|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 9, 2017 17:05:36 GMT
SciFive , taylorfirst1 , leesilm, et al. OK, so, reading through several reviews for this movie, I've come to a few conclusions: (1) for unknown reasons, modern reviewers nearly universally have a genuine hatred for whodunits, (2) few people nowadays actually know anything about whodunits, Agatha Christie, or anything (case in point: every review I've read uses the term "locked-room mystery" incorrectly), (3) they should study history (Susan Wloszczyna's review at rogerebert.com states categorically that "... few besides history buffs will recognize..." anything about the Lindbergh kidnapping. Really? Seriously? As is my wont nowadays, I mourn for the world. We're fools about our own history), and (4) Poirot has a love interest in this one. (4) may seem misplaced, and for good reason: it actually has something to do with the film. Everything else is about reviewers, at whom I growing more and more annoyed with each passing day. Is there any way I can resurrect Andrew Sarris Frankenstein-style?
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Nov 9, 2017 17:30:19 GMT
Nalkarj (1)I don't understand that either- I've noticed that attitude a lot even with TV mysteries (a la "And Then There Were None" with Aidan Turner and Sam Neil), as if there were something wrong with a good, old-fashioned mystery? (2)I once read a review of a somewhat Indy-Jones style movie, and they used the term "MacGuffin" incorrectly, so I feel like they can't even be bothered to have a cheat sheet of terms/phrases used to talk movies. Like you said in your earlier post - these critics are more like synopsis machines giving basic reviews any random person on the street might give rather than having any sort of informed opinion on movie-making. (3)I am a historian- I am ALL FOR KNOWING YOUR HISTORY, even though this is outside of my expertise of history I still know enough to catch a few references here and there. [Such as in CRYSTAL SKULL when they had Indy say, "I like Ike", or in KONG: SKULL ISLAND where they talk about stuff that has happened to catch the WWII veteran up and you have the same veteran with his signed baseball that dates his love of the game/pre-war life, little details like that can make all the difference.] (4)Hm, interesting, though not entirely unwelcome- I don't mind people changing a few things up, although I've never seen a previous version and Poirot was never one of my favorite crime-solvers so I admit to knowing little about him. [Sherlock, Marple, and Jessica Fletcher were always more my speed.] It will be interesting to see how that plays out, I wonder if it is someone you'll see on the train, someone you'll see him heading to/away from during his train ride, or just a picture in his pocket watch kind of thing?
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Nov 9, 2017 19:00:06 GMT
I'm going to see the picture and hope that it's good, but I will say that--because of it, though it's not its fault--I have now read the worst movie review I've ever read in my life, this one by IndieWire's David Ehrlich. The review is written by a man who clearly doesn't understand the genre--which shouldn't be much all that much of a problem except that Mr. Ehrlich attempts to explain the intricacies of cinematic whodunits when he doesn't know the first thing about them. His pretentiousness would be amusing if it weren't so vacuous. Then he uses such colloquialisms as "half-assed" in the review--dear God, why are we so lucky to have your delightful choice of adjectives, Ehrlich? Why don't you throw some other swear words, not for any real purpose but just to show us how hip and modern you are?--and then advocates for disrespecting the source material. (How'd you phrase it, Ehrlich? It's "...a creaky old whodunnit in this day and age..."? Heck, why do we even need whodunits anymore? We're just so enlightened, intelligent, and modern, after all, and whodunits are old, and everyone knows anything old is stupid--just like that other old guy whose work Branagh adapted, Shakespeare. Modern people don't need that. He should focus more on new, hip, wow stuff, like Thor--oh, yeah, man, that's what's in nowadays! Spandex and incessant explosions forever! Whew!) Sorry for all the sarcasm, folks. I know it has nothing to do with the movie per se, but I really grew annoyed at this review. Yeah, his “in this day and age” comment is pretty half-assed (oops). The whodunit is still alive and well but “in this day and age” they are often filed under the category of “thriller” (e.g. Gone Girl, Gone Baby Gone, The Ghost Writer, Incendies, and Headhunters). Christie’s most famous book, “And Then There Were None,” could be classified as “thriller” rather that “whodunit,” so not even the “modern” style is really new. However, a retro look at a Golden Age classic doesn’t automatically become “creaky” just on the basis of its format. That said, the reviews that the new “Orient Express” is getting are exactly what I was expecting. I will be going to see it, regardless.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 9, 2017 20:08:14 GMT
SciFive , taylorfirst1 , leesilm , et al. OK, so, reading through several reviews for this movie, I've come to a few conclusions: (1) for unknown reasons, modern reviewers nearly universally have a genuine hatred for whodunits, (2) few people nowadays actually know anything about whodunits, Agatha Christie, or anything (case in point: every review I've read uses the term "locked-room mystery" incorrectly), (3) they should study history (Susan Wloszczyna's review at rogerebert.com states categorically that "... few besides history buffs will recognize..." anything about the Lindbergh kidnapping. Really? Seriously? As is my wont nowadays, I mourn for the world. We're fools about our own history), and (4) Poirot has a love interest in this one. (4) may seem misplaced, and for good reason: it actually has something to do with the film. Everything else is about reviewers, at whom I growing more and more annoyed with each passing day. Is there any way I can resurrect Andrew Sarris Frankenstein-style? Thanks! I'm definitely going to see this movie! I like "whodunits" and when I'm not writing SciFi stories, I like psychological suspense (and I've written some stories like this). It's another favorite genre of mine!!
