Thirteen at Dinner (1985)

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

I do much prefer Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun, but this is still enjoyable, adapted from the brilliant book Lord Edgeware Dies. Considering it was made for TV, it is glossily made, with some nice camera-work and lovely period detail, and is entertaining. Of course it isn't completely faithful to the book, the final solution scene while a very nice touch is a departure from the book. The script is fine, and so is the acting. Peter Ustinov, while bearing little resemblance in terms of looks to his novelistic counterpart, is thoroughly entertaining as Poirot, and is clearly enjoying himself. Faye Dunnaway is highly commendable in the duel roles of Jane Wilkinson and Carlotta Adams, and David Suchet(the present Poirot, who is actually truer to the Poirot in the books) is impressive as Japp. Bill Nighy is fairly good as Ronald, though he has done better work since. All in all, very good made for TV whodunit, not as good as Death on the Nile, but an improvement on Appointment With Death, which I still think is the weakest of the Ustinov outings. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Agatha Christie's ageless Hercule Poirot once again stylishly portrayed by Peter Ustinov makes his television debut in Thirteen for Dinner. The famous Belgian sleuth is a guest on the David Frost Show with a pair of celebrities, Lee Horsley and Faye Dunaway who will shortly figure prominently in his next case.Although Ustinov is flawless as ever, the updating of the story from the time of Stanley Baldwin to the time of Margaret Thatcher makes the plot rather silly. Without giving anything away, let me say that what would have made sense for a motive in 1935 looks kind of ridiculous in 1985 given changing mores.The presence of David Suchet who played Hercule Poirot on the BBC in many adaptations of Agatha Christie as Inspector Japp in this film also gives it some interest. The scenes with Poirot and Suchet are good and Suchet is so good an actor you barely recognize him.Some Christie stories can be successfully updated. But sad to say Thirteen at Dinner is not one of them.

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.

The real mystery here is how Lou Antonio managed to get such a great Agatha Christie film and break it down to ruins so completely. It's set in 1985, Poirot goes on TV(?! I don't think the late dame Agatha would ever have done that), and Peter Ustinov keeps getting the lines hopelessly wrong. The mystery aspect is pretty much taken care of instantly, when the murderer says something, a young man goes "hmm... that's a clue", the murderer looks at the man suspiciously, then the next minute the man is dead, to help you solve it just in case you didn't see the murderer leaving the scene of the crime. If all American TV is like this, I'm glad I live in England. In fact, the only thing this film is good for is the introduction of David Suchet (playing Inspector Japp) to the world of Poirot. If the producers of the LWT series hadn't spotted him, we might have Peter Sallis playing Poirot every Sunday!