Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Whitech It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Abedsbrother So, lately, I've been conducting a Hercule Poirot retrospective of sorts. Today I saw the 1985 film Thirteen At Dinner (based on the book of the same name). This is the fourth Poirot I have seen featuring Peter Ustinov as the Belgian detective. To many (myself included), David Suchet IS Poirot. Yet there is something Ustinov's Poirot has that Suchet's lacks: charm. Ustinov is funny and subtly charismatic - I can completely understand how the detective would be successful at interrogation. He does not always need to employ threats to receive his answers. A simple smile or an understanding observation can frequently invite the confidence of a suspect. Thirteen at Dinner I rank as the second best of the Ustinov Poirot films, behind only Death on the Nile. The attempt to modernize the story-line was very well done. Usually an attempt to modernize appears hackneyed and awkward. Rod Browning's teleplay flows well, allowing for the retention of most of the original clues, and the direction achieves a sense of suspense in the final denouement. The supporting cast was good too, with a minor but important turn by Bill Nighy. Faye Dunaway is beautiful and effective in just about all her scenes; without her I do no think the picture would work, as she takes what could be very vapid lines and manages to make an effective character out of them. Also impressive is a much younger David Suchet as Inspector Japp. There are a few shortcomings. Given Dunaway's acting abilities, I had hoped for more scenes with her. The movie was made for TV, so there are a few annoying breaks in the action for commercial slots. Hastings (played by Jonathan Cecil) is an almost invisible caricature of the devoted friend who documents the case. (This not Cecil's fault, who injects an element of dry English wit into the proceedings on occasion). And, finally, there are the usual problems I have found in translating Agatha Christie to the big screen. The largest issue is usually that her books follow the problems and events that occur when as many as a dozen people are in one locale for a period of time (nearly always involving murder). Many-threaded narratives such as these tend to be clumsy and fragmented when transferred to a visual medium. Happily, the resulting choppiness is minimized in Thirteen at Dinner. While a trifle long and slow, it is a quality production in which good acting takes the film much farther than the quality of its lines.

Iain-215 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.

Elswet 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 :.

blanche-2 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.