Watch Thirteen at Dinner For Free
Thirteen at Dinner
Actress Jane Wilkinson wants a divorce, but her husband, Lord Edgware, refuses. She convinces Hercule Poirot to use his famed tact and logic to make her case. Lord Edgware turns up murdered, a well-placed knife wound at the base of his neck. It will take the precise Poirot to sort out the lies from the alibis - and find the criminal before another victim dies.
Release : | 1985 |
Rating : | 6.2 |
Studio : | Warner Bros. Television, CBS Entertainment Productions, |
Crew : | Director of Photography, Director, |
Cast : | Peter Ustinov Faye Dunaway Jonathan Cecil Bill Nighy Diane Keen |
Genre : | Crime Mystery |
Watch Trailer
Cast List
Related Movies
Reviews
Wonderful Movie
Too much of everything
Absolutely brilliant
Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.
this was a good film with Ustinov doing his first made for TV Poirot. it was not as good as death on the nile or evil under the sun but was greatly enhanced with Ustinov's presence. Jonathan Cecil gives a poor performance as hastings and the presence of American actors cheapens the value of the film. according to ustinov's biography by Jon Miller, Faye Dunaway was a pain in the neck to work with and ustinov was losing patience during filming during the night scene by the river where he is walking with hastings. the story is fairly good but outcome is predictable and the final scene in albert hall is solid. good viewing for a rainy Sunday afternoon, i also recommend dead man's folly but do not recommend murder in three acts which is Ustinov's worst outing as poirot. David Suchet plays japp and i prefer Ustinov as Poirot to suchet. There is a goof in the last scene in the albert hall where poirot refers to sir montague as "Lord Montague" which is a mistake, it should be sir Montague.
A new batch of old TeeVee Christie adaptations have become available on DVD. I've been marching through them valiantly, looking for anything of value. Here it is. This one is good.The story on which it is based is one of Christie's more interesting experiments in playing with the mystery form: moving the narrative structure from one untrusted device to another. These sorts of narrative folds are challenging for filmmakers, which is why I movie versions of Agatha sleight of hand.Here, the adapters did something clever in changing the whole focus of the story from the dinner in question to the surrounding lives of the actors (and the aristocrats, same thing). If you ignore the generally cheesy production values, you'll be faced with one of the best Christie film adaptations I know.But the real gem is Ustinov's Poirot. Now I know I am in the minority here, but I find his Poirot the most satisfying. Its a tricky thing, making these evaluations, but the reason why has to do with his relationship to the process of discovery. With Marple, the process is a matter of already knowing what needs to be known about why things occur. All she has to do is match the circumstances she finds with what patterns she has stored.Poirot is a different sort. He is engaged in a genuine battle with evil, an obsession which he camouflages as a way to address boredom. His method is closer to the Sherlock model, reasoning from cause; following paths and possibilities. When you travel with a real Poirot, you are always living in the future, many speculative futures mapped onto data from the past to extend cause. So the second murder in a Poirot mystery is always preventable, but for his openness to too many possibilities. He then punishes himself, resulting in his most characteristic personality traits.TeeVee has taken the detective in a different direction. The engagement in the mystery is simply to present a series of baffling scenes and then explain them at the end. Along the way, you have to be, well, "entertained." So they create characters to do so. In the books, the humor was laid on top of the detective spine. Its because though Christie was a great plot designer, she was poor when it came to wordsmithery. She made up for this by creating engaging characters. The formula is reversed in TeeVee. That's why you have Suchet's Poirot, and Brett's Holmes. Their twitching and poking makes them amusing regardless of what happens around them. Ustinov creates a Poirot more in the spirit of one engaged with the narrative, and inspired by the drive to deduce.The bonus here is that his foil is on screen, Inspector Japp. Japp plays a different role in the detection than Holmes' Lestrade. He is competent, but limited in the ability to live in the future. He is, in fact, a junior Poirot. Here he is played by the very David Suchet who would become the much admired Poirot in a later series. His mannerisms are apparent here and distracting.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
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.
Peter Ustinov is an absolute joy to behold in the role of Hercule Poirot. He played Poirot in three theatrical films: Death On the Nile, Evil Under the Sun, and Appointment With Death. He also played Poirot in three TV movies: Thirteen At Dinner, Murder in Three Acts, and Dead Man's Folly. It's always a delight to spend time with Ustinov's Poirot. He's so much fun! The three Poirot TV movies starring Ustinov are now available in a three DVD set. I've had a great time watching these with friends and family and all of Ustinov's Poirot movies are worth watching and re-watching. My deep affection for Ustinov's Poirot grows with each viewing. He's brilliant and each of his Poirot movies are fantastic fun.