I've just watched the Third Girl and have to say what on earth have they done to the story!! It is one of my favourite of all the Poirot ones and although I did not expect it to be an exactly accurate dramatisation, I did hope it would be good, but I have to say I was disappointed. What did everyone else think???

i havent read the book, but from the recap at wikipedia it looked rather that it has a chaotic storyline.

i am happy they cleared it up a bit, gave some things the chop, also happy theres no wig in it. Agatha Christie novels do have too much Wigs in it if you know what i mean.

From what i heard not many people liked Third Girl as a Book - The Movie tonight was a nice decent production, but nothing to really write home about. just think about that and then add some more red herrings, some more people and disguises and then you also will say "good that they have done it that way".

I quite enjoyed it and found it an interesting reworking of the book. The best thing about the book in my opinion is Christie's observations on youth in the swinging sixties. Suchet's Poirot is set immovably in the thirties so much of that was always going to be swept away leaving a rather thin plot behind. Leaving aside then such questions as 'did well brought up young girls actually share flats in the thirties?' I thought this adaptation did a pretty decent job of keeping most of the story elements in there. The identity of the murderer(s) was the same, the motive was more or less the same, the initial victim was different but served the same purpose! I did become a little confused towards the end and will need to watch again but I don't think it was any more unlikely or complicated than the solution in the book. Zoe Wanamaker was excellent in this one - her best yet and Georges was given quite a lot to do! It's great when they do a scene almost exactly from the book (eg Mrs Oliver trailing David Baker, even sitting on a dustbin while he confronts her!) On the minus side, I did think a lot of the performances were rather average (apart from Suchet and Wanamaker). SPOILERS NOW!! Without the drug manipulation of the book it was sometimes hard to believe in Norma's blackouts etc. It was disarming to see David Baker emerge as the romantic hero. Was Norma just acting at the end then when she turned up at Crosshedges? I loved how they made Claudia (who was obviously angling to be the 2nd Mrs Restarick) look just like Mary Restarick in the book right down to the fixed blonde hair and painted face - Mary was there in spirit if not in person! The business with the wigs was always a problem in the book and they were right to cut it out and I always had a problem with Norma not realising her stepmother and flatmate were one and the same person! All in all, I thought it was a sensible and intelligent reworking.

I liked it. It wasn't as good as MRS McGINTY'S DEAD or CAT AMONG THE PIGEONS, but certainly a solid effort nonetheless. Zoe Wanamaker shined as Ariadne Oliver - undoubtedly her best effort yet. I don't remember her eating any apples, though, which is a shame. The acting was good. There weren't any standouts, but Jemima Rooper made a convincing Norma, and Tom Mison was certainly a dashing David Baker. I wish Peter Bowles made more of an attempt to act blind as Sir Roderick, though. But it's alright. I like the embellished solution, and the way Poirot fleshed out the killer by using Norma. Even though there were no drugs, I understand that Norma was traumatized by her mother's suicide, and her mind was so fragile that it could easily have been manipulated. Hence why the whole plan using the knives worked so well. All in all, this is way better than the novel. The wigs subplot was just not convincing at all, and it's a relief that it was ommitted. Since the swinging '60s is thrown out for the '30s, the plot is stretched out a good extent, and it's far more durable than the novel's. Since the novel itself is not popular, I doubt the majority of us are grumbling about the changes. Now we must wait for APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH, which is a shame... hopefully we'll get it soon. I'm intrigued by its changes and such, and I want to judge for myself if it's a total disaster or not. Also, here's a fun fact from the book's Wikipedia entry (don't go there unless you want all of the changes in the adaptation listed): Ariadne Oliver's book "Lady Don't Fall Backwards" - this comes from the Tony Han*ock story "The Missing Page" in which Tony Han*ock tries to find out who did the murder in a book he'd just read with a missing page (mirrored by the concierge, Alf Renny, who tells Mrs Oliver that he'd read her book 4 times and still had no idea who did it).

I hope to watch this soon. I'm looking forward to it. I'm open to changes in this film, mainly because very little happens in the novel. But I'm not looking forward to Appointment With Death.

