Murder on the Orient Express ~ Lost in Adaptation 

Quick note: SAG is fine with indie studios who HAVE agreed to their terms, such as A24, and actively encourages people to work with them to show you CAN make successful films AND pay your crew. So any adaptations done by approved indie studios would be in the clear!

Fun fact Dom: The kidnapping of Armstrong's daughter in the book was inspired by the real-life kidnapping and death of Charles Lindbergh Jr. in 1932. In fact, the filmmakers made that inspiration more noticeable by changing the location of the kidnapping from Long Island, NY to New Jersey, where the Lindbergh kidnapping took place.

My mom, a massive Agatha Christie fan who frequently cites her as the reason she loves mysteries so much, said the mustache alone was enough to make her not watch this movie because 'it looks like a hairy worm or ferret'. She loves the TV show, and says that is the definitive adaptation of Poirot.

I've always been quite confused by Branagh's decisions to adapt Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. Christie was such a prolific writer, and there are plenty of her stories that either haven't been adapted, or not been adapted particularly well. Both of those books have fantastic adaptations from the 70s. I highly recommend watching them if you haven't already.

Branagh's Death on the Nile was so disappointing that it made me go watch the Suchet series. And it was an enormous improvement. Death on the Nile is one of my favorites, maybe my favorite Poirot. Branagh broke it. The strength of Christie's works, to me, lies in the cleanness of the writing. She knows how to trim the fat. This movie added so much fat!

Thank you for your kind concern for the striking writers and actors. Support such as yours is most appreciated.

I habitually rewatch Poirot television series with David Suchet. Partially for the comfort of a familiar plot, but mostly because of the stunning set and costume design. I find the show extremely aesthetically pleasing. Kenneth Branagh's movies, while polished and arguably visually appealing, look like something created by an AI. On some subliminal level it disturbs me.

Good on you for supporting the strike and taking the most cautious approach to SAG AFTRA's instructions to performers. The two identical eggs showed up in earlier adaptations as well and if it wasn't original to the book would have been a reference to them (been to long since I've either read the novel or seen either of Suchet's runs at the story or the Albert Finney version to say which of them had the bit). The problem with Brannagh is that while he is an excellent actor and director when he is doing both jobs he gets UNPARDONABLY self indulgent.

Kudos for standing with the strikers, my guy. It helps make up for how much I die inside hearing the way you pronounce "PRA-row" 😂

Brannah’s Poirot films are a guilty pleasure for me too! Can’t wait for the next one. I just love a detective story and I kinda like how cheesy and over the top his adaptations are lol

Great video! Just a small note on pronunciation, it's not Prah-ro but Pwah-ro ;) Looking forward to the next one!

That knock scared the absolute crud out of me!!! 😳

I gotta say, I'm with Dom on this one. While the Brannagh Poirot films may not be completely faithful to the books, I personally liked them. And I say this as a fan of stuff that hasn't had the best adaptations😅 Looking forward to seeing your analysis of the Death on the Nile adaptation, keep up the good work.

I really respect your integrity, cheers!

The dead lover was the most hugely jarring thing for me as a huge fan of the books.

The fact that Olivia Coleman wasn't included in the list of celebrities cast is wild

I saw a story on the news about everyone going to the movies Barbie and Openhiemer. I am livid about this because they’re just lining the pockets of the studios.

The count is played by a ballet dancer... so maybe they were like "hey, why not?"

We absolutely understand. I will watch every book related video you make. (Hoping the strike will be over by that time, but I'm still willing to watch a book video. Afterall, I first found you when you reviewed the 50 shades books.)

I love this film. I was 11 on my mom took me to the cinema. I am a train lover, thats why she took me to watch with subtitles, since i live in Brasil. I imediatly fell in love, even though now i know the diferences in the adaptation. I still love it.

What can consumers do to support the strike? Not go to the movies? Not watch streaming services? Only watch shows on already owns and contentment creaters? Write to studios?

The murder mystery sounds like it might have inspired Sympathy for Lady Vengeance. A South Korean film about a recently released convict out to find the man who is the reason she went to prison. She took the blame for a child kidnapping and murder and when released seeks to find and destroy the actual killer. But along the way she find out that he had more victims while she was imprisoned and so she finds the families of the other victims. They then decide on whether or not they will also take vengeneance for their own slain children.

