3/10
The last Poirot movie with Peter Ustinov is sadly a bad one
22 August 2015
This is the sixth and final time Peter Ustinov played Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot. It's also the third theatrical release Ustinov made after three horrible TV movies. While "Appointment with death" is better than those TV movies it is still unfortunately a rather bad movie.

This is a Golan-Globus production and surprisingly this movie actually has decent production values and cast. They did put some money in it – the movie was shot on location in England , Italy and Israel , we have period costumes , vehicles etc. The movie maybe didn't have huge budget , but at least it feels like a theatrical release. Pino Donaggio score is adequate to what is happening on the screen . It's nothing brilliant , but it doesn't have an 80's feel to it like some have complained.

"Appointment with death" is not really strongest of Agatha Christie books. The book is notable mainly for the character of Mrs. Boyton and the strange psychological bound she has over her family. The plot is otherwise boring. I think that the writer Anthony Shaffer ("Sleuth") knew that and added few things from himself to the story which was a good idea.

The problem with translating Christie's books is that they aren't very cinematic – they involve a lot of talking , psychology , they don't have action (fights , chases ) . It would take a REALLY talented director and actors to make a this kind of story to work. A perfect example is Sidney Lumet's "Murder on the orient express" . Great cast , sharp screenplay and solid direction make it work. In other hands it could be boring and cheesy B-movie.

"Appointment with death" suffers from many things. Mrs. Boynton isn't scary or fascinating like in the novel , she is just nasty. Piper Laurie ("Children of lesser God") is not bad , but her character is rather annoying and terribly one dimensional. Because of that we don't feel the psychological tension between the Boyton family members. In that way the movie misses completely the point of the book.

The other problem are the bland characters. Only Poirot , Mrs. Boyton and Lady Welstholm are interesting . Others are boring and also rather badly acted. John Gielgud ("Arthur") is wasted as his role is small and rather pointless. Lauren Bacall ("To have or have not") is good and Ustinov offers a typical for him performance as Poirot. Carrie Fisher ("Star wars") plays one of the Boytons and can't do much with such badly written role. The Boytons are so empty and completely interchangeable , it's hard to tell one from another.

The direction from Michael Winner ("Death wish") is shapeless . There are many pointless gigantic close ups or completely weird camera angles. The movie has no suspense and is delivered in too slow fashion. The screenplay doesn't rely seem to hold on the viewer's interest. The idea of dividing Poirot's final summation into two separate sequences serves no other purpose than to bide some time. The mystery is just not strong enough. It is difficult to care much about who it is committed the murder. There also seem to be too many plot contrivances here.

In the end it's a rather dull movie , that probably won't satisfy even the die-hard Christie fans. Better watch "Murder on the Orient Express" , "Death on the Nile" or "Evil under the sun". This movie is a step up from those horrible TV movies , but nothing more than that. It's a sad farewell for Ustinov. I give it 3/10.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed