Read Tragédia em Três Actos by Agatha Christie Online


São treze os convidados para um jantar que virá a ser particularmente infeliz para um deles: o reverendo Stephen Babbington, que se engasga com um cocktail e acaba por morrer. Quando o seu copo de Martini é enviado para análise, não há quaisquer vestígios de veneno – tal como Poirot previra. Mas para o grande detective belga, mais preocupante ainda é o facto de não existirSão treze os convidados para um jantar que virá a ser particularmente infeliz para um deles: o reverendo Stephen Babbington, que se engasga com um cocktail e acaba por morrer. Quando o seu copo de Martini é enviado para análise, não há quaisquer vestígios de veneno – tal como Poirot previra. Mas para o grande detective belga, mais preocupante ainda é o facto de não existir absolutamente nenhum motivo para o crime...Tragédia em Três Actos (Three-Act Tragedy), de 1935, foi publicado nos Estados Unidos com o título Murder in Three Acts. A versão televisiva, de 1986, contou com Peter Ustinov no papel de Poirot....

Title : Tragédia em Três Actos
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789724143651
Format Type : Capa Mole
Number of Pages : 208 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Tragédia em Três Actos Reviews

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2019-04-01 19:32

    Three Act Tragedy = Murder in three acts (Hercule Poirot #11), Agatha Christie (1891 – 1976)عنوانها: قتل در آشیانه کلاغ؛ مهمانی شوم؛ تراژدی در سه پرده؛ نویسنده: آگاتا کریستی؛ تاریخ نخستین خوانش: چهاردهم ژانویه سال 2010 میلادیعنوان: مهمانی شوم؛ اثر: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: بهرام افراسیابی، ناشر: تهران، راد، 1372، تعداد صفحات: 185 صفحه ، شابک: ندارد؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان انگلیسی قرن 20 معنوان: قتل در آشیانه کلاغ؛ اثر: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: مزدک، تهران، گوتنبرگ، سال نشر: 1373، تعداد صفحات: 197 صفحه ، شابک: ندارد؛ موضوع: داستانهای نویسندگان انگلیسی قرن 20 معنوان: تراژدی در سه پرده؛ اثر: آگاتا کریستی؛ مترجم: محمدعلی ایزدبخش، تهران، هرمس، سال نشر: 1388 (چاپ دوم)، تعداد صفحات: 293 صفحه، شابک: 9789643634117؛سر چارلز کارترایت، هنرپیشه سابق، در ملکی که در نزدیکی دریا در لوموث دارد، ضیافت شامی برگزار کرده. سیزده نفر در مجلس او حضور دارند که از جمله این افراد هرکول پوآرو و مرد مودبی به اسم آقای کاترتوایت هستند. ولی چون تصور می‌کنند عدد سیزده نحس است و خوب نیست تعداد میهمانان سیزده نفر باشد، خانم وایولت میلری، منشی سر چارلز هم به جمع مهمانان اضافه می‌شود و تعداد آنها به چهارده نفر می‌رسد. پس از صرف شام خدمتکاری برای میهمانان نوشیدنی می‌آورد اما در هنگام صرف نوشیدنی ... «تراژدی در سه پرده» هم مثل برخی از آثار دیگر کریستی نشان می‌دهد که نویسنده در مورد سم اطلاعات بسیاری دارد. در داستان سه نفر به طرز زیرکانه و بی‌رحمانه‌ ای به قتل می‌رسند. قاتل آن‌قدر زیرک است که پوآرو اعتراف می‌کند خود او هم ممکن بوده مسموم شودا. شربیانی

