"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) Review

"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) Review

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Peter Ustinov starred in theatrical adaptations of two Agatha Christie novels that featured her Belgian protagonist, detective Hercule Poirot. Three years after the second film, CBS Television hired him to star in three television movies featuring the Poirot character. The first one was the second adaptation of Christie's 1933 novel, "Lord Edgeware Dies". 

Actually, the 1933 novel was published in the United States under a different title. And the 1985 television adaptation aired on CBS under that second title as "THIRTEEN AT DINNER". After appearing as a guest on a television talk show, Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot is recruited by a famous American actress named Jane Wilkinson to convince her estranged husband, Lord Edgeware, to give her a divorce, for she has plans to marry the Duke of Merton. To Poirot's surprise, Lord Edgeware informs the former that he had already agreed to end his marriage to the American-born actress in a letter. However, Jane denies ever receiving it. The following evening, Lord Edgeware is murdered at his home. Scotland Yard's Chief Inspector Japp immediately suspects Jane of the murder. However, both Poirot and Japp discovers that the actress had attended a dinner party held by Sir Montague Corner on the night of the murder. This leaves Poirot, his friend Arthur Hastings and Japp to discover who had a reason to kill Lord Edgeware . . . or frame Jane Wilkinson for murder.

"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" was the first adaptation of Christie's 1933 novel that I had ever seen. However, I had also seen the 2000 adaptation from ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" and wrote a review of it. If I must be honest, I found the 2000 television movie mildly enjoyable, but unremarkable. And if I must be honest, I could say the same about this adaptation. Considering that this adaptation was set during the time it was made - namely the mid-1980s. There were a few updates in the story to adhere to its late 20th century setting - which included making both Jane Wilkinson and a fellow actor, Bryan Martin, movie actors. Otherwise, Rod Browning's teleplay more or less followed Christie's novel.

What I disliked about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"? I had one major problem. Thanks to Rod Browning's screenplay, I found it rather easy to guess who was killer after the third victim, another actor named Donald Ross, was murdered. One would have to be an idiot not to figure it out. What I liked about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"? Well . . . despite the new time setting, the movie managed to be more or less faithful to Christie's novel. I found some of the humor rather sharp, especially between Poirot and Hastings. I rather liked John Addison's theme for Poirot. I found it rather quirky and easy to remember. More importantly, I thought the characterizations featured in the film rather strong. And the film's photography remained rather sharp after thirty-two years, thanks to Curtis Clark.

What I liked best about "THIRTEEN AT DINNER" were the performances. I really enjoyed Peter Ustinov's portrayal of Hercule Poirot in this film. His Poirot seemed more witty and sharp-tongued than he was in movies like "DEATH ON THE NILE" and "EVIL UNDER THE SUN". Although Jonathan Cecil looked like the typical English twit, his version of Arthur Hastings seemed a bit more clear-headed. And there were a few moments in which Cecil's Hastings briefly engaged in little witty repartees with Ustinov's Poirot. I rather enjoyed it. Faye Dunaway seemed to be enjoying herself in the dual roles of prime suspect Jane Wilkinson, Lady Edgeware and impersonator Carlotta Adams. I found her performance very charming and energetic. Either that or she was simply giving her usual 100% into the roles.

Although Lee Horsley has appeared in more prestigious movie and television productions, I have to admit that I found his role as action star Bryan Martin in this teleplay to be one of his most interesting and best performances. Superficially, Horsley portrayed the actor as an easy-going and charming star. But with subtle skill, Horsley conveyed Bryan Martin as an over-weening and vindictive egotist. Another interesting performance came from a much younger Bill Nighy, who portrayed Lord Edgeware's weak-willed heir, Ronald Marsh. I enjoyed Nighy's performance very much and found myself wishing that his role had been slightly bigger. David Suchet, who would begin a twenty-three year stint as Hercule Poirot in ITV's "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT", portrayed none other than Chief Inspector Japp in this film. He gave a funny and sharp performance as Japp; and I found his interactions with Ustinov very entertaining. Suchet considered this performance as one of his worst. I do not agree. I suspect Ustinov felt the same, for he had suggested that Suchet should consider portraying Poirot in the future. "THIRTEEN AT DINNER"also featured solid performances from Amanda Pays, Diane Keen, Glyn Baker, John Barron, Geoffrey Rose, Pamela Salem; Benedict Taylor, whose portrayal of actor (he was a writer in Christie's novel) Donald Ross struck me as rather intelligent; and Allan Cuthbertson, who gave a very entertaining performance as the "friendly", yet competitive and egotistical Sir Montague Corner. 

