I am simply adding to the already list of hugely positive reviews there are for After the Funeral. It's a very good Poirot novel, but there are so many key elements here that make this production so particularly fine. In terms of setting the house used looks so good, it's so in keeping for the period, the music is fantastic too, there have been a few occasions where the music has been too loud and too obtrusive, not here it fits in well. As it should be though, this one is all about the acting, and it's flawless, there is some fun provided by Timothy and Maud, there is the serious side from Michael Fassbender, the sadness from Susannah, but it's the villain that's the star of the piece, I won't name them just in case, but they are are totally brilliant, and steals the show. As far as Poirot is concerned they don't come much better then this one.

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".

As I recall from the time more than ten years ago when I read "After the Funeral," the book left me underwhelmed for some reason -- moreso than it should've, considering its criminal scheme is a neat idea, and a very Christie-ish one. A few bits do stand out in my memory, namely "Goodie! I shall go to Capri.", and The Willow Tree. This Suchet film version smartly preserves these for the most part, and is one of the less flawed episodes of the 21st century wave. The basic clues to reach the bottom of the mystery are there, but the movie could draw better attention to them. Our chance to recognize them is too quick and oblique. A few brief mystery subplots are basically revealed to us only for surprise, without clues and detective work. The story is disadvantaged by the way it revolves around rich, self-absorbed people whining and backbiting about their inheritances. Especially in an age of economic recession, this is a very unimportant topic to watch in a movie. Certainly it's hard to relate to this topic or have sympathy for the characters.However, the film compensates for this with witty consideration of the theme of England's class system and the status of servants. At the center of this is the Gilchrist character, paid companion and doer of light housework for a bohemian woman who's at least somewhat connected to her wealthy family. Gilchrist insists (with a touch of snobbery) that she has never considered herself a servant. Unfortunately for her, other snobby characters presumptuously treat her like one.Along this line, one of the most interesting, complex characters is Susannah Henderson, apparently a reworking of a book character. Despite being the only member of the Abernethie clan whose life work is that of charity, Henderson herself is not free of snobbery. She seems to very much believe in her mission. She puts her money where her mouth is, willing to move to Africa to do her charity work. She also speaks sympathetically of derided characters like Cora Gallaccio. Yet Henderson has a bit of an air to her. Watch how, when she arrives at Gilchrist's house, she wordlessly holds up her suitcase, expecting Gilchrist to take it as if she were a maid, rather than her hostess. Apparently a young lady from a rich family expects this of a lower class paid companion. Throughout her time at Gilchrist's house, Henderson also ignores or interrupts her even while acting with nominal friendliness.I could've done without the bit of anti-abortionism injected at one point (and not for the only time this season). If the character who injects this sentiment hates the "sordidness" of back alley abortion clinics so much, perhaps the answer is to advocate for safe, legal clinics and social acceptance.Like other recent Poirots, humor is deemphasized, but there are some nice touches of Poirot's fussiness and vanity during some of his exchanges with Entwhistle. (Entwhistle meanwhile is a dull Hastings stand-in who also serves the opening exposition about all the suspects, a group from an extensive family tree who are done no favors by the rushed, confusing intro.) My favorite humor here is something that's almost a running gag but which is probably unintentional. You kind of have to look for it. Under the pretense of staying at the Abernethie mansion to investigate the murder (which didn't even take place anywhere near there), Poirot seems to enjoy frequent snacks and tea breaks at a cloth-covered table on the terrace, at the Abernethies' expense. He has a good gig going on.

For those of you still in the dark, I will not spoil this Christie, as it is definitely one of her finest works, and I stress that you should see it whenever you next have free time! If any of the adaptations are to be watched before (or in lieu of) reading the book, I would suggest "After the Funeral" for the following reasons.I wanted to praise the performance by Monica Dolan (Miss Gilchrist), whose employer-companion Cora is brutally murdered at the outset of the film. Her portrayal of a shocked, nervous, insignificant woman is actually moving, especially when she has a moment of personal connection with Poirot, another person who travels alone in "the journey of life." And when the murderer is being revealed in typical Poirot denouement fashion, Dolan's reactions to the revelation are acting at its finest: you feel as angry at the murderer as you do sympathetic to Miss Gilchrist... something uncommon in Christie lore.Although there are a couple of discrepancies between novel and film adaptation, as per usual (the business of the will perhaps making less sense in the film), the unbelievably lavish recreation of post-war England, thoroughly high calibre of acting and directing, and preservation (if not heightening) of Christie's mystery and intrigue render these discrepancies insignificant.Bravo Suchet, Dolan and the whole team for crafting this masterpiece of murder mystery theatre, and the producers who gave it the green light! Encore!