  • Laurel Young
    2019-04-01 00:22

    I freely admit to my own bias: the reason I recently gave Peril at End House only 3 stars is the same reason I am giving Three Act Tragedy five--I solved End House with embarrassing speed (for reasons outlined in my review), whereas Three Act Tragedy blindsided me. I was absolutely convinced that the murderer was Miss Milray, and that she had dressed in drag as the butler. I think Christie predicted that the careful reader would think so, hence her playing with us in the scene at the end when Miss M tries to destroy evidence. I loved having a further twist catch me off guard; I felt that all was back to normal in Christie-land when The Queen of Crime outfoxed me as I expect her to do! After all, that is why I love and respect her above all others; if I want to solve a mystery halfway through I'll read Sayers or Tey or any of her other contemporaries.However, Three Act Tragedy deserves all five stars quite apart from whether I solved it before Poirot or not. It's not a well-known novel at all; in fact I'd never read it before and was amazed to find such a strong Golden Age Christie novel had slipped under my radar. Dame Agatha thinks of everything--she answers every question I had save one (more on that later). For example, I wondered at first why Poirot was even in this novel since Mr. Satterthwaite seemed to be doing well at sleuthing, but she explains it perfectly: his psychology is wrong for this case. He is always, in every book in which he appears, the perfect "audience", and here that means he can't see past the acting. A nice touch, consistent with his characterization elsewhere--the quality that is usually his strength as a detective is his downfall here, so the even greater detective takes over!I have never been stumped on so many different fronts before--I couldn't figure out who had done it, nor why, nor even how, like the world's most frustrating game of Clue! I actually had the thought that the one poisoned glass among many would work if you just wanted to kill someone, anyone...but I didn't seriously think that would be the solution. Again, though, it works: the "dress rehearsal" and the red herring fit in with Charles' egomania--one of the most unusual motives in all of Christie-dom. It reminds me of the solution to The ABC Murders but with a completely different motive.Why didn't I suspect Charles? I think it's because I knew Mr. Satterthwaite was innocent (as he is a recurring amateur detective character, usually with his supernatural partner Mr. Quin to guide him). Charles seemed to be his Watson here, even though I know perfectly well--and I say it ALL THE TIME--that with Christie the murderer can be absolutely anyone. Should have listened to myself--Christie, again unlike her contemporaries, has no pity for the love interest. Poor Egg. Psychology is the theme of the novel and I was deeply impressed by some of the subtle ways Christie employs it. For instance, in the doctor's journal, "M" is for Mugg...I got chills when I read that, because the casual use of a childhood friend's former name rang completely true; I could imagine my husband's best friend referring to him in a journal as "O", short for an old childhood nickname they still use between them rather than the initial of his real name. Tiny details like that make the solution all the better. My only complaint: we never did find out where the secret passage was, did we?! It was somewhere in the library but Poirot never found it and it was apparently irrelevent to the case. A shame, as I love a good secret passage!

  • Simona Bartolotta
    2019-04-15 17:41

    Simply delicious, but more Poirot would have been appreciated. Plus, now I can't get my mind off of the idea of Mr Quinn magically popping up to pair up with Poirot and his old friend Satterthwaite (who is in this book and to whom I owe this bookish dream of mine).

  • Lexie
    2019-03-25 19:28

    I guess it's a testament in and of itself that when it comes to Agatha Christie, I:- devour a book in one sitting,- remain thoroughly lost to the outside world in the interim, and- never even read the synopsis - I wholeheartedly trust that whichever book I pick will be worthwhile.But then, Agatha Christie was my childhood. Say what you will, but even when it comes to evil and muuuuuuuurder, we tend to trust our childhood. Nostalgia. Memories. Rose-tinted glasses.And, in Agatha Christie's case - a repeated justification of all of the above. The titular Queen of Crime is just that good for me. Beware the inherent bias. It is strong in this one.Three Act Tragedy, as the title might imply, features idiosyncratic actors, astute playwrights, eccentric roles, reminiscences of stage productions, and - most of all - a murder in three acts. (Which, really, is code for three interconnected murders of varying degrees of significance. And which give a whole new meaning to 'choose your poison'.)Unlike his usual solitary sleuthing ways (or ones where Hastings tags along and remains continually baffled, puzzled and in awe of Poirot's detecting and deductive skills), in Three Act Tragedy Poirot has teamed up with a team of individuals all too invested in the resolution of the murders. Moreover, Poirot is willing to give the limelight up entirely in favor of one who seems to need the acclaim more. After all, tout le monde connaît the great Hercule Poirot!He may share the spotlight, that is - but he has by no means dispensed with the egoism. And that's just the way we like him.And so, as one amateur detective interrogates one suspect, and the other equal amateur interrogates another, Poirot puts the little grey cells to work once more - and acts as a sort of information center. He is the point to which all his unlikely assistants come, and the one from which they go out on further assignments.Unlike the novels that revisit past crimes, Three Act Tragedy is faster-paced. The stakes are higher. Even amid the conversations and the debate, murder hangs over all like a sword of Daemocles - it's a question of when it will strike more than if it will. So you're engaged, you're on edge, time flies, and sooner than you wish, the conclusion is here.And the conclusion, suffice it to say, doesn't disappoint - in that it's all but impossible to predict, especially in its entirety. It is the motive, more than anything, that seems sorely lacking until the very end. And that is precisely what makes Three Act Tragedy so difficult to decipher. Like all of the rest of his team, we trot behind Poirot, in desperate hope of catching up.And we seldom ever do. Which is all one can hope for in a classic mystery.

