the audience applauded

Just perfect...

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

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.

I do much prefer Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun, but this is still enjoyable, adapted from the brilliant book Lord Edgeware Dies. Considering it was made for TV, it is glossily made, with some nice camera-work and lovely period detail, and is entertaining. Of course it isn't completely faithful to the book, the final solution scene while a very nice touch is a departure from the book. The script is fine, and so is the acting. Peter Ustinov, while bearing little resemblance in terms of looks to his novelistic counterpart, is thoroughly entertaining as Poirot, and is clearly enjoying himself. Faye Dunnaway is highly commendable in the duel roles of Jane Wilkinson and Carlotta Adams, and David Suchet(the present Poirot, who is actually truer to the Poirot in the books) is impressive as Japp. Bill Nighy is fairly good as Ronald, though he has done better work since. All in all, very good made for TV whodunit, not as good as Death on the Nile, but an improvement on Appointment With Death, which I still think is the weakest of the Ustinov outings. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Great mystery novelist Agatha Christie would probably have been rather disappointed in this barely above average 'made for TV' treatment of her murder-mystery, "13 At Dinner". Lou Antonio directs this relatively routine whodunit which holds very few shocks or surprises. The material is handled poorly by our director, who gives the production a very bland, superficial once-over, perhaps because he felt it was not worthy of more. Thank goodness for veteran actor Peter Ustinov, who, along with the script's sharp sense of humour, saves the entire film.Unfortunately the whole cast are extremely mediocre outside of Ustinov. Faye Dunaway manages to both underplay and overplay her movie star heiress, Lee Horsley makes a rather drippy sidekick and David Suchet is an ordinary Scotland Yard Inspector (he would later assume the role of Poirot). Of course the part of Hercule Poirot is played by Mr Ustinov this time, and he creates Agatha Christie' great Belgian detective with real style and assuredness. He obviously thoroughly enjoys the character, always making the most of his dry wit and his brilliant acumen."13 At Dinner" does manage to be interesting enough to hold your attention to the very end, even though it won't take any genius to unravel the plot, which gives itself away early on. Most fans will see it through just to see what happens, if only to confirm their own deductions. Too bad the script is not altogether clear on some of Poirot's conclusions, or how he came to them.Sunday, July 30, 1995 - Video

We were saddened to see an excellent Agatha Christie story ruined by such bad direction and acting. David Suchet as Inspector Japp was the only nice touch. In fact whenever he was on screen he stole the show. Peter Ustinov was good, but all the overacting around him actually diminished him. Faye Dunaway and the rest of the cast overacted. I guess they were trying to parody the English impression of boisterous Hollywood types (maybe they are right for that). And why portray Hastings as such a pitiful fop. The bad tone was set in the first 5 minutes with the David Frost interview and character interaction. If we had known the whole movie was going to continue on such a bad trend we would have stopped it.