The Poirot that Christie wrote would have fastidiously and painstakingly cleaned his shoes, not made the other one dirty. There's a great throwaway line from the Suchet series, where a character is looking for cups and saucers in Poirot's kitchen. Hastings explains that saucers are kept on the bottom shelf, because "everything's arranged in order of height." Christie's Poirot doesn't have OCD; he's obsessed with, as he calls it, "order and method." That's why he hires Miss Lemon, because she's just as dedicated to efficiency with her filing.
yeah, at our day and age we are way to fast to throw a vague at the moment in diagnose at everything without any real understanding of the thing and then its played for pity, laughs or worse both . . . wanting to be efficient does, having sythems and all does not make one ocd and a diagnose is not a fun quirk
My problem is also that Poirot just casually walks around in the snow in his suit and people in general just hang out on the outside. Mountain regions in winter are freakishly cold and you don't just walk around there as if its nothing. The train being stuck in an avalanche served as an isolating element. It completely cut off the characters from the outside world and made the train all the more claustrophobic. Branagh kind a undermines that by having several scenes set outside and the characters barely reacting to the cold.
I would never call mountain regions "freakishly cold"! They are colder than what many people on the planet will accept, but they aren't "freakishly" so. I do agree that it seemed odd that people were standing and walking around outside with hardly a shiver. I felt the same about the terrible Suchet adaptation too, where he stomps angrily off clutching a rosary.
That's what you get when you think that CGI/green screen can fix all your location issues and realize your grandiose vision. You create a cartoon and forget all real world logic.
That's nothing. Look at all the T.V. and movies set in New Orleans. Nobody SWEATS. And not a lot of black people either. I can't cite Treme' never having seen it, but I HAVE spent my life in the Deep South. Lot's of P.O.C. and A.C. running on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's...
Fun Fact: Pilar’s name in the book was Greta Ohlson and the character of Pilar was from another Poirot story (and my favorite) “Hercule Poirot’s Christmas”
The thing I found so incredibly compelling in the Finney version was the murder scene. They lean into the overwhelming sense of loss and grief of the 12 and it makes the killing have this sense of catharsis. It’s just nowhere near as compelling in the Branagh version.
Earned my sub and I’m looking forward to more. When this movie came out, I was curious about it too, but once people who liked it told me about it, I started to sour as I heard their descriptions. I kept saying that didn’t sound like Poirot. I didn’t see it until home video and I’m glad I waited. I grew up on the Finney version, and I’m a sucker for David Suchet. I keep telling these folks, “POIROT IS NOT AN ACTION STAR!” Every time I saw Branagh’s Poirot jumping around and in fights, my eyes rolled so hard I thought they’d get stuck! I’ll never rewatch it. I will rewatch the other versions again and again however. Looking forward to a review from you on Death on the Nile which I also passed on and will until home video. But I’ve heard reviews from those who read the book, saw the late Seventies version AND the Suchet version, that the script might be so weak, anyone can figure out the killer halfway through. THAT doesn’t bode well.
Honestly, I've been too busy to make any videos recently but comments like this really make me want to find the time! I'm so glad other people agree with me on this - I still haven't watched Death on the Nile (also waiting until it can be watched online) but I do not have the highest hopes! Thank you for your comment!
One of the things I enjoyed about the previous movie versions of Poirot was the notion of the location(s) being almost another character in the story. It gave the movies a depth and breadth that Branagh's versions don't have AT ALL. There's so much CGI that you never feel as if you've been transported anywhere. Everything looks so shallow and fake, that it truly is a distraction from the plot. Even the clothes the characters wear seem like costumes.
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.
Wow, you NAILED IT!!! Best analysis I have seen, concise, objective and really got to the heart of why Branagh’s version came up short. As someone who feels that David Suchet has made it impossible for anyone else to play Poirot (I never minded watching Ustinov or Finney and now find them laughable) I wanted to give Branagh the benefit of the doubt, but sadly was disappointed in how “Hollywood” his version was, lacking in substance, insulting audience intelligence through oversimplification, changing characters for no reason (Dafoe’s Nazi 🙄) focus on aesthetics vs character development, etc. Horrible. You were spot on and it is very refreshing to hear/read a review that isn’t like a lemming gushing over something because the (bought and paid for “critics”) loved it, because it has big name stars (who were miscast IMHO) or thinks action always equals good. Your sense of humor throughout was also hilarious. Viewers need more critics like you, thanks for your efforts and good luck.
Agree with your analysis. My introduction to Agatha Christie was the 1974 version. I think was a good blend of book and cinema so as much as I respect the 2010 and especially David Suchet, I am partial to the Sidney Lumet style.
I love Suchet's MOTOE express, even though his character is nothing like the book character, and the mood of the film is far darker than what Agatha Christie wrote. I usually don't mind when changes are made to a story for an adaptation, and am willing to look past the gross inaccuracies in Suchet's portrayal (since when did Poirot become heavily Catholic?!?) because the film was engrossing and poignant.
@@kugelwegSuchet read all the Poirot books and really did his research on the character he was playing so yes he didn’t just play Poirot, he was Poirot. And the book MOTOE was serious and definitely not a comedy. That’s why the 2010 version is far more superior.
Poirot is a catholic in the books too but Christie never went into too much detail about it. The Suchet series expanded this trait, especially later on. I know that some people criticize this decision and the darker tone in the later adaptations but I think it's fitting. The Poirot of the books is a colorful and entertaining character but he doesn't have that much depth. Suchet and the writers took the information about the character that Christie provided and expanded it to create a believable complex character, not just a funny little man who solves crimes. That's why I actually appreciate the darker tone of the later episodes (and the later books are actually darker too). It gives Poirot a more interesting character arc and adds more life to him. I think they went a bit overboard in Murder on the Orient Express but overall, they did a great job. Curtains in particular was such a moving episode because they had given Poirot so much more depth.
Aha that is a fun video:') Honestly this is incredibly kind, I'm just kinda creating random stuff at the moment but something like this is incredibly inspiring! I just finished a video that I'll be uploading on Sunday, I hope you enjoy it and thank you again!!
wonderful analysis! Hope you will consider posting your thoughts on the 1974 version- my favorite movie of all time. I love Suchet and I respect him beyond words, but in this case I just think Lumet produced a remarkable piece of art. It's funny because that version is just a star-studded (perhaps more so) but everyone understands their role and it tells for me in a way the 2017 didn't.
