As I've written before when discussing a movie based on one of Agatha Christie's books, doing a proper plot summary is difficult. If you're unfamiliar with the source, I don't want to write too much and give anything away. If you are familiar with Christie's work, a plot summary seems unnecessary. Suffice it to say that a woman is murdered, there are lots of suspects with both motives and alibis, and Poirot is on hand to solve the mystery.
Watching this version of Evil Under the Sun, I cannot help but compare it with the 1982 big Hollywood version. I adore that movie. Yeah, it's not particularly true to the book and much is played for camp, but I love it just the same. Overall, this version seems to be truer to Christie's work and has a more serious tone (although there are some wonderfully comedic moments). So which version is better? Well, that's hard to say. I'll just a list a few random thoughts I have on each movie:
2001 - As I said, it seems truer to the source (at least from what I can remember - haven't read the book in 20 years). Suchet makes a much better Poirot than Ustinov. Suchet nails all the quirky mannerisms. I also enjoy Ms. Lemon's presence in this one. Her character and interaction with Suchet are just perfect. No Roddy McDowell also makes this one better. He's way too over-the-top in the earlier film. Finally, the overall feel is closer to Christie. There's more of a sense of foreboding that works well in the movie.
1982 - Diana Rigg and Maggie Smith are brilliant. I love their scenes together. I prefer Jane Birkin to Tamzin Malleson in the role of Christine Redfern. Not sure why the writers of the newer film decided to make the Marshall child a boy, but the girl in the earlier film works better (and, if I remember correctly, is in agreement with Christie's book). And, I felt this one did a better job of explaining a confusing time line of events surrounding the murder.
You really can't go wrong with either movie. Both are excellent and I rate both a solid 8/10.
Watching this version of Evil Under the Sun, I cannot help but compare it with the 1982 big Hollywood version. I adore that movie. Yeah, it's not particularly true to the book and much is played for camp, but I love it just the same. Overall, this version seems to be truer to Christie's work and has a more serious tone (although there are some wonderfully comedic moments). So which version is better? Well, that's hard to say. I'll just a list a few random thoughts I have on each movie:
2001 - As I said, it seems truer to the source (at least from what I can remember - haven't read the book in 20 years). Suchet makes a much better Poirot than Ustinov. Suchet nails all the quirky mannerisms. I also enjoy Ms. Lemon's presence in this one. Her character and interaction with Suchet are just perfect. No Roddy McDowell also makes this one better. He's way too over-the-top in the earlier film. Finally, the overall feel is closer to Christie. There's more of a sense of foreboding that works well in the movie.
1982 - Diana Rigg and Maggie Smith are brilliant. I love their scenes together. I prefer Jane Birkin to Tamzin Malleson in the role of Christine Redfern. Not sure why the writers of the newer film decided to make the Marshall child a boy, but the girl in the earlier film works better (and, if I remember correctly, is in agreement with Christie's book). And, I felt this one did a better job of explaining a confusing time line of events surrounding the murder.
You really can't go wrong with either movie. Both are excellent and I rate both a solid 8/10.