|
Post by Morgana on Feb 9, 2018 10:46:35 GMT
On a previous thread about the film, I had commented how glad I was it made a lot of money, because it would hopefully mean we get more similar type films. That was before I saw it.
However, having now seen it, I want to comment on the film, I thought it mediocre at best. Branagh's Poirot was perhaps the worst version I have ever seen, and I'm not just talking about the horrendous moustache. Of course, no one can compare with Suchet's version of Poirot, but still, did he have to make him so over the top? Such a braggart?
Then, the story itself. We didn't get to know the characters, to even care anything about any of them. The whole film seemed like one set scene after another, beautifully shot but with no content. There was no need for the opening sequence in Jerusalem, it added nothing to the film and simply took away time that could have better been used allowing us to get to know the characters better. If it was meant as an introduction to people that have no idea who Poirot is, and show them his genius, it failed. What was the point of showing us the karate kicking dancer? I have no clue. It was a big disappointment to me. The book is far superior.
I am still glad it made the money it did, because hopefully, someone will make a similar type film, but a better one.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 9, 2018 16:23:44 GMT
Oh, that’s funny, Morgana: I also thought the film was mediocre, but for nearly the opposite reasons! I thought Branagh did very well as Poirot—a full and fleshed-out characterization and, perhaps rightly, closer to Finney than Ustinov or Suchet—and, as silly as the moustache was, I didn’t particularly mind it in-film. I loved the opening sequence in Jerusalem—well-paced, well-edited, and all of the sets are beautiful. I liked the ingenuity of the little clue that gave the game away; I picked up on it and guessed the killer, which was a delight. In fact, I thought the opening of the film so good (Branagh has this amazing pan in which he introduces us to the suspects on the train—just as good, in its own way, as how Lumet shot the introductions) that I was prepared to rate this version far above Lumet’s, which I’ve never quite liked. Sadly, that was not to be. Ironically, nearly every deviation from the book (including the excellent casting of Leslie Odom, Jr., an actor I now want to see more of) is first-class; where Branagh follows the book, it fails. The suspects are never given the plum lines and roles they had in the Lumet version or in Christie’s book; Branagh obviously wants to avoid the tedium of Marshian interviewing, thank God, but in its place he puts no characterization, and thus most of the characters (excepting Odom and Josh Gad) fall flat. The very lovely Daisy Ridley gets pretty much nothing to do, and Branagh glances over Judi Dench (what!) and the actors playing the Count and Countess so quickly that I forgot they were in this until I looked at the movie’s Wikipedia page. Now, one may object that, in this sort of story, the only way to provide good character-work is with suspect interviews, as Lumet did, and I agree—which is why I think MotOE is not the right choice for film adaptation. So, of course, it gets four, two of ‘em big-budget! I surprisingly didn’t mind the action sequences, which break up the story (Lumet’s version needed these), but the climax was badly-filmed and shockingly dull. Branagh and his screenwriter apparently assumed that everyone was just familiar with the solution (which is—not true, to say the least), so it comes as a decided anticlimax. I didn’t want them to change the solution—then it wouldn’t be MotOE—but, to the contrary, I wanted them to build it up. Here it came as a dud; if I hadn’t known the solution, I would have been justifiably confused as to why it was so famous. This is not, I should add, a bad movie, and Branagh’s imagistic eye has not left him. (He’s one of my favorite directors working today.) It is, however, a mediocre movie, which is in its way even more disappointing. It seems that, after that uninteresting and cutesy final shot (ugh…) of Poirot walking in the snow, Branagh and Green are turning to Death on the Nile. Let me join you, Morgana, in hoping and praying that that one will be better—it’s my favorite Christie tale—but, unlike with MotOE, there are already two excellent adaptations, 1978 and 2004.
|
|
|
Post by redhorizon on Feb 9, 2018 16:37:43 GMT
Haven't seen it and have no plans to. I thought it was an unnecessary remake. To see it just for the visuals is not tempting enough. Just checked out Branagh's moustache. What the hell? It IS horrendous.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 9, 2018 16:42:47 GMT
Well, redhorizon , I do like visuals… It isn’t just the visuals, though: there are some interesting parts to it, including that wonderful train and the performances from Branagh and Odom in particular. And, while the moustache looks silly, I hope that isn’t enough to stop you from seeing it? That’s an awfully superficial element, and either way it looks better in the film. Also, why do you consider it “unnecessary”? Are you a great fan of the Lumet version or of (heaven forbid ) the Suchet version?