  • Veronique
    2019-04-13 17:39

    "Illumination by:HERCULE POIROT"Christie seems here to have had fun by using the theatre, which she loved, to shape the form and content of this novel. As the title announces, the story is broken into three acts - Suspicion, Certainty and Discovery. Actors take the limelight in the midst of the more usual characters, such as doctors, priests and aristocracy, that people Agatha's casts.Poirot is actually absent for most of the narration, the investigative work done instead by Sir Charles Cartwright, Mr Satterthwaite and Miss Hermione Lytton Gore "Egg", until the end that is when the Belgian indeed provides 'illumination'.Apart from this, the book is also a great example of Christie showing her mastery at misdirecting her readers. And there is plenty of humour too :0)

  • Nandakishore Varma
    2019-04-20 17:34

    A unique book in the sense that Mr. Satterthwaite, usually associated with Mr. Quin, plays second fiddle to Poirot here.I did not like the book as much as some of her others - except for a daring premise: (view spoiler)[a dress rehearsal for a murder! (hide spoiler)] which left me totally dumbfounded.

  • Penelope
    2019-04-20 17:16

    DNF.I didn't like it. I found it very boring in a lot of moments and trust me, I love Agatha's books but this one was boring.

  • Raghad
    2019-03-30 18:45

    من اروع روايات اجاثا كريستي,والأروع انو فيها هيركول بوارو :P

  • David Schaafsma
    2019-04-16 18:27

    Poirot #11: Christie's and Poirot’s Class in Observation“The trouble is, that nobody observes anything,” Mr. Crossfield said.How do we observe? Christie, continuing her focus on theater-based mysteries, supposes (through Poirot) that actors, playwrights, theater-goers and detectives all can observe closely, though they will obviously typically notice different things. But who observes best, according to Poirot? You guessed it. A coolly rational egg-head shaped Belgian. Story: A recently retired actor, Sir Charles Cartwright, (which we find later is actually a stage named, his real name is Mugg, which is another name for Fool, which is an historical role for someone who is either an actual fool or someone who plays a fool) throws a party for 13 people, and one, a Mr. Babbington, dies, after sipping a cocktail, yet there’s no trace of poisonous evidence on the glass. The police--and Poirot, who happens to be nearby--decide the old boy died of natural causes, but Sir Charles and his friend, Sattherthwaite, who smell something fishy about it, spend half the book using their actorly and theater-goer-ly observing skills trying unsuccessfully to crack the case. They are joined in this process by Hermioine (known as Egg) Lyton Gore, who in joining the pursuit of justice also pursues Sir Charles, though she is 30 years younger than him. (Sir Charles also likes Egg, although he also says to Egg at one point, “I always find eggs so depressing.” Is that nice, Charlie? And what does this say about his deeper feelings for the egg-shaped-head Poirot?Of course since the three stooges find out very little, using their non-detective powers of observation, it makes for a pretty forgettable first half, though they are slightly less clueless in their detective work as Poirot's usual sidekick Hastings in so many other Poirot mysteries. Charles, the actor, sometimes sets up scenes to try things out, see how they’d work. So that’s sometimes a little interesting, especially as we consider the resolution of the tale. Anyway, there ARE three acts, and three murders, one per act, with theater references and play contexts abounding, but it doesn’t really get interesting til Poirot starts using his “little grey cells”.“A man like Hercule Poirot doesn’t have to look for crime—it comes to him.”So Christie is on Poirot #11. Which distinctive things is she trying here to amuse herself (and us) with? *This one has an omniscient narrator, which Christie doesn't usually use, because Poirot only really comes in to play in the second half. In this one Poirot does none of the usual interviewing of people; he mainly just uses the possibly flawed information others give him, and he just, well, THINKS. Later he asks for 24 hours to just sit and make his house of cards as he thinks, though. . . *these cards are from a children’s game, Happy Families (ha!) instead of the usual deck of cards. *Motive goes hand in hand with mystery, yet one murder seems to be (essentially) motive-less here. Why kill nice old man Babbington? No one knows! Maybe there IS no reason, and how would that play, in a mystery?!*Christie, who has been interested in chemical toxicity since her days working in a hospital, uses nicotine poisoning in this one. Nothing special about it here, but it’s a curious murder weapon. And who knew that Christie would realize—ahead of most of the world--that nicotine could kill ya?*Agatha has a series of comments about women in her work, almost exclusively made by women, which are sometimes amusing: “I hate women. Lousy cats.” “Bitch!” (in 1934!) . “Mrs. Temple was not pretty,” our narrator observes, and there are a lot of comments women and men about women’s looks. Maybe this is not that unusual, but I always notice that how the men look is not that important to Christie or her narrators.*Again in this book, there are one or two characters making anti-semitic remarks, or ones identifying Jews with money, so there’s a kind of pattern in Christie’s work that doesn’t seem to be like the pattern of women bashing women, which can be more amusing. Were people, are people anti-semitic in 1934.. . . um, yes.*People are always saying things like “It must have been the work of a lunatic,” or madman when it doesn’t seem to make sense why someone would kill such a nice man as Babbington, for instance.Christie often plays with readers by commenting on what they know are typical tropes of mystery and detective novels. For instance, of the butler Ellis, missing from the time of the first murder, only Miss Wills notices that he has a birthmark. At one point actor Charles and playwright Miss Wills discuss birthmarks vs. scars: “Dash it all,” went on Sir Charles, with feeling, “in detective stories there’s always some identifying mark on the villain.”“It’s usually a scar in stories, “ said Miss Wills thoughtfully.“A birthmark’s just as good,” said Sir Charles.He looked boyishly pleased.Let me just say: It’s a good thing to do, to return to such scenes after you finish the book to appreciate Christie’s cleverness and wit and powers of observation. If you observe her closely, you will be pleased to see that there are actually clues!I thought this was a 3 star book for at least half the book, but the finish—always the finish! I/we as usual did NOT know how (in spite of said clues) this would get resolved until within the last 7 or 8 pages!—bumps this up to nearly four stars, and since I am still smiling from the funny last line: 4 stars. Three act tragedy? More of a delightful comedy (except for all the gruesome deaths, I guess).

