Thirteen at Dinner (1985 TV Movie) User Reviews

Well done made-for-TV adaptation of Poirot

[Chris-268 · 7/10 · 15 July 2000]

"Thirteen at Dinner" is good, solid entertainment. I recently watched it on video, and apart from the obvious, dramatic commercial pauses, it was hard to tell I was watching a made-for-TV movie. Ustinov is my favorite Poirot, and he is his usual, boisterous self in this adaptation. I love David Suchet as well, and I was delighted to see him in the role of Inspector Japp. Is there a better voice actor than Suchet? If one were to listen to this movie with closed eyes, it would be very hard to tell that Japp was being played by Suchet, so convincing is his accent and manner of speech.

This production has a very British feel to it, but apparently it was an American venture. Surprising! Also, I had a bad feeling when I saw the opening scene- Poirot appearing on the David Frost talk show! But the filmakers and screenwriters did an excellent job of taking a novel written in the '30s and adapting it to the mid-'80s. They followed Christie's original plot faithfully, keeping all the essential elements which make it such a good whodunnit. It would have been nice to see a different actress play the part of Carlotta Adams (Faye Dunaway plays both her and Jane Wilkinson.) She did a commendable job though, as did the other supporting actors. I thought the interplay between Ustinov and Johnathan Cecil (who played Hastings) was hilarious. And I really wish that Ustinov had made more Poirot movies! Oh well. Check out "Death on the Nile" for another of Ustinov's best Poirot efforts. Hard core fans will want to see "Appointment With Death" as well, but that film ranks at the bottom of my Poirot list.

Highly entertaining version of a good Agatha Christie story...

[Doylenf · 7/10 · 25 February 2010]

I don't understand the negative vibes this one created by previous reviewers. THIRTEEN AT DINNER is an entertaining version of the Christie story with FAYE DUNAWAY enjoying herself in the dual role of a movie star obsessed with her own image, as well as a female impersonator who delights in amusing people with her look-alike job of mimicking the star. Her poses remind one of Marilyn Monroe.

PETER USTINOV is fine as Poirot and David SUCHET is equally impressive as Inspector Japp, almost making you forget he went on to play Hercule for the British TV series. LEE HORSLEY has little to do but strut around as a not too bright movie star who never performs his own stunts and he does it well.

Production values are good enough without being overly lavish, so I see no need to criticize them. Updating the story doesn't hurt as much as the updating with computer nonsense for one of Christie's best stories, MURDER IS EASY ('82) which was hurt by the modernization done by Carmen Culver on the script and putting American Bill Bixby in the lead.

Poirot's explanation for the crime makes sense and we actually see how it was done in a useful flashback at the end of the story.

For Christie fans, a good Hercule Poirot story brought to life by a talented cast.

I have to say I didn't mind it.

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 11 September 2005]

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.

Better than Most, Though More Obscure

[FiendishDramaturgy · 7/10 · 8 December 2007]

I prefer my Poirot to be portrayed by Ustinov, and although this is more obscure than most, it IS better than some. No, it isn't lavish, and they did not spend a fortune on the production, but it is not the worst of the crop.

Faye Dunaway co-stars, along with Lee Horseley, and a (very) young Bill Nighy, directed by Lou Antonio (long-time television director) and dominated by the lovely Ustinov. Made for TV, not rated, but highly enjoyable who dunnit, which posed an interesting conundrum as the principle quandary.

All in all, I found it highly entertaining, and perfect as a Sunday afternoon diversion, though I'd watch Ustinov as Poirot anytime.

It rates a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

underrated gem

[suze-4 · 7/10 · 8 December 2007]

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.

Better than some by this team

[iph-1 · 7/10 · 7 June 2007]

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.

Not the best of the Peter Ustinov Poirot outings but still enjoyable

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 5 September 2009]

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

Suchet Sachet

[tedg · 29 October 2009]

A new batch of old TeeVee Christie adaptations have become available on DVD. I've been marching through them valiantly, looking for anything of value. Here it is. This one is good.

The story on which it is based is one of Christie's more interesting experiments in playing with the mystery form: moving the narrative structure from one untrusted device to another. These sorts of narrative folds are challenging for filmmakers, which is why I movie versions of Agatha sleight of hand.

