hercule Poirot has noticeably less time on film. I don't know if it's that way, or not, in the book. There's a considerable cast of characters, any one of whom may be a culprit in crime. The film version of the story probes those characters more than usual, and so, Poirot himself has less time. But, "After the Funeral" is another superb Christie mystery.

All the extra probing of various characters is supposed to reveal some clues, and it does for Poirot. I saw a couple of red herrings in here - not knowing that they were such until near the end, of course. The character of George Abernethie seems cold, harsh and oblivious to others. He is apparently disinherited by his uncle after the two had a huge quarrel just before the uncle died. But what that was all about will come out toward the end, as Poirot solves the murder of Cora Gallaccio. Geoge was told by his uncle that he was actually his father; and George apparently loved the man who had been his father and who had died. While he and his uncle had gotten along well, and George was to be his sole heir, George was distraught and angry over the revelation. He later confronted his mother about it.

Anyone who has been adopted and raised not knowing about it but then finding out, will understand how it might feel. I was 12 years old when I learned of my adoption by my dad with my real mother. A brother had scrounged through some of my parents' papers and files and discovered my adoption certificate. He laughed about it and went around the house scoffing as though to be adopted was something unwanted and unloved. My parents then had to reassure me of their love for me, and said that they planned to tell me when I was grown up. I did learn who my father was, but he lived a couple states away and I never met him.

This story is another of many that are set in the beautiful countryside of England, here filmed in Rotherfield Park of Hampshire. And, I again noticed and marveled at the wonderful assortment of automobiles of the period. English TV and film studios do an excellent job using authentic vehicles, equipment, costumes and design of period productions.

Here's a favorite line from this film. Hercule Poirot, "I can't say at the moment. I may be wrong." Inspector Morton, "Doesn't often happen to you." Poirot, "To me it has happened twice in my career." Morton, "Ah, that's a relief. To be right all the time might get a little monotonous." Poirot, "I do not find it so."

Some less than inspired opening string music notwithstanding, we somehow know that from the word go this is heading straight for the "big fun" drawer. By the time we observe Monica Dolan (in a truly genius bit of casting) delightfully goofing it up as Cora early on we're already hooked, but it is only later on when she reveals herself in her marvellous screen creation, that deranged, scheming, desperate queen of murder and deceit posing in the guise of the uptight Miss Gilchrist, that she not only effortlessly steals the entire telemovie for herself but quite simply blows off screen anyone who comes near her, including the ever well measured David Suchet who himself seems to be somewhat bedazzled by her acting talents and, very gentlemanly, allows her to take centre stage. Dolan is the true engine of the film and her Miss Gilchrist a genuinely well rounded character in this Christie rendition, helped by a zesty script and the sprightly paced direction - and also by the rest of the cast led by Geraldine James and Robert Bathurst, who all display signs of sympathy for the given material and play with relish accordingly.

The production values are spot on as usual, and if there are any weaker links they might be located in the comparatively substandard music score to the majority of later Poirots, and also perhaps in the lacking of a genuine Italian-born actor for the role of Cora's husband. Other than that, this is an hour and a half of pure televisual delight which is as self indulgent and entertaining as it is lovingly put together.

The will was burning a hole in his pocket so ...he hides it in the dollhouse??? Sure, don't hide it In a trash can or a fire place, or under a mattress!

These episodes are full of this kind on stuff.

I watch this show to fall asleep to, I've seen them all about 5 times. If you watch them more than 1.5 times you will see how preposterous they are. What's great is david suchet, all the actors, the homes, the cloths, the locations!...etc. They're Eye candy. And very Very predictable so they're comforting.

(By the way, The person in a wheel chair is never actually an invalid).

A few other silly things: They haven't seen Cora in 20 years, and its Actually not even Cora, but it's her head tilt that busts her? Not that it's actually an entirely different person pret being to be Cora??

The ex husband took the Rembrandt to have it appraised, so it would have had to have been uncovered, but for the big reveal, they put back and cover it with Cora's painting somehow. And its A Rembrandt but Poirot takes a pocket knife to it? Yikes.

There's a lot of silly stuff but they always have the big monologue at the end to explain it all to the audience. The post cards, the table and flowers, George's moms affair, the cousins affair are all red herrings that need to be unraveled for us!!

And then The guilty party will also always leap at the chance to explain why and how They did it! Often with no evidence and so Many silly twists and turns that if they just shut it up it could never be proven in court.