I might a well be frank. I did not find the narrative for "THIRTEEN AT DINNER" particularly exceptional, but it was pretty solid. In fact, I could say the same about the 1933 novel and the 2000 television adaptation. What did strike me as exceptional was the cast. The movie did feature a very entertaining cast led by the always superb Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot and Faye Dunaway.

"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THIRTEEN AT DINNER", the 1985 adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1933 novel, "Lord Edgware Dies". The movie starred Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot: 


"THIRTEEN AT DINNER" (1985) Photo Gallery

Adapting AGATHA CHRISTIE"

“Adapting AGATHA CHRISTIE”

Ever since the release of the BBC recent adaptation of Agatha Christie’s 1939 novel, “And Then There Were None”, television viewers and critics have been praising the production for being a faithful adaptation.  In fact these critics and fans have been in such rapture over the production that some of them have failed to noticed that the three-part miniseries was not completely faithful.  As long as the production followed Christie’s original ending, they were satisfied.

Mind you, I thought this new production, “AND THEN THERE WERE NONE” was top notch,  I have found myself growing somewhat annoyed over this attitude.  Why do so many people insist that a movie/television production should be faithful to the novel it is adapting?  I honestly believe that it should not matter.  Not really.  I believe that sometimes, it's a good thing to make some changes from the original novel (or play).  Sometimes, it's good to remain faithful to the source novel.  Sometimes, what is in a novel does not translate well to the television or movie screen.

A good example are the two adaptations of Christie’s 1941 novel, “Evil Under the Sun”.  The 1982 adaptation, which starred Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot, made some major changes in regard to characters and a minor subplot.  The 2001 television adaptation, which starred David Suchet, was somewhat more faithful . . . but not completely.  In my personal view, I believe that the Ustinov version was a lot better . . . more entertaining.  Why?  If I have to be brutally honest, I am not a big fan of Christie’s 1941 novel.  No matter how many times I tried to like it (and I tried), it simply bored me. 

In regard to the adaptations of "And Then There Were None", there are only two adaptations that I really enjoyed - Rene Clair's 1945 adaptation and this new version.  The 1945 film is actually an adaptation of the 1943 stage play written by Christie.  Because the play first opened in the middle of World War II, Christie had decided to change the ending in order to spare wartime theater goers the story’s nihilistic ending.  Two years later, director Rene Clair and 20^th Century Fox decided to adapt Christie’s stage play, instead of the novel.  Several other movie adaptations – including the 1996 and the 1974 – did the same.  As far as I know, only the Russian 1987 adaptation followed Christie’s original ending. 

And how do I care about these numerous adaptations?  I have seen both the 1966 and 1974 movies.  I am not a fan of either.  Personally, I found them rather cheap.  I have never seen the 1987 Russian film.  As for the 1945 and 2015 versions . . . I am a big fan of both.  That’s right . . . both of them.  I do not care that 2015 miniseries stuck to Christie's original novel, despite some changes, and Clair’s 1945 movie did not.  I simply happen to enjoy BOTH versions.  Why?  Both versions were made with skill and style.  And I found both versions fascinating, despite the fact that they have different endings. 

