I'm only halfway through the video and haven't yet seen the film, but you are so right that Branagh keeps not believing that we would be interested in the story! This was my exact problem with Murder on the Orient Express- Christie is the best storyteller and we are so happy with the storyline she came up with! She knew what she was doing and we want murder mystery not action film! I want little grey cells Poirot as opposed to action man Poirot! Also spot on that we are interested in the side characters. I will eventually see the film out of interest but what you say summarises what I thought this film would be! Great rant. ☺
“Little grey cells” is the whole point not just for Poirot but for Christie in general (with, the exception of Tommy and Tuppence.) That Branagh thinks this movie needs to live in the same universe with action movies is faithless on every level. The reason Peter Jackson was so successful with LOTR was because he understood that friendship was the core of the story. Branagh doesn’t understand where the story is so he can’t tell the story.
I'm always wary of directors who also STAR in their own movies. There's a lack of objectivity there that I have yet to see overcome, and I always end up wishing it had either been directed by or started a different person
I haven’t seen the film yet but I agree 100% with your comments about the character of Poirot. He’s very cerebral NOT an action figure-that’s why we love him. And also the reason Christie is popular is BECAUSE it’s a mystery. The side characters are very important to flesh out because we want to be involved in solving the “who done it”. That’s half the fun of the novels/movies. I really enjoyed your rant video! Very entertaining!
I love a good book-to-movie adaptation rant. And I agree on them not believing the audience will just enjoy the plot. It is the same with thinking the audience won’t like an older of “less attractive” character. We don’t have to have a crush on every male lead for the movie to be a success
If you look at the movies from the 1970s, you will find a lot of male leads who are not classically good looking or built like an s house and a lot are middle aged.
The problem with movies in the last 10 (and maybe even longer) years is that they don't put the story first. They put flashy CGI, production, the actors and directors and whatever else first, but never the story.
These are exactly the issues that I had with this movie after having watched it yesterday. I've deeply disliked Branagh's portrayal of Poirot since Murder on the Orient Express precisely because Poirot is not an action star and never needed to be. The appeal of Poirot (to me) is that he's constantly underestimated because he's fat and old and kind of fastidious but is also observant and clever and confident in his intelligence. I'll admit that I outright hated the WWI prologue because it felt so melodramatic and unnecessary, like Branagh had to defend the origin of the moustache. I don't think it's the worst movie I've ever seen and there were parts I liked, but this whole franchise continues to be such a disappointment.
I totally agree!!!! Knives out is a perfect recent example that a deliciously fun & written murder mystery is welcomed & appreciated. I was so disappointed in Poirot’s self-doubt! He’s so arrogant- that you just love him for it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. When I left the movie, I immediately thought about how I wanted to hear your thoughts! Also: Angela Lansbury in the 78 movie is legendary!
I completely agree. Knives Out proved that people love a good mystery. Daniel Craig, who has proven himself to be an action star, didn’t have to move to make his character amazing enough that they’ve made a second film. I wish Branagh could trust the audience with Poirot.
You put it exactly into words! That was my impression, especially of Murder on the Orient Express, that the film makers couldn't just let the story and character work shine. They had to make it more "exciting" and the stories they're choosing to tell don't need it. Especially after Knives Out came out, I was like, see! People do want to watch murder mysteries that are character studies. 😂
They showed the David Suchet version over the weekend on UK TV (they show them pretty much every weekend tbh) and I have no need to see any updated Poirot's. Ustinov and Suchet are the only two actors who have ever done the stories justice. Branagh can stick to Shakespeare and stop messing with Christie right now.
I was so let down by Murder on the Orient Express (2017) and the characterization of Poirot. I wanted big budget Agatha Christie productions for a while but not if they are going to completely change him entirely.
Best part of this is the part where you sum up this movies Poirot VS. Actual Poirot. Had to stop at doubting himself to scream at my phone. How can they get it so wrong?! It's literally a plot point in some books that poirot believes in his instincts: they are never wrong, so something is not right here! 😂
Breaking my heart with this Suchet version slander! I love that one cuz I love so many of the actors they got for the other roles 👌 but yeah, for this new one you pretty much confirmed all my fears about how it would be, I’ll wait for the dvd 😅
Looking forward to seeing this movie despite the fact I'm neither a fan of Kennegh Branagh playing Poirot, nor a fan of the recent adaptations. Its Ms Christie. If they can make Knives Out interesting why not a Christie adaptation.