I just wish the production had had the courage to keep to the 1960s period. I read the book on publication in 1966 and so admired Agatha's attempts at tackling the swinging 60s. She was ever relevent and she had obviously done a lot of observation at the time of the writing of the novel. The whole point of the story is that poor old Poirot, his age is referred to repeatedly, is able to make sense of the new culture that is taking over society and yet he knows that when it comes to crime and murder there is very little new under the sun. I was a little unsure as to what period the film was set in and had a rough guess at the ubiquitous 50s where Porot now seems to permanently reside. The complxity of the story and its relationships was maintained however and as an adaptation it could have been very much worse

I am sorry to say that after approximately 13 minutes i had to switch the tv off. Too much had been crammed into the first few minutes,and why on earth do they keep making David Suchet wear that fat suit? He looks more like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.Mrs McGinty's Dead was excellent, Cat was dull and boring and TG was a shambles.

I personally very much enjoyed the recent series of Poirot, and look forward to seeing more later in the year.

It is one of my least favourite books and the latest production will probably end up as one of my least favourite episodes. One thing that has worried me about the last two episodes is that you are given no explanation of Poirot's thought process, so get no sense of how he works out the case. Not having Hastings in the books is okay because AC always let us in on Poirot's thoughts. But in the television medium, you need someone to bounce off. I was looking forward to Ariadne Oliver fulfilling this role but in the last two films, her part has been so small as to almost be disrespectful of Zoe Wannamaker and AC herself.

You have brought up a very good point here Squatty. I've always been of the opinion that Hastings shouldn't be included in film versions where he hadn't appeared in the original book. But now I agree with you, sometimes it is better to have him around so there can be a discussion between Poirot and Hastings to explain Poirot's thought process. It seems in some of the latest episodes that Poirot plucks his conclusions out of thin air!

In Cat Amongst The Pidgeons, there wasn't any real detection at all. It was very convenient that Mrs Upjohn appeared and was able to identify the murderer. In both Cat Amongst The Pidgeon and Third Girl, Poirot gathered the supects together a good thirty minutes from the end of the episode (I know because it took me by suprise and I glanced at the clock). Basically, what followed was an awful lot of padding and very little explanation of how Poirot solved the case.

squatty

In Cat Amongst The Pigeons, there wasn't any real detection at all.

Although, to be fair, Squatty, this is pretty much consistent with the novel, which does the same thing and just relies on Mrs Upjohn turning up, rather than Poirot having to do much to work out who the killer was. Also, I didn't think the denouement was padded - rather there was an awful lot of red herrings (the kidnapping of the Princess/the failed murder attempt) that also needed to be explained.

So, I watched THIRD GIRL, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it! Now, let's be fair to Agatha Christie. "Third Girl" was not her best book. Entertaining? Yes. Good? Absolutely. Great? Not quite. Many coincidences occur throughout, and even Mrs. Oliver's appearances are entirely coincidental. She is the deus ex machina of the novel.

In THIRD GIRL, not much happened. So, if there ever was a Christie that could use some spicing up for the TV adaptation, it was definately this one. I am so glad it turned out so well. David Suchet is once more flawless as Poirot, and Zoe Wanamaker delivers another great performance as Ariadne Oliver.

The opening scene with Norma ("You're too old, Monsieur Poirot") was so well-done! It was very comic, and at the same time, very effective. Norma mentions Mrs. Oliver by name as having recommended Poirot to her during this scene. This makes his subsequent visit (it's a visit, not a phone call, here) to Mrs. Oliver far more credible. This is one of the ways the incredible coincidences in the novel are "ironed out", so to speak.

Now, the film takes more than a few liberties. If you thought the book was flawless and want a faithful adaptation, you will be disappointed. But it is very entertaining as it is. It kept my attention easily. The few things that ARE close to the book (ex: Mrs. Oliver trying out her hand at trailing suspects; the very first scene) are done very well.

In short, THIRD GIRL spices up a rather drawn-out novel very neatly for television. If you're open to changes in this film, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I watched Third Girl and I must say it was rather 'nice', at least better than Appointment with Death (as a TV-drama, that is). I guess this is the best you can do with an already flawed novel as its original source.

Some of my own observations, since others have discussed it already very intelligently.

Thank heavens they got rid of the 1960s period! Perhaps some viewers will have missed it but visually this was one of the ugliest decades of the 20th century, and even when Christie made a point of it in the novel (girls look unatractive and boys look very effeminate and nor Poirot nor Mrs. Oliver felt really at home in that period), I don't think it would have worked on the screen. If you ever saw real films from that period, you know what I mean. So I am pleased that they put it back to the second half of the 1930s.

