Unfolded and Stumbling WhoDunit?
355849
About the only redeeming quality that this book has is that it is relatively short.  Since it was shorter than normal stories, the pain of reading it did not have to last that long.  This story had a weak plot, weak characters, and a totally ridiculous premise.  The protagonist was a woman on assignment as a bodyguard for an actor on set with a bunch of film folk who were all unbelievable in their respective roles.  She had never done this before, and he had received death threats.  As the story unfolded (n fact it really didn't unfold) it sort of stumbled into explanation of what was really going on and at the end you were left saying to yourself: why did I waste any time reading this poorly written excuse for a story?  Oh well, on to a more invigorating and interesting read.
834977
I'm wavering between three and four stars. This was a pretty good mystery, though I figured out key elements of the solution quite early in the book. The detective was not particularly original (a widower who can't settle down is a private eye cliche).

The author didn't convince me that the story really was taking place shortly after the American Revolution, even with all of the harnessing and unharnessing of the hero's long-suffering horse. (An anachronism early in the book, where the spring house was described as being cool "in the fifties" as if Fahrenheit thermometers were in common use, broke the illusion for me.) The author could have included a little bit of 18th century language, especially forms of address, without slowing down her story.

I would have given this book 4 stars if it had included a map. Geographic relationships were prominent in the plot, and figuring out where things were diminished my enjoyment of the story a lot.

The author did a good job of depicting life in the Shaker community as seen by a skeptic, but she omitted any mention of the hero's own religious background or views. In New England in the 18th century, he would definitely have had a strong religious element in his upbringing, for better or worse. so this omission is puzzling. It is true that the Shakers were detested and even persecuted by many mainstream New Englanders; the records of the local Shaker community in my part of Massachusetts make that plain.
4292659
One suspect then two then WHO?  Never believed it was the accused.  In a quandary?  You will be too. Catch me if you can!
3652917
Read and enjoyed back in June, but looking back a month or so on, I cant actually recall from memory who the murderer was. All of which kind of leads me to conclude that it wasn't especially memorable or striking. Nothing wrong with that of course  I don't expect every book I read to blow me away.

We have a mid-1930s Italian murder mystery. Inspector De Vincenzi is summoned to the Hotel of the Three Roses by virtue of an unsigned letter warning of despicable events about to occur. On arrival at the hotel, our first body has been discovered  hanging by a rope in a top floor stairwell, but definitely not a suicide.

De Vincenzi attempts to put the hotel under lockdown as he interviews all the guests and staff. Further new arrivals complicate things, as does another couple of murders as the investigation is in progress.

Our inspectors enquiries discover that several of the guests have been summoned to the hotel for the reading of Major Harry Altons will. Alton had been involved in the Boer Conflict in South Africa during the 1880s and subsequent business in Australia  supplying the Germans with submarines during the First World War.

Secrets, blackmail, dark deeds on the Dark Continent, diamonds, porcelain dolls, greed, a will reading, a boozy lawyer, a disinherited wife, a son born out of wedlock, a love-struck hunchback employee, a few feckless gamblers, revenge, a disturbed mind, another anonymous letter, a daughter of a deceased business partner, a sleeping policeman, a red herring or two and a competent inspector  though he didn't manage to prevent a couple of murders whilst on the scene!

So overall and after re-reading the last couple of chapters an interesting enough mystery with a decent plot, satisfactorily resolved. I think I read it more as an impartial observer, as opposed to a reader with an emotional investment in the characters and therefore the outcome.

3.5 from 5

I have another Inspector De Vincenzi book to read  The Murdered Banker  also courtesy of the publisher, Pushkin Vertigo. Ill be interested in seeing if the author can generate some enthusiasm for the characters and outcome as opposed to merely providing a puzzle which needs solving.
1490906
Here's a fine little murder mystery in the guests-spending-a-weekend-at-a-lavish-British-manor manner. (But you knew that from the title, right?) I had just started to get a little tired of character development ("Enough about the guests already! When's somebody gonna DIE?"), when, wham! Things really started happeningthings like vandalism, two deaths (three if you count the dog), and a character mysteriously vanishing. ("Did she run away? Or is there another body yet to be found?")