Brilliant Video. Earned a subscription from me. You articulated perfectly everything that's annoyed me and I think is lacking about the Branagh movie. Just seeing the clips it still amazes me how the ending of the tv Orient Express is so much more emotional and impactful in comparison to the multi-million pound movie.
It makes me so happy that I'm not the only one that feels this way! I'm still crossing my fingers that DotN is going to be better - as I'd love a resurgence of the genre. Thank you for watching and subscribing!
@@ericstahmer720Yes she did like it but that’s because it was the only adaptation of MOTOE at the time. If she lived to watch the 2010 version, I think she would have loved it too.
To be honest, the David Suchet version is not my favourite episode of the series, some of the performances are a bit over the top. Also, Poirot doesn't seem to struggle with his choice as much in the book as he does in that tv adaptation. However, I suspect that this was done to set up the Poirot of the later episodes, especially "Curtain", where we see a Poirot whose star is falling, who is a somewhat bitter and disillusioned man. A man who, instead of punishing the guilty is set on protecting the innocent, at all cost.
True. The books were released 40 years apart (though Curtain was, IIRC, written in the ‘40s) so Suchet’s version added an element that made sense in the context of his reordering of the stories.
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!
I’d read “Halloween Party,” so I expected the solution, but Branagh’s treatment of Ariadne Oliver felt like a slap in the face to every confirmed Poirot fan on the planet. I’d already decided to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the movie. Stylish wisecracking American Ariadne?Okay. But Ariadne betraying Poirot’s trust was a cruel rewrite of one of Poirot’s few close friends.
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
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.
Really enjoyed your analysis of the 2017 version. I went in wanting to love it and ultimately found it very disappointing. I didn't hate it, I just thought it was okay. That overheard scene when discovering the body really annoyed me. A lot about it didn't sit well with me, especially the portrayal of Poirot. You really did nail it. I've never read the book or saw the 2010 version, but I did enjoy the 1974 version. Not sure where you stand on that one, but I really enjoyed Albert Finney (even if he played a lighter version of Poirot). I thought he gave a solid performance and that movie overall was superior. I literally just watched the 2017 version and wanted to find someone who read the book and did a comparison. Hopefully more people will seek out your video and enjoy it like I did. Great video!
Thank you! I always find it reassuring when I see I'm not the only one who felt this way. I still haven't watched the Albert Finney version but I have heard it is fantastic - I made a deliberate choice not to whilst doing this analysis as I didn't want to end up complicating things for myself if I loved it! Thank you for your comment
@@KeithHoltupthepeak I have seen the Finney version as well as Ustinov in death on the Nile. Even though I read the books and thought Finney was much lighter than Christie’s Poirot, I did not mind Finney’s portrayal, but that was because I had nothing to compare it to. David Suchet “is” Poirot, and he has made it impossible for others to attempt the role after him. (That is regardless of the difference and changes in tone and more “enlightened” characters and motifs that came about after the 8th season to be more in line with a PC/Progressive agenda at the cost of Christie’s absence and neutrality of that in her original works, as well as the hilarious reparte and humor between Philip Jackson, Pauline Moran and Hugh Fraser who killed it during the first 8 seasons.) Just my opinion, I happily admit I can’t hold a candle to “Little Gray Cells” who is the master analyzer 😊
David Suchet is a perfect Poirot, but I also found his portrayal of Chief Inspector Japp to be equally perfect. In one of Ustinov's movies. He was very different from Philip Jackson, of course.
I'm a little surprised you haven't brought up the 1974 adaptation, with Albert Finney as Poirot. Christie herself had little negative to say about this particular version except that she didn't think Finney's moustache was luxuriant enough. That version, directed by Sidney Lumet, also gave some first-star actors to interact with each other within the confines of the train; kept close to the Poirot method, and kept the ending. I like this version.
A very interesting video. I love how you compare Bragnah's version of the story with 2010's version as Bragnah's version has a disbalanced tone between the humorous and quick-paced start and the confusing tone of the rest of the movie while Suchet's version depicts the story in a "realistic way" (the stress and anxiety that resulted from the closed door atmosphere, the train that is trapped in the snow, the moral dilemma for Poirot that is strenghtened with the beginning of the version as Poirot is confronted by the cruelty of the world and the fact he is indirectly responsible for the officer's death, something he denies because of pride and of his sense of right and wrong) and explore characters in their struggles in a relevant and plausible way (I can understand the possibility of Arbuthnot wanted to kill Bouc and Poirot, as he is under pressure and as a former soldier, is a man of action who would act if he feels his deeds would protect his men (or in this case, his loved ones, friends and accomplices). I completely agree with your stance of the way the crime discovery scene of the movie. I would even go even further with the fact that filming in such a way prevents to show the characters' reaction to the crime (something that was more successfully done in the 1974 movie, 2001 telefilm and 2010 version). Moreover, this frame makes me think of a conspiracy meeting (I even imagine in my mind Poirot, Bouc and Arbuthnot discussing a mysterious plot), not for discovering a murder (I think Bragnah wanted to avoid to repeat something that had be done in the three previous adaptations, but it failed because he choses the wrong frames and camera point of view. If I was him, I would film Poirot and the other characters in the floor without showing Ratchett's room but showing the characters' reactions to the discovery). I dislike Bragnah's version of Murder of the Orient-Express because its pace is disbalanced (ironic for a movie that depicts a man who is obsessed to balance) and the fact it was a mistake from Riddley Scott (who had chosen the story to be adapted) as Murder on the Orient-Express was adapted three times (with two wonderful versions with Albert Finney and David Suchet which are complementary in some ways and a pleasant ones with Molina), making it very difficult to adapt in a new light without facing challenges and struggles. Bragnah fails to make this version something that stands alone as a strong story and you depicts well the main issues with the characters's features that are disjointed in the context of the story and make them unrealistic or contradictory. And I think the nature of the story prevents Bragnah to truly make his own for the story. That why I prefer his version of Death of the Nile : the diversity of characters and the nature of the story allows him to explore them in a new light compared to the 1978 and 2004 versions, managing to balance his version betweent the aesthetics and the characters and the story, making it a bit shakespearian (I particularly love the choice of bringing back Bouc in the story as it allows to explore Bragnah Poirot"s flaws and weaknesses, especially as he kinda contributed to his friend's death, and I also love the story behind this Poirot's mustache as it makes a symbol of Poirot's inability to face his darkness and weaknesses and to let go of the past as the mustache is his former love's legacy). It is not perfect and has flaws, but less than MOTOE. In some way, I would say that Bragnah's "Death on the Nile" is to his Poirot what MOTOE is to Suchet's Poirot. Finally, I was and still am very interesting in Poirot's adaptions. I made a study paper on the three first MOTOE adaptations (it's in French as it is my first language) where I explore the way the story was regarder by each version and how each one brings something on it (especially in the matter of the blurred line of justice and vengeance in Ratchett's murder).
