Surprisingly incoherent and boring

It is a performances centric movie

i must have seen a different film!!

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

A new batch of old TeeVee Christie adaptations have become available on DVD. I've been marching through them valiantly, looking for anything of value. Here it is. This one is good.The story on which it is based is one of Christie's more interesting experiments in playing with the mystery form: moving the narrative structure from one untrusted device to another. These sorts of narrative folds are challenging for filmmakers, which is why I movie versions of Agatha sleight of hand.Here, the adapters did something clever in changing the whole focus of the story from the dinner in question to the surrounding lives of the actors (and the aristocrats, same thing). If you ignore the generally cheesy production values, you'll be faced with one of the best Christie film adaptations I know.But the real gem is Ustinov's Poirot. Now I know I am in the minority here, but I find his Poirot the most satisfying. Its a tricky thing, making these evaluations, but the reason why has to do with his relationship to the process of discovery. With Marple, the process is a matter of already knowing what needs to be known about why things occur. All she has to do is match the circumstances she finds with what patterns she has stored.Poirot is a different sort. He is engaged in a genuine battle with evil, an obsession which he camouflages as a way to address boredom. His method is closer to the Sherlock model, reasoning from cause; following paths and possibilities. When you travel with a real Poirot, you are always living in the future, many speculative futures mapped onto data from the past to extend cause. So the second murder in a Poirot mystery is always preventable, but for his openness to too many possibilities. He then punishes himself, resulting in his most characteristic personality traits.TeeVee has taken the detective in a different direction. The engagement in the mystery is simply to present a series of baffling scenes and then explain them at the end. Along the way, you have to be, well, "entertained." So they create characters to do so. In the books, the humor was laid on top of the detective spine. Its because though Christie was a great plot designer, she was poor when it came to wordsmithery. She made up for this by creating engaging characters. The formula is reversed in TeeVee. That's why you have Suchet's Poirot, and Brett's Holmes. Their twitching and poking makes them amusing regardless of what happens around them. Ustinov creates a Poirot more in the spirit of one engaged with the narrative, and inspired by the drive to deduce.The bonus here is that his foil is on screen, Inspector Japp. Japp plays a different role in the detection than Holmes' Lestrade. He is competent, but limited in the ability to live in the future. He is, in fact, a junior Poirot. Here he is played by the very David Suchet who would become the much admired Poirot in a later series. His mannerisms are apparent here and distracting.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This adaptation of 'Lord Edgware Dies' takes Agatha Christie and Hercule Poirot into the eighties. Christie can survive updating but I'm not sure that Poirot can. He seems uncomfortable taken out of his period and set down again so much later. It is odd to see him on a TV chat show and in conversation with Lee Horsely's American actor character ('love you') but perhaps this is also because the last time I saw this version of Poirot he was firmly in period, in the thirties in 'Evil Under The Sun'. The time shift is disconcerting and the character is still most at home in the country mansions of the English aristocracy and the Gothic townhouse of the victim.Updating also affects (slightly) the motive for the murders. The motive would have been very powerful in the conservative thirties but not so much in the liberated eighties and there is some confusion over the method - the all important spectacles seem to have little real use or value here. On the whole though, Christie's original plot is followed quite closely but the script plods a bit and delivery is not all it could be - even Ustinov is given to rambling and add-libbing from time to time.The cast varies from mediocre (Diane Keen, Horsley) to really quite good (Dunaway, Pays and Nighy) and there is a rather wet and dismal portrayal of Hastings from Jonathan Cecil. It is interesting to see David Suchet as Japp. I wanted to like this more than I did but for me the later Suchet version is much preferable with a much stronger cast (even Dunaway is outdone by Helen Grace) and, as always with these versions, perfect period detail.

Unlike some reviewers here, and much as I admire Ustinov's talents and wit, I have never been convinced of him as the little Belgian, because decades ago I read all Dame Agatha's Poirot stories and Ustinov is too tall --- too big altogether --- and (although this will be down to the scripts plus the directors and designers of these movies) simply doesn't display the obsessive-compulsive, hyper-neat little man's character as his creator conceived and described him in print. Suchet does.When I saw Dead Man's Folly the overriding memory that I took away was of the supreme ineffectuality of Jonathan Cecil's Hastings. There is some of that here, but far less. This is occasionally Cecil's fault, but is chiefly that of the writer who gave him nothing coherent to do or say at times, so he seemed to be standing there in the scene simply waiting for the other actors to say their lines. Here, however, Hastings is given a bit more to say, although there are times when once again Cecil is all too obviously waiting for his cue to say his next line. Where he fails seriously in his acting is when he and Ustinov are alone and discussing the case, and Cecil never varies the bland "waiting for his next line" face and had I been the director I would have screamed at him "for goodness' sake, man, look astonished! How did Poirot come up with what he's just said?" or "Look worried! Look extremely alarmed, even! You've just been told this chap's life is in danger!" This is, I have to say, just fearfully weak acting from one who should be the number two regular part in this screen crime-busting team, but who in fact all too often is simply a bit of set dressing who seems to be a half-wit mostly unaware of the deadly crimes going on around him.

As usual, when an Agatha Christie book is transferred to the screen, it loses something. And here, the story moved too fast to be caught up in it. In the novel, Poirot was confounded and almost couldn't solve the case; here he solves it as fast as snapping his fingers... You can't fault the actors, who give it a gung ho try. Faye Dunaway is great and Ustinov makes a very hilarious Hercule, but again, the character development Christie wrote so well is missing. The producers seem to think only plot will suffice. However, the film does look nice so it's not a total bust. (Murder on the Orient Express still hasn't been topped for all time best Christie adaption. And no one has come close to besting Albert Finney as H.P.) Side note: David Suchet as Inspector Japp is a nice bit of pre-Hercule trivia.