Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Cristi_Ciopron The cast was good: Ustinov, Gielgud, Lauren Bacall, Carrie Fisher, Piper Laurie as the matriarch Boynton. Jenny Seagrove overacts annoyingly and should be counted among the least professional players here. I thought David Soul made a good role as Jefferson, he reminded me of Widmark. And it was heartrending and very unlikely to see Poirot quoting Gide.I believe neither Cannon nor the director had a knack for this kind of puzzle plot, or for the social satire of a bygone foreign world. This wasn't something they could master.The movie seemed to me devoid of excitement. While Gielgud was decorative (as much as he could afford …), the other oldsters have been subverted by the director's silly storytelling. Carrie F. delivers the only convincing performance, and here, as a passionate woman, she looked well in a Mimi Rogers way; usually, in these adaptations, the romance is indigestible, but here the passionate lady was believable.The two breakdown meetings orchestrated by Poirot are undermined by the silly behavior of the suspects, who hug affectionately when reassured, etc., in a carefree joyful atmosphere; the phony confessions are annoying.A mediocre movie, with uninspired direction and uninteresting characters, very unlike the literature it rips off. These strong, thoughtful stories would need equally strong directors, and this is why so many masterpieces of popular literature become mediocre movies. But such movies also give an idea of what most consumers do perceive. The movie makers represent a slice of the audience; many in the audience do not care for what is missing, the movie is faithful to what they understand, this is how much they get, and they are pleased with the movie.It was made in '88 by Cannon.

Maziun This is the sixth and final time Peter Ustinov played Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot. It's also the third theatrical release Ustinov made after three horrible TV movies. While "Appointment with death" is better than those TV movies it is still unfortunately a rather bad movie.This is a Golan-Globus production and surprisingly this movie actually has decent production values and cast. They did put some money in it – the movie was shot on location in England , Italy and Israel , we have period costumes , vehicles etc. The movie maybe didn't have huge budget , but at least it feels like a theatrical release. Pino Donaggio score is adequate to what is happening on the screen . It's nothing brilliant , but it doesn't have an 80's feel to it like some have complained."Appointment with death" is not really strongest of Agatha Christie books. The book is notable mainly for the character of Mrs. Boyton and the strange psychological bound she has over her family. The plot is otherwise boring. I think that the writer Anthony Shaffer ("Sleuth") knew that and added few things from himself to the story which was a good idea.The problem with translating Christie's books is that they aren't very cinematic – they involve a lot of talking , psychology , they don't have action (fights , chases ) . It would take a REALLY talented director and actors to make a this kind of story to work. A perfect example is Sidney Lumet's "Murder on the orient express" . Great cast , sharp screenplay and solid direction make it work. In other hands it could be boring and cheesy B-movie."Appointment with death" suffers from many things. Mrs. Boynton isn't scary or fascinating like in the novel , she is just nasty. Piper Laurie ("Children of lesser God") is not bad , but her character is rather annoying and terribly one dimensional. Because of that we don't feel the psychological tension between the Boyton family members. In that way the movie misses completely the point of the book.The other problem are the bland characters. Only Poirot , Mrs. Boyton and Lady Welstholm are interesting . Others are boring and also rather badly acted. John Gielgud ("Arthur") is wasted as his role is small and rather pointless. Lauren Bacall ("To have or have not") is good and Ustinov offers a typical for him performance as Poirot. Carrie Fisher ("Star wars") plays one of the Boytons and can't do much with such badly written role. The Boytons are so empty and completely interchangeable , it's hard to tell one from another.The direction from Michael Winner ("Death wish") is shapeless . There are many pointless gigantic close ups or completely weird camera angles. The movie has no suspense and is delivered in too slow fashion. The screenplay doesn't rely seem to hold on the viewer's interest. The idea of dividing Poirot's final summation into two separate sequences serves no other purpose than to bide some time. The mystery is just not strong enough. It is difficult to care much about who it is committed the murder. There also seem to be too many plot contrivances here.In the end it's a rather dull movie , that probably won't satisfy even the die-hard Christie fans. Better watch "Murder on the Orient Express" , "Death on the Nile" or "Evil under the sun". This movie is a step up from those horrible TV movies , but nothing more than that. It's a sad farewell for Ustinov. I give it 3/10.

mark.waltz You thought Piper Laurie was nasty as Carrie's mother? Wait until you meet her character of Emily Boynton, the nastiest of all wicked stepmothers. A former prison warden, she runs her home as the wealthy widow as if it were Riker's Island, keeping tabs on each of her stepchildren to the point that they wish her dead, unaware that it was her manipulations that left them to wait for her death rather than share in the estate of her late father. Determined to keep tabs on them, she "suggests" a European vacation followed by a trip to the Holy Land, and there, some very unholy activities lead to murder, and a most predictable conclusion.Peter Ustinov is back as Hercule Poirot, and if his trips to the Nile and the Adriatic Sea weren't enough to warn people to watch what they say when he's a mile within vicinity, nothing is. Lauren Bacall plays an American widow of a British nobleman who somehow became a member of the British Parliament, with Hayley Mills as an aspiring archaeologist and Jenny Seagrove as a doctor who has several run-ins with the obnoxious Laurie. Her character is a bit hard to take, seemingly directed to overact in every scene she's in. Carrie Fisher, John Gielgud and David Soul are other familiar faces among some relatively unknown actors as the unfortunate step-children. The highlight of the film is Ustinov's revelation of the killer as the culprit watches from afar, their feeling of doom and self-destruction erupting into making you actually feel sorry for them.

selffamily A splendid cast, a brilliant original author and stunning scenery. What could go wrong? Well just about everything. Too many characters - some of them merged into each other for me, as not enough distinction in personality - and too long. Peter Ustinov, a lovely man, seemed to have his accents askew: at times sounding more German than Belgian. The whole thing seemed very amateurish which is astonishing given the credits. It simply didn't work. Perhaps it's a time thing, although I normally enjoy older movies, but having seen the polished and efficient David Suchet as Poirot, Ustinov looks like a cuddly old uncle in comparison, and that was not Poirot. Total waste of John Geilgud, and Hayley Mills just seemed colourless. None of them were realistic. At the end of the day, it was just boring.