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!
Well, if you disliked this adaptation, you should check out the "Death on the Nile". I mean, here the actors had some chemistry, unlike the movie, which is worse. I am not a fan of either but "Death on the Nile" is worse. For me David Suchet is the best Poirot and he will always be. I believe the reason for the racist guy was that in Christie's books there is a lot of casual racism and that can be seen in the David Suchet tv-show as well. The multiple times somebody tells Poirot (in a condescending manner) that mis-pronounces something, or that he "will soon learn their English ways", despite of the fact that Poirot has been living in London for many years. In the "Then There Were None" novel Vera Claythorn says that all those people that Lombard has abandoned in the jungle, letting them to starve to death "were only natives". Granted, Poirot does use this to his advantage sometimes (see the "Lord Edgware Dies" book where Poirot plays up his foreignness to provoke an English Duke or even in the Orient Express novel, to provoke Arbuthnott) to gain information. The problem here is that the not very casual racism is coming from a supposedly German character and the super-British Miss Debenham is the progressive one. Maybe this was supposed to be a II. World War foreshadowing thing, but it kinda felt like Brannagh was aware of the casual racism isdue, he found it uncomfortable, so he changed it.
Although you are atm not uploading, I subbed, so that I won´t miss your commentary should you find the time again for a new video. ;) I agree that Branagh don´t understand the genre of murder mystery, nor Murderer on the Orient Express. The problems begin with the inclusion of needless action scenes (the avalance nearly, but in reality should have, oushing the train over the edge, the chase scene on the bride structure, the attack on Poirot) and ends with nonsensical additions whom don´t fit together with the ending. I mean, Poirot tells the major/doctor, that he (the Colonel) didn´t shoot him (Poirot) because he (the Colonel) is "no murderer" is baffeling when all passengers killed Ratchett/Casseti! Justified action or not, it was a murderer, and Suchet did a splendid work in showing the struggle of Poirot how to act now, whether he should surrender the murderers to earthly justice or let soley God judge them. (Which get´s all the more impactfull as the motive of justified murderer comes back in "Curtain".) But this nuances get lost in Branagh´s movie because of its bluntness. And I have to disagree with you on the climax scene: For it simply isn´t working. If they shoot Poirot, they also have to kill Bouc who also knows the truth and surley won´t be too fond of keeping silent when he jsut had to witness the murderer of a man he calls a friend, but then they have to explain who killed these two, or are they going to slaugther all the other passengers and the staff? So, no, not shooting Poirot but trying to suicide is the only way out of the expected upcoming trial, not a proof that they aren´t cold murderers. From a narrative point it also highly bothered me that we got all information two times: first when Poirot tells his sidekick what he knows, and then he tells the same information to this group of last-supper-reenactors again. Why?! They know it AND we do already too! Anyways, thx for your vids, and hope you are well and doing good! :)
Johnny Depp as Ratchett was the only thing I liked (or even loved) in this film. He doesn't match the physical description from the book, true, but he gives off the same creepy and utterly UNPLEASANT vibe for me as Ratchett does in the book. Everything else in this film is just meh. And it bugs me that all adaptations do Mrs. Hubbard wrong, though I truly believe that all the actresses would have played her perfectly as this comedic American old lady who incessantly talks about her daughter and then turns out to be, well, Linda Arden.
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.
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.
Thank you for the excellent video. Branagh's version is artistically ugly and even morally ugly, and it's the product of a cinema that's gotten increasingly dumb and childish and treats its audience like they're even dumber. I'm personally biased towards Lumet's 1974 version, but I'll take Suchet's TV version any time of the day compared to this bloated, grotesque monstrosity. I'm not as particular as others when it comes to Poirot's portrait - I liked Finney, Ustinoff and Suchet for different reasons, and let's face it, Agatha Christie wasn't really descriptive and left a lot of leeway for interpretation - but Brannagh's version is so hilariously wrong I can't see how anyone can like it.
to be fair, many of the characters did in the book play into nationalist up to racist tendencies to cover up that they are close and make the alibies they provided for eachother more belivable. but yeah, the cover in the movie is over the top like everything else in it too
Branagh demonstrated zero understanding of the character of Poirot. The “Poirot as action hero” scenes took me right out of the story, they were so jarring and hideously misjudged.
I really like this take, while I can see how this film could be a ton of fun for someone who does not know or at least is not invested in the source material, the change in the character, how he chose to give him a diagnose to play for laughs and how it fails as a murder mystery are all very frustraiting and valid points to dispise it! He obviously wanted to play a sherlock james bond amalgam but abused agatha christies character, story and fame of class to do so . . . he could and should have made a different movie for his character with a different name! Agatha hated her detectiv but still respected him and her readers to much to change or kill him of . . . . and then that guy comes around and messes with it . . . .
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.
Branagh completely butchered the character of Poirot. He made it so his interpretation of the character would do all the things the real Poirot would never do. Like jump to conclusions and not use psychiatry to solve the case; which the real Poirot was famous for so yes I think he hates Poirot.
I still enjoy the film but some points you make do make sense, I’ve yet to see the 2010 version (because of the films I’ve gone back and watched the series lol). David Suchet is still the best version between him and Kenneth Branagh lol. However, I didn’t get chance to read the books, but VERY tempted to read this story. Not too keen on the Death on the Nile nod at the end of the film after seeing the film and it’s completely different set up xD. Like this film, I do like Death on the Nile but I did figure out something was up after the ‘shot’ lol. I hope you do review/compare Death on The Nile :)
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.
To be fair, the black-and-white moralising religiousness of the 2010 Suchet adaptation isn't Poirot either. Of course I love Suchet's Poirot, but not necessarily this specific adaptation, which was way too heavy-handed for me.
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.
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.
These new Poirot movies are an unmitigated abomination of unimaginable proportions. They don't respect the audience enough to not morph Poirot into some sort of bizarre and dumb action figure. I'm going to pop in my 1974 Orient Express VHS as therapy now.
