Thirteen at Dinner

1985
Thirteen at Dinner
6.2| 1h35m| en| More Info
Released: 19 September 1985 Released
Producted By: Warner Bros. Television
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Actress Jane Wilkinson wants a divorce, but her husband, Lord Edgware, refuses. She convinces Hercule Poirot to use his famed tact and logic to make her case. Lord Edgware turns up murdered, a well-placed knife wound at the base of his neck. It will take the precise Poirot to sort out the lies from the alibis - and find the criminal before another victim dies.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Warner Bros. Television

Trailers & Images

Reviews

TheLittleSongbird I do much prefer Death on the Nile and Evil Under The Sun, but this is still enjoyable, adapted from the brilliant book Lord Edgeware Dies. Considering it was made for TV, it is glossily made, with some nice camera-work and lovely period detail, and is entertaining. Of course it isn't completely faithful to the book, the final solution scene while a very nice touch is a departure from the book. The script is fine, and so is the acting. Peter Ustinov, while bearing little resemblance in terms of looks to his novelistic counterpart, is thoroughly entertaining as Poirot, and is clearly enjoying himself. Faye Dunnaway is highly commendable in the duel roles of Jane Wilkinson and Carlotta Adams, and David Suchet(the present Poirot, who is actually truer to the Poirot in the books) is impressive as Japp. Bill Nighy is fairly good as Ronald, though he has done better work since. All in all, very good made for TV whodunit, not as good as Death on the Nile, but an improvement on Appointment With Death, which I still think is the weakest of the Ustinov outings. 7/10 Bethany Cox
gridoon2018 ....David Suchet's 2000 version of the same story, "Lord Edgeware Dies", is even better. That makes the score Ustinov-Suchet 1-1, since I preferred Ustinov's version of "Evil Under the Sun". I guess I could use "Death on the Nile" as the tiebreaker, but the 1978 film is one of my long-time favorites, and I don't really feel the need to see another version. Anyway, back to "Thirteen at Dinner". There are 2 main reasons why this is better than "Dead Man's Folly" and "Murder in Three Acts": the comedy is more restrained, and the film is shot on location around London; in fact, it's pretty close in flavor (apart from the updating to the 80's, of course) to the Suchet series - we see Poirot in his apartment, Hastings reading his newspaper, and of course Suchet himself appears as Inspector Japp. However, the story (one of Agatha Christie's most brilliantly simple ones) is not as well-illustrated here as it is in the Suchet version: without going into too many details, I'll only say that in the 2000 film we SEE what happens during the night of Lord Edgeware's murder, so when it is revealed at the end what REALLY happened, it comes as more of a shock. In this film, Japp simply comes to Poirot's apartment in the morning and announces the murder, and we only see the events of the night at the end, narrated by Poirot. Faye Dunaway might be a little better than Helen Grace (who was also very good) as Jane Wilkinson, and the fact that she also plays Carlotta Adams certainly makes the "impersonation" part of the plot more believable, but for someone who is second-billed she doesn't really have THAT much screen time, unlike Grace who almost dominated her picture. As for Jonathan Cecil's Hastings, he is just about acceptable this time. (**1/2)
Elswet I prefer my Poirot to be portrayed by Ustinov, and although this is more obscure than most, it IS better than some. No, it isn't lavish, and they did not spend a fortune on the production, but it is not the worst of the crop.Faye Dunaway co-stars, along with Lee Horseley, and a (very) young Bill Nighy, directed by Lou Antonio (long-time television director) and dominated by the lovely Ustinov. Made for TV, not rated, but highly enjoyable who dunnit, which posed an interesting conundrum as the principle quandary.All in all, I found it highly entertaining, and perfect as a Sunday afternoon diversion, though I'd watch Ustinov as Poirot anytime.It rates a 7.4/10 from...the Fiend :.
jamesbernthal The real mystery here is how Lou Antonio managed to get such a great Agatha Christie film and break it down to ruins so completely. It's set in 1985, Poirot goes on TV(?! I don't think the late dame Agatha would ever have done that), and Peter Ustinov keeps getting the lines hopelessly wrong. The mystery aspect is pretty much taken care of instantly, when the murderer says something, a young man goes "hmm... that's a clue", the murderer looks at the man suspiciously, then the next minute the man is dead, to help you solve it just in case you didn't see the murderer leaving the scene of the crime. If all American TV is like this, I'm glad I live in England. In fact, the only thing this film is good for is the introduction of David Suchet (playing Inspector Japp) to the world of Poirot. If the producers of the LWT series hadn't spotted him, we might have Peter Sallis playing Poirot every Sunday!