  • Ivonne Rovira
    2019-04-06 01:35

    Three-Act Tragedy, first published as Murder in Three Acts in 1934, proves that an Hercule Poirot novel with very little Hercule Poirot just doesn’t rise to Dame Agatha Christie’s usual high standards.Charming, inoffensive Reverend Stephen Babbington suffers a fatal seizure after sipping a rye martini at a house party hosted by Sir Charles Cartwright, a famous stage actor with lots of charm and healthy self-regard. The authorities chalk it up to natural causes, but Sir Charles has some suspicions. Not long after, famous nerve specialist Dr. Bartholomew Strange, a friend who was at Sir Charles’ house party, dies from an identical seizure after drinking port. Nearly all of the guests present at the first death are present at the second, but this time the verdict is nicotine poisoning.One of the guests at Sir Charles’ fateful house party in Cornwall are Hercule Poirot; another is the meek, observant Mr. Satterthwaite, sentimental but a shrewd judge of character and a regular in Agatha Christie’s Harley Quin stories. Sir Charles — who played Aristide Duval, head of the Secret Service, on the stage — decides to turn sleuth in real life. He’s joined first by Satterthwaite and then by Poirot in a quest to uncover the murderer and the motive. Much of the novel is taken up with the side plot of the romantic machinations of the young, impressionable Hermione “Egg” Lytton Gore. I’m sure Christie thought that Egg’s coquettish attempt to ensnare Sir Charles through sleuthing would strike readers as amusing, but I found my mind wandering frequently until Hercule reappeared two-thirds of the way through the novel. (He had made only very brief appearances earlier.) Poirot appears too late, and the novel suffers for it. Still, the novel really goes into overdrive as soon as the dapper Poirot takes over, and I never fathomed who the murderer was until Poirot revealed it in an epilogue — clever enough for me to decide to add another star on that basis. Christie’s 11th Poirot novel is still worth reading — but don’t expect another The Murder of Roger Ackroyd or 4:50 from Paddington.