Of course we'll be surprised by who the murderer is! Especially since it's usually preposterous. In this case, the maid sees a Rembrandt worth $5k (only $5k?!) and she Becomes a psychotic killer who bludgeons her employer.

Oh, also she poisons herself to throw them off the scent, and um....good thing Cora's niece isn't a sound sleeper! As she's dying when the niece saves her. Good thing the EMTs were damn good too!

Agatha really relies on us not watching them more than once, or thinking. The writing is formulaic and actually Never ever water tight.

But the shows are great to look at and the Actors always knock this silly writing out of the park and the Formula makes me sleepy.

I may not be able to bring much new to this discussion. People here have already been heaping praise on this episode, and they are completely justified. It is one of the best. I watched this the same day as "Cat Among the Pigeons" and I think I marginally prefer the latter, but both of these are masterful and very different plots, with dramatic integrity and unique styles. "After the Funeral" takes place appropriately after the funeral of one Richard Abernethie (John Carson) as his dysfunctional family gathers at Enderby Hall. They're an interesting lot: less loopy than the Serrocolds from "They Do It With Mirrors" but not as vicious as the Cloades from "Taken at the Flood". Initially all of the characters seem rather unpleasant, but as the story progresses we come to see the good in them. All the characterizations are fully drawn, and even though there are many, I felt as though they had all had an ark of sorts. The best characterization of all is the murderer. Monica Dolan absolutely makes this episode in her dual role as Miss Gilchrist and her victim Cora Gallacio. The performance is simply superb, character, motivation, and one of the ingenious plots in the series all seem inextricably linked. The reveal at the end comes courtesy of an extra chilling detail, which I won't spoil here. I'm sorry I gave away the murderer's identity but I think many of the other reviews already have. The cinematography in this episode is also stunning. Very bright colors particularly greens at Enderby Hall, where there is also a stark contrast with the jet black cars from the funeral procession, and the smart suits of the guests. Then in the final drawing room scene, there is an aura which seems almost as if fog was floating through the room. David Suchet is fantastic as usual but I think Dolan actually manages to take his spotlight in the last third. Robert Bathurst makes for a good sidekick, his demeanor and his crush on Helen Abernethie (Geraldine James) are very endearing. Michael Fassbender who would go on to be nominated for two Oscars, turns in a very early performance yet he already shows great potential. (Suchet claims to have anticipated a great career for him and several others.) If you like the Poirot series, see this episode, but, let's face it, you probably have already.

We join this mystery to find that Poirot is on his way to somewhere with a lawyer friend who wishes him to help look into a murder which may or may not be connected to a rather suspicious series of events following the funeral of a client. This introduction to this story is nicely done because very quickly we get an introduction to a contained but quite large circle of family members who will essentially make up our suspects; it also saves time because it allows the viewer to look back over events in a neat way rather than having to play them out.

From here the plot thickens as various motives and family rivalries surface, and Poirot is swimming in one lie or another, all while certain little things stick in his mind and in the minds of others. In terms of the development of the mystery, it is very well done so that, although I was nowhere near working it out myself, I was able to pick up on many of the small things which ultimately were of significance. The colorful characters are all well played by the cast, and in particular some of the characters were played so that I was taken in by who I thought they were rather than who they turned out to be (character wise). With a lot going on with a larger group of characters, I appreciated the pacing of the mystery too – it has urgency and tension to it, but not so much that it changes the style of the series; it is not that it becomes CSI, but just that it feels lean, focused and effective.

The cast is roundly good. Retrospectively it is Fassbender who sticks out due to being much more famous now than he was at this point, however, while he is good, he is surrounded by people with a bit more to get their teeth into. Suchet of course is good as ever, and I liked that the fate of the murderer genuinely seemed to throw him, and he worked well with his feelings around this person. Dolan is also part of that, since she is so sympathetic throughout, and is strong in the denouncement too. Support from Bathurst, Carson, Doyle, James, Punch, and others is all good and gives a strong ensemble feel – but it is Suchet and Dolan that make the lasting impression.

Overall, a very enjoyable entry in the series, with a mystery that is introduced at pace and continues to have forward motion but not feel rushed. The cast do good work in the delivery of the satisfying and engaging tale, while the camera and direction keep the sense of pace and thought in there too.

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.