I recall that when I first saw this episode I found the whole political subplot, and the final violent scene in particular, unsettling. At the time it seemed out of place, and it set this episode apart from the others as being less of a mystery and more of a political thriller.
Now, many years later, I have changed my mind to some degree. The Home Rule aspect of the episode still feels a little strange, since there is virtually no indication of it in Christie's original story. But, it is also true that the original story is one of those which is not very detailed about the motivations of the criminals, and since the writers would have needed to add extra information to fill in the details anyway, at least the details they have added are reasonably well written and well acted.
The basic plot is the same. Poirot is contacted by the British government when the Prime Minister, on his way to a conference in France, goes missing. The day before, there had been an attempted assassination in which the Prime Minister had been slightly wounded. Poirot decides to begin by investigating this incident first. Sir Bernard Dodge, the political official who has hired Poirot, expects him to go to France to look for clues, and becomes annoyed when our detective becomes apparently sidetracked by interviewing the Prime Minister's secretary and other people in his entourage. (Incidentally, in the original story Poirot actually goes to France, only to return when he realizes the deception that has taken place, saying "I should never have gone to France to begin with". This episode corrects Poirot's mistake, causing Sir Bernard and Japp much anxiety in consequence.) I won't give away any more, except to say that the motivation given to the criminals, while somewhat improbable, is at least appropriate to the time and place presented, unlike one or two other episodes which change the original setting in a way that really stretches the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief. And the resolution is shocking but also emotionally effective television.
Now, many years later, I have changed my mind to some degree. The Home Rule aspect of the episode still feels a little strange, since there is virtually no indication of it in Christie's original story. But, it is also true that the original story is one of those which is not very detailed about the motivations of the criminals, and since the writers would have needed to add extra information to fill in the details anyway, at least the details they have added are reasonably well written and well acted.
The basic plot is the same. Poirot is contacted by the British government when the Prime Minister, on his way to a conference in France, goes missing. The day before, there had been an attempted assassination in which the Prime Minister had been slightly wounded. Poirot decides to begin by investigating this incident first. Sir Bernard Dodge, the political official who has hired Poirot, expects him to go to France to look for clues, and becomes annoyed when our detective becomes apparently sidetracked by interviewing the Prime Minister's secretary and other people in his entourage. (Incidentally, in the original story Poirot actually goes to France, only to return when he realizes the deception that has taken place, saying "I should never have gone to France to begin with". This episode corrects Poirot's mistake, causing Sir Bernard and Japp much anxiety in consequence.) I won't give away any more, except to say that the motivation given to the criminals, while somewhat improbable, is at least appropriate to the time and place presented, unlike one or two other episodes which change the original setting in a way that really stretches the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief. And the resolution is shocking but also emotionally effective television.