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
26 Reviews
Not brilliant but OK
johnbol26 May 2005
This is not one of the best movies based on a Agatha Christie novel but i have seen worse. As for Ustinov as Poirot well...i'm getting tired of all those "fans" who claim that Suchett is the "definitive" Poirot, or that Ustinov is the better one. I enjoy both of them as i think both put their own stamp on the part and both have made Poirot movies that were either good or mediocre. This one is not as good as Evil under the sun or Death on the Nile but it still provides you with 90 minutes of entertainment. Most of the acting is so so. I did like Jean Stapleton as Ariadne Oliver but Ustinov has done better in the other Poirot movies i mentioned. Good for a rainy Sunday afternoon.
A Murder game gets real
bkoganbing14 December 2013
Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie's Belgian sleuth, is brought up to modern times in Dead Man's Folly. Normally Christie stories are better set in the period that they were written, but in this case no harm is done. Her detectives are quite eternal.
Peter Ustinov returns as Poirot with Jonathan Cecil as the ever dependable Captain Hastings and he's been invited to another one of those English estates by American mystery writer Jean Stapleton. She's giving one of those mystery hunt games at the estate and the invited guests are going to be the contestants.
It gets really out of hand when three real murders are discovered in the course of this film. A young girl from the village, an old estate caretaker and the wife of the Lord of the Manor Tim Pigott-Smith. And they are connected though how you will be surprised.
I will give you two clues the former owner of the estate Constance Cummings knows a lot more than she is revealing and the arrival of Jeff Yagher from America upsets a lot of well laid plans.
You'll enjoy figuring this one out if you can.
Peter Ustinov returns as Poirot with Jonathan Cecil as the ever dependable Captain Hastings and he's been invited to another one of those English estates by American mystery writer Jean Stapleton. She's giving one of those mystery hunt games at the estate and the invited guests are going to be the contestants.
It gets really out of hand when three real murders are discovered in the course of this film. A young girl from the village, an old estate caretaker and the wife of the Lord of the Manor Tim Pigott-Smith. And they are connected though how you will be surprised.
I will give you two clues the former owner of the estate Constance Cummings knows a lot more than she is revealing and the arrival of Jeff Yagher from America upsets a lot of well laid plans.
You'll enjoy figuring this one out if you can.
Decent, well-staged TV mystery
Marta27 August 2000
This made-for-TV movie is a good adaptation of Agatha Christie's story of the same name. Peter Ustinov again plays Hercule Poirot with aplomb as he unravels the mystery surrounding the Fair at Nass House and the architectural Folly. Dead bodies begin to pile up and no one is sure who they can trust among the many diverse guests at the Fair.
The biggest asset of this film is that it was shot on location in Great Britain at one of the Treasure Houses of England (Wilton House, I believe), which adds greatly to the period feel of the film. If shot anywhere else, it would have been a routine TV movie.
None of the performances truly stand out, but everyone plays their part with vigor and conviction. Most of the cast are English and they are much better than the American actors, who seem to be playing stock characters and don't quite fit in. However, it is a pleasant way to spend a few hours and revel in the grandeur of an authentic English estate.
The biggest asset of this film is that it was shot on location in Great Britain at one of the Treasure Houses of England (Wilton House, I believe), which adds greatly to the period feel of the film. If shot anywhere else, it would have been a routine TV movie.
None of the performances truly stand out, but everyone plays their part with vigor and conviction. Most of the cast are English and they are much better than the American actors, who seem to be playing stock characters and don't quite fit in. However, it is a pleasant way to spend a few hours and revel in the grandeur of an authentic English estate.
Entertaining version of an Agatha Christie story which was never one of my favorites...
Doylenf25 February 2010
There's plenty to admire in the costumes and settings for DEAD MAN'S FOLLY, most of which takes place at a handsome English villa in the countryside where a murder party game is being prepared by mystery writer Ariadne Oliver (JEAN STAPLETON). Unfortunately, Stapleton plays her role as broadly as she did Edith Bunker and there are times where her strident voice and manner becomes almost unbearable.
Elegant settings aren't enough to bring this one up to the standard of PETER USTINOV's theatrical movies DEATH ON THE NILE or EVIL UNDER THE SUN. However, the color photography is impressive and everything looks worthy of a theatrical showing--except that none of the cast members have roles that are really fleshed out. As a result, the identity of the murderer is one of those "it could have been anybody" sort of things because, as is usual with Christie, there are almost too many red herrings among the suspects.
Never a favorite of mine, this version has the heavily overweight Ustinov strutting around and putting Hastings down with some blunt remarks--mostly for comic value. JONATHAN CECIL plays Hastings with a humorous slant--far different from the Hastings in the David Suchet series--but his contribution is an entertaining one. NICOLETTE SHERIDAN as Hattie is delightful as the dim-witted lady of the manor.
Not the best of the Ustinov TV adaptations, but it's good enough entertainment to pass the time.