If you want to see Hercule Poirot from the novels as Agatha Christie wrote him then watch all the episodes starring David Suchet. He didn’t just play that role, he was the role. He’s the only actor who’s actually done his homework and really researched the character by reading all of the books 📚 ❤ Love him lots ❤️😁
I’m fairly sure that your review of this remake is vastly more satisfying than the movie will be if I eventually bother to see it. The 1978 version was stellar and Angela Lansbury should have won the best supporting actress Oscar 🤩
I love your description of how to think about adaptations. Especially the part about changes bringing out smaller aspects of the original. It’s like a bonus that compliments the original.
I've been nervous about this film ever since I saw Branagh's Orient Express and it was teased at the end. And the trailers have just made me more scared. At the very least, I thought it was going to be full of charismatic performances. Now, I'm not even going to bother. I agree with what you're saying about Blunt's Linnet being too evil but I /love/ JJ Field and Emma Griffiths Malin as Simon and Jackie, so the Suchet is my favourite.
I think the movies were a good modern take on Agatha Christie. I have a teenage sister who would not like an old school whodunit but when I showed her the trailer she was so excited to see it and she has never read/seen any Agatha Christie books or movies before. I think the target audience is a little bit younger and more wide.
Trying to make Poirot an emo sad boy 😂 So many great points! I’m glad I waited to watch your video until after I posted mine because you’ve totally given me new opinions lol
The moment me and my gf at the cinema saw the Tiffany product placement we both facepalmed 😅 I agree with you on basically everything! Poirot seemed almost lame in the end when trying to ask Salomé out!!! Also I didn’t like so much the fact he almost “rapped” while making suppositions (he spoke way too fast 😵💫). I loved the reference to the murder of Roger Ackroyd when he says he wants to retire and grow marrows
It is my favorite Poirot book, and I really liked the adaptation from the 70's. Not sure if I want to see this new one. Afraid it will annoy me too much.
Thank you for the review, Mara! 🙏 Saw this movie couple of days ago and I totally agree, no trust in audience, characters were blank and not deep enough. Poirot is just all over the place. Haha “Sad Emo Boy” 😂 Let me also say, the ending - Poirot without his moustache?! Cmon! It will always be his pride along with little grey cells 💪
Really appreciate this video! I haven't seen the movie yet and won't until it's available to rent or stream. I'm not that surprised to hear about these changes, but I'll try to just enjoy it for what it is. Death on the Nile is also one of my favorite Christies (top 10 for sure, maybe even top 5) and I think I will be less disappointed if I'm prepared in advance, lol.
From what I'm hearing it sounds like a lot of people that didn't dislike the movie haven't read the book, so they don't know how much better this film could have been. Spoilers ahead. I agree that they spend way too much time on Poirot. Much of that screen time could and should have gone to the development of the other characters and their motives. Jackie and Simon are on the top of that list. The introduction at the beginning of the movie was ok, but felt rushed. That seemed unnecessary, especially since it was following nearly 10 minutes worth of backstory for Poirot that we didn't really need. In the book more time is spent up front establishing Jackie and Lynette's friendship, the talking about Simon, then the introduction. Afterwards we get Lynette's hint of jealousy, comparing her own unsatisfying relationship to how giddily in love Jackie is. The next chapter/scene we're suddenly told that Lynette and Simon are married, and we see her characterization that she's not evil, she's just always had the mindset that if she wants something she should get it. In the movie when Jackie is following them she just comes across as the crazy ex-girlfriend. In the book....well, she's still the crazy ex-girlfriend, but at least this time we understand a lot better where she's coming from. Poirot even calls Lynette out on it once, pointing out to her that maybe this was less about her loving Simon and more about her not being able to let Jackie have something that she didn't have. The book explains the motivation well. Lynette started moving in on Simon, but he wasn't interested because he wasn't attracted to the spoiled, selfish type, and because he really did love Jackie. Lynette kept it up, and eventually he mentioned to Jackie how this would be great for the two of them if only he had some kind of guarantee that Lynette would die within a year or so. But the more he thought about it, the better it sounded, until eventually he started seriously thinking about marrying and then killing her. Jackie tried to talk him out of it at first. But it's clear now that this isn't like Lynette described it, that Simon and Jackie's relationship was practically over anyway. No. Simon never had any desire to be with anybody other than Jackie, and here her best friend was aggressively trying to break them up so she could have him instead. So yeah, eventually Jackie figured that somebody that was willing to stab her in the back like that deserved to die anyway. She loved Simon, and she knew he was going to do it either way and would probably get caught if he planned it on his own, so she decided to help him. That's a lot more solid than the movie's explanation: She was rich, he wanted the money, so he married her then killed her.
