(Larger Image)
|
Thirteen at Dinner
Product Group: Video
Studio: Warner Home Video
ISBN: 6302697689
EAN: 9786302697681
UPC: 085391174936
VHS Tape
Running Time: 91 minutes
Original Release Date: 1985-09-19
Theatrical Release Date: 1985-09-19
Release Date: 1995-03-28
Audience Rating: NR (Not Rated)
SKU: V1697
Condition: New
|
Customer Reviews
|
This Movie Sucks!!! (But Amanda Pays Is Beautiful!!!)
Rating  (5)
Date: 2005-10-03
Allow me to outline the plot of this movie for you. This rich English guy gets murdered. His ex wife has a double who can impersonate her. His ex wife has the alibi that she was at a dinner party at the time of the murder. Now if you haven't figured out "whodunnit" by now I strongly suggest you don't join Mensa and should maybe consider going back to High School to finish your education. Peter Ustinov is his usual hammy Detective Hercule Poirot but thankfully Amanda Pays is in this movie which is the only good reason to watch it. Sadly we do not see enough of her in films these days but her presence in this movie makes me give it 5 stars.
|
|
Ustinov Captures Poirot Against the Odds
Rating  (4)
Date: 2004-08-18
6 out of 6 customers found this reveiw helpful
Although many fellow Christie fans would argue that David Suchet is the definitive Poirot, I beg to disagree. To my mind, few have captured Poirot's spirit and Christie's humorous intentions as well as Peter Ustinov. While being completely contrary to the physical description of Poirot, Ustinov suggests all of Poirot's characteristics from the fastidious vanity, the wicked humor, the inquisitive and observational eye, the "egg shape" and the chaste appreciation of women. He brings out the lightness in Christie's work which so many other adaptations fail to capture.
In "Thirteen at Dinner" (which veers from the book "Lord Edgeware Dies" on some accounts, most noticably setting the action in the 1970's as opposed to the 1930's), as he himself experiences some "celebrity" on David Frost's talk show, Poirot is up against the vain world of American Hollywood celebrities. It is on the talk show, in fact, that he meets a look alike for American actress Jane Wilkinson (both played by Faye Dunaway) whom he later encounters again at a dinner given by the real Wilkinson. The notion of doubles underscores the theme and is maintained throughout from the amusing "stand-ins" that do the action scenes for actor Brian (Lee Horsley), Wilkinson's co-star, to mirror images that reflect multiple Poirots. The real Jane Wilkinson is married to Lord Edgeware and quite open about her desire to divorce him. She even brags about doing away with him. Shortly afterwards it is discovered that Lord Edgeware has indeed been murdered. Jane Wilkinson is the obvious suspect; the only problem is that she has an alibi for the night of his murder -- and many witnesses.
Even if you guess the solution, it doesn't spoil the fun. And fun it is. The actors appear to be enjoying themselves and Ustinov keeps things very amusing with his repartee with companion Hastings. As always, Poirot sorts through clues (an unknown party's spectacles, a reference to the judgment of Paris), red herrings, and suspects and his "little gray cells" come up with not only the who, but the why and how of it. The lampoons about Hollywood and its parallels against the superficial fashion industry are enjoyable and nothing is too serious. Yes, one should read the book, which is a different experience, but this is still entertaining viewing. Because of the pleasant stars and tongue-in-cheek approach, I, a purist, didn't mind this spin on Christie's fine book.
|
|
Peter Ustinov returns as "Poirot".
Rating  (1)
Date: 2004-04-22
5 out of 7 customers found this reveiw helpful
Peter Ustinov returns for the third time as Belguim Detective, Hercule Poirot, since his portrail in DEATH ON THE NILE (1978) and EVIL UNDER THE SUN (1982). Thirteen At Dinner is a 1985 tv-movie. The cast includes Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley (Matt Houston tv series). Poirot is interviewed by talk show host David Frost, who has just interviewed Lee Horsley as "Brian". A surprise on the talk show is Horsley's co-star Jane Wilkenson (played by Faye Dunaway). But after a few dramatic lines, we find out it is an impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson (also played by Faye Dunaway) is at home watching this live on television. She invites them to her house for dinner, including the impersonator. The real Jane Wilkenson is also known as Lady Edgeway by marriage. She wants a divorce from her husband. later that night, Horsley confides to Poirot a strange woman has been following him. The next morning, we find out that Lady Edgeway's husband has been murdered last night. On the movie set, we se Lee Horsley in his "Matt Houston" role (listen for the in-joke). Horsley thinks Lady Edgeway did it and , of course, must be replaced on the movie.
Folks, if you do not have this one figured out in less than 10 minutes, you were into your ice cream. Okay, I'll give you 24 minutes. If you are too good, you have been watching "Columbo".
Followed by, with Peter ustinov as "Poirot": Dead man's Folly (1986-tv), Murder in Three Acts (1986-tv), Appointment With Death (1988).
|
|
'Thirteen At Dinner' will make you rush for dinner!
Rating (1)
Date: 2003-07-04
3 out of 9 customers found this reveiw helpful
Horrible! Completely and utterly horrible! Horribly horrible!!
Why did they make this movie? For passing time? Wouldn't they rather have read a book, or gone jogging?
-->The negative aspects:
1. A cabbage placed in place of each actor, would have acted more impressively!
2. The sound recording makes you wonder why silent films are catching on again!
3. The dullness and dreariness are very genuine!
4. The music (meant to be eerie and have a mysterious air) really makes one scream...for other reasons, though!
5. Peter Ustinov (!)
6. The sets are very convincing...convincingly lousy!
7. The plot has been shown so clearly that one could easily mistake this movie for Bambi! (no offense meant for Walt Disney).
Please note: This list could continue endlessly!-->The positive aspects:
1. A true depressent for one in extremely high spirits!
|
|
Poor actors, bad script from bad choice of book to dramatise
Rating (1)
Date: 2002-07-16
8 out of 11 customers found this reveiw helpful
This dramatisation is based on Agatha Christie's book "Lord Edgeware Dies" where the murder suspect is obvious but the evidence and alibis etc puts her in the clear and casts suspicions on other characters.Readers would have immediately jumped to the conclusion that if actress Jane Wilkinson was seen to have entered the study of her husband Lord Edgeware the night he was murdered, at the same time she was supposed to be miles away attending a dinner party of 13, then her look-alike Charlotta must have been involved. What made the book worth reading was how Poirot untangled the web of deceit to produce hard evidence to convict the murderer and clear the innocent. And that is something that would have been difficult to transpose from the printed pages into the screen. Not impossible, but it would take an experienced team, with lots of patience into the art and a willingness to extend the show beyond the 80 minutes or so. Unfortunately, the producing team failed to do just that and as a result, the entire film was a flop (I didn't buy this video, borrowed it from the library). Another unforgivable error was that while the book had been published in 1933, the film producers set it in 1970s-80s. Viewers can immediately sense the awkwardness, even those who had never read the book would feel it too. Crucial dialogues from the novel was thoroughly mutilated in the script or in the setting. It is not impossible to dramatise Christie's work on a low budget, some of her stories would have been just right, but this is not one of them. Despite the unfaultable performances of the cast - Peter Ustinov, Faye Dunaway and Lee Horsley, the whole film was a disgrace, far from the fantastic work done by Peter Ustinov as Poirot in Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun. I suppose the cast regretted ever making this one, but it's the producers who ought to be shot.
|
|
|