Відео

I hope you end up doing an adaptation analysis on this film and A haunting of Venice

I adore Brannaghs Much Ado about Nothing. I admire his Hamlet. I find a lot to like in his Henry. But those are films he made 30 years ago, maybe he just lost his ability. Maybe executives meddled too much in the movie. I really liked the first half. I hated the ending. Weak. Sloppy. Soppy. Christie knew why she left the ending ambiguous.

Hi there, loved your vid. Huge Agatha fan here, and in particular Death on the Nile (1978), which is still one of my all-time fave movies (so admittedly I'm quite biased, lol). In my opinion KB's 2022 version of this classic and iconic story missed the mark in virtually every way possible. The constant attempts to "sex" it up were boring and misguided. All that dirty dancing in the nightclub scene was ridiculous, unnecessary, out of place and out of character for those involved. Linnet inviting all those other people on her honeymoon didn't make sense. Especially when one of them was the guy she dumped for Poirot. Why invite him and why would he come? That weird scene where Linnet dressed up as Cleopatra didn't make sense, was unnecessary and was out of character. Much of Poirot's behaviour in this film was also out of character - in particular pointing guns at people and the silly chase scene after the third murder. Poirot isn't an action hero! Poirot was not a soldier in WWI, he was a refugee from Belgium. New audiences won't know this, but many existing fans will, and many (like myself) will be annoyed by this blatant and unnecessary rewriting of Poirot's history. The entire prologue which gave the WWI backstory to Poirot's moustache was completely bizarre (and didn't even make logical sense as hair doesn't grow out of scar tissue!). The addition of Bouc and his mother and that entire subplot around her disapproval of Rosalie as her son's love interest was extremely contrived and again, unnecessary. Simon's constant hobbling around the boat after he had been shot in the leg (like when he sobbed over Linnet's dead body) didn't make sense as the whole point of him being (apparently) shot in the leg was that it was supposed to be DISABLING, another basic fact that the film seems to have overlooked or not understood. Louise's body being discovered caught up in the paddlewheel made for an effectively gruesome visual, but it didn't make sense. Why throw her body into the water anyway? Especially as she was supposed to have been killed in her cabin. Far too much CGI and green screens!!!!! This movie wasn't particularly good to look at, while the 1978 version was not only shot on location but had a great colour palette of cream, ivory, browns and reds. Haha, as you can see I could go on, so I'd better stop the rant now. Maybe I sound precious and overly critical, but I think I'm being fair. When a movie is as good as the 1978 version, any remake has to really justify its existence by either doing it better or giving the story a completely different slant. The 2022 version did neither, and in fact, just called attention to how superior the original is.

Come on. You just can't stop doing video after such great few ones. More Christie, please.

David Suchet is the only Poirot on screen I recognize.

Thank you for not making the recap 20 minutes long. Reviewers do this all the time and it's *infuriating.* 🤣 I had a problem with the racism thing, too. It felt like they were shoving a political message in your face in a story that has absolutely nothing to do with political anything. It also screamed the assumption that just because it was set before 1980, that everyone was racist and horrible.

the moment Branagh steps in the pile of poop my wife and I both groaned-ok, *this* is how you’re going to play it? Ugh. Thanks for proving we were right to shut it off!

I really enjoyed this and agree that the Suchet adaptation is FAR superior

Brilliant analysis! I wonder why it's recomended to me just 3 years later😅 As a fan of Agatha Christie's work (particularly Hercule Poirot series), I do agree of all your point. Branagh version of Murder on Orient express is not a good adaptation. And honestly either the Death on the Nile. Branagh version of Hercule Poirot is not Hercule Poirot, he is someone else.

Whatever directorial talent Branagh might once have had has certainty vanished. Good directors do not need ridiculous gimmicks like the endless, pointless overhead shot. This film is nothing short of awful, and whilst l have nothing against an all-star cast (a tradition in all movie adaptations of Agatha Christie from the 1974 version of Orient Express onwards), big names alone do not compensate for a bad script and a poor director.

Indeed, it is bad. The 74 version is good. Branagh needs to stop the madness and leave Christie alone.