Concerning the love interest, to quote my mom, "I always assumed Poirot was asexual." It was just so out of character to make him pine after someone. And then in the next movie they gave his MUSTACHE a back story...🙄

I'd love to see you cover the other adaptations of this--the 1974 Sidney Lumet/Albert Finney version, the David Suchet version, and the 2000 made-for-TV version with Alfred Molina that updated the story to the present day. (I've often wondered why that version was considered such an abomination for updating the story, when Sherlock and Elementary were hits.) I'd also love to see you cover the Ustinov and Suchet versions of Death on the Nile. (I'd like to ask the makers of the latter why they chose to change the ending of the Tim/Rosalie subplot.)

David suchet is the poirot o grew up with❤. Me and my late dad used to watch it in ghe morning or tea time together. It's causs of him i watched a lot of old timey stuff for my age. Miss him, miss him.😊

I am scared of what they would do/did with The Apples. That wasn't even in Venice!

David Suchet is the GOAT. When I think Agatha Christie Poirot I think of David in his role.

Next Agatha Cristie adaptation review idea; And Then There Were None (2015 miniseries). Really enjoied that one, also has a great cast, and I'm interested to see how it compares to the book. Other than changeing the name haha

It still baffles me that they chose this book to start their movie series. I know it's arguably the biggest name in the book series so had the most draw for the general public, but the whole ending was the start of Poirot's dark turn into a murderer. Starting with murder on the Orient express only establishes that the detective you're meant to be rooting for is just a corrupt man that decides it doesn't matter who the killer is, the victim deserved it so just pretend the film never happened, no one gets arrested

i'm not even a fan just got an expected amount of respect for this story, and the way you describe the ending being changed makes me want to puke. the very subtle ''he reveals he knows they all did it, but can't really convince police that all these esteemed members of society worked together for a murder'' and the ''he's quite sympathetic and don't want them brought to justice for getting rid of this monster'' is WHY this story will never get old.

I only realised when you said it, that, 'Oh yeah- he _hasn't_ done any Agatha Christie...' I was wondering if you were going to do a comparison between the 'Death on the Nile' adaptations, because of the recent passing of Jane Birkin- she was also in another Agatha Christie, 'Murder under the Sun'- again- with Dame Maggie Smith (was she a redhead when she was younger...?! The more you know...)

I also did like this film and its sequel, but did have a problem with Kenneth Branners' Poirot. I don't know if I did necessarily dislike the character, but it did not do justice to Poirot from the books. What I did really like about Murder on the Orient Express its sequel was the time setting. It really felt like a luxurious echo from the 20s in the 30s.

And hey why is there no longer a end-credits song lyrics taken from other pop or rock or even jazz songs by Il Neige? I've first noticed that last two weeks ago with your take on The Missus.

David Suchet and is to Poriot what Jeremy Brett is to Holmes they are unbeatable adaptations.

I wanted to mention something...I also kind of love this movie too, sure it has the problem of being in a very weird place in terms of an adaptation of Agatha Christie's novels...but I felt it was well acted and enjoyable in it's own way. Though I firmly do not blame those who have issues with how the movie was executed.

The Movie itself is well acted and its ensemble cast played well just as the Albert Finney version did. It was extremely watchable. Except for the mustache and action scenes it is a pretty good adaptation. Those two things are hard to forgive though. The 1974 version played up the suspense a bit but really kinda focused on the train itself to pad length instead of action. The acting in both movies is what makes it worth watching.

Yknow what would be a fun idea if the strike goes on longer? Start doing more play and stage adaptations of books. Just an idea :)

I am a huge Agatha Christie fan, and I still like this movie (and the next one). Admittedly, I was horrified by the mustache in the trailer, but found that in the movie itself it didn't bother me.

Dear sir, under no circumstances do you have to defend, explain, nor apologize for anything you truly enjoy, guilty pleasure or not. If you like this, you like it, and that is all there is to it and all there need be said about it.

Also I have to say, I also love Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. I've never enjoyed the novels, and I thought the movies were beautifully filmed, and there was something nostalgic for me about them, I don't know how to explain it. Given that Christie herself was incredibly racist and not that great of an author either, I'm fully comfortable enjoying a well-made film that "butchers" the source material.