This is the same exact things I thought after watching it, so I'm super happy listening to you say it 😅 Action hero sad boy is the perfect definition for this "Poirot". I feel like at this point the director should have just named his character something different and just make it an independent story and not an Agatha Christie's story since this is what I thought this ended up being
This was the first book of Agatha Christie I ever read, and they changed the characters and their relationships so much to fit Hollywood’s view that it is almost unrecognisable from the book. The arrogance to think they can make a book written by a master and ‘improve it’ astounds me... I was really looking forward to seeing one of my favourite books on screen.
Finally got to see it, and yes to everything you said. This need to give Poirot a sad backstory is just... bleh. I know they're trying to give him depth, but I want my funny little Belgian detective. Yes, even if all he does is sit and think rather than running around with a gun! And I don't think they know who their audience is really. They, for whatever reason, aren't convinced there are enough fans of the original material to sustain their film franchise, so they're reaching for some amorphous "other" viewers, but they clearly don't know who to target or how. The pacing on this film was so off; it took sooooo long to get really moving because they plugged that flashback into the beginning. Ugh. I just... I love the book and I wanted to love this movie, and it was kinda fine, but not great, and not nearly as good as it should have, could have been.
We saw a preview for this at the theater a month ago and my daughter was irate that they were redoing this movie. We love the 78 version. Everything you bring up is what we were worried about. It really didn't need "improving"!
I saw the trailer and I thought "it looks great but Branaaaagggh is going to make it sad & boring." It's too bad because he can act. ( Gilderoy Lockhart was fun. ) Hope his adaptations do not cause people to think Christie's work is sad & boring. Thanks.
Thank you for saving me from spending my day off going to see this. I wasn’t a big fan of Orient Express, but I was still tempted as I love The book. I decided early on during Orient Express that Kenneth Branagh was playing ‘a’ Poirot, but not ‘the’ Poirot and that stopped me getting cross with his interpretation, but that film was still disappointing and a bit soulless somehow. Might just do some retail therapy instead.
this was awesome I love a good rant! So I agree with most of your thoughts on this especially regarding Poirot and I have read the book & seen the 1978 adaption BUT I loved this movie LOL😅🤣 Not as much as the Orient Express tbh but the costumes, the music, the friendship b/w Poirot and Bouc (I sobbbbbed when you-know-what-happened!!) and the setting/vibe of the whole movie was just so good! It def had it faults and while I do like Kenneth as Poirot, I don't really like the emotional crap they're forcing lol.
Lolllll how we have totally opposite feelings. I prefer DotN to MotOE personally. I could take or leave the lovelorn action hero bit of course, but otherwise I liked most of the changes and didn't have the same pacing/red herring issues. But I love that we can disagree and still be friends... right? :P
Have read both Nile and Orient Express and have seen all former adaptations of both. Have yet to see either Branagh versions. If I come across them free at the library I will check them out. Like you, I love these types of mystery tropes. Secluded location (for the most part) mysteries. I co-sign every feeling you have.
I've seen the Orient Express, because I hadn't read or watched the reviews. I'm not going to watch this one. Is beyond me, how once can shoot a classic whodunnit only to NOT make it a whodunnit! I was so angry that in MotOR everything was more important than clues, witness interrogation and getting to the bottom of the plot. They didin't even bother with interrogating all the passangers. And flashbacks! Where were flashbacks? And I'm angry that Branagh is destroying yet another Christie's classic this way. But I also simply don't uderstand. Only few months ago, "Knives Out", a whodunnit, was a huge hit. Can't they see people WANT looking for clues and an intricate intrigue, not budget action scenes and moral dilemmas, God knows about what this time?
Before start watching the video: I was so disappointed with MOTOE that have no intention to watch this one. Like WTF? I want MY Poirot, Agatha Christie's Poirot! Maybe KB made the movie to gather the attendtion of nowadays audience but for me it seems as if he made Poirot without any understanding of the character. People who never read AC will have so wrong idea about him.
i liked how they combined lord windlesham and dr bessner into one character, and then gave dr (lord) windlesham the disgust for his title as ferguson had in the book. i like that they also gave van schyler a new angle, with the communistic views that ferguson also had. i think that despite cutting out/merging characters, they still gave the left out character attributes to characters. (i was also amazed by russell brand's serious portrayal as windlesham - he was so restrained which was perfect for the role. definely not a type cast and i love that!)
I liked some of the changes like the novelist being a singer. I didn’t like her character in the book, but I liked the character in the movie. Definitely a very pretty film. I don’t think Poirot’s past was a good addition, mostly because of the reasons you stated. It’s just not who he is in the books. I was in a fairly crowded theater and noticed that the jokes fell flat with no one laughing. Overall, I enjoyed this film more than the recent adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express. But I hope future adaptations improve.
The last Poirot adaptation I saw was the BBC's 'ABC Murders' with John Malkovich as a seedy and downtrodden Poirot (with NO moustache!!). I hated it so much I gave up watching it. By comparison, Branagh's romantic and lavish interpretation came across as a suitable remedy. Yes,the whole pre-title sequence was unnecessary; and the pacing in the latter half could have been better - but I actually liked the romantic angle they gave Poirot (even if it strayed from the source material);and the occasional splurges of action were at least noisy and kept the audience alert! My greatest annoyance was having the French and Saunders characters be romantically involved,which felt like some sort of blatant box-ticking exercise (unlike the Jazz singer inclusion,which felt quite natural and interesting). Overall,though,it was a simple entertainment. Lavish; beautiful photography;gorgeous people and locations; starry cast. In other words,big budget and old-fashioned. I'd certainly go to see a third. That being so,which one do you think they should adapt next? 'Appointment with Death' would be too visually similar (as would 'Mesopotamia') I'd go for an English Country House story (it would cash-in on the Downton Abbey craze).Dead Man's Folly might be a good one...?
They recently said they wanted something completely different, one of the more v unknown stories, and somehow Venice is involved! I'd love an attempt at a classic country house one. But then it needs action scenes.. So I'm stuck! Maybe one of the spy novels?! My gut is saying mystery on the blue train!
Suchet will always be Poirot. I don't dislike Branagh's version of the character, but I feel these new movies are more concerned about being diverse just for the sake of diversity.
I agree with you that the new version did not build up the motives of the other suspects enough, compared to 1978 version. I did enjoy the movie however. Maybe adding an additional 15 minutes to the movie could have built these characters up more. The Love Theme that seemed to dominate this version, made it difficult to suspect anyone other than Jacqueline and Simon!
I've read the book and seen the first two adaptations (Ustinov and Suchet). I've also, unfortunately, seen Branaugh's MOTOE. Based on this review (and how astute your other reviews/breakdowns are), it sounds like this production of Death on the Nile simply proves, again, that someone really should convince Kenneth Branaugh to...I dunno...READ the Poirot books before he's allowed to "adapt" (*cough* completely ruin *cough*) another one. Hard agree on all the points you made--positive and negative alike. Or at least to the degree they apply to MOTOE--as I'm not going to subject my blood pressure to DOTN, I'll have to take your word for it.
If you want to blame anyone… blame the screenplays author. Granted I don’t know how much of Poirot’s backstory was as case of Branagh wanting a bit more to the character.
Saw this over the weekend and someone in our theater fell so sound asleep they startled awake and threw popcorn EVERYWHERE. O.o I loved the costumes, cinematography, and vibes... but I totally agree that it lacked momentum and character development. It was too much glittery surface, not enough substance. I enjoyed it, but ultimately felt unsatisfied.
Well, Mara, you’ve successfully dissuaded me from watching any of these Branagh adaptations. It sounds like they have completely misunderstood what it is that makes the Poirot books charming. And I get that Branagh is a director/actor, but based on his previous performances, I’m not sure that Branagh the actor is suited to the role of Poirot?
