(Hercule Poirot) is one of the most ridiculous characters ever. He's indistinct, unfunny, and with (Peter Ustinov)'s performance; too dull to stand. However, I'm a mystery, 1980s, (Tony Curtes) fan, so let's watch and enjoy in spite of (Ustinov)'s (Poirot). The problem is.. I didn't find much to enjoy!
The movie is played as a play from start to finish. The title refers to "a play feel" but it doesn't necessarily need to be one! The script is a frank bore. In fact, it's a great lesson in how to not write a movie, or how to write a radio show! It enjoys showing every important event through a phone call! The scenes are crowded with dialogue that has no thrilling spirit, or any sense of humor. It deals very poorly with everyone; for instance, a character like (Hastings), (Poirot)'s assistance, didn't do or say anything to an extent where he seemed extra or mute! The direction played along and did it as a TV play. The scene turned into a stage of a theater. Thank God for the Acapulco beautiful views, through the outdoors scenes or the apartments' open windows, without them it could have been completely choking!
Aside from that, some points eat me. The biggest of them all concerns a very natural question: How come that (Poirot), played by (Ustinov), was seen during the 1930s, 3 times already, in Death on the Nile (1978), Evil Under the Sun (1982), and Appointment with Death (1988). THEN, suddenly he's in 1980s, with the same age?! So 1) (Poirot) is a vampire, and this movie didn't care to show it. 2) (Poirot) found the secret of time travel, and this movie didn't tell us how. 3) This is not (Poirot), this is his son, who happens to have the same face, body, voice, and legacy!, and the movie refuses to clear that up. 4) (Poirot) was rebooted, in contemporary time, with the same actor!, and this movie didn't give a hoot about its cinematic antecedents, or us!
The rest of these points weren't less big themselves: Why the nice music wasn't used well?! The absence of it added more poorness. Sometimes the camera is too close to (Ustinov)'s face and reactions; it's clear in moments like the one of the secret passage behind the library, or the one of catching the woman while getting rid of the poison.. etc. That was ugly, exposing the game of acting. Speaking about "exposing", look closer to the shot in which the play writer sees the tattoo on (Curtes)'s hand, while he was disguised as a waiter. He was wearing big white gloves, so how she saw it?!! Again, and at another key moment, when (Curtes) was surrendering himself to the police, watch the black mike says Hello under his foot (I heard Agatha Christie's screams from her grave at that one!). Some lines wanted to be funny to fail miserably. OH MY GOD, (Poirot)'s supposedly funny lines, including the last one, were hideous. This time, the screams were mine!
However, I can't utterly hate this movie. My first reason is (Emma Samms). Since her role in (The Colbys), which I watched it as a kid, I became a big fan. She's tender, classy, and one of the 1980s best no doubts about that. Here, I love how she lights every scene she's in, along with the soft way she moves as a ballerina. Btw, I discovered later that her mother was a real ballet dancer, and (Emma) herself trained for a while as a ballet dancer also.
The colors of the 1980s were an essential lead. I wouldn't be wrong if I said that they played their role more catchy and amusing than (Ustinov) himself! And you must appreciate the camera of the American TV apart; back then, there was a method to picture such a smooth image for everything, just to put you at ease. The outcome of all that was vivid mood that managed to be one of the movie's top merits.
Then, the best of all: (Tony Curtis). He was perfect for his role. Although I hated that the script didn't allow him to stretch some acting muscles, but he did it finely, with massive charisma, one of a kind glee, a touch of vanity, and true elegance. With all due respect to miss (Samms), I watched this movie first when I was about 14 year old, and have remembered it for years due to (Curtis) mainly.
They can, and maybe must, remake this into something more cinematic and exciting, less chatty and tedious. But it's impossible to remake (Samms)'s beauty, the 1980s colors, and - for sure - (Curtis)'s glamour.
The movie is played as a play from start to finish. The title refers to "a play feel" but it doesn't necessarily need to be one! The script is a frank bore. In fact, it's a great lesson in how to not write a movie, or how to write a radio show! It enjoys showing every important event through a phone call! The scenes are crowded with dialogue that has no thrilling spirit, or any sense of humor. It deals very poorly with everyone; for instance, a character like (Hastings), (Poirot)'s assistance, didn't do or say anything to an extent where he seemed extra or mute! The direction played along and did it as a TV play. The scene turned into a stage of a theater. Thank God for the Acapulco beautiful views, through the outdoors scenes or the apartments' open windows, without them it could have been completely choking!
Aside from that, some points eat me. The biggest of them all concerns a very natural question: How come that (Poirot), played by (Ustinov), was seen during the 1930s, 3 times already, in Death on the Nile (1978), Evil Under the Sun (1982), and Appointment with Death (1988). THEN, suddenly he's in 1980s, with the same age?! So 1) (Poirot) is a vampire, and this movie didn't care to show it. 2) (Poirot) found the secret of time travel, and this movie didn't tell us how. 3) This is not (Poirot), this is his son, who happens to have the same face, body, voice, and legacy!, and the movie refuses to clear that up. 4) (Poirot) was rebooted, in contemporary time, with the same actor!, and this movie didn't give a hoot about its cinematic antecedents, or us!
The rest of these points weren't less big themselves: Why the nice music wasn't used well?! The absence of it added more poorness. Sometimes the camera is too close to (Ustinov)'s face and reactions; it's clear in moments like the one of the secret passage behind the library, or the one of catching the woman while getting rid of the poison.. etc. That was ugly, exposing the game of acting. Speaking about "exposing", look closer to the shot in which the play writer sees the tattoo on (Curtes)'s hand, while he was disguised as a waiter. He was wearing big white gloves, so how she saw it?!! Again, and at another key moment, when (Curtes) was surrendering himself to the police, watch the black mike says Hello under his foot (I heard Agatha Christie's screams from her grave at that one!). Some lines wanted to be funny to fail miserably. OH MY GOD, (Poirot)'s supposedly funny lines, including the last one, were hideous. This time, the screams were mine!
However, I can't utterly hate this movie. My first reason is (Emma Samms). Since her role in (The Colbys), which I watched it as a kid, I became a big fan. She's tender, classy, and one of the 1980s best no doubts about that. Here, I love how she lights every scene she's in, along with the soft way she moves as a ballerina. Btw, I discovered later that her mother was a real ballet dancer, and (Emma) herself trained for a while as a ballet dancer also.
The colors of the 1980s were an essential lead. I wouldn't be wrong if I said that they played their role more catchy and amusing than (Ustinov) himself! And you must appreciate the camera of the American TV apart; back then, there was a method to picture such a smooth image for everything, just to put you at ease. The outcome of all that was vivid mood that managed to be one of the movie's top merits.
Then, the best of all: (Tony Curtis). He was perfect for his role. Although I hated that the script didn't allow him to stretch some acting muscles, but he did it finely, with massive charisma, one of a kind glee, a touch of vanity, and true elegance. With all due respect to miss (Samms), I watched this movie first when I was about 14 year old, and have remembered it for years due to (Curtis) mainly.
They can, and maybe must, remake this into something more cinematic and exciting, less chatty and tedious. But it's impossible to remake (Samms)'s beauty, the 1980s colors, and - for sure - (Curtis)'s glamour.