This is certainly one of the best episodes of Poirot; the crime is grisly, the music chilling, the cinematography perfect as always, the supporting characters' well-cast, and David Suchet and Hugh Fraser are in top form. I particularly enjoyed the comedy track centered around Poirot's blatant conceit.
The remainder of the episode save the Poirot-Hastings scenes is quite bleak. The murderer is unusually ruthless and cruel as evidenced from his chosen method of crime, and the haunting beauty of the central character lends itself to the somber feel of the story. Caroline Langrishe looks as lovely as a Vermeer portrait in her role as Marguerite Clayton. But although this episode is enjoyable for all the reasons stated above, was the inclusion of the opening fencing sequence really necessary? I agree that the scene was well-shot, but it clearly reveals the identity of the murderer. He is instantly recognizable as one of the participants when he appears later on in the story, and what would be the point of the opening sequence if not connected with a very important character (the murderer)? It's at least a little difficult to guess the identity of the murderer when reading the actual story, and this episode makes it all too easy. Also, the fencing sequence at the end is equally needless and seems almost cartoonish - totally not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the episode. Poirot is dealing with a dangerous murderer here and instead of calling the cops, he chooses to let the killer fence out his differences to his heart's content with the other chap vying for his girl. More than a tad ludicrous.
The remainder of the episode save the Poirot-Hastings scenes is quite bleak. The murderer is unusually ruthless and cruel as evidenced from his chosen method of crime, and the haunting beauty of the central character lends itself to the somber feel of the story. Caroline Langrishe looks as lovely as a Vermeer portrait in her role as Marguerite Clayton. But although this episode is enjoyable for all the reasons stated above, was the inclusion of the opening fencing sequence really necessary? I agree that the scene was well-shot, but it clearly reveals the identity of the murderer. He is instantly recognizable as one of the participants when he appears later on in the story, and what would be the point of the opening sequence if not connected with a very important character (the murderer)? It's at least a little difficult to guess the identity of the murderer when reading the actual story, and this episode makes it all too easy. Also, the fencing sequence at the end is equally needless and seems almost cartoonish - totally not in keeping with the tone of the rest of the episode. Poirot is dealing with a dangerous murderer here and instead of calling the cops, he chooses to let the killer fence out his differences to his heart's content with the other chap vying for his girl. More than a tad ludicrous.