I think your video is very well done. Importantly, your artistic criticisms of the film are spot on. There are other flaws you could have dwelt on, such as the ridiculous mustache and the ridiculous attempt at a Belgian French accent. But you wisely chose to focus not on character details but on the larger outline of character and the weird changes to the book's story. You could have made more of the ridiculous cinematography, but were perhaps right not to let that detract from the important story flaws. Congratulations.
In the book, he passes the power of judgement to M. Blanc and the doctor, and they decide to treat the supsects as innocent (on Poirot's suggestion). The fact they changed that is the reason why the Suchet version of this isn't my favourite version for once. Poirot's black and white philosophy (and his strict religiousness) is an - in my opinion unfortunate - invention of the Suchet series'.
In mid 2022, i watched , Death on the Nile/ Tod auf dem Nil' in a german Cinema. As a nostalgic, who is intressted in the time periode 1870 to 1940, i was dissappointed. The persons in this newest are not acting like britisch upperclass people of interwar Periode, but like US hipsters. For political correctness / wokeness reasons, nationality, ethnicity, etc. is changed. Also Poirot is in 1930s an elderly , Gentleman ' about 70years old. An about 70 years old Gentleman in 1930s is so agile and fightable as seen in this movie, also Poirot is never seen as fighter. In the early Part of movie, Poirot is seen as Frontline soldier in 1914. Hm, Poirot was in 1914 about 50years old, and as former belgian policeman, he would may be mobilized as Reservist for a paramilitary Gendarmerie, but as man with about 50years, he would have served in rearline. German Reservists of Landsturm ( oldest Reservists) had been used in rearline. Also poison Gas was not used in 1914. A Sidenote: Before 1914 a Cane was used also by young men, and by men not needing a walking aid. The Cane was a Gentlemen/ mens Item,showing to be a respected man, and rich men showed their Status with expensive canes. Of course, the Cane was also used as Substitute for former ,smallsword' , as weapon. There had been french ,La canne', britisch , Bartitsu', Irish , Bataidracht' and different Cane fighting systems in latin countries of Europe and America.
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.
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.
To be honest, I did not like the Suchet version that much either (though I usually like Suchet's Poirot) . I found Poirot's outburst at the end a bit melodramatic and out of character. I think the 1974 movie is by far the best version, both the setup of the mystery and the performances were amazing.
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.
I preferred the murder scene in the 1974 version, where there is something ritualistic about it as the conspirators take their turns to administer justice and voice their reasons.
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?
@@suzie_lovescats I don't know... Poirot is perfectly capable of telling which stab wounds were fatal, even whether or not they were delivered by a right, or left handed person. He has plenty of experience with poisons. Accurately judging time of death is tricky considering how the scene was staged. I could understand needing a doctor if the victim survived, but he was kind of superfluous otherwise. He could have just remained a Colonel and nothing would have changed.
@@djhutchisonI think getting the doctor involved was just a formality. So he could tell the police if they asked him if he got the advice of a doctor about the dead body.
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 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.
I am frankly astonished that you fail to make even a passing reference to the 1974 Oscar-winning Lumet adaptation, which is vastly superior to either of the versions with which you deal.
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
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.
Thing is the book was always meant to be taken seriously and the 2010 version is not just serious but very dramatic and very engaging whereas the 1974 version isn’t very realistic because who breaks open a bottle of champagne 🍾 after being told they are being allowed to get away with killing someone 🥂
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.
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 🤔
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.
The Poirot that Christie wrote would have fastidiously and painstakingly cleaned his shoes, not made the other one dirty.
There's a great throwaway line from the Suchet series, where a character is looking for cups and saucers in Poirot's kitchen. Hastings explains that saucers are kept on the bottom shelf, because "everything's arranged in order of height."
Christie's Poirot doesn't have OCD; he's obsessed with, as he calls it, "order and method." That's why he hires Miss Lemon, because she's just as dedicated to efficiency with her filing.
yeah, at our day and age we are way to fast to throw a vague at the moment in diagnose at everything without any real understanding of the thing and then its played for pity, laughs or worse both . . . wanting to be efficient does, having sythems and all does not make one ocd and a diagnose is not a fun quirk
Yeah but he’s a perfectionist, and very particular so that means he has to have OCD these days. He can’t just be a garden variety neat freak
My problem is also that Poirot just casually walks around in the snow in his suit and people in general just hang out on the outside. Mountain regions in winter are freakishly cold and you don't just walk around there as if its nothing. The train being stuck in an avalanche served as an isolating element. It completely cut off the characters from the outside world and made the train all the more claustrophobic.
Branagh kind a undermines that by having several scenes set outside and the characters barely reacting to the cold.
I would never call mountain regions "freakishly cold"! They are colder than what many people on the planet will accept, but they aren't "freakishly" so.
I do agree that it seemed odd that people were standing and walking around outside with hardly a shiver. I felt the same about the terrible Suchet adaptation too, where he stomps angrily off clutching a rosary.
That's what you get when you think that CGI/green screen can fix all your location issues and realize your grandiose vision. You create a cartoon and forget all real world logic.
Isn't it wonderful though that these people are being chased and/or interviewed in the cold, snowy mountains and you cannot see their breaths?
I know right 😂 green screen 💚
And neither red noses or cheeks…
And somehow, Poirot is a man of the trapeze?
That's nothing. Look at all the T.V. and movies set in New Orleans. Nobody SWEATS. And not a lot of black people either. I can't cite Treme' never having seen it, but I HAVE spent my life in the Deep South. Lot's of P.O.C. and A.C. running on Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's...
Fun Fact: Pilar’s name in the book was Greta Ohlson and the character of Pilar was from another Poirot story (and my favorite) “Hercule Poirot’s Christmas”
The thing I found so incredibly compelling in the Finney version was the murder scene. They lean into the overwhelming sense of loss and grief of the 12 and it makes the killing have this sense of catharsis. It’s just nowhere near as compelling in the Branagh version.
Yes, I loved that each one of them had a different reaction to it. Amazing scene.
Ah, I guess I wasn't the only person horrified with the movie.
