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.

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...

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.

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.