Wordiezett So much average

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Robert J. Maxwell Ustinov, as Poirot, is invited quite casually to a party at a mansion in the country by mystery writer, Jean Stapleton. Nobody ever invites me to a party at a country estate and I've begun to resent it. I'm more handsome than Hercule Poirot, and more charming and witty too, especially when drunk. If you doubt, ask my psychiatrist or any of my ex wives.Peter Ustinov, sadly, looks older and perhaps a bit less vigorous than in his big-screen portrayals like "Death on the Nile" although he was only in his mid-60s. He was an enormously talented man who wrote plays, directed operas, and was chancellor of Durham University from 1992 on. He devoted much of his later years to UNICEF, and not just on ceremonial occasions.Jean Stapleton still looks and sounds like Archie Bunker's wife, but it's largely a comic part and she fits the role. Jonathan Cecil is Captain Hastings. I'm afraid he has the face of one of the seven dwarfs -- I forget which one. Maybe Dopey, if Dopey were caught and stretched while in the embrace of a celestial black hole. It lacks all dignity. You'll see what I mean.There is the usual assembly of guests at the party -- one victim and many suspects. The beautiful but brainless bride of the host is Nicolette Sheridan, who is I gather famous for some reason or other. At any rate, nobody in the movie seems to like her very much. Hubby is the jealous and arrogant Sir George Stubbs, played by Tim Piggot-Smith, whose narrative voice has added euphonious elaborations to several documentary films.One of the sneakier characters in the tale is Jeff Yager as Eddie South, slick, with disgustingly even features,a big yacht, medallions, and a Hollywood hair style with a pompadour up front. It was a disappointment when he didn't turn out to be the killer.Well, actually, there was no single murderer but rather two people who had cooked up an elaborate plot, and there are several red herrings strewn across the path to the solution. Nice photography, though, and scenic location shooting.

keith-moyes-656-481491 I am currently collecting TV and film adaptations of Agatha Christie and bought this Dead Man's Folly just to complete the set. That's my excuse: what's yours?Like most TV movies, it has a bland, soporific, drifting feel, with no dramatic structure, no pace or rhythm within scenes and no overall sense of urgency. It just meanders listlessly from one advertisement break to the next until it has filled its two hour time slot.It is hard to believe that the director, Clive Donner, was once regarded as one of the bright hopes of the British film industry. Years of working in television seem to have blunted whatever edge his work once had. He and Ustinov had previously worked together on Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen. I can imagine Donner saying "Well Peter, do you think we can make one worse than that?" and Ustinov replying "I doubt it, but let's give it a try."Because this movie never managed to capture my full attention I wasn't always sure what was going on.For example, I never understood the mechanics of the Murder Hunt so I didn't see why it was important to the actual murder. Similarly, Ariadne Oliver didn't seem to have any real reason for inviting Poirot to the event so when the murder is eventually committed he has nothing to go on and just bumbles around without purpose or plan.In truth, he doesn't really do much detecting, so the process by which he comes to suspect the truth is somewhat obscure. The crucial breakthrough is simply something he is told by the dead girl's sister. Since there was no other way he could have got this information I have to conclude that if she hadn't blabbed when she did the mystery would never have been solved.Even when this crucial information is dropped into his lap, Poirot is still a long way away from understanding what is really going on, so the final solution comes completely out of the blue. It also proves to be thoroughly absurd.It turns out that George Stubbs and his wife are both impostors. Together, they have murdered the real Hattie and then proceed to murder the two people they think could expose them. But why do they think that these are the only people they have to worry about? He is returning to his childhood home so how can he hope to escape immediate recognition? Similarly, she is spooked by the arrival of one of Hattie's old friends, but why only that one? Did that unfortunate corpse have no other friends, family or acquaintances that might also want to visit her from time to time? How could this couple imagine for one minute that their imposture would remain undetected?For some reason that escaped me, the fake Hattie also assumes the disguise of an Italian student and then disappears, leaving everybody thinking that Hattie too has been murdered.Was there a reason for this?I would like to be able to blame this farrago on the writer, Rod Browning, or Warner Bros Television, but other reviewers have said that this adaptation is actually very faithful to the book. If so, it must have been one of Agatha Christie's off days.The mystery of Dead Man's Folly is apparently lined up for David Suchet's Poirot. It will be interesting to see how much they will change the story to make to make it more plausible (or at least more interesting).Mention of David Suchet brings me to my other main reservation about this movie: Peter Ustinov.Far from being the 'definitive Poirot', as some reviewers have called him, I think he is just an irritating ham who condescends to nearly every role he plays. I get the impression that he thought he was too good for the movies he appeared in, so he was doing them a favour when he sent them up.I might be able to accept this superior attitude from Ustinov if I had ever seen him give a real performance in a challenging role, but despite his two Oscars I cannot recall one. I doubt if he was ever really capable of it.PS: In truth, anybody would have been too good for some of the movies Ustinov appeared in and his amused contempt for the material was sometimes the only thing that made them watchable. My objection to Ustinov is that this became a habit and carried over into work that deserved better of him.PPS I have now seen the David Suchet version (much better in all respects) and taken another look at this one. The story made more sense when I actually paid attention to it, but remains somewhat implausible and is slightly undermined by the updating. My aversion to Ustinov's performance only intensified on second viewing. His persistent hamming was hard to tolerate and his constant upstaging of all the other actors was actually offensive.

Elswet This installment of Agatha Christie's adaptations features none other than Jean Stapleton! This is a clever adaptation, directed by Clive Donner (Arthur the King, 1985; A Christmas Carol, 1984; Oliver Twist, 1982; and What's New Pussycat, 1965) with a near-slick production quality (especially for its time!) and a great cast! This one was a tad more difficult to puzzle, but more's the fun when you're talking about an Agatha Christie murder mystery and Peter Ustinov! (Far and away my favorite Poirot.) Nothing silly, not a single moment of wasted film, and a fantastic contribution by each and every one. I highly recommend this one to anyone with a love of mystery.All in all? This is great fodder for the younger teen in assisting in the development of their analytical mind.It rates a 7.6/10 from...the Fiend :.

benbrae76 There has been (so far) only one definitive screen Poirot and that is David Suchet. As much as I admired the art of the late Sir Peter Ustinov, he was always completely miscast in this role. He was nothing like the character that Agatha Christie envisaged, i.e. an over-fastidious dapper little man who had a mincing walk, a bald egg-shaped head and a dark waxed moustache. Peter's rotund shape, with crumpled clothes and a crumpled moustache to match, would make her, and indeed Poirot himself, turn in their graves. However, Ustinov, as he usually does in this role, and probably deliberately, hams it up (likewise the entire cast) with enthusiastic gusto, but again I suspect, not entirely as Miss Christie would have imagined it.Jonathon Cecil plays Capt Hastings as if he was a complete moron. Although not blessed with the same "little grey cells" as his companion, Hastings was not written as a fool, and in fact had supposedly been in Military Intelligence, which (although suggested in the film), is not a place for idiots.Overall this movie (as with all Ustinov's portrayals of the character) is to Poirot, as burlesque is to the legitimate theatre, but so what? It's enjoyable to watch, and that's what entertainment is all about.