Rating: 
Summary: Mechanical but Effective
Review: A kindly vicar is poisoned via cocktail at an egocentric actor's party, leaving Poroit to sort through a number of suspicious characters and contradictory clues. This particular Christie novel is pure plot, with the characters never quite coming fully to life; even so, Christie delivers a remarkable solution sure to amaze.
Rating:
Summary: Nice
Review: A nice little Hercule Poirot mystery - actually, it's only barely a Poirot mystery, as he is absent from most of the book, making only a guest appearence at the beginning, and in the last section, he comes to wrap things up. The plot itself is rather simple, and you could stand a decent chance of guessing the end correctly, if not for a complication Christie throws in which makes things difficult (for the reader as well as for Poirot himself). All in all, a pleasent read. Not her best book, to be sure, but pleasent nonetheless.
Rating: 
Summary: A Tragedy in Three Acts
Review: Call me daft, but i really really like this Christie novel. The characters are great (especially the sublime Mr Satterthwaite, and the wonderfully entertaining Hermoine "Egg" Lytton Gore). Really entertaining, and great to read about. As with many of the best Poirot novels, Poirot himself does not really take a large role until quite a way into the book ("Appointment With Death" "Cat and Among the Pigeons", for example.) The plot is great, and the motive for the first motive is just sheer originality. (Even though it, and the motives for the other murders, is just a tiny weeny bit thin). It's a pretty light Christie book, but with a brilliant first death and motive for it. And a great, rather unexpected solution. It may not be her very very best novel, but it is still one of the great ones.
Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: I probably would have rated this book higher, except I had guessed the murderer after 50 pages. Probably most people who've read a large collection of her books will have guessed the end before the end. Other than that, I enjoyed the flow of the book, which read more like a novel than a mystery. I liked Egg and Mr Satterthwaite, though Sir Charles was a bore.
Rating:
Summary: Lack of clues mar the readers enjoyment
Review: In murders, nothing should be taken for granted. Especially Agatha Christie's. In several of her novels, she had the investigators looking into a murder that did not exist, a person that did not exist, a motive that did not exist and many other red herrings. Hence, when the good Rev Stephen Babbington died during a party thrown by retired actor Sir Charles Cartwright, none of the guests present appeared to be who they were supposed to be. There was no motive, nothing was left to show the death was a criminal act. Some time later, Dr Strange who was also a guest at the party died, this time, the nicotine poisoning was clear. Told primarily from the perspective of Sir Charles Cartwright, his friend Mr Satterwaithte, and modern girl "Egg" Hermione Lytton Gore, Hercule Poirot took the passive role most of the story. The other three went about gathering clues, examining scenes of the crime and interviewing the usual suspects. The only problem with such an approach could be revealed by one of Christie's favourite dogma : people do not tell what they saw or heard, they tell what they thought they saw or heard. In many instances, it was merely written Sir Charles, Mr Satterwaithe and Egg reported what had happened to Poirot rather than describing the words they used to convey the information to Poirot. Therein lies one of the weakness of this book. A second weakness of the book was some of the offstage investigation work done by Poirot was not revealed to the readers. In stories where the clues for opportunities and accessories were (subtly) evident, motive was not as vital for the readers to correctly guess the solution. However, this story was weak in all but the opportunities department. Only the camouflaged opportunities was masterfully done by Christie for both deaths, requiring people to consider things in the opposite of the conventional direction.
Rating:
Summary: Three Star Tragedy
Review: One of Agatha Christie's occasional flaws is that her desire to bamboozle the reader leads her to discard probability and possibility, to neglect the human side of the equation, and to produce a solution, which, although surprising, is nevertheless unconvincing. Three Act-Tragedy (1935) and Murder in Mesopotamia (1936) are examples of this-a pity because both books have interesting personages, well-drawn depictions of a particular society (here the demi-monde; an archaeological dig in the other), and a particular tone (light and amusing in the style of Anthony Berkeley in the one; in the other, an ominous atmosphere quite unlike anything else Agatha Christie ever wrote). But the solutions to both are wholly incredible: the reader of Murder in Mesopotamia is expected to believe that a highly observant and intelligent woman is utterly blind to the disguise adopted by her murderer; while Three-Act Tragedy offers an utterly murderer who commits three crimes, two of which are wholly superfluous, tripling the risk of detection to no benefit. The impossible murders themselves are by nicotine, "an odourless liquid, ...[of which] a few drops are enough to kill a man almost instantaneously", and which can be derived from rose-spraying liquid and from ordinary tobacco. The first victim is a particularly mild and benevolent parson, who is killed at a party given by the actor Sir Charles Cartwright (who suspects murder). The guests include the impoverished Lady Mary Lytton Gore and her daughter `Egg', née Hermione; the actress Angela Sutcliffe, Sir Charles' former lover; the dress-maker Cynthia Dacres (with whose salon L.W.T., maker of the POIROT televison series, would have a great deal of fun) and her drunken husband; the playwright Muriel Wills; and the journalist Oliver Manders, in love with `Egg'. The regular reader of Christie, however, will recognise both Hercule Poirot, who is bored, only begins to function on p. 117, and is staying (for some unknown reason) at the Ritz; and Mr. Satterthwaite, known to the reader from the excellent short story collection The Mysterious Mr. Quin. Both of these sleuths, with the assistance of Sir Charles and `Egg' Lytton Gore, assist in the detection of the crime-but it is, however, only Hercule Poirot who is not taken in by the stage trappings, who "see[s] only the facts without any dramatic trappings or footlights". The second victim is the nerve specialist Sir Bartholomew Strange, killed at a party in Yorkshire, attended by the same people (with the exception of Poirot, Sir Charles, and Mr. Satterthwaite, who are all in France); his butler goes missing, and the clue of an ink-stain on the floor of his room leads to the discovery of blackmail letters and the possibility of his murder. While certainly not one of Christie's best, the reader may still find entertainment in the book (and doesn't have to put up with Peter Ustinov's over-acting and a horde of bad actors loose in Mexico).