I'm going to come back to this and watch it once I've seen the film, but I already know we won't feel the same! 😅 I've also been listening to the soundtrack since its release because I just love me a Patrick Doyle score! Sort of related question, though - how do you feel about Kenneth Branagh's movies in general? Because some people just don't like his directing/acting. Ever.
Ooh, this does not bode well for my enjoyment of the movie. Death on the Nile is my favourite of the old movies (Peter Ustinov is surprisingly charismatic), and the book is amazing. I didn’t like Branagh’s interpretation of Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express - although the costumes and settings were fabulous - and I’ve been dreading what he’d do in future movies. Honestly, he (KB) really does Poirot a disservice with how he characterises him. Poirot is self assured of his own intelligence to the point of arrogance, he doesn’t doubt or second guess what he knows to be true. Christie didn’t dumb down her characters so why does Branagh think he needs to? Still, I’m sure I’ll buy the bluray at some point because I’m a completionist 🤷🏻♀️
Great review! Totally late to this party - only watched it two nights ago (was waiting for streaming). You said it all, really. I did think the movie looked beautiful, and I do have an interest in seeing what each interpretation of a novel decides to keep and change, but by the end I was so aware that they didn't pay any attention to what Christie's strength is - the plotting. I don't know if people who were unfamiliar with the story would get to the end of this film and think: "Oh, that's clever!" I agree with you, the nature of these stories is a whodunnit, why are they downplaying that? I wonder if people were confused afterwards? From memory they didn't really make much out of clues like Louise's words, whereas they are flagged as a definite clue in the novel. Similarly, nothing is made of Simon's shouting as a warning, though I didn't hate that scene at the same time. Plus Poirot and Jackie not having much of a friendship in this version makes it less, I feel. I could go on, but won't bore you. I love Sophie Okonedo, she is a great character actress and always seems so different in everything I've seen her in. I will always like seeing French and Saunders, just because. I found it interesting how the script would diverge so much from the point of a Christie, yet the writer also made sure to put in really small Christie-ish moments, like the vegetable marrow discussion. Even the outcome to the Van Schuyler/Bowers relationship, while not from the novel, is reminiscent of many other "rich lady/companion" combinations that occasionally seemed to have a subtext in other parts of her work. It's hard not to compare it to the 1978 version, which I love, but even looking at it away from that context, I just am not sure how good I think it is. I didn't love MOTOE either, so I kinda knew what to expect, but still... Oh a btw, was nearly every actor in this doing an accent other than their own? Haha!
I generally like Branagh's work, but he does definitely have the tendency when he's both directing and starring to puff up his role beyond what another director might have done. And the way you talk about them turning Poirot into an action star reminds me of my mom going off on modern versions of Holmes where he's like a lust-filled ladykiller or something, when Holmes canonically could barely stand women and honestly, to my ace lens, reads as aro-ace to some degree. It's irritating when people take iconic characters who have a very specific personality and just chuck it out the window and make them something wholly different.
You are right! I could never put it into words as I did not know the exact term when I was first reading the sherlock holms book; but Sherlock definitely reads as an asexual / acreage? ( pardon the error?) man to me at least. That is why subsequent books talking about sherlock descendants irritated me somewhat
Might actually read this one day so left after non spoiler but considering how popular knives out was and like you said tv shows they really should just trust the story and make it a mystery. Also Angela Lansbury is one of my faves so I for sure need to watch that adaptation you mentioned!
I was really turned off by the promo. I felt the voice over lines sounded really cheesy and your thoughts on how they changed Poirot's character isn't convincing me to check it out. I thought one of the strengths of the book was the wide cast of interesting characters and focusing on one or two characters seems like it would do a disservice to the story.
Saw movie today. Haven't read the book but have read other Poirot books. I also had issues with some of the adds to Poirot's character. The character on the screen didn't feel like the Poirot I came to the movie for. Also, the pacing was so frustrating. Nothing happened then everything happened. Then it was over.
