Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Sexylocher Masterful Movie

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

zaffarumair this was a good film with Ustinov doing his first made for TV Poirot. it was not as good as death on the nile or evil under the sun but was greatly enhanced with Ustinov's presence. Jonathan Cecil gives a poor performance as hastings and the presence of American actors cheapens the value of the film. according to ustinov's biography by Jon Miller, Faye Dunaway was a pain in the neck to work with and ustinov was losing patience during filming during the night scene by the river where he is walking with hastings. the story is fairly good but outcome is predictable and the final scene in albert hall is solid. good viewing for a rainy Sunday afternoon, i also recommend dead man's folly but do not recommend murder in three acts which is Ustinov's worst outing as poirot. David Suchet plays japp and i prefer Ustinov as Poirot to suchet. There is a goof in the last scene in the albert hall where poirot refers to sir montague as "Lord Montague" which is a mistake, it should be sir Montague.

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.

gridoon2018 ....David Suchet's 2000 version of the same story, "Lord Edgeware Dies", is even better. That makes the score Ustinov-Suchet 1-1, since I preferred Ustinov's version of "Evil Under the Sun". I guess I could use "Death on the Nile" as the tiebreaker, but the 1978 film is one of my long-time favorites, and I don't really feel the need to see another version. Anyway, back to "Thirteen at Dinner". There are 2 main reasons why this is better than "Dead Man's Folly" and "Murder in Three Acts": the comedy is more restrained, and the film is shot on location around London; in fact, it's pretty close in flavor (apart from the updating to the 80's, of course) to the Suchet series - we see Poirot in his apartment, Hastings reading his newspaper, and of course Suchet himself appears as Inspector Japp. However, the story (one of Agatha Christie's most brilliantly simple ones) is not as well-illustrated here as it is in the Suchet version: without going into too many details, I'll only say that in the 2000 film we SEE what happens during the night of Lord Edgeware's murder, so when it is revealed at the end what REALLY happened, it comes as more of a shock. In this film, Japp simply comes to Poirot's apartment in the morning and announces the murder, and we only see the events of the night at the end, narrated by Poirot. Faye Dunaway might be a little better than Helen Grace (who was also very good) as Jane Wilkinson, and the fact that she also plays Carlotta Adams certainly makes the "impersonation" part of the plot more believable, but for someone who is second-billed she doesn't really have THAT much screen time, unlike Grace who almost dominated her picture. As for Jonathan Cecil's Hastings, he is just about acceptable this time. (**1/2)

suze-4 For a TV movie this is surprisingly well done. Many twists and turns in the plot. Good characterizations by all the players.I disagree with the negative comments here. The movie held my attention throughout and was a delight to watch. Faye Dunaway's portrayal of the dual roles was over the top but that was the nature of the two women she played. The actress Jane Wilkinson is clearly based on some of the mannerisms of Marilyn Monroe and Faye does this convincingly.I didn't initially think Peter Ustinov would make a good Poirot, but he captures the detective's droll and determined persona and is quite convincing.I wish they would make more movies like this. Though Peter and Faye are clearly the lead actors in it, there's an ensemble cast that works together to lead us on a merry chase of suspects. The locations are magnificent. All in all this is definitely worth watching even if it lacks the big budget of the ones Ustinov made for theatrical release.