Elegant settings aren't enough to bring this one up to the standard of PETER USTINOV's theatrical movies DEATH ON THE NILE or EVIL UNDER THE SUN. However, the color photography is impressive and everything looks worthy of a theatrical showing--except that none of the cast members have roles that are really fleshed out. As a result, the identity of the murderer is one of those "it could have been anybody" sort of things because, as is usual with Christie, there are almost too many red herrings among the suspects.
Never a favorite of mine, this version has the heavily overweight Ustinov strutting around and putting Hastings down with some blunt remarks--mostly for comic value. JONATHAN CECIL plays Hastings with a humorous slant--far different from the Hastings in the David Suchet series--but his contribution is an entertaining one. NICOLETTE SHERIDAN as Hattie is delightful as the dim-witted lady of the manor.
Not the best of the Ustinov TV adaptations, but it's good enough entertainment to pass the time.
Crossed Identities.
rmax30482324 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Ustinov, as Poirot, is invited quite casually to a party at a mansion in the country by mystery writer, Jean Stapleton. Nobody ever invites me to a party at a country estate and I've begun to resent it. I'm more handsome than Hercule Poirot, and more charming and witty too, especially when drunk. If you doubt, ask my psychiatrist or any of my ex wives.
Peter Ustinov, sadly, looks older and perhaps a bit less vigorous than in his big-screen portrayals like "Death on the Nile" although he was only in his mid-60s. He was an enormously talented man who wrote plays, directed operas, and was chancellor of Durham University from 1992 on. He devoted much of his later years to UNICEF, and not just on ceremonial occasions.
Jean Stapleton still looks and sounds like Archie Bunker's wife, but it's largely a comic part and she fits the role. Jonathan Cecil is Captain Hastings. I'm afraid he has the face of one of the seven dwarfs -- I forget which one. Maybe Dopey, if Dopey were caught and stretched while in the embrace of a celestial black hole. It lacks all dignity. You'll see what I mean.
There is the usual assembly of guests at the party -- one victim and many suspects. The beautiful but brainless bride of the host is Nicolette Sheridan, who is I gather famous for some reason or other. At any rate, nobody in the movie seems to like her very much. Hubby is the jealous and arrogant Sir George Stubbs, played by Tim Piggot-Smith, whose narrative voice has added euphonious elaborations to several documentary films.
One of the sneakier characters in the tale is Jeff Yager as Eddie South, slick, with disgustingly even features,a big yacht, medallions, and a Hollywood hair style with a pompadour up front. It was a disappointment when he didn't turn out to be the killer.
Well, actually, there was no single murderer but rather two people who had cooked up an elaborate plot, and there are several red herrings strewn across the path to the solution. Nice photography, though, and scenic location shooting.
Peter Ustinov, sadly, looks older and perhaps a bit less vigorous than in his big-screen portrayals like "Death on the Nile" although he was only in his mid-60s. He was an enormously talented man who wrote plays, directed operas, and was chancellor of Durham University from 1992 on. He devoted much of his later years to UNICEF, and not just on ceremonial occasions.
Jean Stapleton still looks and sounds like Archie Bunker's wife, but it's largely a comic part and she fits the role. Jonathan Cecil is Captain Hastings. I'm afraid he has the face of one of the seven dwarfs -- I forget which one. Maybe Dopey, if Dopey were caught and stretched while in the embrace of a celestial black hole. It lacks all dignity. You'll see what I mean.
There is the usual assembly of guests at the party -- one victim and many suspects. The beautiful but brainless bride of the host is Nicolette Sheridan, who is I gather famous for some reason or other. At any rate, nobody in the movie seems to like her very much. Hubby is the jealous and arrogant Sir George Stubbs, played by Tim Piggot-Smith, whose narrative voice has added euphonious elaborations to several documentary films.
One of the sneakier characters in the tale is Jeff Yager as Eddie South, slick, with disgustingly even features,a big yacht, medallions, and a Hollywood hair style with a pompadour up front. It was a disappointment when he didn't turn out to be the killer.
Well, actually, there was no single murderer but rather two people who had cooked up an elaborate plot, and there are several red herrings strewn across the path to the solution. Nice photography, though, and scenic location shooting.
could have been much better
scott-palmer22 September 2009
Thank God that at least ITV will soon remake this film with David Suchet-the REAL Poirot. Ustinov like always plays Poirot as the untidy, overweight and sloppy Columbo type character, and Clive Donner seems to be directing a comedy at times. The TV Poirots made with Ustinov are a bit more comedic (unlike the way Christie wrote them) than the cinema versions he appeared in. Unfortunately this film was made as a UK/US co-production and CBS TV was involved, hence the casting of Jean Stapleton-one of the worst performances ever-screaming hysterically at times and calling Poirot "Her-cu-lee." (Near the end of this film Ustinov says her instincts at times are "excessive and stupid," and later says to her "You irritate me."-like she irritates the viewer!!!).