  • Richard Derus
    2019-04-19 22:20

    Rating: 4* of fiveThe Publisher Says: At an apparently respectable dinner party, a vicar is the first to die...Thirteen guests arrived at dinner at the actor's house. It was to be a particularly unlucky evening for the mild-mannered Reverend Stephen Babbington, who choked on his cocktail, went into convulsions and died. But when his martini glass was sent for chemical analysis, there was no trace of poison -- just as Poirot had predicted. Even more troubling for the great detective, there was absolutely no motive!My Review: This review is of the novel, eleventh in the series, and of the twelfth-season film adaptation for Agatha Christie's Poirot. They earn the same rating.What a beautiful-looking film this is! The setting in Cornwall is stunning, and the house they chose for Sir Charles is breathtaking! The story is the same in both media, omitting the unnecessary written character of Satterthwaite as a less dimwitted version of Hastings.Babbington's death is only the first of three apparently utterly unrelated murders. The second murder is horribly upsetting to all the characters. The third is simply incomprehensible to mere mortals...Poirot, of course, sees it in its proper light almost immediately. When the killer is unmasked, it is a bad, bad day for Poirot and a painful and frightening awakening for the younger characters in the story.But the murders and the motives survive intact between the media. There isn't any need to change all that much in this installment of the series; no one's motives are altered and no action omitted. And that is a very good thing. I really enjoy a puzzler, and this one was. The ending is better on film because of Suchet's pitch-perfect delivery of his last line.But all in all, the reason I like the story so much is that the older, distinguished gentleman gets the young and comely love-object because he is, simply put, irresistible. As we were watching along, my (absurdly younger) Gentleman Caller started to giggle. He noticed the plot point, and was highly amused that I'd suggested we watch this particular episode. I like that about him, that he sees the humor that I see.Another delightful outing for the Little Gray Cells. Each version is a treat. Pick one, or do as I do and savor both. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

  • Erin ☕ *Proud Book Hoarder*
    2019-04-18 21:32

    This book was a bit frustrating for awhile. Hardly any Hercule Poirot was in it! Even so, I grew a bit bored and not just because of the absence of the detective. At first the story was all over the place before the middle act, which was distracting. The characters and scenes were interesting enough for a bit, but meh...I kept wanting to skim ahead after awhile. Much of it was thoughtful dialogue among secondary characters without any continuing ties to go on. After page 128, seriously, Hercule Poirot started appearing for real. There was a minor scene with him at the beginning but nothing fancy. Once he came on stage the story started to come together even more so, even if it wasn't from his usual detective-type meddling. At first I was afraid this would be another disappointing mystery type where a solution is found without any clever clues to help the reader...however, it turned not to be so when the case was explained.The clues instead were so very minor and subtle it was almost impossible to pick up on them. Interesting and much better after the second act, the ending was a dramatic one that surprised me on who the culprit was. Leave it to Christie to stun the reader. Despite the redemption, still left this one as three stars and a least favorite of the series. Too slow, disjointed, not enough of the infamous Belgian detective, and while the ending was great, it did not hold enough power to excel the rest of the book.

  • Dina
    2019-04-11 18:30

    Reference NotesSeries: Hercule Poirot #12 (1934)Narrator: (3rd person)Victims:The Rev. Stephen Babbington (rector of Loomouth)Sir Bartholomew Strange (doctor; specialist in nervous disorders)Mrs. de Rushbridger (Sir Bartholomew's patient)COD (all victims): Nicotine poisoningSuspects/witnesses:Sir Charles Cartwright (retired actor; Sir Bartholomew's friend)Mr. Satterthwaite (patron of art and the drama; Sir Charles' friend)Ms. Hermione "Egg" Lytton Gore (Loomouth resident; Sir Charles' object of affection)Lady Mary Lytton Gore (Loomouth resident; Egg's mother)Mr. Oliver Manders (journalist; Egg's friend)Mrs. Cynthia Dacres (successful "dressmaker of the stars")Cap. Freddie Dacres (Cynthia's drunken husband)Ms. Angela Sutcliffe (actress; Sir Charles' friend)Ms. Muriel Wills (playwright; Angela's friend)Ms. Violet Milray (Sir Charles' secretary)

  • Laura
    2019-03-27 21:23

    I GUESSED THE KILLER!!So, this is obviously my absolutely favorite Hercule Poirot novel, since I was such a genius that I solved the crime before the chapters got into double digits. I couldn't guess the motive, but I knew who did it, how said person did it, and other specifics of the crime fairly early on! Christie had me second-guessing myself about half way through, but I stuck with my own detecting skills and was richly rewarded at the end. figuratively of course. You know, it's really not from being so smart; it's from reading so many Poirot books, and so many in a row. I'm going to take a break to enjoy my success since I know that I won't get so lucky the next time.

