Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Maziun This is the first of the three made for TV movie adaptations of Agatha Christie's novels. It's probably the best of three, which sadly doesen't mean much. All three of them are bad ("the other are "Dead man's foley" and "Murder in three acts"). All of them have low and cheesy production values , obvious dramatic commercial pauses and American feel to it. They also have been updated from the 30's to mid-80's. Why ? Well because it was probably cheaper that way. This along should tell you how much "effort" was put into making those movies.Peter Ustinov has nothing to do with Poirot as written. He doesn't look like him and doesn't have his quirks. His Poirot is more like a clown who strangely seems to be intelligent. I have to say that Ustinov's version of the character while not my favourite and not really loyal to the books is kinda OK in it's own right. Ustinov does manages to make his character likable , charming and overall memorable. Ustinov is definitely the best thing in those movies.Appearing here as Inspector Japp, David Suchet later played Hercule Poirot in the TV series Poirot (1989) and subsequent TV specials, including Poirot: Lord Edgware Dies (2000), another version of this story. It was strange to see Suchet as Japp and yet fun. His Japp is much more nasty version than the one from the TV series. Faye Dunaway doesn't have that much to play in her double role , but she definitely does good job.The rest of the cast is mediocre at the best. Jonathan Cecil who plays Hastings (Poirot friend) is incredibly annoying ( I mean both his acting and dumb look). The rest is rather forgettable.The original Christie novel is great and both simple and very sly whodunit. The movie follows the original plot faithfully. Unfortunately , the script plods a bit and delivery is not all it could be. The biggest problem are: updating the story from 30's to 80's. The motive makes sense in the conservative 30's , but not in the liberal 80's. And it's not really hard to figure out who the murderer is (not like in the book) ! The script is not altogether clear on some of Poirot's conclusions, or how he came to them. It's too bad , because this was one of Christie's best books.Director Lou Antonio directs the whole thing in a very bland , superficial way . There is no sense of joy here or tension here. It seems he wasn't really interested in this project. Too bad, because you obviously feel it while watching the movie. A great director said : "The only time I feel that I'm wasting my time while watching a movie is when I've feel that the movie makers didn't put there heart in it" . It's not an exact quote , but it sums up my feelings completely.There are some little things I liked here : the comedy is restricted , the film is shot on location around London , we see Poirot's apartment and we meet Japp. It can't really save this movie from being a failure , but at least it isn't a total failure. I give it 1/10.

iph-1 Unlike some reviewers here, and much as I admire Ustinov's talents and wit, I have never been convinced of him as the little Belgian, because decades ago I read all Dame Agatha's Poirot stories and Ustinov is too tall --- too big altogether --- and (although this will be down to the scripts plus the directors and designers of these movies) simply doesn't display the obsessive-compulsive, hyper-neat little man's character as his creator conceived and described him in print. Suchet does.When I saw Dead Man's Folly the overriding memory that I took away was of the supreme ineffectuality of Jonathan Cecil's Hastings. There is some of that here, but far less. This is occasionally Cecil's fault, but is chiefly that of the writer who gave him nothing coherent to do or say at times, so he seemed to be standing there in the scene simply waiting for the other actors to say their lines. Here, however, Hastings is given a bit more to say, although there are times when once again Cecil is all too obviously waiting for his cue to say his next line. Where he fails seriously in his acting is when he and Ustinov are alone and discussing the case, and Cecil never varies the bland "waiting for his next line" face and had I been the director I would have screamed at him "for goodness' sake, man, look astonished! How did Poirot come up with what he's just said?" or "Look worried! Look extremely alarmed, even! You've just been told this chap's life is in danger!" This is, I have to say, just fearfully weak acting from one who should be the number two regular part in this screen crime-busting team, but who in fact all too often is simply a bit of set dressing who seems to be a half-wit mostly unaware of the deadly crimes going on around him.

elani The one and only true Hercule Poirot is the one played by David Suchet. His mastery of the character is superb. Peter Ustinov does not have the finesse of the wonderful character written by Agatha Christie. I regard Peter Ustinov as a wonderful actor who has be horribly miscast in this role. David Suchet brings to life the impeccable taste, the fastidious demeanor, and idiosyncratic quirks of Mr. Poirot as written by Agatha Christie. To me, Hercule Poirot becomes so much more when being played by David Suchet, much like the portrayal of Jeremy Brett in the Sherlock Holmes series. Basil Rathbone may have been the first in the films, but Brett brings depth and character to the part.

blanche-2 I'll take my Ustinov as Poirot however I can get him.I happen to like Thirteen at Dinner. It's one of the smaller films as it was made for TV. You certainly can't compare it to the lavish "Murder on the Orient Express." And I frankly like it better than "Murder in Three Acts." I always love Ustinov as Poirot. One of the other comments said these characters are never how you picture them after reading the books. Interesting and true. The very popular Miss Marple of Margaret Rutherford had nothing to do with Miss Marple as she was written, and Ustinov has nothing to do with Poirot as written. I think David Suchet was perfect as Poirot as Christie wrote him, and I loved seeing him as Inspector Japp in this, but for a fun time, call 1-800-Ustinov! Because this is based on a Christie mystery, however poor the production values or the cast, the basic story is always interesting, as this was. Faye Dunaway is absolutely gorgeous in this movie in both her roles. And it did have a British flavor (which "Murder in Three Acts" absolutely did not.) I really don't understand giving this 1 star. Surely we've all seen worse.