Are you thinking of ever revisiting Game of Thrones? I binge your GoT episodes every now and then, and I'd love if you tackled the character journeys in later seasons

first of all: i am not an apologist of these films however you mentioned that poirot's few moments of ego are played up and he is very egotistical in the movie. the example you gave was of him comparing himself to god, which actually happened in the books, just not in murder on the orient express, but in the mystery of the blue train, another poirot story where someone is murdered on a train

Understanding? I don't just understand! I fully support your decision to support the strike!

Just want to give a message to The Dom in regards to neurodivergency for comedy. I am a neurodivergent adult, autism to be precise and me and my neurodivergent friends do not see this humour as offensive. Yes there are aspects about us that make life more difficult but being able to laugh AT them helps us cope and overcome them in our daily lives. In fact after my autism diagnosis it was characters like Adrian Monk and Hercule Poirot that helped me come to terms and embrace it as they were neurodivergents who were more capable than anyone around them despite being labeled as "weird". What me and my friends do agree is offensive is The Dom acting like some saviour and telling us what we should and shouldn't get offended by. Sometimes what we want is just to be treated normally, not have someone go into theatrics about how much we suffer because of a film Don't mean to be mean Dom just wanted to get my point across as I was a little disappointed by this.

I always felt bad for Poirot. Sure most of the murders are him being called in to solve them after the fact, but quite a lot of them are Poirot is just trying to take a nice vacation and have some time to himself and then someone has to go and get murdered and ruin the whole thing.

A little fun fact about the final Poirot novel, where the character died. Though it was published in the 70's, Agatha Christie actually wrote the original version of the book during WW2, as sort of a safety measure for the character. Should she have died as a result of the war, the book would have been published posthumously, taking her character with her. Over the years, she basically tweaked it off and on to keep it as a backup.

I think my favourite fact about Christie is that she wrote Miss Marple's character as an older woman because she found that there weren't enough retired lady detectives ^^

Fun fact: Agatha Christie also has a self-insert character in the Poirot series! Her name is Ariadne Oliver, played by Zoe Wanamaker in the popular TV run of Poirot from the 2000's, and she's a mystery authoress who's main character is a Finnish detective named Sven Hjerson. In stories that Ariadne appears, she can often be found complaining about the life of authors and her growing irritation with her foreign character. The best example is probably in Mrs. McGinty's Dead where she continuously argues with a playwright about Sven. They argue about his age (the playwright wants to make him young while Ariadne points out that he has gotten older as the stories progressed and that the fans would notice the age change), his diet (Ariadne made him a vegetarian for some reason and the playwright wants to change that), and other stuff I cannot recall off the top of my head. She complains about fans and interviewers asking her about her writing process, as she just sits down and writes whatever is in her head. She's also shown dislike over having to go to conventions and other social gatherings to promote herself and her work and otherwise socialize with complete strangers who act like they know her through her work. And there are a bunch of other scenes where it's pretty clear that Agatha Christie is just venting through this character. It's amazing. Ariadne Oliver is by far one of my favorite characters Agatha Christie has ever written. She's so funny and plays off Poirot really well. She is a chaotic gift and I love her.

fun fact: the train in the movie stops in Slavonia, which is portrayed as a place with huge mountains - in real life it is literally one of the BIGGEST PLAINs in this part of Europe.

Fun fact about the David Suchet Poirot series: One of the main reasons the show ended was because they RAN OUT OF MATERIAL TO ADAPT

We don't mind if you don't talk about adaptations for a while. We all love it when you recommend books and talk about things your passionate about

So about the ballet ninja count - the actor playing him was the prodigy of the Royal Ballet for some years before he quit over “not being allowed enough creative freedom”. He appeared in The Phantom of the Opera 25th Anniversary gala where his role was significantly expanded on - you definitely get the impression from the dvd extras that the creative team are trying to politely talk around the fact he is difficult to work with. He’s got a pretty bad reputation at this point. He’s made a lot of sexist and homophobic comments - his most recent controversy being his support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So it seems almost like they made the Count a ballet dancer with aggression issues… because the actor is a ballet dancer with aggression issues???

Yes, if you read a lot of Poirot stories, you realize some are consecutive. Poirot goes on holiday to Egypt and on the journey is The Mystery of the Blue Train (maybe), Murder in Mesopotamia, Death on the Nile, Appointment With Death, Problem at Sea (ss) and then Murder on the Orient Express when Poirot goes back to England. There might be more, I didn't read the books in any order and only realised this later. Also, fun fact: Poirot's eyes are green, but it's only mentioned in two books, briefly.