I do not believe it should matter that a movie or television ALWAYS adhere to the novel it is adapting.  What should matter is whether the director, writer or both are wise enough to realize whether it is a good idea to be completely faithful or to make changes . . . for the sake of the production.  If producer John Bradbourne and director Guy Hamilton can make a superior adaptation of “Evil Under the Sun” by utilizing major changes to Christie’s original story and if there can be two outstanding versions of “AND THEN THERE WERE NONE” . . . with different endings,  I really do not see the need for any film or television production to blindly adhere to every aspect of a novel it is adapting.

"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (1988) Review

"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (1988) Review

Agatha Christie's 1938 novel, "Appointment With Death" has proven to be a problem over the past 70 years or so. If I must be honest, it is not a great novel. Considering the topic of emotional abuse, it had the potential to be great. But I feel that Christie never achieved what could have been a memorable and haunting tale.

The novel also produced adaptations in the form of a 1945 stage play, a 2008 television movie and a 1988 theatrical release. Of the three adaptations, the 1988 film, "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" came the closest in being faithful to novel. Is it the best adaptation? Unfortunately, I have never seen the stage play and have no idea what changes to Christie's plot had been made. I have seen the 2008 television movie. And honestly? I consider it a colorful travesty. Do I harbor the same opinion of the 1988 film? Well . . . no. It is not a bad film. But I believe it is a far cry from some of the best of the Christie adaptations.

Directed by Michael Winner, "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" centered on Belgian-born detective Hercule Poirot's investigation into the death of a wealthy middle-aged woman named Mrs. Boynton. Actually, the story began several months earlier, in New Jersey, where the recently widowed Mrs. Boynton learned that her late husband left a second will would enable her stepchildren and daughter to enjoy a financially stable life, independent of her. Jealous of the idea of no longer holding any power over her family, Mrs. Boynton blackmailed the family attorney, Jefferson Cope, into destroying the second will, leaving her in charge of the family finances. The family embarks on a grand tour of Europe and the Holy Land during the spring of 1937. During the sea voyage between Italy and the Middle East, fellow passenger Hercule Poirot overhears two of Mrs. Boynton's stepchildren, Raymond and Carol, discussing the possibility of their stepmother's death. More importantly, Mrs. Boynton is surprised by the appearance of Cope, fearful he might inform her children about her husband's second will.

Following the characters' arrival in Petra, Poirot and some of the other characters become aware of Mrs. Boynton's domineering abuse of her stepchildren and daughter. One of the vacationers, a Dr. Sarah King, falls in love with one of Mrs. Boynton's stepsons - Raymond. But she becomes frustrated by his inability to break free of his stepmother's grip. Sarah's frustrations reflect those of Nadine Boynton, who is near the breaking point over her husband's inability to break free from his stepmother. Also, the old lady's stepchildren are becoming increasingly worried over Mrs. Boynton's poisonous influence over the latter's only child and their half-sister, Ginerva. Things come to a boil during a one day expedition to an archeology dig outside Petra. A few hours after Mrs. Boynton encourages her family to go for a walk, she is discovered dead. It does not take Poirot very long to figure out that the old lady had been murdered. And he is recruited by the region's British Army representative, Colonel Carbury, to investigate her death.

As I had earlier stated, "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" is not a bad film. But it is certainly no masterpiece. Let me be frank. It is quite obvious that the look and tone of this production is more akin to television movie feature from "AGATHA CHRISTIE'S POIROT" than a theatrical movie. It is a bit cheap in compare to star Peter Ustinov's previous two Poirot movies and the 1974 one that starred Albert Finney. Some of cast members seemed to be going through the motions in their performances. This especially seemed to be the case for Carrie Fisher, Nicholas Guest, John Gielgud and sadly, Peter Ustinov. And when the star of the film seemed almost too relaxed or uninterested in his performance or the film, there is potential for disaster. What makes this sad is that Ustinov gave a funny and energetic performance for his next role as Detective Fix in the 1989 miniseries, "AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS". Adding to the film's second-hand look was Pino Donaggio's very disappointing score. Honestly, it was probably the worst movie score for any Agatha Christie's production I have ever heard. It seemed to be 1980s pop music at its cheesiest. And allowing a cheesy 80s pop tune to serve as the main score for a movie set in the late 1930s was one of the worst mistakes that Michael Winner and the other film's producers made.

