Most Helpful Customer Reviews
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Has Dunaway Done Away with Her Husband?, July 19, 2001
Lady Edgeware (played by Faye Dunaway) is estranged from her husband and wants a divorce. If she can't have a divorce, she says she'll just have to kill him. Shortly after making this pronouncement, Lord Edgeware is murdered. Lord Edgeware's servants testify that Lady Edgeware drove up to the home in a cab, walked into Lord Edgeware's study, and left after a brief period of time in the study. Shortly afterward, the servants find Lord Edgeware dead in his study. This is as true-to-life a murder scenario as ever came from the pen of Agatha Christie. In 27 years of prosecuting and defending murder cases, I've had several that followed this plotline. But Christie isn't going to allow things to be that simple. It seems that twelve unimpeachable witnesses are all prepared to testify that Lady Edgeware was with them at a formal dinner at exactly the time of the murder. Poirot finally unravels the mystery, and in the denouement proves quite satisfying. Peter Ustinov is an unlikely Poirot. He's too large, too unkempt, too greyheaded, and not nearly foppish enough. David Suchet, of the A&E series, has become the archetypical Poirot against whom all other Poirots must suffer in comparison. It is all the more amusing that in this show, Suchet plays an unconvincing and unsympathetic Chief Inspector Japp. It is a wonder how he could get Poirot so right and Japp so wrong. Faye Dunaway's characterization of Lady Edgeware is right on the money. She plays the part with gusto and is a delight to behold. Watching her, I could not help but remember her excellent portrayal of an affluent murder suspect on a "Columbo" episode from the 70's. This made-for-TV movie suffers in comparison with the A&E series starring Suchet, but mediocre Poirot is far, far better than no Poirot at all.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A Little Mistake!, August 9, 2000
Yes, this film falls flat and certainly does not do justice to the original "Lord Edgware Dies". What's more, there is a significant mistake that was not in the novel or the TV series adaption. Has any other Christie fan spotted it? If you recall the story, the impressionist Carlotta Adams writes the last letter to her sister excitedly revealing that somebody payed her to impersonate Jane Wilkinson. Piorot eventually deduces that a middle page is missing and one word slightly altered in order to hide the identity of Carlotta's employer. So far so good. But then in the Ustinov version her letter ends: "..Anyway I'm visiting Lord Edgware tonight as Jane. Will let you know how it turns out". In the novel the letter says no such thing. And that is the whole point. Anyone who remembers the plot will realise this is precisely what Carlotta would NOT have written. Does anyone agree? But more to the point - given the soulless style of the movie - does anyone care?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Ustinov Captures Poirot Against the Odds, August 18, 2004
This review is from: Thirteen at Dinner [VHS] (VHS Tape)
Although many fellow Christie fans would argue that David Suchet is the definitive Poirot, I beg to disagree. To my mind, few have captured Poirot's spirit and Christie's humorous intentions as well as Peter Ustinov. While being completely contrary to the physical description of Poirot, Ustinov suggests all of Poirot's characteristics from the fastidious vanity, the wicked humor, the inquisitive and observational eye, the "egg shape" and the chaste appreciation of women. He brings out the lightness in Christie's work which so many other adaptations fail to capture.
In "Thirteen at Dinner" (which veers from the book "Lord Edgeware Dies" on some accounts, most noticably setting the action in the 1970's as opposed to the 1930's), as he himself experiences some "celebrity" on David Frost's talk show, Poirot is up against the vain world of American Hollywood celebrities. It is on the talk show, in fact, that he meets a look alike for American actress Jane Wilkinson (both played by Faye Dunaway) whom he later encounters again at a dinner given by the real Wilkinson. The notion of doubles underscores the theme and is maintained throughout from the amusing "stand-ins" that do the action scenes for actor Brian (Lee Horsley), Wilkinson's co-star, to mirror images that reflect multiple Poirots. The real Jane Wilkinson is married to Lord Edgeware and quite open about her desire to divorce him. She even brags about doing away with him. Shortly afterwards it is discovered that Lord Edgeware has indeed been murdered. Jane Wilkinson is the obvious suspect; the only problem is that she has an alibi for the night of his murder -- and many witnesses.
Even if you guess the solution, it doesn't spoil the fun. And fun it is. The actors appear to be enjoying themselves and Ustinov keeps things very amusing with his repartee with companion Hastings. As always, Poirot sorts through clues (an unknown party's spectacles, a reference to the judgment of Paris), red herrings, and suspects and his "little gray cells" come up with not only the who, but the why and how of it. The lampoons about Hollywood and its parallels against the superficial fashion industry are enjoyable and nothing is too serious. Yes, one should read the book, which is a different experience, but this is still entertaining viewing. Because of the pleasant stars and tongue-in-cheek approach, I, a purist, didn't mind this spin on Christie's fine book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