However in spite of these flaws, Dead Man's Folly has a good many things going for it-the filming in England at the stately home, a decent script, fine camera-work and editing, and very good performances by Constance Cummings, Tim Piggot-Smith, Susan Wooldridge, Kenneth Cranham, Nicolette Sheridan, and Jimmy Gardner in the smallish role of Old Murdell.
However in spite of these flaws, Dead Man's Folly has a good many things going for it-the filming in England at the stately home, a decent script, fine camera-work and editing, and very good performances by Constance Cummings, Tim Piggot-Smith, Susan Wooldridge, Kenneth Cranham, Nicolette Sheridan, and Jimmy Gardner in the smallish role of Old Murdell.
Fine acting, but a plot full of holes, literally
tabacblond13 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Review - DEAD MAN'S FOLLY (1986)
This is the darkest of the six films in which Peter Ustinov plays Hercule Poirot. It is one of three made for tv films. He appeared in three others, which were commercially released theatrical films.
Here he is surrounded by a stellar cast, with Tim Pigott-Smith, Constance Cummings and Jean Stapleton. The plot involves a murder game at an English estate, headed by crime writer, Ariadne Oliver, during which the make believe victim is actually murdered, followed of course by yet another murder. The plot is full of holes, literally. One involves burying an earlier murder victim under an area where a folly (summer house) is built. Obviously, Christie had no knowledge of construction or she would have known that the builders would have unearthed the body when laying the foundation for the folly. Also, if you have secrets, involving a murder or two, why would you host a weekend party playing at detective work, especially with a famous crime writer and the most famous detective in the fictional world as guests? As I said, the plot is full of holes.
Ustinov is his usual best as Poirot, one of his finest characterizations. Stapleton is, well, Stapleton, playing the hare-brained Ariadne as a toned down Edith Bunker. Amusing, but a bit over the top as a celebrity totally lacking social graces. Constance Cummings as the sad, guilt-ridden matriarch and Pigott-Smith as the tightly controlled lord of the estate give the best performances apart from Ustinov.
Worth watching for the acting, but not for the plot.
This is the darkest of the six films in which Peter Ustinov plays Hercule Poirot. It is one of three made for tv films. He appeared in three others, which were commercially released theatrical films.
Here he is surrounded by a stellar cast, with Tim Pigott-Smith, Constance Cummings and Jean Stapleton. The plot involves a murder game at an English estate, headed by crime writer, Ariadne Oliver, during which the make believe victim is actually murdered, followed of course by yet another murder. The plot is full of holes, literally. One involves burying an earlier murder victim under an area where a folly (summer house) is built. Obviously, Christie had no knowledge of construction or she would have known that the builders would have unearthed the body when laying the foundation for the folly. Also, if you have secrets, involving a murder or two, why would you host a weekend party playing at detective work, especially with a famous crime writer and the most famous detective in the fictional world as guests? As I said, the plot is full of holes.
Ustinov is his usual best as Poirot, one of his finest characterizations. Stapleton is, well, Stapleton, playing the hare-brained Ariadne as a toned down Edith Bunker. Amusing, but a bit over the top as a celebrity totally lacking social graces. Constance Cummings as the sad, guilt-ridden matriarch and Pigott-Smith as the tightly controlled lord of the estate give the best performances apart from Ustinov.
Worth watching for the acting, but not for the plot.
Best of three
Iain-21520 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Of the three TV movies to feature Ustinov's Poirot in the eighties, this is easily the best in my opinion. There are three negatives to get out of the way first; firstly the action is updated to the eighties but this is not much of a problem in this film - 'Dead Man's Folly' is an English country house murder and once we have arrived at Nasse House we could almost be in any decade from the forties onwards. The only real intrusion from the eighties is the character of rock music promoter Eddie South (French playboy Etienne de Sousa in the novel). Secondly there is some quite broad comedy which is occasionally irritating - particularly the large group of amateur investigators scurrying around after the police with notebooks (why are Mrs Oliver and Amanda Brewis allowed to take part in the interviews?). Lastly there is the irredeemably wet and drippy portrayal of Hastings by Jonathan Cecil to be endured - but his role is not an especially important one thankfully!
Happily there are also many positives. The setting for Nasse House and it's grounds is beautiful and the film is generally well shot. Ustinov himself seems happier and more natural in this movie than he was in 'Thirteen At Dinner' - his own delivery of the lines is smoother and there is less of the sometimes annoying rambling and add-libbing from the earlier film. He is also surrounded with (on the whole) a very good supporting cast. Jean Stapleton is lovely as an American Mrs Oliver and there are good performances also from Tim Piggot Smith and Susan Wooldridge. I actually liked Nicolette Sheridan as Hattie - the character is supposed to be theatrically vague and empty headed and she carries this off rather well. The best supporting performance of all however is undoubtedly Constance Cummings who just IS Mrs Folliat - this is a completely natural and unforced performance worthy of the 'big screen'.
The adaptation is supremely faithful to the book even in the minor details and seems to flow more smoothly than 'Thirteen At Dinner' which often seemed choppy. Altogether I enjoyed this very much and will certainly be watching again.
Happily there are also many positives. The setting for Nasse House and it's grounds is beautiful and the film is generally well shot. Ustinov himself seems happier and more natural in this movie than he was in 'Thirteen At Dinner' - his own delivery of the lines is smoother and there is less of the sometimes annoying rambling and add-libbing from the earlier film. He is also surrounded with (on the whole) a very good supporting cast. Jean Stapleton is lovely as an American Mrs Oliver and there are good performances also from Tim Piggot Smith and Susan Wooldridge. I actually liked Nicolette Sheridan as Hattie - the character is supposed to be theatrically vague and empty headed and she carries this off rather well. The best supporting performance of all however is undoubtedly Constance Cummings who just IS Mrs Folliat - this is a completely natural and unforced performance worthy of the 'big screen'.
The adaptation is supremely faithful to the book even in the minor details and seems to flow more smoothly than 'Thirteen At Dinner' which often seemed choppy. Altogether I enjoyed this very much and will certainly be watching again.
Not bad, just bland
gridoon20244 June 2008
Yet another one of Peter Ustinov's made-for-TV Hercule Poirot mysteries. These movies are a far cry from his theatrically released "Death on the Nile" and "Evil Under the Sun" in almost every way (cast, production values, scripting, etc.), but taken on their own they have their moments. "Dead Man's Folly" doesn't have too many of those moments, though. As the music score (which would be more appropriate for a slapstick comedy) quickly signals, this movie is played too broadly. Ustinov takes the comedic aspects of Poirot just a step too far in this one - he does a lot of mugging and even some double-takes. Hastings is not as idiotic here as he was in "Murder in Three Acts", but Hugh Fraser is much better in the David Suchet series. Jean Stapleton is OK as Mrs. Oliver, but again, Zoë Wanamaker was better in Suchet's "Cards on the Table". The cast on the whole is not bad, and there are a couple of real stunners in it (Nicolette Sheridan, Caroline Langrishe). But the direction is bland, and the result is a murder mystery more trivial than thrilling. (**)
Great Fun!
FiendishDramaturgy8 December 2007
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 :.
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 :.
Propably the worst from three Ustinov's TV movies as Poirot
Maziun22 August 2015
Based on one of Christie's weakest books this movie doesn't have much to offer. The updating of the movie to the 80's hurts , not as much as in "Murder in three acts" , but still. I usually don't mind hairstyles and clothes typical for a certain decade ( In few years people will be laughing how we dress now, the fashion changes so quick) , but to see Poirot standing next to a guy looking like an 80's rock star is simply embarrassing. There is serious lack of 50's atmosphere.
I can accept Peter Ustinov as Poirot. He doesn't look like him at all and makes him look like a clown on more than few occasions , but overall he does an adequate job. Jonathan Cecil is once again awful as Captain Hastings. He is simply idiotic and unlikable , not like Hugh Fraser in Poirot TV series. Jean Stapleton is OK as Mrs. Oliver , but Zoë Wanamaker was much better in Suchet's TV series.
The rest of the cast is mediocre at best or simply awful like Nicolette Sheridan and Tim Piggot-Smith.
The whole movie has a bland feel to it. Starting from the production design through music and direction. The whole mystery isn't thrilling , but more rather trite. There is no pacing or structure to it , it just goes from one commercial break to another.
The story itself has few very odd details. It takes only about 8 minutes to figure out who kills and that there is something suspicious about certain character. I did read the book first , long time before watching this movie , however I believe that even retarded chimpanzee would notice the not-so-subtle clues that the movie is giving to the viewer. Hastings is simply a pointless character , until the end of movie where he out of the blue appears to have important connections. What's with the Russian and Poirot ? Why inspector Bland allows Mrs.Oliver and Amanda Brewis to join the investigation and they walk with him EVERYWHERE. The way how Poirot comes to his solution of the mystery seems very forced and lucky.
Anyone not familiar with Agatha's Christie writing would never pick up one of her books from viewing this film (or the other Ustinov TV movies). I give it 1/10.
I can accept Peter Ustinov as Poirot. He doesn't look like him at all and makes him look like a clown on more than few occasions , but overall he does an adequate job. Jonathan Cecil is once again awful as Captain Hastings. He is simply idiotic and unlikable , not like Hugh Fraser in Poirot TV series. Jean Stapleton is OK as Mrs. Oliver , but Zoë Wanamaker was much better in Suchet's TV series.
The rest of the cast is mediocre at best or simply awful like Nicolette Sheridan and Tim Piggot-Smith.
The whole movie has a bland feel to it. Starting from the production design through music and direction. The whole mystery isn't thrilling , but more rather trite. There is no pacing or structure to it , it just goes from one commercial break to another.
The story itself has few very odd details. It takes only about 8 minutes to figure out who kills and that there is something suspicious about certain character. I did read the book first , long time before watching this movie , however I believe that even retarded chimpanzee would notice the not-so-subtle clues that the movie is giving to the viewer. Hastings is simply a pointless character , until the end of movie where he out of the blue appears to have important connections. What's with the Russian and Poirot ? Why inspector Bland allows Mrs.Oliver and Amanda Brewis to join the investigation and they walk with him EVERYWHERE. The way how Poirot comes to his solution of the mystery seems very forced and lucky.
Anyone not familiar with Agatha's Christie writing would never pick up one of her books from viewing this film (or the other Ustinov TV movies). I give it 1/10.
Ustinov is highly entertaining as Poirot
solar1218 October 2006
Peter Ustinov is an absolute joy to behold in the role of Hercule Poirot. He played Poirot in three theatrical films: Death On the Nile, Evil Under the Sun, and Appointment With Death. He also played Poirot in three TV movies: Thirteen At Dinner, Murder in Three Acts, and Dead Man's Folly. It's always a delight to spend time with Ustinov's Poirot. He's so much fun! The three Poirot TV movies starring Ustinov are now available in a three DVD set. I've had a great time watching these with friends and family and all of Ustinov's Poirot movies are worth watching and re-watching. My deep affection for Ustinov's Poirot grows with each viewing. He's brilliant and each of his Poirot movies are fantastic fun.
Improbable throughout
iph-129 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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...
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...
Ustinov as Poirot is a treat
coltras354 July 2021
Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot investigates an intriguing case of foul play during a game of murder hunt at a village fete, in which a woman supposedly playing the victim is found to be genuinely dead.
The rather low-key yet brilliant novel is turned into a highly entertaining TV movie starring Peter Ustinov, my favourite Poirot. His Poirot is far from dull, and you feel are with him all the way as he uses his little grey cells to nab the suspects, which are plenty. Some of the characterisations are good such as Nicolette Sheriden's as the dim-witted wife of sir George ( well played by Tim Piggot-Smith). Jean Stapleton playing Ariadne Oliver ( really Agatha Christie!) is brilliant.
The plot and mystery is spot on, though it can be complicated but the denouement at the end, as explained in detail by Poirot, fits the puzzle pieces together. The locations of the river, the boat and the folly adds atmosphere to a brilliant mystery.
The rather low-key yet brilliant novel is turned into a highly entertaining TV movie starring Peter Ustinov, my favourite Poirot. His Poirot is far from dull, and you feel are with him all the way as he uses his little grey cells to nab the suspects, which are plenty. Some of the characterisations are good such as Nicolette Sheriden's as the dim-witted wife of sir George ( well played by Tim Piggot-Smith). Jean Stapleton playing Ariadne Oliver ( really Agatha Christie!) is brilliant.
The plot and mystery is spot on, though it can be complicated but the denouement at the end, as explained in detail by Poirot, fits the puzzle pieces together. The locations of the river, the boat and the folly adds atmosphere to a brilliant mystery.
Horrible, horrible, horrible...
spirit1130 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'm slowly working my way through every instance of Christie's Poirot that I can find on film. I've seen Suchet, Ustinov, Randall, Holm, Molina, even the silly versions in a John Cleese film and a skit in a British 1980's sketch comedy. But this film with its over-the-top, melodramatic performances is the worst Poirot film I've ever seen. I rate it even lower than Tony Randall playing Poirot in the 1960's "Alphabet Murders." But understand. It isn't Ustinov who made it bad. It was the direction. I swear a few times I could see Ustinov wince at the other actors performances thinking, "How did I get into this mess?!?!" All I could think while watching was that the actors were purposely doing a send-up of Poirot, yet they all seemed so earnest, that couldn't be it. I can only conclude it was the direction. These actors are better than this. Far better!!! The movie struck me as campy, except for Poirot. Even the amazing on location setting can't overcome the failures in the acting. The only thing this did was elevate so many of the other performances I've seen for Poirot. At,least after this, it is almost impossible for any other performance to be worse!
Ustinov the definitive Poirot
peter_smith_174 May 2005
Now, it may come as a surprise to most people when you see the rating that I have given this TV-movie (10 out of 10), especially when you read most of the other comments on this movie. But I will explain, and you'll see that there is some method to my madness.
Firstly, I'm a huge Agatha Christie fan, especially of the Hercule Poirot mysteries. I had read the book Dead Man's Folly and had enjoyed it immensely, thus making me search out this movie. When I discovered that it was Peter Ustinov who was starring as Poirot I was over the moon, as I consider him by far the best Poirot. In my opinion, Ustinov is the definitive Poirot.
