Appointment with Death (1988)

Simply because the personality of the actors and actresses are world-renown and well-regarded, it does not automatically spell out a good film. Instead, I find this film awkward, unrealistic, with embarrassing results in both acting and directing. While "Murder On The Orient Express" being first-rate, "Death On The Nile" being grossly entertaining, "Evil Under The Sun" and "The Mirror Crack'd" highly skillfully-told and adapted, this film becomes much too embarrassing to be included in that prestigious list. This is, I believe, a Michael Winner's work in his declining years. His eyesight must have been poorer, and his patience of getting one right take must have been paler. So many scenes are way too superficial, half-cooked, and simply unsatisfactory. The emotions portrayed are unsteady, wavering, and miss-matched. Piper Laurie as Emily Boynton is superior than others, but still much in the mud. Peter Ustinov, with his usual skilled self, is not in any way damaged, but even his performance has failed to rescue the film. The great John Gielgud is too old to even walk properly. Lauren Bacall's star aura is completely wasted. Same as David Soul and Carrie Fisher, who are not bad actors at all in other films. This Agatha Christie's adaptation is neither exciting nor grabbing. The solution at the end fails to give any impression. Even the music score is misplaced and damaging to the mood of the film. In short, it is a complete failure as an adaptation of a world-famous novel, and a major blemish to the otherwise splendid career of Mr. Winner.

The best thing about the early all-star Agatha Christie murder-mysteries ("Murder on the Orient Express" and "Death on the Nile") was their eerie glamor, a shimmering kind of evil which translated tantalizingly into murder. "Appointment With Death" has a disappointing cast, including a rather fatigued Peter Ustinov as detective Hercule Poirot, and a travelogue-styled production which doesn't lend itself well to the intimate setting of a whodunit. It's all too airy and blasé, with a set-up that rarely engages the attention. Former prison wardress Piper Laurie (camping it up) has cheated her step-children out of their late father's money and now has them all greedily at her beck and call; after a cruise from Europe to Palestine however, Big Mama Laurie ends up dead under the sun at an excavation site. Poirot's suspects include each of the disgruntled children (actually grown adults), a boasting Member of Parliament (Lauren Bacall), an archaeologist (Hayley Mills), a conniving lawyer (David Soul), the dowager's cheating daughter-in-law (Carrie Fisher), and a novice female doctor (Jenny Seagrove, who has been instructed to maintain a guilt-ridden look throughout). John Gielgud is utterly wasted as a Colonel, while Ustinov wheezes and grimaces his way along. Michael Winner is responsible for the shapeless direction, which includes halving Poirot's final summation into two separate sequences for no other purpose than to bide some time. *1/2 from ****

Suspense and intrigue with Poirot on holidays in Jerusalen . This whodunit deals with Hercules Poirot (Peter Ustinov) as the Belgian sleuth man in he case of killing a rich , unpopular heiress in an archaeological dig during a luxurious vacations . He investigates the travelers and as numerous suspects , all support cast ( Carrie Fisher, Nicholas Guest , David Soul , Hayley Mills , John Terlesky , Lauren Bacall and Jenny Seagrove married to Michael Winner). Who is the killer? , can he find the guilty? . Hercules Poirot is helped by a British Colonel (John Gielgud). After the clues have been shown we will get a chance to give the answer with Poirot finding out about the culprit at a twisted finale with outstanding surprises but are taken the murders from different viewpoints of everyone which it makes a little bit boring, pedestrian , endless and overlong.The film is a detective story in which you are the detective . In the picture there are mystery , emotion, love story , suspense and wonderful outdoors from Jerusalen , Italy and the rout on the cruise ship . The movie gets a lush costume design ( John Bloomfield ) and magnificent production design . Colorful and sunny cinematography by excellent cameraman David Gurfinkel . Sensitive and atmospheric musical score by Pino Donaggio . Actors 's interpretation are first-rate , Peter Ustinov acting is similar to Albert Finney ( Murder on the Orient Express). Ustinov starred various Hercules Poirot films as : ¨Evil under the sun¨(Guy Hamilton), ¨Death on the Nile¨(John Guillermin) and for TV with low budget as : ¨Murder in three acts¨,¨Dead man's folly¨ and ¨Thirteen at dinner ¨; but the best considered is Death on the Nile .This film is professionally directed by Michael Winner though contains some flaws and poor edition . After directing the successful ¨Death wish¨ he made worst sequels in which Bronson-Paul Kersey goes on to torture robbers , all of them inferior and the violence could be deemed excessive , are the following : ¨Death wish II¨ with Jill Ireland and Vincent Gardenia , ¨Death wish III¨ with Ed Lauter and Deborah Raffin. Subsequently Michael Winner career was failed , alternating some hit as ¨The sentinel¨ and various flops as ¨ Firepower, The big sleep, The wicked lady, Appointed with death, A chorus of disapproval, and Bullseye ¨. The flick will appeal to suspense lovers and Agatha Christie-Poirot novels buffs .

I've read some of her novels plus watching a lot of movies based on her work, so nearly every time I have this problem : discovering the killer refers to a clue which never speaks to the audience's intelligence however refers back to a plot that all the audience know totally nothing about !! That's not cleverness inasmuch as a claim of cleverness from the big famous writer ! So her mysterious novels/movies are "surprising" us with the nonexistence of any suspension around the actual killer in the first place all along. From my point of view that's –with repeating it many times - such an insult for the audience's intelligence. Expressly this tactic of (Christie) manages to not challenge the capacity of any viewer's mind but to play the silly game of having unseen part all the time like playing chess and having an extra hidden king already !! Here the littleness of the attractive elements (except Pino Donaggio's music) allowed that to be more than visible and too perceptible than ever. The irony became so weak when the writer made you not to doubt about the foolish alleged (Lauren Bacall), but it would be stronger to put her into the list of the doubtful people and make her history questionable to be refused by the ordinary viewer then take that viewer unawares by unmasking that she did it, I think that would've been better than showing its character outside the frame then bringing her as the killer by a clue which's out of the frame too ! As if the rule in (Christie)'s works is : it's not the last one you'll think of, it's the last one you'll never think of ! True that I respect every artistic technique and the freedom of any writer to select the one to use but still that "technique" is the problem with (Christie), or maybe her secret of success ?