And as a Costume Design and Making graduate I have to say that the styling and costumes are really lacking in my opinion. But I am glad you enjoyed it. That wasn't my only problem by far though. 😂 The characterisation of Poirot was questionable, the action was uninteresting(?!), some of the acting was very overemphasised, the added sex appeal and romances felt fabricated, and the visual effects were really oddly done. I am just confused how they managed to turn such a great book into a film that was so mediocre at best. The only thing I loved about Poirot is that he mentioned vegetable marrows (so somebody must have looked at the books). Rant over but still frustrated. Have a great day! 🥰
All agreed. I mean the Orient Express made me like ‘wow okay that’s something new’, and this one straightly made me laugh hard in the cinema like ‘of course you gonna do the action scenes’. Plus there were several scenes were quite weird, like badly merged CG backgrounds…maybe the production were limited by pandemic so they just have to make do. In my very personal opinion, Kenneth Branagh and his crew may have take some ideas from BBC Sherlock, like try to make the detective younger and do more actions, but the problem is that Poirot is very different from Sherlock in all possible ways. Anyway, I guess Branagh can make the next one even more ridiculous and I know I still gonna watch it cause I’m sucker for Agatha Christie no matter what lol.
warning spoilers ahead! .... So for me the funniest things that made me laugh were 1. how much of a horndog they made Simon Doyle. 2. they had to make Poirot the Joker for some reason 3. I laughed out loud when the killer used a SILK scarf to silence a gun?? a silk scarf as a silencer lol?? Bonus points to anyone who saw right at the end scene people were carrying the bodies of the victims off the ship and the way they were wrapped up made them look like mummies. lol still had fun watching but agree with you they made it into an action movie instead of an unfolding mystery that someone in the audience could solve by the clues given which would have been truer to the spirit of the series.
I agree that they focused way too much on the Poirot character, the mystery itself seemed almost like an afterthought (even though it's a freaking mystery). I felt that the interviews were too rushed as well as the final denouement scene; there was no effort towards building suspense whatsoever. I was disappointed because it's one of my favorite Christie's too :(
I hate that they can’t just let Poirot be Poirot. I haven’t seen this movie yet. But I have seen some of the one before it. Poirot has a huge fan base they should play to that instead of reinventing him.
I was really disappointed that they didn't spend as much time with the other side characters as they did in the book. Even Jackie wasn't as fleshed out as in the books. And she was my favorite character from the book so that was disappointing. ETA: Honestly, they really only set up that Doyle was the killer, or Jackie but then that was too on the nose for it to have actually been her to killed Linnet. They didn't flush out the other characters to give them any motivation to kill her outside of a very superficial one.
I love the mia farrow movie!! So disappointed by this new adaptation. I thought i heard jodie comer (from killing eve) was originally going to be jackie. Not sure if true but she would've been amazing. I think the problem was the movie itself though.
I know what you mean about the "plastic-yness" of these films. Orient Express in particular looked like the train was too perfect. Yes, it's First Class, but this isn't the Titanic on its maiden voyage, it's a train that's been in service for years. Of course the compartments, utensils, and accoutrements would be clean and orderly, but they shouldn't be shining like they were JUST delivered. Same with the Karnak. It was like we were watching the travel ad video for these movies where everything is digitally enhance and artificially perfect.
Oh my god, I agree with you so much! I said to my friend that I realized Branagh's adaptations aren't focusing solely on Poirot solving a crime, but his journey to self-(re)discovery. In Orient Express his view about what's right and wrong was challenged (but it's understandable, and I personally like it). In Death on the Nile, it's about his vulnerabilty behind his big mustache and arrogance. And it kinda ruins the mood of the movie, especially after the third murder, he became so emotional and the revelation scene was in rush and thus anti-climactic. In contrast with how Poirot usually solve his crime, which is by raising questions that puzzled him about the case, and then carefully solves it before naming the culprits (like they did in the 1978 adaptation).
tbh i don’t mind a bit of action since it’s a movie and you need to spice things up- for as long as they don’t change the major outline of the plot, but butchering a character like this sounds too much. This doesn’t sound like poirot at all…and i’m wondering why they removed all the other characters motivation for murder? part of the fun of a christie novel is trying to figure out who did it because several characters had a motivation not just one :/
The whole opening scene of the war could've been taken out because they decided to give Poirot this wound that can only be seen in the final scene and it makes no sense, because it's way bigger than his moustache can cover. Without knowing the book (and being that familiar with Poirot) I actually quite liked this movie. Liked it more than Orient Express, that's for sure. Probably because of the characters and the setting.