I managed to find the movie and then watch it. It was excellent. Ustinov was brilliant as the detective gifted with "the little grey cells". It was not as good as Evil Under The Sun or Death On The Nile, however my mark reflects the closeness of the movie to the text. I couldn't believe how close the movie was. As I was sitting there watching the film I was uttering the lines in my mind from how they were seen in the book. It was a terrific film and deserves every bit of my 10 marks.
Firstly, I'm a huge Agatha Christie fan, especially of the Hercule Poirot mysteries. I had read the book Dead Man's Folly and had enjoyed it immensely, thus making me search out this movie. When I discovered that it was Peter Ustinov who was starring as Poirot I was over the moon, as I consider him by far the best Poirot. In my opinion, Ustinov is the definitive Poirot.
I managed to find the movie and then watch it. It was excellent. Ustinov was brilliant as the detective gifted with "the little grey cells". It was not as good as Evil Under The Sun or Death On The Nile, however my mark reflects the closeness of the movie to the text. I couldn't believe how close the movie was. As I was sitting there watching the film I was uttering the lines in my mind from how they were seen in the book. It was a terrific film and deserves every bit of my 10 marks.
Hercule Poirot: Time Traveler.
mark.waltz14 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Peter Ustinov IS Hercule Poirot!
JackStallion21 December 2004
I love Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot. Forget all those other phonies who've tried to fill his shoes! Including that ridiculous Murder on the Orient Express, or that laughable David Sachet!
His sly, lovable demeanor rivals any of the great actors playing detectives- Peter Falk as Columbo, etc. He has a wonderful way of gaining the confidence and trust of each of his suspects, while probing them for information. You never really know who he suspects, and that's the fun of the mystery. He guides you through the maze like true detective.
I have seen each of his delicious portrayals as the great, Belgian detective several times, and they just get better with age.
His sly, lovable demeanor rivals any of the great actors playing detectives- Peter Falk as Columbo, etc. He has a wonderful way of gaining the confidence and trust of each of his suspects, while probing them for information. You never really know who he suspects, and that's the fun of the mystery. He guides you through the maze like true detective.
I have seen each of his delicious portrayals as the great, Belgian detective several times, and they just get better with age.
Too dorky to be any fun
Movie_Man 50011 January 2002
Ustinov going thru the motions one time too many as Poirot seems bored here. And adding Hastings to the plot really makes you feel like you're watching a cheap adaption. I loved Stapleton as Edith Bunker but as Miss Oliver the daffy mystery writer, she seems out of place. And by God is the killer easy to spot or what? Nicolette Sheridan gives an awful performance and may hold the title as worst actress ever to star in an Agatha Christie movie. She's really hard to take. Even in silence, which alas is never long enough.
Waste of time
jsnake3279 July 2014
Anyone not familiar with Dame Agatha's writing would never pick up one of her books from viewing this film. I think it very arrogant when screenwriters think they know better than the original author or when stories are "updated". Ustinov as Poirot is ludicrous, plays the part as a buffoon. I have not really enjoyed any of his portrayals of Poirot. And Hastings may as well not even be there. Jean Stapleton is too shrill, Zoe Wanamaker's Mrs. Oliver is way better. Good thing Angela Lansbury did Murder She Wrote. Would not have lasted one season with Ms. Stapleton. Hope PBS airs Dead Man's Follow with David Suchet very, very soon.
Not as Agatha Christie imagined!
benbrae7631 August 2006
There has been (so far) only one definitive screen Poirot and that is David Suchet. As much as I admired the art of the late Sir Peter Ustinov, he was always completely miscast in this role. He was nothing like the character that Agatha Christie envisaged, i.e. an over-fastidious dapper little man who had a mincing walk, a bald egg-shaped head and a dark waxed moustache. Peter's rotund shape, with crumpled clothes and a crumpled moustache to match, would make her, and indeed Poirot himself, turn in their graves. However, Ustinov, as he usually does in this role, and probably deliberately, hams it up (likewise the entire cast) with enthusiastic gusto, but again I suspect, not entirely as Miss Christie would have imagined it.
Jonathon Cecil plays Capt Hastings as if he was a complete moron. Although not blessed with the same "little grey cells" as his companion, Hastings was not written as a fool, and in fact had supposedly been in Military Intelligence, which (although suggested in the film), is not a place for idiots.
Overall this movie (as with all Ustinov's portrayals of the character) is to Poirot, as burlesque is to the legitimate theatre, but so what? It's enjoyable to watch, and that's what entertainment is all about.
Jonathon Cecil plays Capt Hastings as if he was a complete moron. Although not blessed with the same "little grey cells" as his companion, Hastings was not written as a fool, and in fact had supposedly been in Military Intelligence, which (although suggested in the film), is not a place for idiots.
Overall this movie (as with all Ustinov's portrayals of the character) is to Poirot, as burlesque is to the legitimate theatre, but so what? It's enjoyable to watch, and that's what entertainment is all about.
