Libramedi Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

quim-scd When I saw this movie for the first time I thought it had a strange feel to it, mainly due to being adapted to the eighties. Hercule Poirot is one of those characters who only seem to make sense in the 20's and 30's. I also felt the American tone given to it to be slightly inadequate. Yet a few classical elements still made it quite enjoyable and not least Ustinov's performance. Do you know that feeling of a particular actor being "the" character and not just playing it? Well, Ustinov is Poirot while, for instance, David Suchet merely plays it (which doesn't mean I dislike him as Poirot). In fact, all his Poirot movies (6 in total) are worth watching mainly because of him. Forget about the exaggerated Albert Finney, in guise as well as in acting, or the bland Suchet and his ridiculous walk. Ustinov portrays an affable yet shrewd man who gets his way through a good spirited disposition and remarkable ability to lead people into believing he can be manipulated. He, then, takes advantage of that feeling to dig in and find, through what is shown to him, that which is amiss. As for other actors I think Faye Dunaway is quite good if somewhat extravagant and Jonathan Cecil almost makes it by doing a slightly soberer Hastings than in subsequent films, "Dead Man's Folly" and "Murder in Three Acts", where he eventually lost his grip on the character by slipping into shear silliness. The plot is a progressive one, intensifying in suspense, all throughout, until Poirot's final disclosure. There are some cheesy bits such as Jake Slago's movie making or some of the music that doesn't sound appropriate to creating the right ambiance (I wonder why CBS won't remake the soundtrack, so as to improve the final result). All in all it still is a "must have" for Poirot fans, with the added curiosity of David Suchet's appearance as inspector Japp. 10 out of 10 may seem too much, but it comes as a tribute to Ustinov's wonderful acting.

bkoganbing Agatha Christie's ageless Hercule Poirot once again stylishly portrayed by Peter Ustinov makes his television debut in Thirteen for Dinner. The famous Belgian sleuth is a guest on the David Frost Show with a pair of celebrities, Lee Horsley and Faye Dunaway who will shortly figure prominently in his next case.Although Ustinov is flawless as ever, the updating of the story from the time of Stanley Baldwin to the time of Margaret Thatcher makes the plot rather silly. Without giving anything away, let me say that what would have made sense for a motive in 1935 looks kind of ridiculous in 1985 given changing mores.The presence of David Suchet who played Hercule Poirot on the BBC in many adaptations of Agatha Christie as Inspector Japp in this film also gives it some interest. The scenes with Poirot and Suchet are good and Suchet is so good an actor you barely recognize him.Some Christie stories can be successfully updated. But sad to say Thirteen at Dinner is not one of them.

teegeyoung Let me preface this by saying that I love all things Poirot. I love the books, I love the movies, I love the TV series, and I even love the video games. Peter Ustinov is my second favorite Poirot (Suchet is numero uno) but Ustinov was my first love. "Death on the Nile" is easily one of my top 10 favorite movies and so I thought I would at least like, if not love, this film....... OK now onto this movie. Right of the bat I have a problem with this film and that is that it's set in 1985. Let me repeat this because it's a HUGE issue. The producers decided to film this movie as though it were current day (1985 is when it was shot). While to new fans of Poirot this won't be an issue, to the rest of us it doesn't make any sense. Peter Ustinov played Poirot in "Death on the Evil" when it was set in 1937 now we're supposed to just go along with the same character not only being alive in 1985 but essentially being only 10 years or so older?? OK... even if you can get over the time period issue, you can not get over the acting and overall feel on this film. Ustinov's Poirot in this film is a far cry from the earlier films and seems as though he just sort of coasted through the performance. The rest of the cast (Dunaway and others) seem as though they are just there collecting a check so I never became involved with the whole "whodunit" part of the story.If you really love Poirot and are interested in this story, be sure to track down David Suchet's TV version of this with "Lord Edgeware Dies"... you can me later for the recommendation.PS: David Suchet as Japp was awkward and yet fun.

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.