Rating:
Summary: Not Christie's Best
Review: The central characters of this mystery are an aging actor, his twentysomething admirer, and a man who often observes but seldom participates. The three join forces to solve the murders of a physician and a priest. They interview the suspects, conduct meetings, compare notes, and all the while a May-December romance brews between the actor and the youngish female admirer. Hercule Poirot appears sporadically through the course of the book, but takes no active part in the investigation until the denouement. When a third murder occurs, all the pieces fall into place, and Poirot is able to identify the killer in dramatic fashion. The mystery is neat, well crafted, and satisfying. The identity of the murderer comes as quite a surprise, and Poirot turns in his usual virtuoso performance. The plot, however, suffers from Poirot's extended absence, and the story has a glacial pace. It took forever to slog through the soporific first two acts. An interesting revelation comes at the end of the book. Poirot fans know him as a boastful, eccentric dandy whose mastery of the King's English is far from masterful. He has this to say about himself: "It is true that I can speak the exact, the idiomatic English. But, my friend, to speak the broken English is an enormous asset. It leads people to despise you. They say, 'A foreigner. He can't even speak English properly.' It is not my policy to terrify people. Instead, I invite their gentle ridicule. Also, I boast. An Englishman, he says 'A fellow who thinks as much of himself as that cannot be worth much.' That is the English point of view. It is not at all true. And so, you see, I put people off their guard. Besides, it has become a habit."
Rating:
Summary: Three Act Tragedy
Review: This book was originally published as "Murder in three Acts" A pretty good book but not one of hervery best.
Rating:
Summary: I WAS DISAPPOINTED
Review: When buying this book, the plot summary sounded intriguing. Two vctims get killed in exactly the same way, so Poirot sets up a dinner party of his own. It turned out that this was actually a rather tedious book. First of all, Poirot only really comes into the story during the last half. Christie should've learned that putting the stars behind the scenes is all wrong. After all, that's why "The Body in the Library" was so boring. Then most of the mystery is a group of amateurs looking around for the murderer. You have long dialouges, pointless discussions, all of which make things boring. You have the odd-ball match of two of the characters and find yourselves tangled up in their love affair. Frankly, although I love a good romance, this was just annoying. The best part comes when Poirot stages his said dinner party to uncover the murderer. You're not sure what proof he has found, but as usual, he's found something. However, by that point, I'd guessed the murderer. I usually have a theory, although it's never been found correct. So, hoping for a good ending, I discover that I HAD guessed the right person! What a disappointment. So here's my clue: if you go ahead and buy this anyway, think SMALL. Most of the time you never think big enough for Christie's plot, but this time the murderer, motive (which is a big issue in this book), and discovery has small and petty reasoning behind it. In fact, the whole murders could've been avoided, quite easily. Oh well. It's not too bad--in fact the end shocked me since I was expecting such a grande finale.
Rating:
Summary: If you are reading Christie's mysteries
Review: you might want to skip over this unless you are determined to read them all. This is one of her lesser efforts that only make the rest of her work so much better. The story is cleverly arranged into "Acts", a reflection of the main character, Sir Charles Cartwright, a famous stage actor who is now retired. Sir Charles hosts a dinner party which includes many who have connections with the stage: Angela Sutcliffe, actress; Miss Willis, playwright; Capt. Darce and his wife, who run a theatrical dressmaking business; and Mr. Satterthwaite, wealthy patron of the arts (featured in the short story collection THE MYSTERIOUS MR. QUIN). Rounding out the party are Dr. Strange, a specialist in nervous disorder and a college friend; the local vicar and his wife; Lady Mary Lytton Gore and her daughter Hermione, Mr. Oliver Manders and Hercule Poirot. The party proceeds predictably until a murder takes place (or maybe just proceeds predictably). End of Act I, Act II weeks later another dinner party takes place miles aways, many, although not all, of the same guests are present and another murder takes place. Act III, Poirot and others involved in the tragedies investigate the crimes and of course, Poirot solves the crime. The characters of Mr. Satterthwaite and Hermione are delightful and well written and Poirot is his usual eccentric self. Unfortunately the rest of the characters are down right boring and totally forgetable. The plot itself is far better than the characters. The crimes are cleverly done, there is the usual Christie twist at the end but even that cannot raise this beyond a passable rating. This mystery is suitable for long, boring plane rides or similar periods of prolonged entrapment only.
|
