Prismark10 Hickory Dickory Dock suffers from some random ingredients thrown together and a plot was cooked up. Ironically as a subplot involves Inspector Japp staying with Poirot as his wife is away and he has to eat fancy food when he just prefers a fry up.Miss Lemon introduces her sister who is all at sea. The student boarding house she runs has been stricken with some minor thefts of some inconsequential items. A diamond ring, a shoe, a stethoscope, a rucksack that has been ripped up are some of the missing items. Poirot suspects there is something more sinister afoot and then one of the student is found dead.Although one of the guest in the house admits to being a kleptomaniac, she does state that a few of the items missing were nothing to do with her. Poirot finds that the boarding house is mixed with a diamond smuggling ring and in the background of the Jarrow march, a dying socialist MP is of interest to Inspector Japp.The director has gone for some arty shots of a mouse running about and the repeating riff of a nursery rhyme but it rather detracts from a plot that does not flow too well.

TheLittleSongbird Hickory Dickory Dock was a good Poirot mystery. I confess I have not read the book, despite being an avid Agatha Christie fan. The adaptation isn't without its problems, there were times when the humour, and there were valiant attempts to get it right, was a little overdone, and the events leading up to the final solution were rather rushed. I also thought there were some slow moments so some of the mystery felt padded. However, I loved how Hickory Dickory Dock was filmed, it had a very similar visual style to the brilliant ABC Murders, and it really set the atmosphere, what with the dark camera work and dark lighting. The darker moments were somewhat creepy, this was helped by one of the most haunting music scores in a Poirot adaptation, maybe not as disturbing as the one in One Two Buckle My Shoe, which gave me nightmares. The plot is complex, with all the essential ingredients, though not as convoluted as Buckle My Shoe,and in some way that is a good thing. The acting was very good, David Suchet is impeccable(I know I can't use this word forever but I can't think of a better word to describe his performance in the series) as Poirot, and Phillip Jackson and Pauline Moran do justice to their integral characters brilliantly. And the students had great personalities and well developed on the whole, particularly Damian Lewis as Leonard. All in all, solid mystery but doesn't rank along the best. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

clotblaster This was a strong Poirot/Suchet, television mystery selection. The characters were vivid and well-acted. The plot and the main setting--a student hostel-- were excellent. Japp was nothing special but for me did not distract from story. One significant point, many Poirot watchers don't recognize good acting or good characterization. I also think they are rather harsh in their judgments of some of the Poirot mysteries. Finally, I have read few Christie novels--none in recent years-- and find it annoying that so many viewers are upset about changes from the novel. Please, viewers, consider what is presented to you on film, not what you think should be there. That said, the Poirot mysteries vary in quality, but not as much as reviewers and raters would have you believe. With the singular exception of The Five Little Pigs which was fabulous in plot, character and theme, the longer Poirot films are neither that good or that bad. For the record, I have seen all the longer Poirot/Suchet films. Finally, films without Lemon, Hastings, and/or Japp are neither good nor bad because of their absence. There presence, however, is either obtrusive (almost always with Japp) or irrelevant with Hastings. Lemon is in the middle.

tedg These Suchet-led adaptations of Poirot are frustratingly uneven because the producers brought in a different creative team for each one. Sometimes they understand the strength of the source material, and other times they go off on some unrelated direction that they graft onto the plot.They already start with a disadvantage. Suchet produces an entertaining character for sure. But the foibles of Christie's detective were all found to be assets in how he approached a problem. It was almost as if he were from some alien world where people thought differently and so could "see" things we could not.In this case, he's just a comic man who incidentally solves mysteries as if that were another eccentricity. So instead of the puzzle and his attempts to unwind it, we get:-- a bunch of buffoonery about Poirot's and Japp's eating habits-- some excessive cinematic nonsense about a mouse who appears through the story-- in an unrelated insertion, we have the chanting of a nursery rhyme every time something bad is happeningThis is the worst of a bad lot. Please avoid it.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.