Відео

Why is branagh determined to ruin our beloved poirot 😢

Awesome 😊

🎉🎉🎉 OMG!!!! 🥳🥳🥳

Every time I watch Five Little Pigs I end up with tears in my eyes. It certainly is moving.

Where do we buy it…??

Whoa!!!! From analyzing mysteries to writing them yourself. Congrats Miles!

Sadist!

I'll recommend this mystery seeming how good it is as an entrance point to the poirot series: "The dream". Its such a classic case of Poirot focusing on character psychology to discover the murderer. Its one of my favourite magic tricks of death that poirot solves in the series, and it does annoy me that it gets forgotten in the mix.

Not a great film.....& Not worth $20.00

That parting "...all mighty God" statement is sooo out of character, just like in "...Orient Express". Everyone one knows that individuals with superior intellect & higher IQ are either Agnostic or Atheist, with no room or time for Sociologist theories/stories...

I’ve watched this video several times (you have a lovely voice and I enjoy listening to you). IMO the problem with the two characters may not be the writing but the acting. The young actress playing the murderer just seems to be a better actress.

What about a movie adaptation that replaces Poirot with Mr. Quin?

I prefer the 1945 version, the best version. The 1965 is ok. The Frank Stallone version is terrible. Haven't seen the 2015 version.

I liked the Suchet version of the book. It was fairly close to source material. (Compared to later adaption) Granted, I didn't read the Christie's work until 2003-ish. The books are generally better than the adaptions.

Sarah Phelps versions of Agatha Christie's works were awful. Crooked House, I was hoping the killer would just kill everyone. ABC was an insult. she made Poirot a fraud.

Geraldine McEwan and Julia McKenzie, while good actresses, I'm not too fond of that series. Joan Hickson's run is the best. Angela Lansbury and Helen Hayes were good. Margaret Rutherford was more comedy, than adaption.

It seems that your impression of the 2010 version is very much coloured by your own political opinion, as you use very hateful words to describe Poirot in that version, especialyl with your own personal hate towards religion, which really shines through HARD in this video. The film does a good job in that final scene of presenting a difficult moral dilemma to the audience, but since you agree with the conspirators, you utterly dismiss the viewpoint of Poirot, even if the movie itself proves his point. So your own approach to the debate of the movie is NOT impartial, and you decide that the opinion you disagree with is hateful and unreasonable, whereas I would fall on the completely opposite side; That it is the conspirations which are full of BS and grasping at straws and changing arguments to try and justify what cannot and should not be justified. Yet, you completely dismiss this moral quandary because YOU think murder is justified, and YOU have an unreasonable hate of religion, devoid from the reality of the impact of religion and the law. Not to mention, you failed the basic reading of "lock the door" as the exact ploy it seems to be; to see how they react and their nature. It's the "gun test" of the 2010 version, and the colonel fails it spectacularly by immediately resolving to murder Poirot, proving Poirots point. If anything, the 2010 film elevates the material and challenges the viewer on their own morals and asks them to find their own conclusions, after hearing impassionate arguments from both sides of the debate. (also, side note; do not judge Javert if you havent read the book, Valjean is NOT a good person in that book, until the end. Such as him immediately proceeding to rob a child, after the Bishop just let him go moments earlier.)

Great video @miles!! Lime this adaptation a lot, even though the denouncement was a little simplified for the film!

I love your videos on the Poirot series. Can you analyze The Adventure of the Italian Nobleman next? I've always found that story quite weird in the Sucher series but have never read the book, so I have no frame of reference for it.