Hollywood is not exactly known for being faithful to the original stories. This seems to be a complete mess. And David Suchet nailed Poirot
Earned my sub and I’m looking forward to more. When this movie came out, I was curious about it too, but once people who liked it told me about it, I started to sour as I heard their descriptions. I kept saying that didn’t sound like Poirot. I didn’t see it until home video and I’m glad I waited. I grew up on the Finney version, and I’m a sucker for David Suchet. I keep telling these folks, “POIROT IS NOT AN ACTION STAR!” Every time I saw Branagh’s Poirot jumping around and in fights, my eyes rolled so hard I thought they’d get stuck! I’ll never rewatch it. I will rewatch the other versions again and again however.
Looking forward to a review from you on Death on the Nile which I also passed on and will until home video. But I’ve heard reviews from those who read the book, saw the late Seventies version AND the Suchet version, that the script might be so weak, anyone can figure out the killer halfway through. THAT doesn’t bode well.
Honestly, I've been too busy to make any videos recently but comments like this really make me want to find the time! I'm so glad other people agree with me on this - I still haven't watched Death on the Nile (also waiting until it can be watched online) but I do not have the highest hopes! Thank you for your comment!
One of the things I enjoyed about the previous movie versions of Poirot was the notion of the location(s) being almost another character in the story. It gave the movies a depth and breadth that Branagh's versions don't have AT ALL. There's so much CGI that you never feel as if you've been transported anywhere. Everything looks so shallow and fake, that it truly is a distraction from the plot. Even the clothes the characters wear seem like costumes.
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.
Despite its flaws I still quite enjoyed this movie. His Death on the Nile was MUCH worse, just awful and cartoonish. Hollywood Garbage
Wow, you NAILED IT!!! Best analysis I have seen, concise, objective and really got to the heart of why Branagh’s version came up short. As someone who feels that David Suchet has made it impossible for anyone else to play Poirot (I never minded watching Ustinov or Finney and now find them laughable) I wanted to give Branagh the benefit of the doubt, but sadly was disappointed in how “Hollywood” his version was, lacking in substance, insulting audience intelligence through oversimplification, changing characters for no reason (Dafoe’s Nazi 🙄) focus on aesthetics vs character development, etc. Horrible.
You were spot on and it is very refreshing to hear/read a review that isn’t like a lemming gushing over something because the (bought and paid for “critics”) loved it, because it has big name stars (who were miscast IMHO) or thinks action always equals good. Your sense of humor throughout was also hilarious.
Viewers need more critics like you, thanks for your efforts and good luck.
Agree with your analysis. My introduction to Agatha Christie was the 1974 version. I think was a good blend of book and cinema so as much as I respect the 2010 and especially David Suchet, I am partial to the Sidney Lumet style.
I love Suchet's MOTOE express, even though his character is nothing like the book character, and the mood of the film is far darker than what Agatha Christie wrote. I usually don't mind when changes are made to a story for an adaptation, and am willing to look past the gross inaccuracies in Suchet's portrayal (since when did Poirot become heavily Catholic?!?) because the film was engrossing and poignant.
@@kugelweg David Suchet IS Hercule Poirot. I accept no other substitutes.
@@theunknowncommenter725I agree 💯
@@kugelwegSuchet read all the Poirot books and really did his research on the character he was playing so yes he didn’t just play Poirot, he was Poirot. And the book MOTOE was serious and definitely not a comedy. That’s why the 2010 version is far more superior.
Poirot is a catholic in the books too but Christie never went into too much detail about it. The Suchet series expanded this trait, especially later on. I know that some people criticize this decision and the darker tone in the later adaptations but I think it's fitting. The Poirot of the books is a colorful and entertaining character but he doesn't have that much depth. Suchet and the writers took the information about the character that Christie provided and expanded it to create a believable complex character, not just a funny little man who solves crimes. That's why I actually appreciate the darker tone of the later episodes (and the later books are actually darker too). It gives Poirot a more interesting character arc and adds more life to him. I think they went a bit overboard in Murder on the Orient Express but overall, they did a great job. Curtains in particular was such a moving episode because they had given Poirot so much more depth.
Suchet is Poirot, but the 1974 version is without doubt the best, in my opinion..!!
This video is more entertaining than the film
The 2017 one yes 😁
Found this account from reading comments from a review of 13 going to 30. Your a really good underrated creator
Aha that is a fun video:') Honestly this is incredibly kind, I'm just kinda creating random stuff at the moment but something like this is incredibly inspiring! I just finished a video that I'll be uploading on Sunday, I hope you enjoy it and thank you again!!
Branagh's main talent isn't acting or directing, but only self promotion.
Unfortunately, Death on the Nile was even worse.
David Suchet is the only Poirot on screen I recognize.
wonderful analysis! Hope you will consider posting your thoughts on the 1974 version- my favorite movie of all time. I love Suchet and I respect him beyond words, but in this case I just think Lumet produced a remarkable piece of art. It's funny because that version is just a star-studded (perhaps more so) but everyone understands their role and it tells for me in a way the 2017 didn't.
Brilliant Video. Earned a subscription from me.
You articulated perfectly everything that's annoyed me and I think is lacking about the Branagh movie. Just seeing the clips it still amazes me how the ending of the tv Orient Express is so much more emotional and impactful in comparison to the multi-million pound movie.
It makes me so happy that I'm not the only one that feels this way! I'm still crossing my fingers that DotN is going to be better - as I'd love a resurgence of the genre. Thank you for watching and subscribing!
Personally, I'm more a fan of the 1974 adaptation with Albert Finney.
Yes! in my opinion Finney's version is the best. Especially considering that Agatha Christie herself liked it.
@@ericstahmer720Yes she did like it but that’s because it was the only adaptation of MOTOE at the time. If she lived to watch the 2010 version, I think she would have loved it too.
@suzie_lovescatsThe Christie estate approved of Suchet.
@@suzie_lovescatsDoubtful.
@@nomadmarauder-dw9reI know.
To be honest, the David Suchet version is not my favourite episode of the series, some of the performances are a bit over the top. Also, Poirot doesn't seem to struggle with his choice as much in the book as he does in that tv adaptation. However, I suspect that this was done to set up the Poirot of the later episodes, especially "Curtain", where we see a Poirot whose star is falling, who is a somewhat bitter and disillusioned man. A man who, instead of punishing the guilty is set on protecting the innocent, at all cost.
True. The books were released 40 years apart (though Curtain was, IIRC, written in the ‘40s) so Suchet’s version added an element that made sense in the context of his reordering of the stories.
@@melanieahrens6739 I still prefer it to the Kenneth Brannagh version though.
@@user-qj9en1kp1m Yes, I agree with you there. Branagh’s version bears little resemblance to Christie’s.