Here, the adapters did something clever in changing the whole focus of the story from the dinner in question to the surrounding lives of the actors (and the aristocrats, same thing). If you ignore the generally cheesy production values, you'll be faced with one of the best Christie film adaptations I know.

But the real gem is Ustinov's Poirot. Now I know I am in the minority here, but I find his Poirot the most satisfying. Its a tricky thing, making these evaluations, but the reason why has to do with his relationship to the process of discovery. With Marple, the process is a matter of already knowing what needs to be known about why things occur. All she has to do is match the circumstances she finds with what patterns she has stored.

Poirot is a different sort. He is engaged in a genuine battle with evil, an obsession which he camouflages as a way to address boredom. His method is closer to the Sherlock model, reasoning from cause; following paths and possibilities. When you travel with a real Poirot, you are always living in the future, many speculative futures mapped onto data from the past to extend cause. So the second murder in a Poirot mystery is always preventable, but for his openness to too many possibilities. He then punishes himself, resulting in his most characteristic personality traits.

TeeVee has taken the detective in a different direction. The engagement in the mystery is simply to present a series of baffling scenes and then explain them at the end. Along the way, you have to be, well, "entertained." So they create characters to do so. In the books, the humor was laid on top of the detective spine. Its because though Christie was a great plot designer, she was poor when it came to wordsmithery. She made up for this by creating engaging characters. The formula is reversed in TeeVee. That's why you have Suchet's Poirot, and Brett's Holmes. Their twitching and poking makes them amusing regardless of what happens around them. Ustinov creates a Poirot more in the spirit of one engaged with the narrative, and inspired by the drive to deduce.

The bonus here is that his foil is on screen, Inspector Japp. Japp plays a different role in the detection than Holmes' Lestrade. He is competent, but limited in the ability to live in the future. He is, in fact, a junior Poirot. Here he is played by the very David Suchet who would become the much admired Poirot in a later series. His mannerisms are apparent here and distracting.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Kind of average!

[Iain-215 · 5/10 · 15 July 2008]

This adaptation of 'Lord Edgware Dies' takes Agatha Christie and Hercule Poirot into the eighties. Christie can survive updating but I'm not sure that Poirot can. He seems uncomfortable taken out of his period and set down again so much later. It is odd to see him on a TV chat show and in conversation with Lee Horsely's American actor character ('love you') but perhaps this is also because the last time I saw this version of Poirot he was firmly in period, in the thirties in 'Evil Under The Sun'. The time shift is disconcerting and the character is still most at home in the country mansions of the English aristocracy and the Gothic townhouse of the victim.

Updating also affects (slightly) the motive for the murders. The motive would have been very powerful in the conservative thirties but not so much in the liberated eighties and there is some confusion over the method - the all important spectacles seem to have little real use or value here. On the whole though, Christie's original plot is followed quite closely but the script plods a bit and delivery is not all it could be - even Ustinov is given to rambling and add-libbing from time to time.

The cast varies from mediocre (Diane Keen, Horsley) to really quite good (Dunaway, Pays and Nighy) and there is a rather wet and dismal portrayal of Hastings from Jonathan Cecil. It is interesting to see David Suchet as Japp. I wanted to like this more than I did but for me the later Suchet version is much preferable with a much stronger cast (even Dunaway is outdone by Helen Grace) and, as always with these versions, perfect period detail.

Great cast, good screenplay, but - lack of atmosphere...

[binapiraeus · 7/10 · 8 November 2014]

Since Peter Ustinov had gained such a huge popularity playing Hercule Poirot in two great movie masterpieces, "Death on the Nile" and "Evil Under the Sun", US TV producers decided to start a series of TV movies starring him as Agatha Christie's great Belgian detective. The first one was "Thirteen at Dinner", an adaptation of one of Christie's most successful books, "Lord Edgware Dies" - and the recipe seemed perfect for a big audience success; which it actually was. Ustinov once again delivers his very own, distinctive and lovable performance of 'his' Poirot, Faye Dunaway gives a great performance in a double role, and the third 'big name' in the cast, Lee Horsley, very popular at the time among the young viewers, is an additional attraction; and the script is remarkably close to Christie's novel - the only thing missing is... any trace of a period atmosphere...