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 10, 2017 22:06:14 GMT
SciFive , taylorfirst1 , leesilm, et al. OK, so, reading through several reviews for this movie, I've come to a few conclusions: (1) for unknown reasons, modern reviewers nearly universally have a genuine hatred for whodunits, (2) few people nowadays actually know anything about whodunits, Agatha Christie, or anything (case in point: every review I've read uses the term "locked-room mystery" incorrectly), (3) they should study history (Susan Wloszczyna's review at rogerebert.com states categorically that "... few besides history buffs will recognize..." anything about the Lindbergh kidnapping. Really? Seriously? As is my wont nowadays, I mourn for the world. We're fools about our own history), and (4) Poirot has a love interest in this one. (4) may seem misplaced, and for good reason: it actually has something to do with the film. Everything else is about reviewers, at whom I growing more and more annoyed with each passing day. Is there any way I can resurrect Andrew Sarris Frankenstein-style? The best review I've seen for this movie is by Alonso Duralde. He basically said that while it's not as good as the original movie, if you like this genre or are just a casual audience it's good enough.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 11, 2017 2:07:23 GMT
so most aren't properly critiquing for the content but just on how they generally feel hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by simpsonsfan742 on Nov 12, 2017 9:58:52 GMT
SciFive , taylorfirst1 , leesilm , et al. OK, so, reading through several reviews for this movie, I've come to a few conclusions: (1) for unknown reasons, modern reviewers nearly universally have a genuine hatred for whodunits, (2) few people nowadays actually know anything about whodunits, Agatha Christie, or anything (case in point: every review I've read uses the term "locked-room mystery" incorrectly), (3) they should study history (Susan Wloszczyna's review at rogerebert.com states categorically that "... few besides history buffs will recognize..." anything about the Lindbergh kidnapping. Really? Seriously? As is my wont nowadays, I mourn for the world. We're fools about our own history), and (4) Poirot has a love interest in this one. (4) may seem misplaced, and for good reason: it actually has something to do with the film. Everything else is about reviewers, at whom I growing more and more annoyed with each passing day. Is there any way I can resurrect Andrew Sarris Frankenstein-style? The best review I've seen for this movie is by Alonso Duralde. He basically said that while it's not as good as the original movie, if you like this genre or are just a casual audience it's good enough. Interesting, I'll keep that review in mind. I personally want to see this movie, but I know the release of this remake will FINALLY spur me to watch the 1974 original, that's for sure! I won't be surprised if this new one weren't to match the 1974 movie whenever I get around to seeing that, but I'll probably give it a watch anyway.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 12, 2017 17:35:36 GMT
The best review I've seen for this movie is by Alonso Duralde. He basically said that while it's not as good as the original movie, if you like this genre or are just a casual audience it's good enough. Interesting, I'll keep that review in mind. I personally want to see this movie, but I know the release of this remake will FINALLY spur me to watch the 1974 original, that's for sure! I won't be surprised if this new one weren't to match the 1974 movie whenever I get around to seeing that, but I'll probably give it a watch anyway. Oh yeah you should see it. And the other Poirot movies with Peter Ustinov are pretty good too.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Nov 12, 2017 21:44:46 GMT
The first Murder on the Orient Express was near to perfection, with Oscar noms galore and one win for Ingrid Bergman. When you have someone like Ingrid Bergman in your cast, and she's winning Academy Awards, how can any remake or "revisioning" compare? Johnny Depp, compared to Sean Connery? Michelle to Lauren Bacall? LAUREN BACALL? Come on. Plus, anyone who's seen the first one knows who the killer is, so what's the point?
