Agatha Christie Collection Reviews: Thirteen for Dinner

In the world of Agatha Christie films, the BBC films naturally stand out: Joan Hickson's films; David Suchet's Poirot episodes and films.

However, the Agatha Christie Collection deserves some praise.

These movies are modernized (1980s) versions of classic Christie mysteries, starring Peter Ustinov as Poirot, Helen Hayes as Miss Marple, and even Anthony Andrews as a private investigator. They run the range from ehhh to quite good.

I will review Evil Under the Sun and Death on the Nile, theater movie also starring Ustinov, separately. Both movies were attempts to capitalize on the success of Murder on the Orient Express (1974) by showcasing well-known actors and actresses. They are irritating rather than clever.

The made-for-television movies, however, are often quite good and even, surprisingly enough, quite accurate. These posts will supply reviews, starting with--

Thirteen for Dinner

First, a word about Peter Ustinov. Does he look anything like Christie's Poirot? No. Not even slightly.

But he is so obviously having fun, I give him a pass.

Yup, that's Suchet before he became Poirot.

Thirteen for Dinner is impressively accurate to the original text. Faye Dunaway plays a kind of prototype of Nicole Kidman's character in To Die For and does it quite well. In fact, I consider her performance and Helen Grace's performance in Lord Edgware Dies (the Poirot version) to be among the strongest of all Christie mystery performances.

I do prefer Hugh Fraser as Hastings to Jonathan Cecil--the latter actor embodies the word "daft." Still, he is so adorable, he doesn't bother me so much.

Cecil & Ustinov

Ustinov's version does a particularly fine job not only with Dunaway but with the storyline's important clues. Like many Christie novels and plays, Thirteen at Dinner rests on identity being assumed rather than verified, a psychological point that is upheld by current science. (We assume that certain markers tell us who a person is rather than looking twice.) The clues that lead to the final revelation are suitably presented.

In fact, this mystery contains some of Christie's cleverest forensic-type clues. The smart but dumb murderer manages to successfully--and believably--keep Poirot on his toes.

The movie drags a bit in places but that's fairly typical of TV movies which actually work best in fifteen minute increments. Most importantly, from my perspective, it respects the original Christie vision. Changes naturally must be made when moving from book to film. Respect for the power of the original (there's a reason the woman sold so many books!) should remain.