Thirteen at Dinner

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.

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 :.

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.

"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.

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.