Wonder what you would think of David Suchet's rendition of this story. I, for one, consider Suchet to be THE quintessential Poirot. The TV series is endlessly watchable. He brings enough bombast and self-satisfaction to be the character from the book, but enough charm so that you're never really angry about it. If you haven't seen the series, seek it out, WELL worth watching.

The irory of the casting is that Poirot is an absolute peacock (and proud of it), but physically, he's ridiculous almost on purpose to make himself appear like an adorable, harmless old man who's surely past his prime, and characters often dismiss him and end up falling for his persona and they all become chatty Cathys to him, thus always revealing more than they may have wanted to because he's just that good at making suspects and criminals alike feel at ease. Branagh looks so outrageous it's impossible to take him seriously. He can't help being younger and handsome, but that darn mustache was well within his purview, much like the bizarre decision to add action (or runtime?) to the plot. Poirot only walks around in the books to chat, like he's an Aaron Sorkin character, but truly, he prefers to lay about and just hang. My opinion on the book though - it's pretty short to adapt into a full length story, actually, and the characters really are their stereotype rather than a real character. Also, and maybe this will sound weird, but this book really lacks in romance (which is a big deal in a lot of her Poirot books), and I like the way Christie wrote romance and just character relationships. On the topic of her being a badass woman herself, many of her books have a female protagonists that, in her own way, doesn't conform to the norms of society, and becomes Poirot's little investigation buddy (with varied involvement). Can't wait for your video on Death on the Nile though, oh boy.

What's absolutely hilarious is that this almost mirrors what happens in one of the Poirot novels to Agatha Christie's alter ego character, the detective novel author Ariadne Oliver. Someone wants to make a movie about that character's detective hero and make him younger, more attractive, and more romantic.

Part of the reason Poirot was okay with letting the Orient Express killers get away with it was that they acted in concert. It's literally compared to a jury. And book Poirot, who is very Catholic, states his core objection to murder as a kind of blasphemy: one person usurping the power of deciding life and death from god. It's the solo assumption of an unjustified moral authority that offends him.

I think my favourite thing about Agatha Christie is that she created Ariande Oliver, who comes off as a parody of herself, and who writes about a Finnish detective called Sven... and gets annoyed with him being so unlikable. That's pretty meta stuff for back then. Also, IIRC, Christie frequently wrote Poirot out of stage adaptations of his stories completely, so... arguably the least faithful adaptations of her work are her own.

My personal grievance with the movie is that it's not a murder mystery the audience can follow along and solve. For example when Poirot reveals that a hankerchief with the initial H belongs to Natalia (Наталья in cyrillic) we have never heard that character's first name before, she has always been Princess Dragorimoff. Also the passenger interviews feel like they were cut for time and not for clarity as multiple times the conversations start with “And after that?” or “No I didn’t say I was a chauffeur” without any indication what prompted the responses. I've read the original script and these were not problems in that so I feel like someone, were it Branagh or some higher ups, really didn't like the slower pace of the story and forced it to be shorter.

The egg thing actually appears in a couple different Poirot stories. It’s also in the Suchet adaptations of them. But the excrement is definitely taking things too far! I think the OCD thing is a fair reading. Poirot is constantly fixing askew pictures, extolling the virtues of symmetry, insists on matching things like his breakfast eggs being the same size, colour and shape, adjusting items on shelves, and fixing other people’s clothes. He mentions how it causes him distress and how he can’t concentrate or continue speaking until he fixes something, Without going into spoilers, Curtain, his final case, has an important detail that hinges on these compunctions. It actually almost jeopardizes his entire scheme because he couldn’t help but make something symmetrical. This is also often played for laughs on the books and the Suchet adaptations, and is an endearing part of the character people love. It’s also mentioned as a tragedy in books, Suchet, and Branagh versions, because it prevents him from,ending a normal life. So because the compunction is debilitating, OCD is a fair reading. It’s not at Adrian Monk levels, but Monk is almost certainly inspired by Poirot.

Hi, not a SAG guy here, but I am a WGA member; what we're hearing is that it actually helps the strikes to go to the movies and to promote films, since it illustrates the value of the labor that we do. If nobody's watching movies, it makes it easier for studios to lowball the unions by claiming demand isn't strong enough.