Here's the thing. I love the Suchet version. Love it. However, it is a direct criticism of the book. For me that's not an issue because I don't really like Christie's novel. It's a brilliant *solution*, but an oddly dull *story*, and I don't think she really gets to grips with the morals on show. I'm going to try and avoid direct spoilers although it's hard. I was rather bothered, reading the book, at the idea of a self-appointed jury and how easily Poirot went along with this. Your own take, that it's about people finding a way to dispense justice, is probably the right one as far as the author's intentions go - but I found it fundamentally unconvincing. This version openly and angrily dismisses that idea - it's a "kangaroo court and kangaroo justice." Personally I found it an interesting conversation to have, although as I don't love the book I'm probably an ideal audience. But let's ask ourselves - is the Suchet Poirot on MotOE consistent with Christie's other work? I would say yes. The main question on Poirot's mind is one of justice. Does this bother him elsewhere? It does. The events of Curtain make it very, very clear that he believes self-appointed jurors to be fundamentally dangerous. It's true that he sometimes allows killers another escape by letting them kill themselves, which is a perversion of justice in a sense - but that's neatly explained by the film's line "then you let God dispense [justice], not you!" Murderers who take their own lives will immediately face God's justice, so for Poirot it's pretty consistent. On the question of religion. I don't think this film is *about* religion in any real way, although religion is used to refract the difference between Poirot and Ratchett in the scene where their prayers are intercut. But we know that Poirot is a Catholic, and this is just what Catholics in the 1930s did. The solutions leads to an argument about God's justice that sounds weighty to our ears but again, I think this is simply the sort of discussion people would have had in this situation. It's unthinkable that a few people in the 30s could debate the meaning of justice *without* someone mentioning god. Of course, the motif that recurs over and over again in Christie's work as to why Poirot is so opposed to murder isn't justice, it's that once somebody has killed once, they find it easier to kill again and again; that once someone crosses that line, they aren't a safe person any longer. And that's fundamental here; it's why Poirot changes his mind. He is going to give the robbers up but then sees Mary Debenham convince Arbuthnot not to take action, because "we don't do what is wrong." Then he talks to her and she tells him she hasn't found peace from her actions. So he sees he is wrong here, that these people won't kill again. At that point he abandons his certainties. Is anything inconsistent? Well Poirot's in a proper grump in this generally (that scene where he measures the eggs is brusque, when in another story it's played out for laughs). And yes, he gets very angry with the soldier at the start... although while his rage is a bit overdone, we know he doesn't like being lied to (he says this in The Hollow, and think of his "punishment" of Brian Martin in Lord Edgware Dies). The only scene I struggle with is the stoning and Poirot's description of it as "justice" - I get the gesture at cultural relativism, but there are limits. But this notwithstanding, my feeling is that *this* Poirot feels like Christie's Poirot because he is at least struggling with his decision, and is a lot less jarring than the version we get in her books - the one who blithely lets a murder go unpunished, and then allows this to become an open secret (he shows Rhoda the knife in Cards On The Table and blabs the real solution, and in Appointment With Death it's referred to by another character). That doesn't square with the Poirot I see in Christie's other books at all.

Have you done Endless Night yet?

I just saw Why Didn’t they Ask Evens because it was directed by Hugh Laurie and it was absolutely delightful and genuinely witty! I want more adaptation like this and discovered your channel in my search.

I much prefer the Peter Ustinov version of Appointment with Death. In his version, there was no Lord & Lady Boynton or fake nun who was involved with the slave trade

In my opinion the 1974 version was far better than the 2010 and 2017 versions

I'm surprised you didn't mention all the weird post'production in the suchet version. I assume it was to make the episode feel more theatrical but it just seems overproduced...like an episode of Sherlock

I think the guy playing Hastings was trying to channel a Stan Laurel vibe.

I also love Battle. I've read this and Cards on the table.

This one probably best illustrates Poirot's take on justice. He's compassionate to minor crimes committed by victims, but murder always gets punished, except of course in a certain train story. But then there's some episodes of the Suchet series where his perspective on the letter of the law becomes nonsensical & I'm wondering if the books treated the situation the same way. Besides how often the killed immediately commits suicide when they are discovered, Poirot rarely seems bothered by that turn of events: Specifically in The Hollows (spoilers) we have a family annhiliated based on a crime the victim didn't even want prosecuted & the extended family devastated by the events but in the end they just look a bit crestfallen & Poirot feels no responsibility. I know they're british but give me a break. Then in the very next episode, Cards on the Table, Poirot discovers an unrelated, cold-blooded murder over the course of the case & just lets the perpetrator go. I'm hoping the books portray the moral implications of what Poirot does are more consistent.

I try to avoid having preset notions of what Christie should be like, as I like seeing how others see tjr stories. So for me, the big problem with this isn't the off-the-shelf 'darkness', which gets tedious but is a valid stylistic choicr. I liked Malkovich in the role he plays, even if it's a divergent version of the character. But the change in motivation... for heaven's sake. ABC is one of the finest Christies because it's a psychological thriller that turns out to be something quite different (which I can't reveal because spoilers innit). With this, the twist is... it really was a game of cat and mouse. Why? Why would you change the most memorably brilliant element? It's like doing Orient Express with the killer being a guy who broke into the train from outside. What you're left with is the stuff Christie deliberately cast aside and, as you note, lightly mocked. It's such a perverse decision.

I remember not enjoying Elephants Can Remember the first time, bar Ariadne Oliver's scenes, but on a rewatch I thought it was pretty good. But one thing that always stuck with me from that first watch, was in the scene where Poirot is talking with Zelie in Paris, and there's this moment which to me, hinted at him having a brother. Just something about how the lines were delivered just makes that idea stick with me

I like the newest version that was made. I didn't like the ending change but the cast was great!

