Let's be realistic.

Fresh and Exciting

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

This is the first of the three made for TV movie adaptations of Agatha Christie's novels. It's probably the best of three, which sadly doesen't mean much. All three of them are bad ("the other are "Dead man's foley" and "Murder in three acts"). All of them have low and cheesy production values , obvious dramatic commercial pauses and American feel to it. They also have been updated from the 30's to mid-80's. Why ? Well because it was probably cheaper that way. This along should tell you how much "effort" was put into making those movies.Peter Ustinov has nothing to do with Poirot as written. He doesn't look like him and doesn't have his quirks. His Poirot is more like a clown who strangely seems to be intelligent. I have to say that Ustinov's version of the character while not my favourite and not really loyal to the books is kinda OK in it's own right. Ustinov does manages to make his character likable , charming and overall memorable. Ustinov is definitely the best thing in those movies.Appearing here as Inspector Japp, David Suchet later played Hercule Poirot in the TV series Poirot (1989) and subsequent TV specials, including Poirot: Lord Edgware Dies (2000), another version of this story. It was strange to see Suchet as Japp and yet fun. His Japp is much more nasty version than the one from the TV series. Faye Dunaway doesn't have that much to play in her double role , but she definitely does good job.The rest of the cast is mediocre at the best. Jonathan Cecil who plays Hastings (Poirot friend) is incredibly annoying ( I mean both his acting and dumb look). The rest is rather forgettable.The original Christie novel is great and both simple and very sly whodunit. The movie follows the original plot faithfully. Unfortunately , the script plods a bit and delivery is not all it could be. The biggest problem are: updating the story from 30's to 80's. The motive makes sense in the conservative 30's , but not in the liberal 80's. And it's not really hard to figure out who the murderer is (not like in the book) ! The script is not altogether clear on some of Poirot's conclusions, or how he came to them. It's too bad , because this was one of Christie's best books.Director Lou Antonio directs the whole thing in a very bland , superficial way . There is no sense of joy here or tension here. It seems he wasn't really interested in this project. Too bad, because you obviously feel it while watching the movie. A great director said : "The only time I feel that I'm wasting my time while watching a movie is when I've feel that the movie makers didn't put there heart in it" . It's not an exact quote , but it sums up my feelings completely.There are some little things I liked here : the comedy is restricted , the film is shot on location around London , we see Poirot's apartment and we meet Japp. It can't really save this movie from being a failure , but at least it isn't a total failure. I give it 1/10.

When I saw this movie for the first time I thought it had a strange feel to it, mainly due to being adapted to the eighties. Hercule Poirot is one of those characters who only seem to make sense in the 20's and 30's. I also felt the American tone given to it to be slightly inadequate. Yet a few classical elements still made it quite enjoyable and not least Ustinov's performance. Do you know that feeling of a particular actor being "the" character and not just playing it? Well, Ustinov is Poirot while, for instance, David Suchet merely plays it (which doesn't mean I dislike him as Poirot). In fact, all his Poirot movies (6 in total) are worth watching mainly because of him. Forget about the exaggerated Albert Finney, in guise as well as in acting, or the bland Suchet and his ridiculous walk. Ustinov portrays an affable yet shrewd man who gets his way through a good spirited disposition and remarkable ability to lead people into believing he can be manipulated. He, then, takes advantage of that feeling to dig in and find, through what is shown to him, that which is amiss. As for other actors I think Faye Dunaway is quite good if somewhat extravagant and Jonathan Cecil almost makes it by doing a slightly soberer Hastings than in subsequent films, "Dead Man's Folly" and "Murder in Three Acts", where he eventually lost his grip on the character by slipping into shear silliness. The plot is a progressive one, intensifying in suspense, all throughout, until Poirot's final disclosure. There are some cheesy bits such as Jake Slago's movie making or some of the music that doesn't sound appropriate to creating the right ambiance (I wonder why CBS won't remake the soundtrack, so as to improve the final result). All in all it still is a "must have" for Poirot fans, with the added curiosity of David Suchet's appearance as inspector Japp. 10 out of 10 may seem too much, but it comes as a tribute to Ustinov's wonderful acting.

The one and only true Hercule Poirot is the one played by David Suchet. His mastery of the character is superb. Peter Ustinov does not have the finesse of the wonderful character written by Agatha Christie. I regard Peter Ustinov as a wonderful actor who has be horribly miscast in this role. David Suchet brings to life the impeccable taste, the fastidious demeanor, and idiosyncratic quirks of Mr. Poirot as written by Agatha Christie. To me, Hercule Poirot becomes so much more when being played by David Suchet, much like the portrayal of Jeremy Brett in the Sherlock Holmes series. Basil Rathbone may have been the first in the films, but Brett brings depth and character to the part.

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!