But all is not lost. At least Winner can claim he directed the better version of Christie's 1938 novel. The television movie adaptation made twenty (20) years later seemed like a total disaster in compare to this film. And the 1988 movie had more virtues. Although the movie's production visuals seemed a bit of a comedown from the Christie movies between 1974 and 1982, production designer John Blezard's work in "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" still struck me as pretty solid. I was especially impressed by his work, along with Alan Cassie and Shlomo Tsafrir's set designs and David Gurfinkel's photography during the archeological dig sequence. John Bloomfield's costume designs also struck me as pretty solid, but not exactly mind-blowing. Despite Michael Winner's pedestrian direction and the less-than-spectacular production, I have to admit that Winner, Anthony Shaffer and Peter Buckman did a very admirable job of adapting Christie's novel. I am not saying this because it is more faithful than the 1945 stage play and the 2008 television movie. The three screenwriters made some changes to the plot - including the deletion of one or two characters - but those changes did not harm the story overall.

Most of the cast certainly injected a good deal of energy, despite Ustinov, Fisher, Guest and Gielgud's lethargic performances. I was especially impressed by Jenny Seagrove as the stalwart Dr. Sarah King, David Soul's sly performance as the Boyntons' slippery, yet charming attorney Jefferson Cope, and John Terlesky's earnest performance as Raymond Boynton. As far as I am concerned, both Lauren Bacall and Hayley Mills gave the funniest performances in the film. Bacall's hilarious portrayal of the rude and pushy American-born Lady Westholme almost reminded me of her performance as the verbose Mrs. Hubbard from 1974's "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS". However, her Lady Westholme struck me as funnier. And Hayley Mills was equally funny as Lady Westholme's impromptu traveling companion, the obsequious Miss Quinton. But the engine that really drove "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" turned out to be Piper Laurie's performance as murder victim, Mrs. Emily Boynton. There were moments with Laurie's performance became somewhat hammy. But she did a great job in portraying a manipulative and emotionally sadistic woman with a talent for keeping her stepchildren in line. I found her performance very commanding.

Overall, I would not consider "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" to be one of the best movie adaptations of a Christie novel. Heck, I can think of several television movie adaptations that I would view as better. But I believe it is the better of the two adaptations of the 1988 novel. I wish I could say that director Michael Winner and Peter Ustinov's performance as Hercule Poirot contributed a good deal to this movie's production. But it was not that difficult for me to see that Winner is at heart, a mediocre director. And Ustinov's performance seemed at worst, lethargic. And yet, the rest of the cast (aside from two others) and a solid script prevented "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" from sinking into a mire of crap. At least for me.

"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (1988) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH", the 1988 adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1938 novel. Directed by Michael Winner, the movie starred Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot: 


"APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH" (1988) Photo Gallery

"DEATH ON THE NILE" (1978) Review

"DEATH ON THE NILE" (1978) Review

Four years after the success of "MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS", producer John Bradbourne focused his attention upon adapting another Agatha Christie novel for the screen. In the end, he decided to adapt Christie’s 1937 novel, "DEATH ON THE NILE". 

Instead of bringing back Sidney Lumet to direct, Bradbourne hired journeyman action director John Guillermin to helm the new film. And instead of re-casting Albert Finney, Bradbourne hired Peter Ustinov for the pivotal role of Belgian private detective, Hercule Poirot. It would turn out to be the first of six times he would portray the character. The ironic thing about”DEATH ON THE NILE” is that although ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” had received more acclaim – the point of being regarded as the finest adaptation of any Christie novel – my heart belongs first and foremost to the 1978 movie.