The clue with the portait reminds me of a very similar clue in The Hound of the Baskervilles

I always remember this episode from my childhood as it was the first time I successfully guessed the killer

Thank you. I saw the film before I read the book and enjoyed it although could not understand what the title meant! I was then stunned by the way the film had changed the storyline and appeared to totally misunderstand the premis of the book! So I completely agree with you Miles, except for the Lyn/Rowley ending in the book - the most icky ending to any Agatha Christie book as it seemed not only was Lyn 'fine' with being afraid of Rowley, she actually liked it - his attempt to murder her re-emasculated him it seemed. Very very bad. But other than that a good story - and the film would be a good one if it wasn't actually based on a book with an entirely different original reason for the deception about who 'Rosalie' is.

Great as always, thank you! I totally agree over Murder is Easy and controversially actually think it is an improvement on the book. I also think being black in a small village coveys to the sense of how someone would stand out as a stranger in a small village and that the English folk/Nigerian folk rituals and stories comparisons work better with a Nigerian than a former ex Pat. I know Towards Zero is in the making as well as Secret of Chimneys (which I guess you know too!). Hoping these are all as good, much better than the Sarah Phelps and Kenneth Branaugh adaptations I think

I still don't understand some things, I've only just watched the 2010 version and I don't understand why did they leave the handkerchief for poirot to find? also why did the cook bring a photo book with her? and why didn't they find the kimono? I definitely think the clues were not explained very well in this adaptation, worse than all of the episodes I've watched, for the first time I should definitely read the book to find out.

It's strange that most adaptations decide that Vera & Lombard should be the innocent ones after all,as they're the most guilty in the book. That's why they're left to suffer till the end. I guess being young and handsome makes you morally good after all😁😢😡

the '87 Russian version with English subtitles IS on YT. There's a great Yugoslav '98 film called Tockovi (Wheels). It's a black comedy thriller set in modern times, but it keeps all the key elements & themes. It's a great movie & a more accurate adaptation than many others. It's definitely more accurate than Identity. And better,imo. Worth a watch

Damn,AC did love the crazy old/lonely woman trope, especially in her later work😢 It's sad, especially bcs a) she was a woman b) movies & books are full of insane spinsters anyway c) there's only one AC book with an insane male killer, 2 with an obsessive love as a motive, as far as I remember. Some of these books are good & all are entertaining, but it's still unfair and kinda cheap.

The characters were amongst the best AC ever wrote, they made them much less interesting in the film, apart from Justice,who was more fleshed out in the film. The others are just oversimplified and annoying. Apart from Sophia's parents, they ruined Brenda's character the most. In the book, we learn that she wasn't just a gold digger & did truly care for her husband, the things are different and more complex than they first appear. In the film she's not only just a gold digger, she's manipulative and obviously fakes her grief. But I think the movie was actually pretty good,once you accept it on it's own terms and stop comparing these characters to their book counterparts. This is much more a Charles/ Sophia story, whilst in the book they're more less catalysts for the others.

The only Poirot I never watched.

Monica Dolan is a mesmerizing actress

The Skarsgard family would be perfect,there are exactly 3 brothers & we'd even have the brilliant Stellan Skarsgard as Simeon Lee. It'd probably be very telling though.

I watched the Suchet one once and couldn't watch it again. It was not only different from the book, it was dark and complicated. I prefer Suchet as Poirot but Ustinov's Appointment was one of the first I saw. For Orient, my favorite version was with Finney. And for Branagh's remakes.... I pretend they don't exist.

Where was the footage from the movie Vlue as stated in the description? On a side note a person's morality is from Christianity or religion and God. If you base your morality on humanity then you will fall into your monstrosity. Don't blame the things man does in the so called name of Christianity as being Christianity.

I have only actually seen the 1974 version and love it. David Suchet does a great job as Poirot in the stories I seen him. Branagh seems to stray from the story some but the character more than anything. He just isn't Poirot.

Yes. This is the only one of the Marple insertions that actually seemed to work and avoid giving offence. Silly not to name the house Gypsy Acre as the association with curses and clairvoyance, both of which have been attributed to gypsies, plays an important part in the plot. That’s how Agatha Christie wrote it. The past is the past - a foreign country - they do things differently there! NB The actresses playing Ellie and Greta in the older film look oddly similar, like sisters!

I totally agree with your list. You’ve done a great job

After watching Sidney Lumet's version yesterday, that's undoubtedly the best adaptation, from the wonderful cast, including Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, and other greats of the acting world, and also a mention for the beautiful music by Richard Rodney Bennett too. xx

I am curious to know if you have seen And Then there were none version that was shot in the middle of the desert in Iran? It was shot in the pre revolution Iran in the same area where the Shah had his infamous party. It is very different. I believe Oliver Reed is in it. There is also a Bollywood version of Ten Little Indians called Gumnaam( unknown). That one is a hoot😂