Dom I think you may have misunderstood what the guilds were saying, they were saying they don’t want people promoting struck work, so anything made DURING these strikes. Anything made before May 2023 is perfectly within boundaries

I also wound up liking this movie...but even from only having read the one Poirot book, I thought they made a mess of the character. Part of what I love about Poirot is how soft-spoken he is, how he's sort of an extremely clever but very gentle man. The whole bit at the end with Poirot threatening everyone with a gun was just so wildly out of character. I'm very curious to read more of the books, and can't wait to see your video on Death on the Nile!

Something that made David Suchets version better for me is the way he made the acccent for Poirot by listening to french and flemish. There is a video of it on youtube and it's absolutely perfect. Also something that differs from the book if I am not mistaken is that Poirot absolutely struggled with letting them go. But if you look at the film as a seperate entity it is quite enjoyable.

Yay!! Return of the skit segment in which Dom acts alongside himself shockingly effectively

As a female author and feminist, Agatha Christie and Jane Austen are my heroes. Glad they still get so much recognition. Also, THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THE MUSTACHE! GOD, THAT BUGS ME EVERY TIME I SEE IT! What were they THINKING with that?!

David Suchet portrayal is amazing!!.. I liked his version adding in the moral quandary about the morality of breaking the law.

I think he was trying to turn Poirot into Sherlock Holmes, or rather the Sherlock Holmes that Holmes has become. A clever action hero with neurological quirks

Poirot shaving his mustache in Death on the Nile is the most unforgivable aspect of Branaugh's Poirot adaptations.

As to the eggs: “I detailed some of Poirot’s minor peculiarities - toast that had to be made from a square loaf - eggs matching in size” Arthur Hastings in Peril at End House. This is also depicted in the extremely accurate ITV series ”For my breakfast, I have only toast which is cut into neat little squares. The eggs - there must be two - they must be identical in size.” - Agatha Christie writing as Poirot in a letter to her US Publisher

As a long-time Christie fan, I love these two films. Branagh is a bombastic, over-the-top artist and the tone he creates matches Poirot very well. Sure, there are many silly moments, but I personally think it works within the context. And I quite like the way he translates the end-of-the-book explanation to the screen by cutting it up and dispersing it throughout the story.

One of the suspects, Pilar, is actually a character from a different Poirot book swapped in for the film. The action stuff really dragged the film down. It was all very rote and actually made the film feel slower, imo. With Poirot's character, this suffers partly from the same problem as the Suchet version: golden-age "great detective" characters don't *have* arcs, and modern screenwriters refuse to accept that. Holmes, Poirot, Marple, Father Brown, Hanshichi, Akechi, Di Renjie, etc. function as fixed points around whom events unfolds. Dramatically speaking, they are agents of order, not heroes on a journey of self-discovery.

I really liked a lot about the film, but it's just very difficult as a huge Poirot fan to not compare any other Poirot to Suchet, who was not just faithful to the books, but also played the part so brilliantly for almost 25 years, adapting every short story and novel, with both humor and quite moving moments. He truly was Poirot. I can enjoy other films and I really enjoy that people who aren't familiar with Poirot are enjoying them! But no one will ever play Poirot like Suchet. And that seems to be how everyone else who knows the Suchet series feels too, haha.

years before I saw this film, I watched the David Suchet Murder on the Orient Express. I hadn't read the books and didn't know the ending, and the whole experience was such a different vibe to this film., It was dark, and moody, a real tonal shift from the other Suchet Poirots honestly, and the ending was absolutely harrowing. You could see the weight of the truth in Suchet's face, like it was physically and emotionally destroying him to realise such a crime, with a touch of moral dilemma thrown in. I thought it was his best performance as Poirot to date. So honestly this film never stood a chance; it was inoffensive to me, I love the Suchet Poirot series but I've never been super passionate about the books. But idk, I always dislike it when I get the sense that the filmmaker thinks they know better than the OG author, especially the creative license he took on Poirot. He should have just directed and produced, and cast someone true to the physicality and nature of the character. But feels like ego got in the way there. Also the Believer memes from the trailer were pretty good

My mother *LOVES* Poirot so, so much. I think she's read and listened to just about every one of his adventures. She also loves the occasional screen adaptation such as the David Suchet TV show. She has good taste, I think. I have never heard such a cry of despair from her as I did the moment when she saw the trailer for this adaptation. Oh, how they massacred her boy. To this day, I don't think she's fully recovered.

