Waste of Money.

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

I'm slowly working my way through every instance of Christie's Poirot that I can find on film. I've seen Suchet, Ustinov, Randall, Holm, Molina, even the silly versions in a John Cleese film and a skit in a British 1980's sketch comedy. But this film with its over-the-top, melodramatic performances is the worst Poirot film I've ever seen. I rate it even lower than Tony Randall playing Poirot in the 1960's "Alphabet Murders." But understand. It isn't Ustinov who made it bad. It was the direction. I swear a few times I could see Ustinov wince at the other actors performances thinking, "How did I get into this mess?!?!" All I could think while watching was that the actors were purposely doing a send-up of Poirot, yet they all seemed so earnest, that couldn't be it. I can only conclude it was the direction. These actors are better than this. Far better!!! The movie struck me as campy, except for Poirot. Even the amazing on location setting can't overcome the failures in the acting. The only thing this did was elevate so many of the other performances I've seen for Poirot. At,least after this, it is almost impossible for any other performance to be worse!

Of the three TV movies in which Peter Ustinov starred as Hercule Poirot (the other two being "Thirteen at Dinner" and "Murder in Three Acts"), in my humble opinion "Dead Man's Folly" is the most entertaining and suspenseful one; the script is marvelously close to Agatha Christie's novel, the cast is quite good for US TV standards, and the setting is a real old British manor, elaborately decorated, which tries to give the film a feeling of 'Old England'. BUT unfortunately, just like in the other two TV adaptations I mentioned, the producers obviously refused to create a REAL 1950s' atmosphere (the novel was written in 1956), and instead let the actors wear contemporary clothes and hairstyles of the 80s (and even use mobile phones!) - probably because that was what the audience wanted...Anyway, as far as you can overlook those anachronisms (or in case you don't even notice them), this movie has got a very high entertainment value - mostly thanks to the protagonists, Peter Ustinov, Jean Stapleton as Poirot's highly imaginative writer friend, and Jonathan Cecil as Hastings. There's some nice humor in it (probably also for the sake of the TV audience; because in tone, the novel was quite a bit darker...), and it's a REAL murder mystery: the complicated plot unfolds slowly, and if you pay good attention to every detail and every word that's being said, you may be able to guess the murderer before Poirot presents the solution. If you're not too particular about the authenticity of the wardrobe, hairstyles, cars and music, this is an enormously enjoyable crime puzzle for every fan of the genre!

I haven't read the book Dead Man's Folly, and this TV movie is the only one of the 6 movies Peter Ustinov did as Poirot, where that is the case. Now Dead Man's Folly I found to be very entertaining, with very good performances and a fine denouncement. However the script was weak and underdeveloped in places, the music didn't really stand out unlike Death On the Nile(the music was absolutely superb in that movie) and I found the overall film to be a tad too broad. I don't think it is as good as Death on the Nile or Evil Under the Sun, which are the best of the Ustinov outings. On a positive note, for a TV movie, it looks beautiful, with wonderful period detail, pleasant scenery and very nice photography. And the clothes were lovely to look at too. The denouncement is very unexpected and cleverly done, and I wouldn't have guessed it in a million years. But what makes the film so enjoyable is the cast. While I still consider David Suchet to be the definitive Poirot, Peter Ustinov was still a joy to behold and is clearly enjoying himself. Jean Stapleton positively brings life to the proceedings as Ariadne Oliver. Both Kenneth Cranham and Tim Piggott-Smith give good performances, if playing it safe. Jonathan Cecil is very entertaining as Hastings and Nicollette Sheridan is lovely as Hattie. But other than Ustinov the standout was indeed Constance Cummings as Amy, a truly delightful performance. All in all, while not the best of the Ustinov Poirot outings, it is a glossy and entertaining one, and actually one of the better ones. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

This is not one of the best movies based on a Agatha Christie novel but i have seen worse. As for Ustinov as Poirot well...i'm getting tired of all those "fans" who claim that Suchett is the "definitive" Poirot, or that Ustinov is the better one. I enjoy both of them as i think both put their own stamp on the part and both have made Poirot movies that were either good or mediocre. This one is not as good as Evil under the sun or Death on the Nile but it still provides you with 90 minutes of entertainment. Most of the acting is so so. I did like Jean Stapleton as Ariadne Oliver but Ustinov has done better in the other Poirot movies i mentioned. Good for a rainy Sunday afternoon.