I can see a redo of a movie like the original Thing From Another World or The Fly, but Murder on the Orient Express is pretty straight-forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 22:31:52 GMT
I take issue with Brannagh's stupid little beard component of Poirot's facial hair. Hercule Poirot wouldn't be seen dead sporting that monstrosity.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 12, 2017 23:40:59 GMT
It's number 3 at the box office. I'd like to see a sequel; they do reference 'Death on the Nile' right at the end.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Nov 13, 2017 8:29:29 GMT
Any of you guys not interested or anticipating seeing this movie?I've seen the original 1974 one (which received some Oscar nominations and one win)... I'll see it even though I've read the book and know the 'twist' ending. I love Agatha Christie's books and the Poirot and Marple TV series.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Nov 13, 2017 21:17:06 GMT
Any of you guys not interested or anticipating seeing this movie?I've seen the original 1974 one (which received some Oscar nominations and one win)... I'll see it even though I've read the book and know the 'twist' ending. I love Agatha Christie's books and the Poirot and Marple TV series. I'm not sure if I've ever seen this movie at some point (as an exotic movie on cable or whatever) but I definitely don't remember the ending. So this will part will be different for me, although I've enjoyed movies where I've already read the book so I'm not a stickler for knowing absolutely nothing about how a movie will end.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Nov 14, 2017 2:40:30 GMT
Just seen it. First and before anything, I need to get this out of my system and has a warning: HOLY ****,*****, ***** ***** BRANAGH'S MUSTACHE IS ATROCIOUS! It looks like he tried to get a role in Tombstone, which I would recommend watching by the way ( www.imdb.com/title/tt0108358/?ref_=nv_sr_1) Every moment he was on screen I felt like grabbing a sharp object and stabbing my own eyes. It takes all your attention and it's really cringeworthy. Alright, now that I got it out, let's get going. Another thing that annoyed me about Branagh, is his accent. Note that french is both my native and daily life language so I might be more "sensible" on the matter than most watchers. The difference is I'm Canadian. I do know many persons from France but I can't say I know a lot of Belgians, if any at all. Still, the french spoken by the people in France and the Walloons is quite similar these days. The movie portrays characters from another era but it would be plausible that there wasn't too many differences back then. Also, I'm no actor but I do understand the challenge Branagh faced. He is an Irish, playing a Walloon that speaks english. So basically he had to speak french then imagine and try to speak the way this character (Poirot) would speak english. I heard and recognized what he said, when he used expressions or single words it was fine but I didn't recognized the accent french (from France and nearby countries) people have when they speak english. In other words, I did feel that it was someone who doesn't have french for native language, trying to speak english the way a "real" french person would. That's nitpicking but it did annoy me for real. To stay with Branagh, his acting was good but not Oscar worthy. Same with everyone else, some were better than others but overall it was good and it fitted the tone of the movie and what was required for their respective roles. As for the roles, the casting was nice but maybe not as great as the 1974 version. I mean, Redgrave and Connery were nice together on screen : & This time I didn't get the same feeling for their respective counterparts. As others said, I must admit that Pfeiffer still looks pretty good. Visually, thanks to modern technology, we get to see incredible environments and pretty neat shots but it feels like it was made to salvage the script a bit. The tone of the movie was somewhat strange. Overall I would say it was lighthearted but the beginning makes you expect a comedy and quite a lot of humor while the ending (not the last minute, but moments prior to that) is really typical of dramas and mystery movies. The pace was also strange. It felt fast at times but at other moments, I wouldn't say it stopped or made me feel bored but, it felt too slow. The story had some interesting changes made compared to the 1974 version but unlike what I remember from the old one, this time we saw some characters early on and forget them until Poirot solves the mystery at the end. I do understand how some characters can't be introduced too early or too late but some had quite a lot of screen time while others were nearly entirely forgotten. Overall it was a good and entertaining movie but it won't be remembered as one of the best for the year. -0.5 just for Branagh's mustache, so 6.5/10.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Nov 14, 2017 8:39:55 GMT
I'm not very interested but my sister wants to see it so I might be a good brother and go with her. Do that but then sneak into perhaps Blade Runner.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 21, 2017 1:51:12 GMT
And it's getting a sequel! Neat! Poirot is back!
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Nov 21, 2017 14:11:48 GMT
And it's getting a sequel! Neat! Poirot is back! I hope he will drop the ridiculous mustache for that sequel! From those I have seen, David Suchet had the most interesting portrayal of Poirot.
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Jan 14, 2019 5:27:29 GMT
And now we're getting a sequel- in Oct/Nov of 2020, from what I hear. DEATH ON THE NILE. Poirot will be joined by Bouc again.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 14, 2019 22:58:22 GMT
And now we're getting a sequel- in Oct/Nov of 2020, from what I hear. DEATH ON THE NILE. Poirot will be joined by Bouc again. I liked that guy. He was funny.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 15, 2019 8:39:36 GMT
I viewed the new Murder on the Orient Express in December 2017 and deemed it lousy. The film was emotionally and dramatically flat and it lacked sustained character development, thus rendering any suspense perfunctory. And visually, while director Kenneth Branagh offered some modestly impressive images early on in Turkey, too often his shot choice proved apparently random and inexplicable, as if he was trying to call attention to himself behind the camera. For instance, for a crucial scene in a train car later on, he at least briefly opted for a bird's-eye view—for seemingly no rhyme or reason. These sorts of choices suggest that the director is not comprehending his material visually and properly featuring the story. Furthermore, the CGI special effects proved too obvious and distracting.
I am surprised that the remake grossed over $100M in the US.
|
|