Although this movie isn't that bad, I think Branagh was fighting an uphill battle with this one. With famous characters there seems to be one actor that comes along to define the role. For me the ultimate Sherlock remains Jeremy Brett, and David Suchet IS Hercule Poirot. You rightly pointed out how famous this plot is. So it was very unlikely any long time Poirot fans were going to love this. I read the books and as a proud Belgian, for me too David Suchet nailed the character. But I also agree that this adaptation is still worth a watch when you focus on the cast besides Poirot...

The most interesting thing about both these films to me is how much Baranagh digs into the real emotions that people would be going through during a standard murder mystery plot. The exact same approach he took to Henry V, and it works just as well here.

What disappointed me was a specific part of the ending. In the book, when Mrs. Hubbard is revealed to be Linda Ardent, she takes off this 'mask' with dignity. She's realised that Poirot knows everything now - he found enough clues in the end to uncover the fabricated story. Although, they both recognise each others' intelligence in how they both played this game. She's a smart woman, and she recognises Poirot's cornered her in a sense, but she then appeals to his sense of decency and humanity in a calm, yet emotionally powerful way. She doesn't have to yell or threaten to kill herself to get the point across. Her words and her cadence are enough - partly because she's a brilliant actress, but also because she's firm in her convictions. The woman who started this plan and carried it through is the same one who admits defeat but maintains her conviction in her actions. That's why I love her as a character. She emulated a kind of strength and emotional catharsis which suddenly encapsulated the emotional core of the whole book. She's been caught, but she still owns the stage in this production. And her conviction is part of what convinces Poirot and Bouc to let them go. In the movie, she's portrayed as hysterical and panicking the moment she gets found out. It's reasonable for someone in this situation to be scared or to panic, but this does not align with Linda Ardent's character arc, and it takes so much of the final emotional catharsis out of the story. It's also such a backwards move to take this strong, emotionally complex, determined woman - who orchestrated such a well-crafted plot and didn't falter even when carrying out the most permanent of retributive justice - and instead make her go into a hysterical frenzy and try to shoot herself. How is the artist who was the core of carrying out this plan also the same person who panics and forgets her convictions as soon as she gets caught? It's just so thoughtless and over-dramatised. Of course, I'm heavily biased because of how reading the book made me feel, but I truly believe that the movie botched the characterisation of Linda Ardent and screwed up the emotional payoff of this moment. They took away her agency, strength, and intelligence, and tried to make Poirot seem like more of a main character because he tricked her into proving that she felt so guilty about killing Casetti that she would die for it. Absolutely ridiculous, and kind of a sexist move imo. Good video though. I agreed with most of the points, but I'm one of the people who unfortunately can't enjoy the movie because of how much it missed the mark on the characterisation. Linda Ardent as a character holds a very special place in my heart because of how emotionally powerful she is, and it's disappointing to see a modern movie take such a strong female character as her and make her into a 'crazy woman' who needs a man to validate her own beliefs.

It's weirdly reassuring having Dominic like the films despite them having adaptation issues. I haven't read any Agatha Christie novels before, my biggest exposure to her is when she appeared in Doctor who, so I had no preconceptions going into this film. And I really enjoyed it, the cast was a lot of fun and as someone who didn't know the twist going in it was quite a compelling ending. I think I definitely will try reading the book to see the difference for myself, especially with Poirot's character, but as an outsider I had fun with this film. Though I do sympathise with Poirot fans who don't like what was done with the character, especially after being reminded of what Branagh did to Artemis Fowl. That film still hurts.

Been waiting for this one! I love Agatha Christie's works. Huge respect for your decision to pause adaptation videos for a while! I'll also add that critics are not obligated to stop reviewing movies or TV shows during the strike action, and personally I would count your work under that umbrella. However, I appreciate and echo your support for SAG-AFTRA! I also want to see the WGA demands met! Support unions, folks!

I am a massive poirot fan and like many see David suchet as the pinnacle of poirot-ness. So I had to keep reminding myself to give this film a fair go when I saw it, and while I thought the film was good I have always had a massive issue with it that stuck with me and all I could say to people was 'its not poirot' and for ages I felt like this was unfair bias towards previous actors like suchet or Peter Ustinov but no! Thankyou for vocalising it you are spot on, it's the comedy OCD, the gun, the violence the aggression. Poirot' had many quirks and idiosyncrasies but we're suchet built these fussy moments into the character as unconscious action, the fact they were played up, the fact he was so physical how much he screamed at them. It just wasn't poirot.