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!
Really? I already suspected the mother halfway through the movie. It seemed kind of obvious considering the context of the story.
I’d read “Halloween Party,” so I expected the solution, but Branagh’s treatment of Ariadne Oliver felt like a slap in the face to every confirmed Poirot fan on the planet. I’d already decided to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy the movie. Stylish wisecracking American Ariadne?Okay. But Ariadne betraying Poirot’s trust was a cruel rewrite of one of Poirot’s few close friends.
@@melanieahrens6739Agreed 😔
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
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.
Exactly 😄
*FINALLY!* Someone who agrees with me about this movie!
Really enjoyed your analysis of the 2017 version. I went in wanting to love it and ultimately found it very disappointing. I didn't hate it, I just thought it was okay. That overheard scene when discovering the body really annoyed me. A lot about it didn't sit well with me, especially the portrayal of Poirot. You really did nail it. I've never read the book or saw the 2010 version, but I did enjoy the 1974 version. Not sure where you stand on that one, but I really enjoyed Albert Finney (even if he played a lighter version of Poirot). I thought he gave a solid performance and that movie overall was superior. I literally just watched the 2017 version and wanted to find someone who read the book and did a comparison. Hopefully more people will seek out your video and enjoy it like I did. Great video!
Thank you! I always find it reassuring when I see I'm not the only one who felt this way. I still haven't watched the Albert Finney version but I have heard it is fantastic - I made a deliberate choice not to whilst doing this analysis as I didn't want to end up complicating things for myself if I loved it! Thank you for your comment
@@mabethicabauer If you do decide to check out the 1974 version I would love to hear your thoughts on it! Thanks for responding to my comment.
I strongly recommend the 2010 version, it's a masterpiece
@@KeithHoltupthepeak I have seen the Finney version as well as Ustinov in death on the Nile. Even though I read the books and thought Finney was much lighter than Christie’s Poirot, I did not mind Finney’s portrayal, but that was because I had nothing to compare it to. David Suchet “is” Poirot, and he has made it impossible for others to attempt the role after him. (That is regardless of the difference and changes in tone and more “enlightened” characters and motifs that came about after the 8th season to be more in line with a PC/Progressive agenda at the cost of Christie’s absence and neutrality of that in her original works, as well as the hilarious reparte and humor between Philip Jackson, Pauline Moran and Hugh Fraser who killed it during the first 8 seasons.)
Just my opinion, I happily admit I can’t hold a candle to “Little Gray Cells” who is the master analyzer 😊
David Suchet is a perfect Poirot, but I also found his portrayal of Chief Inspector Japp to be equally perfect. In one of Ustinov's movies. He was very different from Philip Jackson, of course.
I'm a little surprised you haven't brought up the 1974 adaptation, with Albert Finney as Poirot. Christie herself had little negative to say about this particular version except that she didn't think Finney's moustache was luxuriant enough. That version, directed by Sidney Lumet, also gave some first-star actors to interact with each other within the confines of the train; kept close to the Poirot method, and kept the ending. I like this version.
A very interesting video. I love how you compare Bragnah's version of the story with 2010's version as Bragnah's version has a disbalanced tone between the humorous and quick-paced start and the confusing tone of the rest of the movie while Suchet's version depicts the story in a "realistic way" (the stress and anxiety that resulted from the closed door atmosphere, the train that is trapped in the snow, the moral dilemma for Poirot that is strenghtened with the beginning of the version as Poirot is confronted by the cruelty of the world and the fact he is indirectly responsible for the officer's death, something he denies because of pride and of his sense of right and wrong) and explore characters in their struggles in a relevant and plausible way (I can understand the possibility of Arbuthnot wanted to kill Bouc and Poirot, as he is under pressure and as a former soldier, is a man of action who would act if he feels his deeds would protect his men (or in this case, his loved ones, friends and accomplices).
I completely agree with your stance of the way the crime discovery scene of the movie. I would even go even further with the fact that filming in such a way prevents to show the characters' reaction to the crime (something that was more successfully done in the 1974 movie, 2001 telefilm and 2010 version). Moreover, this frame makes me think of a conspiracy meeting (I even imagine in my mind Poirot, Bouc and Arbuthnot discussing a mysterious plot), not for discovering a murder (I think Bragnah wanted to avoid to repeat something that had be done in the three previous adaptations, but it failed because he choses the wrong frames and camera point of view. If I was him, I would film Poirot and the other characters in the floor without showing Ratchett's room but showing the characters' reactions to the discovery).
I dislike Bragnah's version of Murder of the Orient-Express because its pace is disbalanced (ironic for a movie that depicts a man who is obsessed to balance) and the fact it was a mistake from Riddley Scott (who had chosen the story to be adapted) as Murder on the Orient-Express was adapted three times (with two wonderful versions with Albert Finney and David Suchet which are complementary in some ways and a pleasant ones with Molina), making it very difficult to adapt in a new light without facing challenges and struggles. Bragnah fails to make this version something that stands alone as a strong story and you depicts well the main issues with the characters's features that are disjointed in the context of the story and make them unrealistic or contradictory. And I think the nature of the story prevents Bragnah to truly make his own for the story.
That why I prefer his version of Death of the Nile : the diversity of characters and the nature of the story allows him to explore them in a new light compared to the 1978 and 2004 versions, managing to balance his version betweent the aesthetics and the characters and the story, making it a bit shakespearian (I particularly love the choice of bringing back Bouc in the story as it allows to explore Bragnah Poirot"s flaws and weaknesses, especially as he kinda contributed to his friend's death, and I also love the story behind this Poirot's mustache as it makes a symbol of Poirot's inability to face his darkness and weaknesses and to let go of the past as the mustache is his former love's legacy). It is not perfect and has flaws, but less than MOTOE. In some way, I would say that Bragnah's "Death on the Nile" is to his Poirot what MOTOE is to Suchet's Poirot.
Finally, I was and still am very interesting in Poirot's adaptions. I made a study paper on the three first MOTOE adaptations (it's in French as it is my first language) where I explore the way the story was regarder by each version and how each one brings something on it (especially in the matter of the blurred line of justice and vengeance in Ratchett's murder).
Toby Jones was literally perfect casting and I can't watch any other version of Ratchett without thinking of him
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!
his version of poirot is the worst.
