the audience applauded

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Based on one of Christie's weakest books this movie doesn't have much to offer. The updating of the movie to the 80's hurts , not as much as in "Murder in three acts" , but still. I usually don't mind hairstyles and clothes typical for a certain decade ( In few years people will be laughing how we dress now, the fashion changes so quick) , but to see Poirot standing next to a guy looking like an 80's rock star is simply embarrassing. There is serious lack of 50's atmosphere.I can accept Peter Ustinov as Poirot. He doesn't look like him at all and makes him look like a clown on more than few occasions , but overall he does an adequate job. Jonathan Cecil is once again awful as Captain Hastings. He is simply idiotic and unlikable , not like Hugh Fraser in Poirot TV series. Jean Stapleton is OK as Mrs. Oliver , but Zoë Wanamaker was much better in Suchet's TV series. The rest of the cast is mediocre at best or simply awful like Nicolette Sheridan and Tim Piggot-Smith. The whole movie has a bland feel to it. Starting from the production design through music and direction. The whole mystery isn't thrilling , but more rather trite. There is no pacing or structure to it , it just goes from one commercial break to another.The story itself has few very odd details. It takes only about 8 minutes to figure out who kills and that there is something suspicious about certain character. I did read the book first , long time before watching this movie , however I believe that even retarded chimpanzee would notice the not-so-subtle clues that the movie is giving to the viewer. Hastings is simply a pointless character , until the end of movie where he out of the blue appears to have important connections. What's with the Russian and Poirot ? Why inspector Bland allows Mrs.Oliver and Amanda Brewis to join the investigation and they walk with him EVERYWHERE. The way how Poirot comes to his solution of the mystery seems very forced and lucky.Anyone not familiar with Agatha's Christie writing would never pick up one of her books from viewing this film (or the other Ustinov TV movies). I give it 1/10.

I am currently collecting TV and film adaptations of Agatha Christie and bought this Dead Man's Folly just to complete the set. That's my excuse: what's yours?Like most TV movies, it has a bland, soporific, drifting feel, with no dramatic structure, no pace or rhythm within scenes and no overall sense of urgency. It just meanders listlessly from one advertisement break to the next until it has filled its two hour time slot.It is hard to believe that the director, Clive Donner, was once regarded as one of the bright hopes of the British film industry. Years of working in television seem to have blunted whatever edge his work once had. He and Ustinov had previously worked together on Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen. I can imagine Donner saying "Well Peter, do you think we can make one worse than that?" and Ustinov replying "I doubt it, but let's give it a try."Because this movie never managed to capture my full attention I wasn't always sure what was going on.For example, I never understood the mechanics of the Murder Hunt so I didn't see why it was important to the actual murder. Similarly, Ariadne Oliver didn't seem to have any real reason for inviting Poirot to the event so when the murder is eventually committed he has nothing to go on and just bumbles around without purpose or plan.In truth, he doesn't really do much detecting, so the process by which he comes to suspect the truth is somewhat obscure. The crucial breakthrough is simply something he is told by the dead girl's sister. Since there was no other way he could have got this information I have to conclude that if she hadn't blabbed when she did the mystery would never have been solved.Even when this crucial information is dropped into his lap, Poirot is still a long way away from understanding what is really going on, so the final solution comes completely out of the blue. It also proves to be thoroughly absurd.It turns out that George Stubbs and his wife are both impostors. Together, they have murdered the real Hattie and then proceed to murder the two people they think could expose them. But why do they think that these are the only people they have to worry about? He is returning to his childhood home so how can he hope to escape immediate recognition? Similarly, she is spooked by the arrival of one of Hattie's old friends, but why only that one? Did that unfortunate corpse have no other friends, family or acquaintances that might also want to visit her from time to time? How could this couple imagine for one minute that their imposture would remain undetected?For some reason that escaped me, the fake Hattie also assumes the disguise of an Italian student and then disappears, leaving everybody thinking that Hattie too has been murdered.Was there a reason for this?I would like to be able to blame this farrago on the writer, Rod Browning, or Warner Bros Television, but other reviewers have said that this adaptation is actually very faithful to the book. If so, it must have been one of Agatha Christie's off days.The mystery of Dead Man's Folly is apparently lined up for David Suchet's Poirot. It will be interesting to see how much they will change the story to make to make it more plausible (or at least more interesting).Mention of David Suchet brings me to my other main reservation about this movie: Peter Ustinov.Far from being the 'definitive Poirot', as some reviewers have called him, I think he is just an irritating ham who condescends to nearly every role he plays. I get the impression that he thought he was too good for the movies he appeared in, so he was doing them a favour when he sent them up.I might be able to accept this superior attitude from Ustinov if I had ever seen him give a real performance in a challenging role, but despite his two Oscars I cannot recall one. I doubt if he was ever really capable of it.PS: In truth, anybody would have been too good for some of the movies Ustinov appeared in and his amused contempt for the material was sometimes the only thing that made them watchable. My objection to Ustinov is that this became a habit and carried over into work that deserved better of him.PPS I have now seen the David Suchet version (much better in all respects) and taken another look at this one. The story made more sense when I actually paid attention to it, but remains somewhat implausible and is slightly undermined by the updating. My aversion to Ustinov's performance only intensified on second viewing. His persistent hamming was hard to tolerate and his constant upstaging of all the other actors was actually offensive.

Thank God that at least ITV will soon remake this film with David Suchet-the REAL Poirot. Ustinov like always plays Poirot as the untidy, overweight and sloppy Columbo type character, and Clive Donner seems to be directing a comedy at times. The TV Poirots made with Ustinov are a bit more comedic (unlike the way Christie wrote them) than the cinema versions he appeared in. Unfortunately this film was made as a UK/US co-production and CBS TV was involved, hence the casting of Jean Stapleton-one of the worst performances ever-screaming hysterically at times and calling Poirot "Her-cu-lee." (Near the end of this film Ustinov says her instincts at times are "excessive and stupid," and later says to her "You irritate me."-like she irritates the viewer!!!).However in spite of these flaws, Dead Man's Folly has a good many things going for it-the filming in England at the stately home, a decent script, fine camera-work and editing, and very good performances by Constance Cummings, Tim Piggot-Smith, Susan Wooldridge, Kenneth Cranham, Nicolette Sheridan, and Jimmy Gardner in the smallish role of Old Murdell.

Now, it may come as a surprise to most people when you see the rating that I have given this TV-movie (10 out of 10), especially when you read most of the other comments on this movie. But I will explain, and you'll see that there is some method to my madness.Firstly, I'm a huge Agatha Christie fan, especially of the Hercule Poirot mysteries. I had read the book Dead Man's Folly and had enjoyed it immensely, thus making me search out this movie. When I discovered that it was Peter Ustinov who was starring as Poirot I was over the moon, as I consider him by far the best Poirot. In my opinion, Ustinov is the definitive Poirot.I managed to find the movie and then watch it. It was excellent. Ustinov was brilliant as the detective gifted with "the little grey cells". It was not as good as Evil Under The Sun or Death On The Nile, however my mark reflects the closeness of the movie to the text. I couldn't believe how close the movie was. As I was sitting there watching the film I was uttering the lines in my mind from how they were seen in the book. It was a terrific film and deserves every bit of my 10 marks.