  • Moonlight Reader
    2019-04-11 01:41

    A good one!

  • Alaina Meserole
    2019-04-09 19:38

    Three Act Tragedy has Poirot paired up with Mr, Satterthwaite. I don't even know how to pronounce the guys name and I don't ever want to know. I didn't really care for Mr. S (just because I never want to type out his name ever again) and I didn't really like him working with Poirot. I kind of felt that I was skimming a lot in this book because of him but at the same time not because of him? I don't know - I guess this book was just kind of meh or boring to me. I wish that I would've like it more - and I'm not going to blame it all on Mr. S. It could have been due to a lot of things, like: the weather, my mood, I was sleepy, I was hangry, I needed coffee, or idk.. I'm crazy. Don't fret good people of Goodreads - I will continue chugging along this series until I reach the very last book. I'm determined. I just want more Poirot in my life right now and nothing can stop me from reading these books!

  • Angie
    2019-04-06 00:36

    4 o 4.5 estrellasMe encantó este libro, como siempre me sorprendí mucho al descubrir quién era el asesino, nunca me lo imaginé! La explicación del caso y conocido lo resuelve Poirot fue sin duda una de mis partes favoritas.Próxima reseña en

  • Rachel
    2019-04-07 18:16

    I've been on a bit of an Agatha Christie kick lately. After never having read any of her books, Three Act Tragedy marks the fourth that I've read so far in 2017 (following And Then There Were None, Murder on the Orient Express, and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd). So far, none have disappointed.What I find so remarkable about Agatha Christie is that when I read her books, I never have the slightest clue whodunnit. With contemporary mysteries, I find that early on in the book I always have a guess. It's not always right, but usually 20-30% into the book I point to one character and say with a certain amount of authority, 'you, I think it was you.' I've yet to be able to do that with Agatha Christie. I still try to take a guess for the sake of being able to say 'ha, I knew it' if it ends up being right, but so far I'm 0 for 4. And my guesses are always tenuous at best - I always end up second guessing myself, because there are just so many moving pieces to her mysteries, which always come together in the most unexpected ways. She has that rare ability to make the reader go 'why didn't I think of that?' while creating plots that are so complex there's almost no way the reader is ever going to figure it out. But you still don't feel tricked, at the end, because it makes too much sense. There's such a distinct sort of satisfaction that comes from watching Christie work her magic.Three Act Tragedy starts with a dinner party thrown by Sir Charles Cartwright, where thirteen guests attend and by the end of the night, one ends up dead. It turns out the victim was just the first in a series of murders that are to unfold over the upcoming months, a mystery that the characters attempt to solve, aided by famous detective Hercule Poirot.Of the Christie novels I've read so far, Three Act Tragedy is the most focused on individual psychology, and how that factors into the crime in question. Without giving too much away, I'll just say that I was impressed by the motive that Christie devised for the murders, as well as the the way she examined the biases which prevented each of the characters who were investigating the case from solving it sooner. This wasn't quite as good as And Then There Were None, Murder on the Orient Express, or The Murder of Roger Ackroyd - there's a reason those are three of her most famous works - but still thoroughly enjoyable and shocking.

  • Robin Stevens
    2019-03-23 21:28

    Every time I read a Christie I remember why she's the Queen of the crime world. Her characters leap off of the page, her plots fizz along and there's not a single boring word. Stellar in every way, this theatrical murder mystery isn't even one of her best, and it's still brilliant. 12+*Please note: this review is meant as a recommendation only. Please do not use it in any marketing material, online or in print, without asking permission from me first. Thank you!*

  • Trish at Between My Lines
    2019-03-25 22:26

    3.5 stars and it's puzzling and fun. I was warned that the last line was a memorable one and IT SO WAS. I loved the way the book was written in 3 acts like a play and that it included a casting list at the start. The language too really evoked that play theme and the dramatic events unfolded with momentum. Like all Agatha Christie books it's expertly crafted and gives you enough clues/red herrings to keep you guessing and eagerly reading.I was a little sad at how little page time Poirot had as he is absent for a lot of the book. But then swoops in, does a little pondering and pontificating and deftly solves the mystery. There are a lot of characters and at the beginning I had to keep double checking who was who but once I figured that out, I thought this was an entertaining read.I loved that there was a character who seemed very like Agatha Christie too! It was like she was having a laugh at herself.Recommended to you if you are an Agatha Chrisir fan. It's not one of my favourites from the Queen of Mystery but it's still a rock solid read.