If you mean the 2017 version then yes. The 2010 version is my favourite ❤️
Well, if you disliked this adaptation, you should check out the "Death on the Nile". I mean, here the actors had some chemistry, unlike the movie, which is worse. I am not a fan of either but "Death on the Nile" is worse. For me David Suchet is the best Poirot and he will always be. I believe the reason for the racist guy was that in Christie's books there is a lot of casual racism and that can be seen in the David Suchet tv-show as well. The multiple times somebody tells Poirot (in a condescending manner) that mis-pronounces something, or that he "will soon learn their English ways", despite of the fact that Poirot has been living in London for many years. In the "Then There Were None" novel Vera Claythorn says that all those people that Lombard has abandoned in the jungle, letting them to starve to death "were only natives". Granted, Poirot does use this to his advantage sometimes (see the "Lord Edgware Dies" book where Poirot plays up his foreignness to provoke an English Duke or even in the Orient Express novel, to provoke Arbuthnott) to gain information. The problem here is that the not very casual racism is coming from a supposedly German character and the super-British Miss Debenham is the progressive one. Maybe this was supposed to be a II. World War foreshadowing thing, but it kinda felt like Brannagh was aware of the casual racism isdue, he found it uncomfortable, so he changed it.
Brava! The best analysis of the film
I really enjoyed your videos, I'm sorry there are no new ones - I'd watch your review on the Death on the Nile movie. ❤
As a Poirot fan, my biggest problem was the moustache! How do you screw up the moustache?! It looked like he attached ferret to his lip.
Although you are atm not uploading, I subbed, so that I won´t miss your commentary should you find the time again for a new video. ;)
I agree that Branagh don´t understand the genre of murder mystery, nor Murderer on the Orient Express. The problems begin with the inclusion of needless action scenes (the avalance nearly, but in reality should have, oushing the train over the edge, the chase scene on the bride structure, the attack on Poirot) and ends with nonsensical additions whom don´t fit together with the ending. I mean, Poirot tells the major/doctor, that he (the Colonel) didn´t shoot him (Poirot) because he (the Colonel) is "no murderer" is baffeling when all passengers killed Ratchett/Casseti! Justified action or not, it was a murderer, and Suchet did a splendid work in showing the struggle of Poirot how to act now, whether he should surrender the murderers to earthly justice or let soley God judge them. (Which get´s all the more impactfull as the motive of justified murderer comes back in "Curtain".) But this nuances get lost in Branagh´s movie because of its bluntness.
And I have to disagree with you on the climax scene: For it simply isn´t working. If they shoot Poirot, they also have to kill Bouc who also knows the truth and surley won´t be too fond of keeping silent when he jsut had to witness the murderer of a man he calls a friend, but then they have to explain who killed these two, or are they going to slaugther all the other passengers and the staff? So, no, not shooting Poirot but trying to suicide is the only way out of the expected upcoming trial, not a proof that they aren´t cold murderers.
From a narrative point it also highly bothered me that we got all information two times: first when Poirot tells his sidekick what he knows, and then he tells the same information to this group of last-supper-reenactors again. Why?! They know it AND we do already too!
Anyways, thx for your vids, and hope you are well and doing good! :)
Johnny Depp as Ratchett was the only thing I liked (or even loved) in this film. He doesn't match the physical description from the book, true, but he gives off the same creepy and utterly UNPLEASANT vibe for me as Ratchett does in the book. Everything else in this film is just meh. And it bugs me that all adaptations do Mrs. Hubbard wrong, though I truly believe that all the actresses would have played her perfectly as this comedic American old lady who incessantly talks about her daughter and then turns out to be, well, Linda Arden.
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.
I only discovered the Moffatt radio plays in the last few years after being a Poirot fan for decades. I agree-they’re wonderful!
That mustache drives me crazy.
I really enjoyed this and agree that the Suchet adaptation is FAR superior
This was bad.... but if you think this was bad.....wait till you see the travesty that is Branagh's 'Death On Th Nile' 😅🤣
25:57 - Is it just me, or is this image of them all sitting in front of the tunnel supposed to call up images of a Last Supper painting?
It is, but noone knows what's the point. 🤷♂️
Yess.. sadly has no real point. They are 12 like the apostles?
@@buskergirlBecause Branagh is weird and wanted to do some symbolic thing about betrayal or something 🤦🏼♀️
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.
Thank you for the excellent video. Branagh's version is artistically ugly and even morally ugly, and it's the product of a cinema that's gotten increasingly dumb and childish and treats its audience like they're even dumber. I'm personally biased towards Lumet's 1974 version, but I'll take Suchet's TV version any time of the day compared to this bloated, grotesque monstrosity. I'm not as particular as others when it comes to Poirot's portrait - I liked Finney, Ustinoff and Suchet for different reasons, and let's face it, Agatha Christie wasn't really descriptive and left a lot of leeway for interpretation - but Brannagh's version is so hilariously wrong I can't see how anyone can like it.
to be fair, many of the characters did in the book play into nationalist up to racist tendencies to cover up that they are close and make the alibies they provided for eachother more belivable. but yeah, the cover in the movie is over the top like everything else in it too
Branagh demonstrated zero understanding of the character of Poirot. The “Poirot as action hero” scenes took me right out of the story, they were so jarring and hideously misjudged.
I really like this take, while I can see how this film could be a ton of fun for someone who does not know or at least is not invested in the source material, the change in the character, how he chose to give him a diagnose to play for laughs and how it fails as a murder mystery are all very frustraiting and valid points to dispise it! He obviously wanted to play a sherlock james bond amalgam but abused agatha christies character, story and fame of class to do so . . . he could and should have made a different movie for his character with a different name! Agatha hated her detectiv but still respected him and her readers to much to change or kill him of . . . . and then that guy comes around and messes with it . . . .
The problem lies in Branagh's ego, his vanity. It shows a lot here and his Frankenstein movie also
How many chinchilla had to die for his mustache? You really nailed why this version is so very bad.
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.
Branagh completely butchered the character of Poirot. He made it so his interpretation of the character would do all the things the real Poirot would never do. Like jump to conclusions and not use psychiatry to solve the case; which the real Poirot was famous for so yes I think he hates Poirot.
I still enjoy the film but some points you make do make sense, I’ve yet to see the 2010 version (because of the films I’ve gone back and watched the series lol).
David Suchet is still the best version between him and Kenneth Branagh lol. However, I didn’t get chance to read the books, but VERY tempted to read this story.