One might ask – how can that be? ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” is highly regarded by critics and moviegoers alike. It even managed to collect a few Academy Awards. And its story – a revenge plot that centered around the past kidnapping of a five year-old child – has a great deal of pathos and depth. Yet . . . my favorite Christie movie is still”DEATH ON THE NILE”. Its production never struck me as over-the-top as the 1974 movie. And I believe that it perfectly matched the movie’s plot about Poirot’s efforts to solve the murder of a wealthy Anglo-American heiress during a luxury cruise down the Nile River. Most importantly, because the actor portraying Poirot came from Central European stock, he WAS NOT inclined to portray the detective in an exaggerated manner that British and American actors like Finney and Tony Randall were prone to do. But if I must be honest, I simply enjoyed the movie’s adaptation and Guillermin’s direction.

As I had stated earlier, ”DEATH ON THE NILE” centered around the murder of an Anglo-American heiress named Linnet Ridgeway Doyle, during a cruise down the Nile River. A vacationing Hercule Poirot did not take very long to discover that most of the passengers either bore a grudge against the heiress or wanted something she possessed. The suspects included Jacqueline de Bellefort, Linnet’s former best friend who was once engaged to her new husband Simon Doyle; Linnet’s American attorney Andrew Pennington, who has been embezzling money from her inheritance before her marriage; a wealthy American dowager and kleptomaniac Mrs. Marie Van Schuyler, who has an eye for Linnet’s pearls; Miss Bowers, Mrs. Van Schuyler’s companion, whose father had been ruined by Linnet’s father; Salome Otterbourne, an alcoholic novelist who is being sued for libel by Linnet; Rosalie Otterbourne, Mrs. Otterbourne’s embittered, yet devoted daughter; James Ferguson, a young Communist who resents Linnet’s wealth; Dr. Ludvig Bessner, a Swiss clinical doctor whose methods that Linnet has spoken against; and Louise Bourget, Linnet’s French maid that is being prevented from marrying a man who lives in Egypt. Also on the cruise are Simon Doyle, Jacqueline’s former fiancé; Colonel Race, a friend of Poirot and a fellow detective, who is acting as a representative for Linnet’s British attorneys; and Poirot. Most of them had a reason to kill Linnet Doyle . . . and the opportunity to kill her, save one.

Unlike ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS”, not all of the characters featured in Christie’s 1937 novel appeared in the 1978 film. Which did not bother me, since the deleted literary characters had struck me as the least interesting. Ironically, many of these deleted characters had the strongest motives to murder Linnet Doyle in the novel. Only Jacqueline de Bellefort, Andrew Pennington and Mrs. Van Schuyler made the transition from novel to movie with their motives intact. Another change from the novel resulted in ALL of the suspects either harboring a reason to kill Linnet. Although, I must admit that I found Jim Ferguson’s motive rather slim. Political and economical repugnance toward an obvious capitalist like Linnet Doyle as a motive seemed to be stretching it a bit to me. And most of the suspects, as Poirot revealed, had an opportunity to commit the deed. Perhaps screenwriter Anthony Schaffer (who did not receive credit for his work on the ”MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” screenplay) may have went a bit too far with this scenario. But if I must be perfectly honest, I have nothing against these changes. In fact, they made the movie a little more entertaining for me.

”DEATH ON THE NILE” had a first-rate cast that had obviously enjoyed themselves. This especially seemed to be the case with Bette Davis, who portrayed Mrs. Van Schuyler. The literary version of the character seemed to be a humorless tyrant. Davis’ version of the character possessed a sly, yet malicious sense of humor that she constantly used to torment her long suffering companion, Miss Bowers. Yet, Davis also gave Mrs. Van Schuyler a sense of privilege to make her slightly autocratic. Another performance that I found highly entertaining, although flamboyant, belonged to Angela Landsbury (the future Jane Marple and the future Jessica Fletcher) as the alcoholic has-been novelist, Salome Otterbourne. Did Landsbury’s portrayal of Mrs. Otterbourne struck me as over-the-top? Yep. In spades. Did I care? Not really. Why? Because the literary version of Salome Otterbourne struck me as even more over-the-top . . . and less likeable. Whereas Angela Landsbury gaven a flamboyant performance, George Kennedy gave a far more restrained one as Andrew Pennington, Linnet Doyle’s embezzling American attorney. One of my favorite scenes involving Kennedy featured a moment when Pennington reacted to Simon Doyle’s admission of a lack of business skills. Anyone could see Pennington’s idea of dealing with the more gullible Doyle instead of Linnet, gleaming in Kennedy’s eyes.

