Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn American movie actress, best known for playing dumb blondes, is Scotland Yard's prime suspect when her husband, Lord Edgware, is murdered. The great detective, Hercule Poirot, digs deeper... Tout lireAn American movie actress, best known for playing dumb blondes, is Scotland Yard's prime suspect when her husband, Lord Edgware, is murdered. The great detective, Hercule Poirot, digs deeper into the case.An American movie actress, best known for playing dumb blondes, is Scotland Yard's prime suspect when her husband, Lord Edgware, is murdered. The great detective, Hercule Poirot, digs deeper into the case.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Serious Actress
- (as Orianne Grieve)
- Moxon
- (as Russell Keith-Grant)
Avis à la une
I happen to like Thirteen at Dinner. It's one of the smaller films as it was made for TV. You certainly can't compare it to the lavish "Murder on the Orient Express." And I frankly like it better than "Murder in Three Acts." I always love Ustinov as Poirot. One of the other comments said these characters are never how you picture them after reading the books. Interesting and true. The very popular Miss Marple of Margaret Rutherford had nothing to do with Miss Marple as she was written, and Ustinov has nothing to do with Poirot as written. I think David Suchet was perfect as Poirot as Christie wrote him, and I loved seeing him as Inspector Japp in this, but for a fun time, call 1-800-Ustinov! Because this is based on a Christie mystery, however poor the production values or the cast, the basic story is always interesting, as this was. Faye Dunaway is absolutely gorgeous in this movie in both her roles. And it did have a British flavor (which "Murder in Three Acts" absolutely did not.) I really don't understand giving this 1 star. Surely we've all seen worse.
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.
PETER USTINOV is fine as Poirot and David SUCHET is equally impressive as Inspector Japp, almost making you forget he went on to play Hercule for the British TV series. LEE HORSLEY has little to do but strut around as a not too bright movie star who never performs his own stunts and he does it well.
Production values are good enough without being overly lavish, so I see no need to criticize them. Updating the story doesn't hurt as much as the updating with computer nonsense for one of Christie's best stories, MURDER IS EASY ('82) which was hurt by the modernization done by Carmen Culver on the script and putting American Bill Bixby in the lead.
Poirot's explanation for the crime makes sense and we actually see how it was done in a useful flashback at the end of the story.
For Christie fans, a good Hercule Poirot story brought to life by a talented cast.
I disagree with the negative comments here. The movie held my attention throughout and was a delight to watch. Faye Dunaway's portrayal of the dual roles was over the top but that was the nature of the two women she played. The actress Jane Wilkinson is clearly based on some of the mannerisms of Marilyn Monroe and Faye does this convincingly.
I didn't initially think Peter Ustinov would make a good Poirot, but he captures the detective's droll and determined persona and is quite convincing.
I wish they would make more movies like this. Though Peter and Faye are clearly the lead actors in it, there's an ensemble cast that works together to lead us on a merry chase of suspects. The locations are magnificent. All in all this is definitely worth watching even if it lacks the big budget of the ones Ustinov made for theatrical release.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAppearing here as Inspector Japp, David Suchet played Hercule Poirot in the television series Hercule Poirot (1989), including Lord Edgware Dies (2000), another version of this story. In later years, Suchet has often said that his performance as Japp was the worst of his entire career.
- GaffesDuring Poirot's solution the long tracking shot of the dinner party during the flashback has been reversed as evidenced by one of the maid's walking backwards behind the seated characters.
- Citations
Inspector Japp: Poirot - buzz off like a good chap, will you? I've got bigger fish to fry.
Hercule Poirot: In a good bouillabaisse the little fish are often tastier than the big ones.
Inspector Japp: What are you talking about?
Hercule Poirot: Add poison, however, and the whole soup is polluted. Then the size of the fish are immaterial.
Inspector Japp: What's fish got to do with it?
Hercule Poirot: It was your own metaphor; I didn't bring the fish...
Inspector Japp: I didn't either!
Hercule Poirot: Stop fish then! Let's leave it out!
- ConnexionsFollowed by Poirot joue le jeu (1986)