"Lord Edgware Dies" had been written in 1933 - and yet, the clothes, hairstyles, interiors (except for those of the old British manors), and even cars here are 'purely' 80s. Now, whether that choice was made for the sake of the audience or for saving extra production expenses is a mystery; fact is that it considerably weakens the artistic value of the otherwise very suspenseful and entertaining film. Alright, being a lifelong Agatha Christie fanatic, and inevitably comparing this adaptation to others, I may be a bit preoccupied; especially a young audience will certainly enjoy the movie just as it is - a well-done, highly entertaining murder mystery, with Peter Ustinov at his very best as always.

And by the way: Chief Inspector Japp, who's as always one or more steps behind Poirot in the procedure of solving the crime, is played by - David Suchet, who only a few years later would become THE perfect Hercule Poirot in the long-running, extremely successful and very authentic 30s' style British TV series!

Changing Mores

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 5 August 2008]

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.

Ustinov is highly entertaining as Poirot

[solar12 · 10/10 · 18 October 2006]

Peter Ustinov is an absolute joy to behold in the role of Hercule Poirot. He played Poirot in three theatrical films: Death On the Nile, Evil Under the Sun, and Appointment With Death. He also played Poirot in three TV movies: Thirteen At Dinner, Murder in Three Acts, and Dead Man's Folly. It's always a delight to spend time with Ustinov's Poirot. He's so much fun! The three Poirot TV movies starring Ustinov are now available in a three DVD set. I've had a great time watching these with friends and family and all of Ustinov's Poirot movies are worth watching and re-watching. My deep affection for Ustinov's Poirot grows with each viewing. He's brilliant and each of his Poirot movies are fantastic fun.

Hercule Poirot on TV is still amusing !!!

[elo-equipamentos · 7/10 · 16 June 2019]

Who already watched the fantastic detective Hercule Poirot on those majestic productions to big screen stay a little bit disappointed when see it, made for TV Poirot lost a lot, but still have the great Peter Ustinov's charming presence, in this small picture, we have an intriguing story of murder of course, the formula is the same, spreading all clues all around to confuse and mislead the audience, taking them a wrong early conclusion, in this picture the cast apart Ustinov are pretty good, Fay Dunaway still beauty and skinny too, as expect she fells a great divine actress, David Suchet who will be in the future the next Poirot shines as Inspector Japp who always was in wrong direction of the investigation, and Jonathan Cecil as Hasting, a partner of the our hero, he is a typical English gentlemen, affable, sometimes smirking, enough good for Agatha Christie's story!!!

Resume:

First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7

This Is All Wrong!

[teegeyoung · 2/10 · 10 February 2008]

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.

Okay adaption

[Movie_Man 500 · 6 January 2002]

As usual, when an Agatha Christie book is transferred to the screen, it loses something. And here, the story moved too fast to be caught up in it. In the novel, Poirot was confounded and almost couldn't solve the case; here he solves it as fast as snapping his fingers... You can't fault the actors, who give it a gung ho try. Faye Dunaway is great and Ustinov makes a very hilarious Hercule, but again, the character development Christie wrote so well is missing. The producers seem to think only plot will suffice. However, the film does look nice so it's not a total bust. (Murder on the Orient Express still hasn't been topped for all time best Christie adaption. And no one has come close to besting Albert Finney as H.P.) Side note: David Suchet as Inspector Japp is a nice bit of pre-Hercule trivia.

The best of Peter Ustinov's made-for-TV Poirot movies, but....

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 5 June 2008]

....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)

nice adaptation but..

[awblundell · 6/10 · 19 June 2002]

Nice adaptation of a typical Agatha Christie novel complete with hatfuls of obscure clues, red herrings, guilty secrets, and suspects with enough motives to kill the poor victim a dozen times over. The original novel, by the way, was called 'Lord Edgeware Dies' I'm not sure why the name change was needed. It's not an improvement.

The updating to a modern setting worked well up to a point - the opening talk show scene was an amusing addition, but the period setting is for me part of the charm, and the cosy relationship with the police that Poirot enjoys seemed less believable than it would have in it's original time.

The trouble with screen adaptations of characters like Poirot is that they are never quite how you imagined them. For me, neither Peter Ustinov as Poirot nor Jonathan Cecil as Hastings were at all right for the part. It is ironic that David Suchet who later established himself as the ultimate Poirot played Inspector Japp.