In my review of the James Bond movie, ”MOONRAKER”, I had accused Lois Chiles of giving a slightly wooden performance. Granted, I would never view her as an exceptional actress, I must admit that she gave a much better performance in ”DEATH ON THE NILE”, as the wealthy and slightly autocratic Linnet Ridgeway Doyle. The amazing thing about Chiles’ performance was that she could have easily portrayed Linnet as a one-note bitch. Instead, the actress managed to successfully convey more complexities into her character, also revealing a charming woman, a good friend (somewhat), and a warm and passionate spouse. Simon MacCorkindale gave a solid performance as the straight-forward Simon Doyle – Jacqueline’s former fiancé and Linnet’s new husband. MacCorkindale not only conveyed Simon’s charm, but also the character’s simple nature, lack of imagination and an inability to realize how much he had truly hurt his former fiancée. If it were not for Peter Ustinov’s performance as Hercule Poirot, I would have declared Mia Farrow’s performance as the spurned Jacqueline de Bellefort as the best one in the movie. Instead, I will simply state that I believe she gave the second best performance. Emotionally, her Jacqueline seemed to be all over the map – angry, resentful, passionate, vindictive, remorseful and giddily in love. Yet somehow, Farrow managed to keep the many facets of Jackie’s personality in control and not allow them to overwhelm her. I especially enjoyed her interactions with Ustinov, as she portrayed a reluctant disciple to his mentor. The pair had an interesting and strong screen chemisty.

I could also say the same about Ustinov’s interactions with David Niven, who portrayed fellow detective Colonel Race. Niven's portrayal was charming and at the same time, very humorous. The interesting thing is that Ustinov used to be Niven’s batman (personal servant to a commissioned military officer) during World War II before the pair became good friends. This friendship permeated their scenes together. But more importantly, Peter Ustinov took the role of Hercule Poirot and made it his own. Just as David Suchet would do nearly two decades later. Ustinov managed to inject his own brand of humor into the role without wallowing in some caricature of the Continental European. More importantly, I believe that Ustinov did an excellent job of conveying Poirot’s intelligence, sense of justice and formidable personality.

Like its 1974 predecessor, ”DEATH ON THE NILE” could boast a superb production, thanks to the crew that John Bradbourne had hired. Anthony Powell designed the movie’s costumes, evoking an era set during the early 1930s. I must admit that I found that interesting, considering that the novel had been published in 1937 and possibly written in 1936. Although a good deal of the movie was filmed on location in Egypt, I had been surprised to learn that many of the scenes aboard the S.S. Karnak had been filmed in England – both interiors and exteriors. It was a credit to both cinematographer Jack Cardiff and production designers Peter Murton, along with Brian and Terry Ackland-Snow that the film managed to convey the movie’s setting of a small and exclusive Nile River steamboat with such clarity and elegance.

”DEATH ON THE NILE” was not without its flaws. Well, I can only think of one at the moment. Actor I.S. Johar portrayed the S.S. Karnak’s unnamed manager. Unfortunately, Johar’s portrayal of the steamboat’s manager invoked strong memories of the many actors and actresses of non-European descent that found themselves stuck in comic relief roles during the Hollywood films of the 1930s and 1940s. And ”DEATH ON THE NILE” had been filmed in 1977 and released in 1978. Johar found himself stuck in a clichéd and humiliating role and I suspect that Guillermin, Schaffer and Bradbourne are to blame for allowing such a role in the film. 

But you know what? Despite that one major complaint, ”DEATH ON THE NILE” ended up becoming my favorite adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel. It may not be considered the best among film critics and moviegoers. But then again, I have never been inclined to blindly follow popular opinion.