Ugh
michle5326 April 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I guess there were budget constraints requiring an updated setting for this film. I suppose they had to hire Motel 6 screenwriters as well. Pity. There is wasted talent here, for sure. I never saw this when it first came out, and I'm glad for that. I was on a Poirot jag and came upon these TV movies of the mid-late 80s. The exposition is clumsy, the dialog is forced, and it's delivered as though the actors are cutouts from Clutch Cargo. I was waiting for a Yuban commercial to appear. Oh no, give this series a pass, and don't sully your memory of the Ustinov Poirot from Death on the Nile.
A very good adaptation - except for the lack of 50s' atmosphere
binapiraeus6 November 2014
Of the three TV movies in which Peter Ustinov starred as Hercule Poirot (the other two being "Thirteen at Dinner" and "Murder in Three Acts"), in my humble opinion "Dead Man's Folly" is the most entertaining and suspenseful one; the script is marvelously close to Agatha Christie's novel, the cast is quite good for US TV standards, and the setting is a real old British manor, elaborately decorated, which tries to give the film a feeling of 'Old England'. BUT unfortunately, just like in the other two TV adaptations I mentioned, the producers obviously refused to create a REAL 1950s' atmosphere (the novel was written in 1956), and instead let the actors wear contemporary clothes and hairstyles of the 80s (and even use mobile phones!) - probably because that was what the audience wanted...
Anyway, as far as you can overlook those anachronisms (or in case you don't even notice them), this movie has got a very high entertainment value - mostly thanks to the protagonists, Peter Ustinov, Jean Stapleton as Poirot's highly imaginative writer friend, and Jonathan Cecil as Hastings. There's some nice humor in it (probably also for the sake of the TV audience; because in tone, the novel was quite a bit darker...), and it's a REAL murder mystery: the complicated plot unfolds slowly, and if you pay good attention to every detail and every word that's being said, you may be able to guess the murderer before Poirot presents the solution. If you're not too particular about the authenticity of the wardrobe, hairstyles, cars and music, this is an enormously enjoyable crime puzzle for every fan of the genre!
Anyway, as far as you can overlook those anachronisms (or in case you don't even notice them), this movie has got a very high entertainment value - mostly thanks to the protagonists, Peter Ustinov, Jean Stapleton as Poirot's highly imaginative writer friend, and Jonathan Cecil as Hastings. There's some nice humor in it (probably also for the sake of the TV audience; because in tone, the novel was quite a bit darker...), and it's a REAL murder mystery: the complicated plot unfolds slowly, and if you pay good attention to every detail and every word that's being said, you may be able to guess the murderer before Poirot presents the solution. If you're not too particular about the authenticity of the wardrobe, hairstyles, cars and music, this is an enormously enjoyable crime puzzle for every fan of the genre!
One for the collection
keith-moyes-656-48149123 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I am currently collecting TV and film adaptations of Agatha Christie and bought this Dead Man's Folly just to complete the set. That's my excuse: what's yours?
Like most TV movies, it has a bland, soporific, drifting feel, with no dramatic structure, no pace or rhythm within scenes and no overall sense of urgency. It just meanders listlessly from one advertisement break to the next until it has filled its two hour time slot.
It is hard to believe that the director, Clive Donner, was once regarded as one of the bright hopes of the British film industry. Years of working in television seem to have blunted whatever edge his work once had. He and Ustinov had previously worked together on Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen. I can imagine Donner saying "Well Peter, do you think we can make one worse than that?" and Ustinov replying "I doubt it, but let's give it a try."
Because this movie never managed to capture my full attention I wasn't always sure what was going on.
For example, I never understood the mechanics of the Murder Hunt so I didn't see why it was important to the actual murder. Similarly, Ariadne Oliver didn't seem to have any real reason for inviting Poirot to the event so when the murder is eventually committed he has nothing to go on and just bumbles around without purpose or plan.
In truth, he doesn't really do much detecting, so the process by which he comes to suspect the truth is somewhat obscure. The crucial breakthrough is simply something he is told by the dead girl's sister. Since there was no other way he could have got this information I have to conclude that if she hadn't blabbed when she did the mystery would never have been solved.
Even when this crucial information is dropped into his lap, Poirot is still a long way away from understanding what is really going on, so the final solution comes completely out of the blue. It also proves to be thoroughly absurd.
It turns out that George Stubbs and his wife are both impostors. Together, they have murdered the real Hattie and then proceed to murder the two people they think could expose them. But why do they think that these are the only people they have to worry about? He is returning to his childhood home so how can he hope to escape immediate recognition? Similarly, she is spooked by the arrival of one of Hattie's old friends, but why only that one? Did that unfortunate corpse have no other friends, family or acquaintances that might also want to visit her from time to time? How could this couple imagine for one minute that their imposture would remain undetected?
For some reason that escaped me, the fake Hattie also assumes the disguise of an Italian student and then disappears, leaving everybody thinking that Hattie too has been murdered.