You do not want to be number thirteen

[Bernie4444 · 6/10 · 27 February 2023]

This movie was not made or intended to be one of those beautiful epics with dazzling color and widescreen. It is a made-for-TV movie. It does follow the book closely. The few variations were probably due to time constraints in getting the information out. I have to admit I also was about to press the fast-forward button. I do not think they will ever try to put Poirot in the '80s again. What you missed was David Suchet playing Inspector Japp with the worst English accent I ever heard. So, what is his real voice? And Faye Dunaway did not dominate every scene. Colonel Hastings (Jonathan Cecil) was too pansy to be in any army I know. Still, it had its moments; like when Hercule turned to Japp and said: "Get used to the fact that wherever you go, it is on our way." And by the end of the movie, you get over the initial shocks and can enjoy it for itself.

Enjoyable Poirot with Dunaway in two roles

[tabacblond · 7/10 · 12 September 2021]

Review - THIRTEEN AT DINNER (1985)

Adapted from Agatha Christie's novel, LORD EDGEWARE DIES, this made for tv production was one of three Peter Ustinov starred in as Hercule Poirot. He also appeared in three theatrically released Poirot films.

The strong point in this one is Faye Dunaway, playing two roles. Even if you had never read the book or seen the film before, you could probably guess the plot as soon as it starts. Whenever you are going to cast a star for a murder film, nine times out of then, the role they want is that of the murderer. This spoils most murder mysteries for me, especially if I have not read the book it is adapted from. Even in an all-star film, it is usually the highest paid actor or actress who is getting the plum role of the murderer.

THIRTEEN AT DINNER is also notable for the fact that David Suchet, who would go on to film every Christie novel and short story, plays Inspector Japp. Much fun to watch him play a character whose obtuseness annoys the Suchet Poirot.

This moves along swiftly at a brief 87 minutes. Ustinov reveals both utmost charm and utmost anger and contempt in his portrayal and it is for me one of his very finest Poirots. One of the most puzzling moments in the plot occurs when Lord Edgeware is approached by Poirot as a favor to the Dunaway character, Wilkinson/Adams, to request a divorce and Poirot is told that he does not contest her wish for a divorce. Why then would she have sent Poirot to effect something that is already hers?

Ah, well, enjoy. Nothing like a Christie plot with Poirot at the helm.

Doesn't compare favourably to Suchet's version.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 5/10 · 6 May 2019]

First of all, I am a big fan of Ustinov, his appearance in Death on the Nile, and Evil under the Sun, terrific, sadly this one is a somewhat tacky affair. To start with, why has the time setting changed? Death on the Nile was a sumptuous historical extravaganza, this is a 1980's set mess, with Poirot appearing on TV, it's as far away from what Christie penned as possible.

Ustinov delightful as always, I liked Faye Dunaway, but the main problem was the character of Brian Martin, he is just ghastly, totally over the top, and those action sequences, just cheapen the whole movie.

What truly rubbed salt into the wound, was the appearance of the legendary David Suchet, as Japp, the very idea.

It's watchable enough, but compared to Lord Edgeware dies, it really does miss the mark. 5/10

Certainly not the best Poirot....maybe the worst

[leefaust · 2/10 · 1 September 2007]

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.

Charming adaption

[robertemerald · 8/10 · 20 September 2019]

This is a very well designed movie, with appropriate attention to locations and sets, marvellous costumes and an impressive cast, almost all of whom could charm even without the help of Agatha Christie anyway. The plot is diabolical of course, and easily worth the admission just on its own.

Very few shocks or surprises

[gcd70 · 5/10 · 21 February 2008]

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

good film

[zaffarumair · 22 November 2011]

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.

The worst Poirot film ever

[jamesbernthal · 3/10 · 29 December 2003]

The real mystery here is how Lou Antonio managed to get such a great Agatha Christie film and break it down to ruins so completely. It's set in 1985, Poirot goes on TV(?! I don't think the late dame Agatha would ever have done that), and Peter Ustinov keeps getting the lines hopelessly wrong. The mystery aspect is pretty much taken care of instantly, when the murderer says something, a young man goes "hmm... that's a clue", the murderer looks at the man suspiciously, then the next minute the man is dead, to help you solve it just in case you didn't see the murderer leaving the scene of the crime. If all American TV is like this, I'm glad I live in England. In fact, the only thing this film is good for is the introduction of David Suchet (playing Inspector Japp) to the world of Poirot. If the producers of the LWT series hadn't spotted him, we might have Peter Sallis playing Poirot every Sunday!