That book launch you went to, the book makes it clear that Christie’s disappearance and mental health crisis was genuine. Given her disappearance nearly cost her custody of her daughter, I can’t see her faking that to get back at her shitheel of a husband. Also the only people who would think that would work are, no offence, men.

My favourite cinematic Poirot scenes are in Peter Ustinov’s Evil Under the Sun when he dresses for a dip in the sea and just wades in barely up to his ankles, breast strokes the air and calls it a day. When talking with a witness later, he saves face by confirming the witness didn’t observe his vigourous exertions. 🧐

The opening was so cool, thank you for supporting the movement

Good on you for the opening Dom! As a non film/TV writer, but one who still stands very firmly with the strike I really appreciate your solidarity! 💜

As odd as the movies are compared to the books, this movie is what introduced me to proper murder mysteries and Agatha Christie and I’m so so thankful for it. If the movie hadn’t been made I never would have discovered my love for mystery books!

As far as I'm aware you can still do content for movies that came out before the strike, as long as you're not promoting anything current. So this could be a good excuse to dig into some older adaptations. But either way I'm so glad to see you on the right side of this, not that I expected anything else ❤ As for the video! I also have a weird fondness for this movie that no one else understands lmao, but I love your analysis. I think you're right that the rest of the movie worked perfectly, if they had only kept Poirot more accurate to the books it probably would have been much more well received.

A huge Christie fan here, on of the books I've read many times, and really enjoyed the previous adaptions.. I'm one of those who can't watch this for the action hero Poirot, it is the antitheist of what makes the character to me, to me the soul of the movie is "In name only" (I sorta feel the same way about the theatrical Sherlock Holmes movies from a decade or so back as well)

I know your “to be reviewed” list is SUPER long but it would be AWESOME if one day you’d consider (or one of the patrons requested) doing a Lost In Adaptation for one episode of Agatha Christie’s Poirot!

I think fans rebelled against this not just because of the inconsistencies with Poirot's character vs. books but also because David Suchet so completely owned the role. We had seen Poirot played with near perfect fidelity to the books so it was a bit wrenching.

Don't care how good the adaptation was, that scene with Brannagh acting his heart out and Michelle Pfeiffer meeting his skills and surpassing them with the big reveal, was amazing

Well done for addressing the strike Dom I didn't know the writers and actors had made a statement regarding people with your profession, thank you for informative information.

I wasn't expecting to get re traumatised by the Artemis Fowl mention 😭 Branagh must have some vendetta against adaptations

I had to say Dom you did an outstanding work on Murder at the Orient Express. And I cannot wait until I can see Death on the Nile.

Dom, you're such a good dude. Seriously. You just. You make me feel better about humans. Like just, all the time. I think it is so respectable, how you're gonna not talk about movies for a bit because of the sag-aftra strike. I fully support what you're doing and I'm gonna continue to watch whatever stuff you make.

I've had a bad day. I wish I could convey to Dominic just how better I felt when I saw that he had uploaded a LiA. Just what I needed after a really, really crappy day. ❤

That's going to be great watch. Hope the writers strike goes well tbh.

The part about Poirot running made me laugh because I distinctly remember in one of her less read novels, (I can't remember which it might have been ABC Murders..) theres a description of poirot running as fast as he could to see if he could do the murder in a certain time, jumping through a window with muddy boots, waddling around as an egg shaped man whilest timing himself. The concept of that was so humorous based on everything you know about him not being an athletic character.

Re. the action sequences bit: I can think of exactly one book in which Poirot participated in any form of action scene, and that was The Big Four. He jumped from a moving train, held a would-be killer up with a blow pipe, climbed down the wall of a house, and survived two explosions. This is widely considered one of, if not the worst, of the series.

Really appreciate you being as cautious as possible not to cross the picket line! Also, the 1974 film by Sidney Lumet is one of my favorite films of all time, and it has the bonus of not having Johnny Depp, so I found this one hard to take much of an interest in. Lauren Bacall in particular is amazing in that film, but like this adaptation it is the definition of star-studded so it’s just outstanding from start to finish.