Customer Reviews

Thirteen at Dinner [VHS]

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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.

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?

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.

I am a big fan of movies from Agatha Christie stories, but I must say that this adaptation was not one of the better ones. Peter Ustinov has played Poirot well in the past, especially in Death on the Nile and Evil Under the Sun, and even in Appointment with Death. This movie, however, inexplicably places Poirot in the 80's, thereby defeating a lot of the appeal of these other films. Ustinov himself is still likable, but the supporting players seem out of place and halfhearted in their acting. The story is actually quite good, but it is much too difficult to look past the mediocre acting to enjoy it. Christie fans would be better off simply reading the book or watching David Suchet in another version of the story, called "Lord Edgware Dies."

This dramatisation is based on Agatha Christie's book "Lord Edgeware Dies" where the murder suspect is obvious but the evidence and alibis etc puts her in the clear and casts suspicions on other characters.

Readers would have immediately jumped to the conclusion that if actress Jane Wilkinson was seen to have entered the study of her husband Lord Edgeware the night he was murdered, at the same time she was supposed to be miles away attending a dinner party of 13, then her look-alike Charlotta must have been involved.

What made the book worth reading was how Poirot untangled the web of deceit to produce hard evidence to convict the murderer and clear the innocent. And that is something that would have been difficult to transpose from the printed pages into the screen.

Not impossible, but it would take an experienced team, with lots of patience into the art and a willingness to extend the show beyond the 80 minutes or so.

Unfortunately, the producing team failed to do just that and as a result, the entire film was a flop (I didn't buy this video, borrowed it from the library). Another unforgivable error was that while the book had been published in 1933, the film producers set it in 1970s-80s. Viewers can immediately sense the awkwardness, even those who had never read the book would feel it too. Crucial dialogues from the novel was thoroughly mutilated in the script or in the setting. It is not impossible to dramatise Christie's work on a low budget, some of her stories would have been just right, but this is not one of them.

Despite the unfaultable performances of the cast - Peter Ustinov, Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley, the whole film was a disgrace, far from the fantastic work done by Peter Ustinov as Poirot in Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun. I suppose the cast regretted ever making this one, but it's the producers who ought to be shot.

Peter Ustinov returns for the third time as Belguim Detective, Hercule Poirot, since his portrail in DEATH ON THE NILE (1978) and EVIL UNDER THE SUN (1982). Thirteen At Dinner is a 1985 tv-movie. The cast includes Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley (Matt Houston tv series). Poirot is interviewed by talk show host David Frost, who has just interviewed Lee Horsley as "Brian". A surprise on the talk show is Horsley's co-star Jane Wilkenson (played by Faye Dunaway). But after a few dramatic lines, we find out it is an impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson (also played by Faye Dunaway) is at home watching this live on television. She invites them to her house for dinner, including the impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson is also known as Lady Edgeway by marriage. She wants a divorce from her husband. later that night, Horsley confides to Poirot a strange woman has been following him. The next morning, we find out that Lady Edgeway's husband has been murdered last night. On the movie set, we se Lee Horsley in his "Matt Houston" role (listen for the in-joke). Horsley thinks Lady Edgeway did it and , of course, must be replaced on the movie.
Folks, if you do not have this one figured out in less than 10 minutes, you were into your ice cream. Okay, I'll give you 24 minutes. If you are too good, you have been watching "Columbo".
Followed by, with Peter ustinov as "Poirot": Dead man's Folly (1986-tv), Murder in Three Acts (1986-tv), Appointment With Death (1988).

So, lately, I've been conducting a Hercule Poirot retrospective of sorts. Today I saw the 1985 film Thirteen At Dinner (based on the book of the same name). This is the fourth Poirot I have seen featuring Peter Ustinov as the Belgian detective. To many (myself included), David Suchet IS Poirot. Yet there is something Ustinov's Poirot has that Suchet's lacks: charm. Ustinov is funny and subtly charismatic - I can completely understand how the detective would be successful at interrogation. He does not always need to employ threats to receive his answers. A simple smile or an understanding observation can frequently invite the confidence of a suspect.