I missed the drugs though. Even in the 1930s (young) people used drugs so it would have been credible to have the murderer use them to manipulate the victim. Christie used this theme in serveral of her novels (Sleeping Murder, Caribbean Mystery). In the TV-version a lot of the plot leaned heavily on Norma's youth traumas and her mental instabilty. It also did not serve a nice happy ending since I fear for her future and her relationship, without having seen a psychiatrist first. Drugs manipulation would have made it a bit more understandable for a present day public because we are now more familiar with the effects.

The denouement was quite complicated and you have to see it at least twice to really understand it. Some of it was not sufficiently explained and came out of the blue (the false identity). As often with some Christie novels, it is difficult for us to accept people will not recognise 'imposters' after 20 years.

(In two parts since this Forum will not accept longer posts)

I thought the opening scene with Poirot and his book ('Crime Fiction Writers: a critical analysis') was a nice added touch until I realised that actually WAS from the original novel, in fact it is mentioned on the first page. I would love to read THAT book!

Since I am always interested in the relation between literature and cinema, it was nice to see Mrs. Oliver reading Virginia Woolf's essay 'A Room of One's Own' on the buss, or at least pretending to read it. It also had a subtle link with various characters who lived in thier owns rooms: the three girls, the nanny, even Mrs. Oliver and Poirot.

As someone already said: the acting was good, without any really remarkable performances. It was nice to see Haydn Gwynne (a fine character actress) as Miss Battersby the school mistress some 17 years after Coco Courtney in 'The Affair at the Victory Ball'.

My first thought when seeing Jemima Rooper as Norma when she entered Poirot's flat was she just came from the dentist to have here wisdom teeth removed (I KNOW because I looked like that one week ago), but later I got used to her rather odd face. Well, better odd than bland.  

The decor and costumes were very good, as always, especially the dresses of the women. There was a nice contrast between the depressing apartement of the nanny, the flat of the three girls and Mrs. Oliver's apartement, all in the same building. And we even had the premiere of seeing Poirot's bedroom! At least it was his own bedroom and not the guestroom since there was a big crucifix next to the bed. I just love all these little details.

And by the way, where WAS this remarkable courtyard with all the white columns where Mrs. Oliver was bashed on the head? Somewhere in Kensington or Mayfair perhaps?

I thought it was quite good. It's not one of Christie's best novels. The writer did an excellent job adapting the novel. Even though I do wish there would have been a few more clues to help us guess who the murderer was, but overall it was enjoyable.

I also would love to be able to read Poirot's book on crime fiction writers. His writing the book is a sub-sub-plot in "The Clocks," and in fact, his research in crime fiction helps him to solve that case. I hope that when they adapt "The Clocks" they include a scene where Poirot discusses his thoughts on crime fiction. I say this not because I'm pushing for a word-for-word adaptation of the book, but because I think it would provide a nice touch of character development for Poirot, where he could compare his own ideal mode of crime solving to those of fictional writers. A few people have commented on how Poirot's detection processes have been underplayed in recent episodes, and this would help give a little needed re-emphasis on the uniqueness of his deductive skills.

I believe the scene (at least part of it) where Mrs. Oliver is follwing David Baker (the painter) was shot in Lincoln's Inn or perhaps now that I think about it maybe the Middle Temple/Inner Temple. The gate they walk though looks like the gate near the Temple Church. Maybe the moderator can find out the locations where the film was shot. I believe Mr. Restarick office is the Freemason's Hall on Great Queen Street, which is in the same area. After going through the gate it looks like Mrs. Oliver and Baker walk down some steps into an underground passage way. It looked art decoish and had a iron and glass roof. Moderator, do you know where this scene was shot?

In my memory the vaulted undercroft of Lincolns Inn Chapel with the columns was of a kind of sand coloured stone (instead of white) and more massive but you are right, the gate is deffinately the entrance to the New Square in Lincoln's Inn. So I guess the scene is composed from different locations. The underground passage looks very Victorian and Lincoln's Inn is much older. I have been there many times since it is the decor of the Dickens' novel Bleak House.

No, the gate I am talking about is in the Inner Temple off Fleet Street right above the Victoria Embankment. When you enter from Fleet Street you walk down Inner Temple Lane and you will come to the gate. You pass through the gate and the entrance to the Temple church is to the left. It's possible the gate is the one in Lincoln's Inn, but the more I think about it the more I believe it is the one in Inner Temple. You are right it does look like the scene was shot in a number of different locations. The courtyard with the coloumns definitely looks like it is in one of the Inns of Court. I believe there are four in london: Liconln's Inn, Inner, Middle and Gray's Inn.