mark.waltz If another actor had assumed the role of the great Belgian detective, setting this in the present day may not have been so jarring. But with Peter Ustinov having been seen in two feature films of this already ("Death on the Nile" and "Evil Under the Sun") and one more on the way ("Appointment With Death"), that is really shocking here, especially since the films were very popular, beginning with Albert Finney 12 years before in "Murder on the Orient Express".Taking away the period costumes and exotic places and putting in young men with mullets, trashilly dressed young women and a dotty mystery writer (Jean Stapleton, taking on a similar role that she had turned down for "Murder She Wrote" much to Angela Lansbury's better luck), the missing qualities are all the more obvious. Still present though are the obvious facts of Poirot being in the right place at the right time (unless you are one of the suspects) to overhear plots being hatched or collect various clues, and the result seems very forced. In this case, it surrounds a murder at a British country estate which includes false identities, disguises and even attempted matricide. Veteran actress Constance Cummings is a delight to find in this film, her character of a broke heiress with many secrets the highlight of the film.Even more obvious is the break to the commercials, sometimes returning with another character repeating what another character had just said. That gives this an aura of being rushed into production and ultimately the weakest of Ustinov's Poirot entries.

TheLittleSongbird I haven't read the book Dead Man's Folly, and this TV movie is the only one of the 6 movies Peter Ustinov did as Poirot, where that is the case. Now Dead Man's Folly I found to be very entertaining, with very good performances and a fine denouncement. However the script was weak and underdeveloped in places, the music didn't really stand out unlike Death On the Nile(the music was absolutely superb in that movie) and I found the overall film to be a tad too broad. I don't think it is as good as Death on the Nile or Evil Under the Sun, which are the best of the Ustinov outings. On a positive note, for a TV movie, it looks beautiful, with wonderful period detail, pleasant scenery and very nice photography. And the clothes were lovely to look at too. The denouncement is very unexpected and cleverly done, and I wouldn't have guessed it in a million years. But what makes the film so enjoyable is the cast. While I still consider David Suchet to be the definitive Poirot, Peter Ustinov was still a joy to behold and is clearly enjoying himself. Jean Stapleton positively brings life to the proceedings as Ariadne Oliver. Both Kenneth Cranham and Tim Piggott-Smith give good performances, if playing it safe. Jonathan Cecil is very entertaining as Hastings and Nicollette Sheridan is lovely as Hattie. But other than Ustinov the standout was indeed Constance Cummings as Amy, a truly delightful performance. All in all, while not the best of the Ustinov Poirot outings, it is a glossy and entertaining one, and actually one of the better ones. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

Elswet This installment of Agatha Christie's adaptations features none other than Jean Stapleton! This is a clever adaptation, directed by Clive Donner (Arthur the King, 1985; A Christmas Carol, 1984; Oliver Twist, 1982; and What's New Pussycat, 1965) with a near-slick production quality (especially for its time!) and a great cast! This one was a tad more difficult to puzzle, but more's the fun when you're talking about an Agatha Christie murder mystery and Peter Ustinov! (Far and away my favorite Poirot.) Nothing silly, not a single moment of wasted film, and a fantastic contribution by each and every one. I highly recommend this one to anyone with a love of mystery.All in all? This is great fodder for the younger teen in assisting in the development of their analytical mind.It rates a 7.6/10 from...the Fiend :.

iph-1 Much as I've loved Ustinov's wit and other talents, I never found him convincing as Poirot and I don't here. He is physically wrong: too large. I am with those who find David Suchet the more successful personification.Next, Hastings. This man was made a Captain in the British army and (according to remarks given to Poirot in this movie, anyway) had connections with "the Secret Service", yet poor Jonathan Cecil's face seems fixed as a blank rather moronic smile. For the first half hour, though obviously much of this is down to the screenplay and direction, he merely follows Poirot about with a face and body language that suggest he is merely trying to be as unobtrusive as possible, like an extra playing a waiter in a denouement scene staged in a restaurant. When, out of the blue, Poirot instructs him to "use your influence on your old friends at the Secret Service", Cecil as Hastings stands there listening to him with an expression that merely says he is waiting for Ustinov to finish saying the line. Whoever did his hair did a poor job too: the cut is all wrong and it looks dyed on top and grey and the almost non-existent temple sideburns as though an amateur trying to do his own makeup for a village hall play.The many other characters seem competently enough played to me, for a middling quality TV movie; the screenplay and direction -- and I haven't the time to go back to Christie to see how much was from her -- but there are quite a few odd and unconvincing details.Poirot picks out some foreign young man from the youth hostel nearby and starts uttering remarks in Russian to him. I can't imagine Poirot doing this, and put it down to the fact that this is Ustinov we are watching. In the grand denouement scene we get some sort of explanation of this Soviet presence, but as the young man never gives Poirot (or us, anyway) any sign that he understands this or is Russian, we are left to take it on trust that Poirot knew as if by magic that this man was Russian and why he was there.I was unaware until the denouement scene of who all the apparently miscellaneous people in the house party were, and in particular that there was an unhappily married couple among them. The introductions when Poirot and Hastings arrive, and the comings and goings at the breakfast scene on the morning of the main event (the funfair in the gardens), are just a muddle from the audience's point of view.Cranham as Bland was just that. Presumably driven by the screenplay, this detective was almost sycophantic in his toleration of Poirot's assistance. Whether this was Christie or Rod Browning's doing, it struck an improbable note with me. So did the fact that not only Poirot, Hastings, and Mrs Oliver followed Bland and the uniformed policemen around, but the secretary Amanda Brewis did as well. Why was she in on all the interrogations? Given her unnatural devotion to her boss (she was quite clearly extremely jealous of Lady Stubbs), she should have been a suspect!My impression when it was over was of a very weak production with some quite feeble acting and a screenplay that struggled to contain and present all the characters. It sounds false whenever one is given the feeling that this is a bunch of actors standing around on camera, all waiting for each bit of someone else's dialogue to stop before they say their bit. Still, the location scenery was wonderful, as a reminder of a grand English country house worthy of National Trust preservation...