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Feb 9, 2018 17:21:41 GMT
Oh, that’s funny, Morgana : I also thought the film was mediocre, but for nearly the opposite reasons! I thought Branagh did very well as Poirot—a full and fleshed-out characterization and, perhaps rightly, closer to Finney than Ustinov or Suchet—and, as silly as the moustache was, I didn’t particularly mind it in-film. I loved the opening sequence in Jerusalem—well-paced, well-edited, and all of the sets are beautiful. I liked the ingenuity of the little clue that gave the game away; I picked up on it and guessed the killer, which was a delight. In fact, I thought the opening of the film so good (Branagh has this amazing pan in which he introduces us to the suspects on the train—just as good, in its own way, as how Lumet shot the introductions) that I was prepared to rate this version far above Lumet’s, which I’ve never quite liked. Sadly, that was not to be. Ironically, nearly every deviation from the book (including the excellent casting of Leslie Odom, Jr., an actor I now want to see more of) is first-class; where Branagh follows the book, it fails. The suspects are never given the plum lines and roles they had in the Lumet version or in Christie’s book; Branagh obviously wants to avoid the tedium of Marshian interviewing, thank God, but in its place he puts no characterization, and thus most of the characters (excepting Odom and Josh Gad) fall flat. The very lovely Daisy Ridley gets pretty much nothing to do, and Branagh glances over Judi Dench (what!) and the actors playing the Count and Countess so quickly that I forgot they were in this until I looked at the movie’s Wikipedia page. Now, one may object that, in this sort of story, the only way to provide good character-work is with suspect interviews, as Lumet did, and I agree—which is why I think MotOE is not the right choice for film adaptation. So, of course, it gets four, two of ‘em big-budget! I surprisingly didn’t mind the action sequences, which break up the story (Lumet’s version needed these), but the climax was badly-filmed and shockingly dull. Branagh and his screenwriter apparently assumed that everyone was just familiar with the solution (which is—not true, to say the least), so it comes as a decided anticlimax. I didn’t want them to change the solution—then it wouldn’t be MotOE—but, to the contrary, I wanted them to build it up. Here it came as a dud; if I hadn’t known the solution, I would have been justifiably confused as to why it was so famous. This is not, I should add, a bad movie, and Branagh’s imagistic eye has not left him. (He’s one of my favorite directors working today.) It is, however, a mediocre movie, which is in its way even more disappointing. It seems that, after that uninteresting and cutesy final shot (ugh…) of Poirot walking in the snow, Branagh and Green are turning to Death on the Nile. Let me join you, Morgana, in hoping and praying that that one will be better—it’s my favorite Christie tale—but, unlike with MotOE, there are already two excellent adaptations, 1978 and 2004. I must have missed the clue you mention, in the scenes in Jerusalem. Could you tell me what it was? Watching a film like this, knowing the story well and the outcome, I was hoping for more; more of what, I'm not exactly sure. I agree that this story, of all Christie's novels, should not be made into a film. I love Christie but I don't know if I want to watch Branagh as Poirot, again. I have not seen Suchet as Poirot in MotOE, and probably never will. I also agree with you that the ending was a dud. Even knowing what was coming, I was disappointed in how it was presented. I must admit it is 'funny' how both you and I found the film to be mediocre, but in completely opposite ways.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Feb 9, 2018 17:24:24 GMT
Haven't seen it and have no plans to. I thought it was an unnecessary remake. To see it just for the visuals is not tempting enough. Just checked out Branagh's moustache. What the hell? It IS horrendous. If you are a fan of Christie's novels, I would advise you not to see the film, in all honesty.
|
|
|
Post by redhorizon on Feb 9, 2018 17:26:40 GMT
Well, redhorizon , I do like visuals… It isn’t just the visuals, though: there are some interesting parts to it, including that wonderful train and the performances from Branagh and Odom in particular. And, while the moustache looks silly, I hope that isn’t enough to stop you from seeing it? That’s an awfully superficial element, and either way it looks better in the film. Also, why do you consider it “unnecessary”? Are you a great fan of the Lumet version or of (heaven forbid ) the Suchet version? A moustache alone wouldn't cause enough revulsion to skip a movie. I rated 7/10 for the Lumet version, I own a DVD of it. I consider it a good movie, though not spectacular. I said it's an unnecessary remake because the memory of watching the Lumet version is still fresh in my mind. And I assumed most people who have watched a previous version would remember who the perpetrator was, making it a good enough reason to give the new version a miss, no matter how praise worthy the other elements of the movie are. Besides there are so many movies to choose from these days. And don't try to sway my mind and trick me into watching the film. It won't work. (Just kidding ). Gotta run now.
|
|
|
Post by redhorizon on Feb 9, 2018 17:33:11 GMT
If you are a fan of Christie's novels, I would advise you not to see the film, in all honesty.Yes I like Christie's books, have read some of them. Will keep that in mind, thanks for the advice.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 10, 2018 2:48:44 GMT
It's been confirmed they're making a sequel based off DEATH ON THE NILE.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 10, 2018 6:06:32 GMT
It's been confirmed they're making a sequel based off DEATH ON THE NILE. I've already seen Death on the Nile.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Feb 10, 2018 8:27:56 GMT
It's been confirmed they're making a sequel based off DEATH ON THE NILE. Though I am not looking forward to Branagh reprising the role of Poirot, I will probably watch it only because I am such a fan of Christie. I hope he does something to fix that horrible mistake of a moustache.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 14, 2018 0:17:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on Feb 18, 2018 15:57:16 GMT
That should give them enough time to hopefully address the mistakes of MotOE, (and the moustache).
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 17, 2022 16:55:41 GMT
That should give them enough time to hopefully address the mistakes of MotOE, (and the moustache). Bump. Well apparently we get a backstory for the moustache.
|
|
|
Post by Morgana on May 15, 2022 13:32:33 GMT
That should give them enough time to hopefully address the mistakes of MotOE, (and the moustache). Bump. Well apparently we get a backstory for the moustache. A totally unnecessary one! It took up time that could have been better used to flesh out the characters.
|
|