I found the detective likeable, the suspects realistic and varied, the writing surprisingly engaging, and the solution satisfying without being over-wrought or confusing. A fine bit of workthanks, J. Jefferson Farjeon and Poison Pen Press!
2932746
Before the Murder on the Orient Express, there was the Murder in Mesopotamia.  In fact, the Mesopotamian murder mystery occurred just before Hercule Poirot traveled to Istanbul and caught the Orient Express.  As a team of archaeologists labors away at an ancient Tell, the leader's wife has her head smashed in a room which no one else could have entered or left.  The local constabulary is mystified, and Hercule Poirot, who just happens to be traveling in the area, is called in to consult.  After some preliminary investigation to get the lay of the land, Poirot decides that everyone on the dig, with the exception of the husband and a recently retained nurse, is a suspect.  He then begins his methodical quest to make some sense out of the available evidence and solve the "locked room" mystery of the wife's death.  During the course of the investigation the reader comes to suspect every single member of the team, and by the time the mystery is solved, the reader has been thoroughly bewildered by the bizarre turns of events.  The solution is both logical and satisfying, and it accounts for all the loose ends quite nicely.  Unfortunately, it is so highly improbable as to be near ludicrous.  Whoever ultimately prosecuted the case should have thanked his lucky stars that the murderer confessed when confronted by Poirot. Poirot's solution was a work of sheer logic without, as Poirot admitted, a shred of evidence to back it up.  Poirot followed Sherlock Holmes' formula of eliminating the impossible.  What he was left with, although improbable in the extreme, was what must have happened.
Christie entertains throughout, but I have two quibbles:
1.  She deliberately misleads the reader in two particulars as the story unfolds, so that the solution becomes all the more surprising.
2.  Christie spins an entertaining yarn, and she may have been very knowledgeable on the subject of murder, but she betrays absolutely no understanding of the mechanics of perpetrating real-life murders or conducting real-life murder investigations.  The killer's modus operandi reminds me of Rube Goldberg.  The murderer's plan was so complex, so dependent upon others unwittingly doing just exactly as expected, and so likely to miscarry even if everyone followed the script, that no intelligent murderer would attempt it. When Poirot announces his solution, he prefaces his remarks with the caveat that he hasn't got a shred of evidence to back it up.  After being confronted, the murderer obligingly confesses.  An investigator attempting to get a murderer to confess would never announce going in that he had no evidence.  A murderer confronted with zero evidence of guilt would never, ever supply the deficit by confessing.
I listened to the BBC radio production of the story as I drove on a long business trip.  Poirot made the miles slip by much faster.
2191320
Throughout the novel, the author had avoided passing absolute facts and instead sought to present various scenarios through the dialogues and statements of various characters.
Interestingly, it is also one where the mystery is not definitely solved as the author used the Defence Counsel's arguments to present the supposed answer rather than stating it as a matter of truth or fact.
A bit of grim humour was introduced in her description of the British Court trying a peer of the realm, having to back hundreds of years to find legal precedants and the office of the Lord High Steward.  Here, the author appeared at one point to be revelling in writing about the exaggerated formalities and pomp of trying a peer that it seemed to be her climax and that the case was just an excuse to write about it.
To be fair, she did write about a nice case.
The case itself, which appreared to be another who-dun-it murder, introduced many side plotlines.  As in real life, most of the time, a person finds himself in numerous roles that often when something like a murder mystery occured, most writers neglect all other aspects of the person and present only the relevant ones.  This author however, had managed to present the different roles a character has in "real-life" without falling into a rambling trap.
Certainly for a fan of hard-core detective novels, this book may be rather disappointing in its conclusion.  However, taken as a novel, it provided an interesting glimpse into the British aristocratic society and its interaction with other parts of society as a whole.
Except for the conversational language used, Peter Whimsey could have been substituted by a certain Belgian detective and the entire novel would have appeared as a Christie's.
678544
I was disappointed with Evans Above, because it seemed like Evans simply stumbled upon things rather than having his detective work lead to capturing the right person.  Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of detecting and red herrings galore.  And instead of Evans reaching the conclusion, the guilty party confesses all in the "Mr. Bond, I'm going to tell you everything" sort of silliness.

Though the setting is appealing and the secondary characters show signs of promise, it was puzzling why the author made Evans be from the area but somehow he has no surviving relatives there. Especially in such a small town, it seems unlikely that there are 3 unrelated Evans families.

This was one of those mysteries I found myself re-writing as I went along, and I found my version much more satisfying.
2687279
Story was light weight murder mystery. Found some confusion as author identified characters by last name for most of first half, then by first name later. Also, there so many attachments between characters adding to  confusion.
961004
"Mrs. McGinty's Dead" is a historical mystery set in 1951 in England (though it was a contemporary mystery when it was written). I thought it was humorous what Poirot had to "suffer" through to solve this mystery. He had to stay with a very unorganized and unskilled-at-cooking family. Mrs. Oliver's situation was also funny.

On the other hand, I found the mystery confusing. The whodunit and how was complicated. Especially in the case of the first murder, it didn't seem to me that it was realistic that whodunit would have gone unnoticed. However, the clues were all there, even though the major ones might only be understood by the English of 1951. I certainly was left thinking, "Huh? I don't know anyone who did that" over something Poirot thought "everyone knows" (relating to names). Ah, well, learned something new.

There was no sex. There was a very minor amount of bad language. Overall, I'd recommend this novel to Agatha Christie fans.
2417350
I was reading along pretty much enjoying this 1930's mystery when all of a sudden the heroine suddenly jumped in bed with a guy she'd met about 3 times.  So that was it.  There are also some places that seem to jump without a bridge from one conversation/situation directly into another and were a bit confusing.  Very disappointed.
2055525
I do like the character and the story-telling style. However, sometimes I don't quite understand a crime story where the crimes are never resolved and the investigators seem to have little to no skills in actually getting to the bottom of it.
1499517
Except for Christie's masterpieces -- And Then There Were None, Orient Express, and Roger Ackroyd -- all the culprits are guess-able if you think "who is the most unlikely person."  I enjoyed reading this until the murderer was revealed.
2414353
Figured out who the murderer was almost immediately. Felt the story could have been tied up a little better.
289768
Only a fool or a deluded armchair detective could at this stage say who killed  Jonbenet. This case is unsolvable at this stage. However there are some hard facts, DNA found on her clothes and underwear, is from an unknown male. I suspect it is this person who killed her.
2825202
As mysteries go this one was not well constucted as there are arbitrary devices in place only to move the mystery aspect.
2822680
The murderer
 was well hidden until revealed  in the plot. The clues could have been revealed easier however by calling the perp he it was deliberately revealed a wrong clue.