I recall a reviewer saying the opening scene of a Poirot movie should tell us who he is and foreshadow his approach to the mystery. Branagh adding a war scene where Poirot has the best strategy was a weird flex bc we already know Poirot is smart, and then adding a face disfiguring wound as the reason for his giant mustache was really strange. Even stranger was the ending of "six months later" and he's shaved the mustache off as if it represents character growth. I just didn't know what that was supposed to show about the character and how the events on the Nile impacted him. Did he grow the mustache to please Katherine and always kept it in memory of her and shaving it means he's moving on? Or he's trying to be less vain by showing his scars? I didn't understand the choice there at all.
I thought I'd "treat" myself to this after finishing the book. What a letdown. I couldn't believe how bad it was. I couldn't even tolerate 10 minutes before I tappes and turned it off. Did they even read the book? The Salome Otterbourne reimagined as a blues guitar musician was cool in that her 1937 performance is actually lifted pretty directly from Sister Rosetta Tharpe's Halloween 1938 live performance of Rock Me (the birth of rock n roll, imo), but again that has nothing to do with the actual book. It's like they tacked on Poirot/Christie to a barely-related mess of a story. And Bouc?! Anyway, does it get any less awful from minute 11 onward?
I guess I didn’t mind “sad boirot” because I felt like when I was reading the few stories I’ve read so far that I still hadn’t gotten to know Poirot as a character aside from “smartest guy in the room, funny looking, Belgian guy” so I was happy to see some sort of backstory. My main problem in the film was actually Gal Gadot’s accent. Where was Linnet supposed to be from again? Britain or America right? But I guess an accent coach is too much for some actors.
Only saw the first movie with Branagh and decided: never again. Apart from him loving himself far too much for the good of the movie, I was disgusted by the thing he called a moustache. Book-Poirot would have been disgusted as well, I am sure. How is that order and method? Yes he had the ends turned up sometimes, but not this swirly, unruly abbomination. Yuck. Also, but you would not have had that, I watched it in german, being german😊. They were not capable of saying the Name Arbuthnot. The read it in a german way, I found hard to take. The "u" as in uber, for example. Ar-butt-knott, is the best I can describe it in writing. Cruel.😢
Finally saw the 2022 adaptation. Given that I had low expectations, I was actually not too displeased. I'd give it a "C" in comparison to Mara's "C+/B-" grade. I thought how Bouc's story played out was quite interesting. I 100 percent agree that the characterization of Poirot in this franchise/series is not true to the books, and dare I say not even interesting. I also agree that filmmakers can trust that fans do indeed enjoy a good whodunit with a detective whose backstory we need not know too much about. I can't remember if the death of Poirot's military captain and the death of his fiancee while traveling to visit him were part of Poirot's backstory in the novels, but I'm hoping not.
In the books, Poirot had retired from the police force in 1905 at the age of 55. Christie’s first book, Mysterious Affair at Styles, takes place during WWI in an English village where Poirot is an elderly Belgian war refugee.
Omg I agree with so much, I totally agree with spending less time with Poirot & more time with the rest of the cast. I just saw this the other day & it was way more sad than I thought it would be. It felt drawn out & bland, which for such a big budget film is disappointing. It just didn't seem to have the usual deapth or wide interest in the whole production compared to usual. As you say it lacked tension & was rather dull. I also felt like they were aiming I at children, or idiots & did not enjoy the spoon feeding at all, it actively annoyed me. I also don't think that type of audience would even have watched it in the first place. I will probably still watch of they do another but if it's another sad, boring story with too much emo Poirot, then I will give up & not watch anymore. I also don't think it's a good idea for anyone to be the main star & director, especially not somone who is obviously too happy being in the spotlight, it's the ensemble cast that works well.
Thank you for this analysis. I just finished watching the film on Hulu (it took me two sessions because I was bored after the first hour), and I agree with your points. I wanted to blame the screenplay, but was surprised to see it was the same writer who worked on Logan, Blade Runner 2049, and Jungle Cruise - all of which I enjoyed. But the film really dragged! Also, I'm a big fan of movie stars looking like glamorous MOVIE STARS in a film like this, but I felt the cinematography made them look kind of ugly. It was nice to see Russell Brand on screen again, though.
