Watch Dead Man's Folly For Free

Thanks for the memories!

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I'm slowly working my way through every instance of Christie's Poirot that I can find on film. I've seen Suchet, Ustinov, Randall, Holm, Molina, even the silly versions in a John Cleese film and a skit in a British 1980's sketch comedy. But this film with its over-the-top, melodramatic performances is the worst Poirot film I've ever seen. I rate it even lower than Tony Randall playing Poirot in the 1960's "Alphabet Murders." But understand. It isn't Ustinov who made it bad. It was the direction. I swear a few times I could see Ustinov wince at the other actors performances thinking, "How did I get into this mess?!?!" All I could think while watching was that the actors were purposely doing a send-up of Poirot, yet they all seemed so earnest, that couldn't be it. I can only conclude it was the direction. These actors are better than this. Far better!!! The movie struck me as campy, except for Poirot. Even the amazing on location setting can't overcome the failures in the acting. The only thing this did was elevate so many of the other performances I've seen for Poirot. At,least after this, it is almost impossible for any other performance to be worse!

Thank God that at least ITV will soon remake this film with David Suchet-the REAL Poirot. Ustinov like always plays Poirot as the untidy, overweight and sloppy Columbo type character, and Clive Donner seems to be directing a comedy at times. The TV Poirots made with Ustinov are a bit more comedic (unlike the way Christie wrote them) than the cinema versions he appeared in. Unfortunately this film was made as a UK/US co-production and CBS TV was involved, hence the casting of Jean Stapleton-one of the worst performances ever-screaming hysterically at times and calling Poirot "Her-cu-lee." (Near the end of this film Ustinov says her instincts at times are "excessive and stupid," and later says to her "You irritate me."-like she irritates the viewer!!!).However in spite of these flaws, Dead Man's Folly has a good many things going for it-the filming in England at the stately home, a decent script, fine camera-work and editing, and very good performances by Constance Cummings, Tim Piggot-Smith, Susan Wooldridge, Kenneth Cranham, Nicolette Sheridan, and Jimmy Gardner in the smallish role of Old Murdell.

Of the three TV movies to feature Ustinov's Poirot in the eighties, this is easily the best in my opinion. There are three negatives to get out of the way first; firstly the action is updated to the eighties but this is not much of a problem in this film - 'Dead Man's Folly' is an English country house murder and once we have arrived at Nasse House we could almost be in any decade from the forties onwards. The only real intrusion from the eighties is the character of rock music promoter Eddie South (French playboy Etienne de Sousa in the novel). Secondly there is some quite broad comedy which is occasionally irritating - particularly the large group of amateur investigators scurrying around after the police with notebooks (why are Mrs Oliver and Amanda Brewis allowed to take part in the interviews?). Lastly there is the irredeemably wet and drippy portrayal of Hastings by Jonathan Cecil to be endured - but his role is not an especially important one thankfully! Happily there are also many positives. The setting for Nasse House and it's grounds is beautiful and the film is generally well shot. Ustinov himself seems happier and more natural in this movie than he was in 'Thirteen At Dinner' - his own delivery of the lines is smoother and there is less of the sometimes annoying rambling and add-libbing from the earlier film. He is also surrounded with (on the whole) a very good supporting cast. Jean Stapleton is lovely as an American Mrs Oliver and there are good performances also from Tim Piggot Smith and Susan Wooldridge. I actually liked Nicolette Sheridan as Hattie - the character is supposed to be theatrically vague and empty headed and she carries this off rather well. The best supporting performance of all however is undoubtedly Constance Cummings who just IS Mrs Folliat - this is a completely natural and unforced performance worthy of the 'big screen'.The adaptation is supremely faithful to the book even in the minor details and seems to flow more smoothly than 'Thirteen At Dinner' which often seemed choppy. Altogether I enjoyed this very much and will certainly be watching again.

There has been (so far) only one definitive screen Poirot and that is David Suchet. As much as I admired the art of the late Sir Peter Ustinov, he was always completely miscast in this role. He was nothing like the character that Agatha Christie envisaged, i.e. an over-fastidious dapper little man who had a mincing walk, a bald egg-shaped head and a dark waxed moustache. Peter's rotund shape, with crumpled clothes and a crumpled moustache to match, would make her, and indeed Poirot himself, turn in their graves. However, Ustinov, as he usually does in this role, and probably deliberately, hams it up (likewise the entire cast) with enthusiastic gusto, but again I suspect, not entirely as Miss Christie would have imagined it.Jonathon Cecil plays Capt Hastings as if he was a complete moron. Although not blessed with the same "little grey cells" as his companion, Hastings was not written as a fool, and in fact had supposedly been in Military Intelligence, which (although suggested in the film), is not a place for idiots.Overall this movie (as with all Ustinov's portrayals of the character) is to Poirot, as burlesque is to the legitimate theatre, but so what? It's enjoyable to watch, and that's what entertainment is all about.