Watch Appointment with Death For Free

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I am a huge fan of Agatha Christie books, movies and TV series. David Suchet is my #1 Hercule Poirot BUT Peter Ustinova was my First Hercule Poirot. I have no problems with any of the actors in this version of "Appointment with Death". The scenery is fantastic ... so what is the problem ? The story is totally muddled. The characters are numerous and it is not made clear who is who and who is related to who and why some of the people are even there. It's a MESS.On top of which, I noticed that all of the American characters are presented as loud, rude, crude and pretty obnoxious.After the delights of "Murder on the Orient Express" this was a major disappointment and not recommended.EDIT: The problem might be the story as the Suchet version on PBS was similarly unsatisfying.

Simply because the personality of the actors and actresses are world-renown and well-regarded, it does not automatically spell out a good film. Instead, I find this film awkward, unrealistic, with embarrassing results in both acting and directing. While "Murder On The Orient Express" being first-rate, "Death On The Nile" being grossly entertaining, "Evil Under The Sun" and "The Mirror Crack'd" highly skillfully-told and adapted, this film becomes much too embarrassing to be included in that prestigious list. This is, I believe, a Michael Winner's work in his declining years. His eyesight must have been poorer, and his patience of getting one right take must have been paler. So many scenes are way too superficial, half-cooked, and simply unsatisfactory. The emotions portrayed are unsteady, wavering, and miss-matched. Piper Laurie as Emily Boynton is superior than others, but still much in the mud. Peter Ustinov, with his usual skilled self, is not in any way damaged, but even his performance has failed to rescue the film. The great John Gielgud is too old to even walk properly. Lauren Bacall's star aura is completely wasted. Same as David Soul and Carrie Fisher, who are not bad actors at all in other films. This Agatha Christie's adaptation is neither exciting nor grabbing. The solution at the end fails to give any impression. Even the music score is misplaced and damaging to the mood of the film. In short, it is a complete failure as an adaptation of a world-famous novel, and a major blemish to the otherwise splendid career of Mr. Winner.

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.

I've read some of her novels plus watching a lot of movies based on her work, so nearly every time I have this problem : discovering the killer refers to a clue which never speaks to the audience's intelligence however refers back to a plot that all the audience know totally nothing about !! That's not cleverness inasmuch as a claim of cleverness from the big famous writer ! So her mysterious novels/movies are "surprising" us with the nonexistence of any suspension around the actual killer in the first place all along. From my point of view that's –with repeating it many times - such an insult for the audience's intelligence. Expressly this tactic of (Christie) manages to not challenge the capacity of any viewer's mind but to play the silly game of having unseen part all the time like playing chess and having an extra hidden king already !! Here the littleness of the attractive elements (except Pino Donaggio's music) allowed that to be more than visible and too perceptible than ever. The irony became so weak when the writer made you not to doubt about the foolish alleged (Lauren Bacall), but it would be stronger to put her into the list of the doubtful people and make her history questionable to be refused by the ordinary viewer then take that viewer unawares by unmasking that she did it, I think that would've been better than showing its character outside the frame then bringing her as the killer by a clue which's out of the frame too ! As if the rule in (Christie)'s works is : it's not the last one you'll think of, it's the last one you'll never think of ! True that I respect every artistic technique and the freedom of any writer to select the one to use but still that "technique" is the problem with (Christie), or maybe her secret of success ?