Abedsbrother 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 the second best of the Ustinov Poirot films, behind only Death on the Nile. 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.

tedg 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.

blanche-2 I'll take my Ustinov as Poirot however I can get him.I happen to like Thirteen at Dinner. It's one of the smaller films as it was made for TV. You certainly can't compare it to the lavish "Murder on the Orient Express." And I frankly like it better than "Murder in Three Acts." I always love Ustinov as Poirot. One of the other comments said these characters are never how you picture them after reading the books. Interesting and true. The very popular Miss Marple of Margaret Rutherford had nothing to do with Miss Marple as she was written, and Ustinov has nothing to do with Poirot as written. I think David Suchet was perfect as Poirot as Christie wrote him, and I loved seeing him as Inspector Japp in this, but for a fun time, call 1-800-Ustinov! Because this is based on a Christie mystery, however poor the production values or the cast, the basic story is always interesting, as this was. Faye Dunaway is absolutely gorgeous in this movie in both her roles. And it did have a British flavor (which "Murder in Three Acts" absolutely did not.) I really don't understand giving this 1 star. Surely we've all seen worse.

JackStallion I love Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot. Forget all those other phonies who've tried to fill his shoes! Including that ridiculous Murder on the Orient Express, or that laughable David Sachet! His sly, lovable demeanor rivals any of the great actors playing detectives- Peter Falk as Columbo, etc. He has a wonderful way of gaining the confidence and trust of each of his suspects, while probing them for information. You never really know who he suspects, and that's the fun of the mystery. He guides you through the maze like true detective. I have seen each of his delicious portrayals as the great, Belgian detective several times, and they just get better with age.