Not too keen on the Death on the Nile nod at the end of the film after seeing the film and it’s completely different set up xD. Like this film, I do like Death on the Nile but I did figure out something was up after the ‘shot’ lol.
I hope you do review/compare Death on The Nile :)
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.
Thankyou, I agree with you. I didn't like this adaptation. This is not Hercule Poirot. And there are many things kept out and some stupid added.
To be fair, the black-and-white moralising religiousness of the 2010 Suchet adaptation isn't Poirot either. Of course I love Suchet's Poirot, but not necessarily this specific adaptation, which was way too heavy-handed for me.
Thank you for a good review!
this is a great video
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.
That’s what I hated about it too.
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.
How about analyzing Crooked House with Glenn Close?
These new Poirot movies are an unmitigated abomination of unimaginable proportions. They don't respect the audience enough to not morph Poirot into some sort of bizarre and dumb action figure. I'm going to pop in my 1974 Orient Express VHS as therapy now.
Upgrade to Blu-Ray sometime.
Indeed, it is bad. The 74 version is good. Branagh needs to stop the madness and leave Christie alone.
I think your video is very well done. Importantly, your artistic criticisms of the film are spot on. There are other flaws you could have dwelt on, such as the ridiculous mustache and the ridiculous attempt at a Belgian French accent. But you wisely chose to focus not on character details but on the larger outline of character and the weird changes to the book's story. You could have made more of the ridiculous cinematography, but were perhaps right not to let that detract from the important story flaws. Congratulations.
Soooo he tells Johnny Depp 'I don't like your face"!?
In the book, he passes the power of judgement to M. Blanc and the doctor, and they decide to treat the supsects as innocent (on Poirot's suggestion). The fact they changed that is the reason why the Suchet version of this isn't my favourite version for once. Poirot's black and white philosophy (and his strict religiousness) is an - in my opinion unfortunate - invention of the Suchet series'.
Seriously, though, Poirot was Antonio Banderas
Branagh wanted to glamourise the Poirot books. This movie is ok. His sequel, Death on the Nile was terrible
In mid 2022, i watched , Death on the Nile/ Tod auf dem Nil' in a german Cinema. As a nostalgic, who is intressted in the time periode 1870 to 1940, i was dissappointed. The persons in this newest are not acting like britisch upperclass people of interwar Periode, but like US hipsters. For political correctness / wokeness reasons, nationality, ethnicity, etc. is changed. Also Poirot is in 1930s an elderly , Gentleman ' about 70years old. An about 70 years old Gentleman in 1930s is so agile and fightable as seen in this movie, also Poirot is never seen as fighter. In the early Part of movie, Poirot is seen as Frontline soldier in 1914. Hm, Poirot was in 1914 about 50years old, and as former belgian policeman, he would may be mobilized as Reservist for a paramilitary Gendarmerie, but as man with about 50years, he would have served in rearline. German Reservists of Landsturm ( oldest Reservists) had been used in rearline. Also poison Gas was not used in 1914.
A Sidenote: Before 1914 a Cane was used also by young men, and by men not needing a walking aid. The Cane was a Gentlemen/ mens Item,showing to be a respected man, and rich men showed their Status with expensive canes. Of course, the Cane was also used as Substitute for former ,smallsword' , as weapon. There had been french ,La canne', britisch , Bartitsu', Irish , Bataidracht' and different Cane fighting systems in latin countries of Europe and America.
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.
a travesty this adaptation is
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.
To be honest, I did not like the Suchet version that much either (though I usually like Suchet's Poirot) . I found Poirot's outburst at the end a bit melodramatic and out of character. I think the 1974 movie is by far the best version, both the setup of the mystery and the performances were amazing.
I think his outburst makes sense because he’s been lied to and manipulated all the time he’s been on the train 🚂🚞🚞🚞💨
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.
I rolled my eyes at your 'review'. You are so up your own arse, you must have suffocated by now from the stench.
I preferred the murder scene in the 1974 version, where there is something ritualistic about it as the conspirators take their turns to administer justice and voice their reasons.
Branagh's accent is horrible
I just saw this film and I did not like this version. And I love Agatha Christie stories.
If you’re talking about the 2017 version then yes it’s 💩👎🏻
But the 2010 version is really engaging and has a powerful ending ❤👍🏻
@@suzie_lovescats It was the 2017 version. I'll have to see the 2010 version.
@@kimochkaksI hope you enjoy it 😉
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?
Because there was no other doctor on board the train and they where in the middle of nowhere so their options were limited.
@@suzie_lovescats I don't know... Poirot is perfectly capable of telling which stab wounds were fatal, even whether or not they were delivered by a right, or left handed person. He has plenty of experience with poisons. Accurately judging time of death is tricky considering how the scene was staged.
I could understand needing a doctor if the victim survived, but he was kind of superfluous otherwise. He could have just remained a Colonel and nothing would have changed.
@@djhutchisonI think getting the doctor involved was just a formality. So he could tell the police if they asked him if he got the advice of a doctor about the dead body.
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.
Me too 😉 it’s a woke joke 👎🏻
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.
Kenneth Branagh is horrible actor
Maybe it would be so nice to see you direct/write and maybe even act in a version of the fabulous book! Won’t that be fascinating? Just saying….
All of Branagh's adaptations are incredibly awful.
Wrong
@@natethegreat7967How?
I am frankly astonished that you fail to make even a passing reference to the 1974 Oscar-winning Lumet adaptation, which is vastly superior to either of the versions with which you deal.
No the 2010 version is better 😝
@@suzie_lovescatsno, the 74 version is superior. A real movie experience.
@@Jasper7182009Except Finny’s Poirot looked more like Hitler 😂 and why did he act like he had a bad neck ??? 🫠
This movie reminds me of your accent
23:42
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
I couldn't stand the 2010 ending. Way too religious.
My goodness! It’s just an adaptation.
Your comment is just a comment 🤪
honestly i prefer the 2017 version only after watching this video
Why?
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.
Thing is the book was always meant to be taken seriously and the 2010 version is not just serious but very dramatic and very engaging whereas the 1974 version isn’t very realistic because who breaks open a bottle of champagne 🍾 after being told they are being allowed to get away with killing someone 🥂
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.
This was a trash movie. Thanks God I didn’t watch it.
Same, the 2010 version will always be superior 😁
It wasn’t a trash movie. You’re just being a pretentious shit and following the crowd.
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 🤔
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.
Jane Marple