Toby Jones was literally perfect casting and I can't watch any other version of Ratchett without thinking of him

The point that you are clearly MISSING is the fact that David Suchet's version of MOTOE, although a wonderful watch, had little to do with Agatha Christie's actual story. The adaptation ISN'T appropriate according to the context of the story that AC wrote. You know that, of course, because you have read the entire Christie canon, right? In NO WAY did Christie write about Poirot facing "moral quandaries" in any book. It was a bit ham fisted to have Suchet portray "moral quandaries" that Poirot never faced. This is true of most of Suchet's adaptations where he is falling in love with women and acting dopey over them, feeling sad over the loss of his "loves", and all sorts of other silly inventions by the ITV writers. I have to admit that I ADMIRE Suchet and the people who worked on those films, but I do so knowing that Suchet et. al. added feelings, beliefs, and mannerisms that actually contradict the Christie stories. I truly enjoy the shows, but they aren't really an example of how to adapt a Christie novel if they stray so far from the written characterization of Poirot and his cases.

Actually, the private eye pretending to be a racist nazi does make some sense. By acting like that, people will give him a wide berth and not look too closely. Sometimes the best way to be covert is to be overt.

Just in case someone hasn't heard the BBC Radio Adaption with John Moffat, you should really give it a go. The radio adaptations are frankly fabulous, probably truest to the books.

The entire movie was a CGI adventure. Branagh played Branagh, not Poirot. I wound up fast forwarding through the movie as I found his portrayal to be self-indulgent and more than a little comical.

Branagh wanted to glamourise the Poirot books. This movie is ok. His sequel, Death on the Nile was terrible

Such a shame you no longer post videos. You have the perfect voice for it & approach the subject intellectually. Very much enjoyed your efforts here

Soooo he tells Johnny Depp 'I don't like your face"!?

How many chinchilla had to die for his mustache? You really nailed why this version is so very bad.

When one likes a film, a reviewer will let some inconsistencies go. When one doesn't, the same will nitpick through every scene, as if to rationalize why they hate it

Kenneth Branagh is horrible actor

I’m sure that all of you were pulling out your hair about Margaret Rutherford‘s interpretation of Jean Marple in the three films that she did in the 60s. But I always go to the Rutherford movies for entertainment especially for the characterization that she displayed for what I think is a boring character Jean Marple. They are just adaptations. And they reflect their times so just take them within the context that they are offered. Books are not movies and movies are not books.

My goodness! It’s just an adaptation.

this is a great video

This video is more entertaining than the film

I just saw this film and I did not like this version. And I love Agatha Christie stories.

his version of poirot is the worst.

I was really annoyed by the contrived race themes. They weren’t in the book and were just inserted for modern audiences. It was very stupid and unnecessary.

This was a trash movie. Thanks God I didn’t watch it.

Euphemia, as you will have discovered, is Bouc’s mother.

It is an absolutely terrible adaptation-tho not as bad and as terrible as subsequent Branagh Poirots. Incidentally, Branagh didn’t write the script - Michael Green wrote this awfulness as well as the other two. But Branagh clearly liked it. The mixing of red and white wines is of course to show Mary is contemplating a mixed-race marriage, which is another ridiculous - woke propaganda? - aspect of the film. And the black doctor’s managing to give correct verdict on the stab wounds after a 10 seconds examination is - one suspects - designed to demonstrate to us the intellectual superiority of a black man. Again, not very subtle. The Suchet I found too hysterical - Poirot screaming, Poirot on his knees struggling with his conscience in heart-felt prayer etc etc. The stylised Finney Poirot remains the best. Agatha Christie - who saw the film - only objected to his moustache being too small.

Super well done video essay. I disagree with a few minor points. I don’t know that all of the changes (even the more bizarre ones) made the movie bad or changed the fundamental structure of the story. The worst faults you identified was the action scenes, there was no need and they were not exactly believable. I also don’t think KB “hates” the character. Maybe he doesn’t interpret him as intended or maybe the liberties were taken to make for a better screen presentation. But I did not get a sense that KB outright hates him. Just my two cents. I thoroughly enjoyed the video and would love to see a “Nile” breakdown.

And Then There Were None is my favourite Christie novel, but it always loses something when adapted to film. The brilliance of the novel is that it's a mystery story structured as a brain teaser puzzle. There is no detective character. Just the victims and the reader. She casts the reader in the role of detective, gives you all the clues, and then leaves it to you to solve the mystery. The epilogue of the story is the key to the puzzle, so you can find out if got the right answer. It's a scene in the police station of several police officers discussing what was found on the island, the evidence, and the identity and backstory of the killer. It is the most brilliantly structured mystery novel ever written. You can't really bring that same experience to a visual format which is why none of the adaptations have ever tried. The films are enjoyable but they aren't as mentally engaging.

All of Branagh's adaptations are incredibly awful.