Thirteen at Dinner I rank as one of the better Ustinov Poirot films. The attempt to modernize the story-line was very well done. Usually an attempt to modernize appears hackneyed and awkward. Rod Browning's teleplay flows well, allowing for the retention of most of the original clues, and the direction achieves a sense of suspense in the final denouement. The supporting cast was good too, with a minor but important turn by Bill Nighy. Faye Dunaway is beautiful and effective in just about all her scenes; without her I do no think the picture would work, as she takes what could be very vapid lines and manages to make an effective character out of them. Also impressive is a much younger David Suchet as Inspector Japp.

There are a few shortcomings. Given Dunaway's acting abilities, I had hoped for more scenes with her. The movie was made for TV, so there are a few annoying breaks in the action for commercial slots. Hastings (played by Jonathan Cecil) is an almost invisible caricature of the devoted friend who documents the case. (This not Cecil's fault, who injects an element of dry English wit into the proceedings on occasion). And, finally, there are the usual problems I have found in translating Agatha Christie to the big screen. The largest issue is usually that her books follow the problems and events that occur when as many as a dozen people are in one locale for a period of time (nearly always involving murder). Many-threaded narratives such as these tend to be clumsy and fragmented when transferred to a visual medium. Happily, the resulting choppiness is minimized in Thirteen at Dinner. While a trifle long and slow, it is a quality production in which good acting takes the film much farther than the quality of its lines.

Viewed: 12/10
Rate: 4

12/10: After seeing Murder in Three Acts, I was eager for more from Peter Ustinov and went ahead with Thirteen at Dinner. Needless to say, I was disappointed with the film. I was hoping for a great one because Faye Dunaway starred in the film as well. As a matter of fact, I don't feel it was either's fault that the film fared out poorly. It was rather the following of the story that had me hopelessly lost. The director failed to have me engaged, so the plot became more and more faraway, thus leaving me uninterested to the end. In a way, the ending was pretty typical of any murder mystery film: sum up the facts and produce the killer. That's exactly what Peter Ustinov did as Hercule Poirot. Comparing Thirteen at Dinner to Murder in Three Acts, the latter was simply more interesting, had better cinematography and better lines, and was more engaging and easier to follow. All in all, I am only giving the film a `4' because of Peter Ustinov and Faye Dunaway; they were excellent as usual. Meanwhile, I just have to point out a stupid error in the film: the killer happened to use the glasses of another person for impersonation, but it's impossible that prescribed glasses will suit the killer's eyes so perfectly well as it does on the other person. Common sense will say that the killer will only wear it when necessary.

This movie was not made or intended to be one of those beautiful epics with dazzling color and wide screen. It is a made for TV movie. It does follow the book closely. The few variations were probably due to time constraints in getting the information out. I have to admit I also was about to press the fast forward button. I do not think thy will ever try to put Poirot in the 80's again. What you missed was David Suchet playing Inspector Japp with the worst English accent I ever heard. So what is his real voice? And Faye Dunaway did not dominate every scene. The Colonel Hastings (Jonathan Cecil) was to pansy to be in any army I know. Still it had its moments; like when Hercule turned to Japp and said "Get used to the fact that wherever you go, it is on our way." And by the end of the movie you get over the initial shocks and can enjoy it for it's self.

Allow me to outline the plot of this movie for you. This rich English guy gets murdered. His ex wife has a double who can impersonate her. His ex wife has the alibi that she was at a dinner party at the time of the murder. Now if you haven't figured out "whodunnit" by now I strongly suggest you don't join Mensa and should maybe consider going back to High School to finish your education. Peter Ustinov is his usual hammy Detective Hercule Poirot but thankfully Amanda Pays is in this movie which is the only good reason to watch it. Sadly we do not see enough of her in films these days but her presence in this movie makes me give it 5 stars.