I'm living for this, reminds me of the time I found your channel! I haven't seen the film (yet?), but, I mean... Kenneth Branagh be Kenneth Branagh-ing I guess, he doesn't seem the type to let others take the stage when he's directing AND starring ahaha We love Poirot because he's kind of an asshole but a very fastidious and naive way, and also because he's always right a fundamentally good, we don't care to ahve yet another angsting brooding detective!!
i just watched it lol it was so bad. just thinking someone probably came into it blind and thought that the story was predictable and bad and lacked substance annoys me so much because i thoroughly enjoyed the book and the storytelling is AMAZING. the sets were pretty and it was just pretty to watch but thats about it. the director did such an injustice to agatha christie's writing. ive never hated a film so much oh my. they left out so much detail and changed so much of it. also i didnt really care for the sudden poirot love story
I agree almost completely, only difference is I liked this one more than MotOE but that might be due to much lower expectations haha The characterization of Poirot and the other characters blaming him for not being able to solve it was very frustrating and felt so pointless. There feels like there's so much potential unfulfilled :|
Poirot not being confident? Unsure of himself? What a bunch of gormless, anti-male, pecksniffian woke dolts! This is why I watch very little tv from this century. Thank you, dear Lady, for giving an honest and heartfelt opinion of this movie.
I haven't seen the new film yet, but I'm still really excited for it! My first time watching Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express I really hated it, but on subsequent viewings it's really grown on me. I think he does a great job at reimagining the books for a new audience. I know the new film is gonna be different from the book, so I'm not too worried about disliking it.
Fear not! Another murder mystery on a boat is coming this year with Rian Johnson's Knives Out 2 on Netflix! I am excited because I actually won't know whodunnit like Death on the Nile. Also this is still from Fox so Disney may or may not continue but likely will have a different creative team if they do.
I totally agree with you that this is a terrible adaptation of the AC book! The 1978 version is so much better than this one and I agree that the changes made in that one made much more sense than the changes made in this one.
Full disclosure - I am not an AG fan. I'm also still trying to figure out if mystery is my jam. (More of a historical fiction reader.) But I agree that this movie had a lot of weaknesses. I think KB's ego got in the way of the story. I think Gal Gadot was miscast. I did not like her performance at all. The actress that played Jacqueline de Belfort was really good, but the movie did not really show us, the way the book did, how much she actually stalked Linette and Simon. LOVED Sophie Okonedo and all the jazz music. I actually did not care for the two scenes in which Simon was shown basically dry humping Jacqueline at the jazz club, and then Linette at the pyramids. I like well done sex scenes, but with Arnie's history they felt gross and creepy. (Just my opinion.) However, 10 out of 10 stars for costume design, cinematography, and set production. And last, but not least, I loved watching your fur baby walk all around during the video. 😻
Yes! The doggie style dancing and pyramid foreplay was so cringe. When the gross "sexy" moments stick out more than the drama in a movie, they should be thrown out or reconceived.
The killers in this mystery would have to be beyond stupid. Why wouldn’t you postpone the murder to another time when you realize that a world famous detective was on boat the ship? Also what would they said if someone picked up the gun right after Jackie fake shot Simon? How would they explain fake blood and no wound? And finally what would happen if the ink/paint used for the fake blood got on Simon’s hands and he then transferred it onto the couch, his clothes or in his wife’s room when he went to murder her? This was a horrible plan!
Sooo… i saw the movie today and finally watched your video because I didn’t want to spoiler myself even though I already watched the old version of the movie. I found the pacing very weird. Like they spent so much time until the first body and than like Five minutes later the movie was over. I have to say I was surprised about Russel Brands acting. I saw him in panel shows und comedy stuff so I was worried I couldn’t take him serious but I was pleasantly surprised. I also liked that they had a queer couple that they brought into the story but they didn’t use it for drama or sadness or for marketing they are just there like in everyday life. One thing that was like a plothole in my opinion is that after Simon is show apprentice no one Heard the shot. And no one Heard the second bullet then why was it necessary to hide the third bullet? I just doesn’t make sense???!!! Anyway. Great video I really love your content especially about Agatha Christie 👍
When I left Murder on the Orient Express, my thought was all style and no substance. I’m a huge Kenneth B fan but I agree with you, the first one missed the mark for me. I did love the look of the film. I think I’ll still see this but I’m sure I’ll be disappointed.
