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.

You thought Piper Laurie was nasty as Carrie's mother? Wait until you meet her character of Emily Boynton, the nastiest of all wicked stepmothers. A former prison warden, she runs her home as the wealthy widow as if it were Riker's Island, keeping tabs on each of her stepchildren to the point that they wish her dead, unaware that it was her manipulations that left them to wait for her death rather than share in the estate of her late father. Determined to keep tabs on them, she "suggests" a European vacation followed by a trip to the Holy Land, and there, some very unholy activities lead to murder, and a most predictable conclusion.Peter Ustinov is back as Hercule Poirot, and if his trips to the Nile and the Adriatic Sea weren't enough to warn people to watch what they say when he's a mile within vicinity, nothing is. Lauren Bacall plays an American widow of a British nobleman who somehow became a member of the British Parliament, with Hayley Mills as an aspiring archaeologist and Jenny Seagrove as a doctor who has several run-ins with the obnoxious Laurie. Her character is a bit hard to take, seemingly directed to overact in every scene she's in. Carrie Fisher, John Gielgud and David Soul are other familiar faces among some relatively unknown actors as the unfortunate step-children. The highlight of the film is Ustinov's revelation of the killer as the culprit watches from afar, their feeling of doom and self-destruction erupting into making you actually feel sorry for them.

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 ?