  • Laurel Hicks
    2019-04-01 20:31

    Good one!

  • Megan (ChroniclesOfABookworm)
    2019-04-14 18:37

    Another ending that I did NOT see coming. A classic Agatha.

  • Dennis Brock
    2019-04-10 22:19

    This was my 10th book in my quest to finish every Poirot mystery written by Christie. I rather appreciated the fact that once again the author used a unique style in presenting this mystery. Every book seems to be written differently and I love that! With that being said though I was disappointed that Poirot was not really in the novel until well after a hundred pages. But once he was around he was in top form! I also struggled to understand the motive for the murders, and felt it was a rather weak part of the book. Overall I liked this book, with it's unique style, but the fact that my favorite detective did not show up until late in the book took away a little bit for me. I am reading these stories because I want to interact with Hercule Poirot. So I can only give this book 3 stars. On to the next Poirot mystery!

  • Burçak Kılıç Sultanoğlu
    2019-04-07 21:25

    Yok yaaa bunda basta bir suru karaktere yer verilmesi kafamı karistirdi.. sonradan olaylar oturunca da katil tahmin edilir oldu ve gidisat beni tatmin etmedi.. sönük bir poirot kitabi olmus.

  • Jayanth
    2019-03-31 17:42

    Uffff! Unputdownable, this book was, for some reason. Hercule Poirot does it again! This book was so meta, I mean, the characters and the plot was too aware of itself all the time, too aware of the fact that it is the classic crime-detective story from Agatha Christie featuring Hercule Poirot. Hercule Poirot doesn't have much to do until half way through, by which time I started feeling duped because I came in expecting to see him using his little grey cells from the start. But the story was interesting all through nevertheless, I think this plot is quite different from the usual Poirot novels if I'm remembering correctly. A retired theater actor throws a party for 13 people including himself and Hercule Poirot. One of them dies suddenly during the party, was there foul play or was it just a natural death? Not many think it is the former, certainly not Poirot. But he later admits he made a mistake. The final conclusion to the murder and the riddle of the entire plot is sort of predictable but enjoyable nevertheless. The last 2 lines from the book really sent a chill down my spine, underlining the monstrous nature of the crime that takes place.

  • Maija
    2019-04-05 20:36

    I'm laughing my ass off at that final comment by Poirot!Sadly I had seen this episode just before reading the book, so I knew the murderer and all the twists and turns. Also, there was too little Poirot - he's there at the beginning and then returns for the final third.

  • Leigh
    2019-04-17 17:38

    This one was had my mind going around in circles again, and still didnt see the ending coming. 5 Stars!

  • Inshirah Kamal
    2019-04-14 01:38

    As usual, I was pretty astounded by the story. However, I must say, this story was lacking the "punch" most of her stories have.still makes for a good read!

  • Luz
    2019-04-02 17:35

    Les dejo mi reseña y los invito a seguirme en el blog!

  • Samina
    2019-03-31 21:30

    This story is about the strange murderOf a innocent vicarAt a dinner party of thirteenHosted by a stage actorHercule Poirot is one of the guestsKiller should be full of stressBut he kills againThis time at the doctor's addressNo connection whatsoeverIs found between the two murderEven when 4 peopleAre investigating togetherWhat Poirot couldn't getWas the motive of vicar's murder yetWas it money or loveOr just some a mad man's betThree Act TragedyWritten so craftilyI was in dark till the endThough later it seemed to come naturallyActing with the actorsPlaying with so many charactersIt seems so easy with Agatha ChristieAs you get absorbed in her chaptersPoirot is a mysterious creatureGiving unsolved clues is his natureYet no clue remains unsolvedas the end comes to the readerI have been challenging meEver since I have started reading ChristieTo find at least one unsolved clueBut how could it ever be