That mustache drives me crazy.

For me, I've always had a problem with making Constantine one of the suspects. How could Poirot ever consider his evidence if he isn't 100% sure Constantine wasn't involved?

This is very cathartic to watch as I really disliked both of Branagh's Poirot movies and pretty much every feeling I had was brought up here and some new insights on top of them. Its a pretty fine movie in isolation, but when you watch it after growing up on David Suchet's incredible series. Their Orient Express is a masterpiece, the final act is gripping and the dialogue is amazing. I am curious how it compares to the older versions, which I haven't seen but see some comments praising here.

I love the David Suchet version better ❤

I really enjoyed this video and you hit the nail on the head with this review 😉 I agree 💯 The 2017 version is just a woke money grab by an egotistical narcissist who wants to make a name for himself but it’s not necessary because he’s already a good actor in his own right. So why is he doing this I wonder 🤔

Branagh started out with so much promise, but his ego got in the way early on, and his insistence on producing / directing himself has sabotaged his career. He needs collaborators that would advise him against things like an action-man Poirot, but I guess he is surrounded by old stalwarts who only answer yes to all his indulgent demands. Just one example: where did they get that long table, or series of tables used for the reveal? The tables on the train are nailed down. Even if the train had spare tables (which they wouldn't as there is no room), you wouldn't ask the stewards to set them up outside the train, when they could so easily just have their meeting in the club car. I found this film to be an abomination.

I was going to try and watch this film despite not being able to bear his Death on the Nile adaptation. (I switched it off as soon as he stepped in the manure twice), but this looks awful. Thank you for the analysis. I love the albert finney adaptation and have watched it several times.

The comparison to Ridley Scott’s Alien is an interesting one, and it makes sense when looking at the shocking similarities between the settings of both stories. An isolated island and a lost spaceship, trapped in a confined space with a killer, and no way to escape. I’ll be thinking of Christie next time I watch Alien.

Compare this version with the 1974 version directed by Sidney Lumet -- that one hit the right balance between drama and comedy, and was sharp and concise. Like Poirot himself

Great video!! I felt the same way about haunting in Venice, when he delivers the twist/explanation. There was so much we weren’t shown as the audience so it felt random. I’d love you to make a video on that movie!

The problem lies in Branagh's ego, his vanity. It shows a lot here and his Frankenstein movie also

I love murder mysteries. They're guilty pleasures. But I don't try to figure them out. I let the storyteller enthrall me and draw me into the story. I'm not the detective, the detective of the story is, so the fault you find with the characters not dropping hints that they're guilty didn't bother me at all. You missed a good continuity error where the train is hit badly by the avalanche, everyone goes flying - except Casetti. Even the watch and glasses are still on the nightstand. The overhead camera angle didn't bother me. To try to shoot 2-3 people in the tiny berth for example, would have looked like the murderer recreation at the end, crowded and not showing you much. As I recall, the doctor was a military field medic. He could have gone in, pulled down Casetti's blanket, seen wounds and the amount of blood from each wound and judged from the color and the cold of the temperature a time of death, then flipped the blanket back up before exiting. Another anachronism is Count Andrenyi being a ballet dancer. No self-respecting member of aristocracy would be a performer on stage. That would be low and common. But I agree while I liked Branagh's movies he's no Poirot. Action star Poirot. Suchet's portrayal of Poirot will not soon be improved upon. His 2010 version was perfection and very well done. That version captured the discomfort, tension, claustrophobia and isolation of the passengers. I didn't like Branagh's "gun test" at the end. Pfeiffer's Mrs. Hubbard was overly dramatic with despair. I rolled my eyes. Such a drama queen. She's supposed to be an actor in the movie, if so, she was a bad one. And I didn't like Daisy's Miss Debenham. She was smug and obnoxious from the beginning. Edward Henry, Casetti's valet, is given cancer as a red herring, he's a man with nothing to lose. The murderer escaped through a window story is pretty bad. They're on a cliff edge. Where would have the killer have gone? As for Casetti crying out...could he? Maybe he couldn't cry out but he could possibly make some noise. The walls are very thin, so of course the murderers would cover his mouth just in case.

Agatha Christie is my favourite author. You have some really interesting video ideas and you're really funny - wish you still uploaded.

I liked this video, it was an interesting watch. Too bad your last video was 2 years ago, I would've liked to have seen more than the scant few you have uploaded. I do understand why you stopped, tho.

honestly i prefer the 2017 version only after watching this video