Was there a reason for this?
I would like to be able to blame this farrago on the writer, Rod Browning, or Warner Bros Television, but other reviewers have said that this adaptation is actually very faithful to the book. If so, it must have been one of Agatha Christie's off days.
The mystery of Dead Man's Folly is apparently lined up for David Suchet's Poirot. It will be interesting to see how much they will change the story to make to make it more plausible (or at least more interesting).
Mention of David Suchet brings me to my other main reservation about this movie: Peter Ustinov.
Far from being the 'definitive Poirot', as some reviewers have called him, I think he is just an irritating ham who condescends to nearly every role he plays. I get the impression that he thought he was too good for the movies he appeared in, so he was doing them a favour when he sent them up.
I might be able to accept this superior attitude from Ustinov if I had ever seen him give a real performance in a challenging role, but despite his two Oscars I cannot recall one. I doubt if he was ever really capable of it.
PS: In truth, anybody would have been too good for some of the movies Ustinov appeared in and his amused contempt for the material was sometimes the only thing that made them watchable. My objection to Ustinov is that this became a habit and carried over into work that deserved better of him.
PPS I have now seen the David Suchet version (much better in all respects) and taken another look at this one. The story made more sense when I actually paid attention to it, but remains somewhat implausible and is slightly undermined by the updating. My aversion to Ustinov's performance only intensified on second viewing. His persistent hamming was hard to tolerate and his constant upstaging of all the other actors was actually offensive.
Like most TV movies, it has a bland, soporific, drifting feel, with no dramatic structure, no pace or rhythm within scenes and no overall sense of urgency. It just meanders listlessly from one advertisement break to the next until it has filled its two hour time slot.
It is hard to believe that the director, Clive Donner, was once regarded as one of the bright hopes of the British film industry. Years of working in television seem to have blunted whatever edge his work once had. He and Ustinov had previously worked together on Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen. I can imagine Donner saying "Well Peter, do you think we can make one worse than that?" and Ustinov replying "I doubt it, but let's give it a try."
Because this movie never managed to capture my full attention I wasn't always sure what was going on.
For example, I never understood the mechanics of the Murder Hunt so I didn't see why it was important to the actual murder. Similarly, Ariadne Oliver didn't seem to have any real reason for inviting Poirot to the event so when the murder is eventually committed he has nothing to go on and just bumbles around without purpose or plan.
In truth, he doesn't really do much detecting, so the process by which he comes to suspect the truth is somewhat obscure. The crucial breakthrough is simply something he is told by the dead girl's sister. Since there was no other way he could have got this information I have to conclude that if she hadn't blabbed when she did the mystery would never have been solved.
Even when this crucial information is dropped into his lap, Poirot is still a long way away from understanding what is really going on, so the final solution comes completely out of the blue. It also proves to be thoroughly absurd.
It turns out that George Stubbs and his wife are both impostors. Together, they have murdered the real Hattie and then proceed to murder the two people they think could expose them. But why do they think that these are the only people they have to worry about? He is returning to his childhood home so how can he hope to escape immediate recognition? Similarly, she is spooked by the arrival of one of Hattie's old friends, but why only that one? Did that unfortunate corpse have no other friends, family or acquaintances that might also want to visit her from time to time? How could this couple imagine for one minute that their imposture would remain undetected?
For some reason that escaped me, the fake Hattie also assumes the disguise of an Italian student and then disappears, leaving everybody thinking that Hattie too has been murdered.
Was there a reason for this?
I would like to be able to blame this farrago on the writer, Rod Browning, or Warner Bros Television, but other reviewers have said that this adaptation is actually very faithful to the book. If so, it must have been one of Agatha Christie's off days.
The mystery of Dead Man's Folly is apparently lined up for David Suchet's Poirot. It will be interesting to see how much they will change the story to make to make it more plausible (or at least more interesting).
Mention of David Suchet brings me to my other main reservation about this movie: Peter Ustinov.
Far from being the 'definitive Poirot', as some reviewers have called him, I think he is just an irritating ham who condescends to nearly every role he plays. I get the impression that he thought he was too good for the movies he appeared in, so he was doing them a favour when he sent them up.
I might be able to accept this superior attitude from Ustinov if I had ever seen him give a real performance in a challenging role, but despite his two Oscars I cannot recall one. I doubt if he was ever really capable of it.
PS: In truth, anybody would have been too good for some of the movies Ustinov appeared in and his amused contempt for the material was sometimes the only thing that made them watchable. My objection to Ustinov is that this became a habit and carried over into work that deserved better of him.
PPS I have now seen the David Suchet version (much better in all respects) and taken another look at this one. The story made more sense when I actually paid attention to it, but remains somewhat implausible and is slightly undermined by the updating. My aversion to Ustinov's performance only intensified on second viewing. His persistent hamming was hard to tolerate and his constant upstaging of all the other actors was actually offensive.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
