Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

TheLittleSongbird 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

bkoganbing 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.

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.

gcd70 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