Most won't care when they're looking for something quick and to watch, but I have to admit, after having watched the 1978 film and how much more...old-fashioned that felt, the green screens and CGI do take me out of the newer one a little bit in realizing it's an obvious set on a green screen. That's adding a little too much noticeable polish to a story that should feel more like you're in an older time. But maybe that's just what my dumb brain thinks.
@@tma2001 I was going to say. This movie and season one of the Mandalorian had similar budgets. I think most of the budget of Death in the Nile went on its glitzy cast
Wow that’s the first thought I had when viewing that clip! A lot of films these days are look so fake, almost like story scenes from video games. I much prefer classic films which used practical effects and authentic looking locations for filming . Felt so much more real.
@@DamienHurts the flip side would be a film like Mirrormask, where they took advantage of the green screen to make places aggressively unrealistic. This movie just looks like some middle ground visual DMZ.
I love the '78 version, which was my introduction to the Hercule Poirot mysteries. I suspect it will always be my favourite of the Christie adaptations, but this should be fun, too.
The clip from the movie reminded me of the rooftop from The Room more than anything. Half expected Tommy Wisseau to step from behind the pyramid and hear "O hi Poirot"
I don't think it's a fair comparison. Suchet had years to grow into the part. His turn was a complete telling of the Poirot novels. This is an amuse bouche, that doesn't take itself too seriously, and plays with the genre.
@@BigHenFor That's a fair point. Suchet's personable yet reserved performance wouldn't fly in a lavish feature film. It's still my favorite version of the character by far, but I tend to prefer series or mini-series for character- or dialogue-focused works, given all the time and breathing room it allows its screenwriters, directors, actors, and editors to get everything about the performance right. I don't want to take people's big screen fun away from them, and I hope these films whet fans' appetite for the series. Not sure we're gonna see a third Branaugh adaptation (not least because they already did the only ones that have any name recognition).
I’m rewatching my way through the series atm, and I’m constantly being struck by just how nuanced and skilful Suchet’s performance is. Brannah’s performance is good, but it seems like a pastiche of Suchet.
As much as I love Suchet's interpretation of Poirot, I'm fed up of people acting like they can't enjoy something just because "it's not like the good ol' days..." One interpretation does not affect the others.
I've been a Kenneth Branaugh fan since watching Dead Again in the theatre. He is really "in love" with what he does, whether acting or directing and THAT shows, even when the material may lack.
I totally agree . David Suchet owns the role , even though he wasn’t the first to play the detective . But i will say the 70s Lumet films with Peter Ustinov as Poirot are also very enjoyable views (even though his portrayal of Poirot is a bit lacking in fun)
Suchet will always be the first Poirot I think of, and the definitive one as well. However, I'm OK with having different versions pitched to different audiences. Suchet's style wouldn't impress most moviegoers, who want bigger, broader performances like Branaugh's. And I do prefer Branaugh's blustery performance to Ustinov's, who felt more pantomime-y. On a related note, I'm very eager to see how Benoit Blanc (Knives Out) develops as he goes from being a one-off debut performance into a series of movies, maybe even a regular Netflix series, in a reverse of what Poirot is going through nowadays. Will they dial him back a bit and flesh him out as a believable character with eccentricities a la Suchet, or just make him bigger and highlight every quirk until he become a cartoon?
I loved it, it's pure escapism and fun cinema that all generations of the family can enjoy, without superheroes, something different on the billboard. Branagh is an excellent Poirot, hopefully he can develop the character more. I will see this movie again, I want more, please!
@@kernowarty Yes, but I'm always open to see different adaptations. Here's the thing, movies like this come to the cinema less and less. Even the Knives Out sequel is going to Netflix. I just want more adult themed and non comic book movies to be successful. Love CBM's and big blockbusters, but there should be variety.
I enjoyed this film greatly it is not as good as the original no Angela Lansbury for a start but Branagh is very good in the role and Emma Mackey the standout performance is far more convincing than Mia Farrow ,s frazzled and rather unhinged performance in the original .
Kermode somehow got inside my head and saw my own reaction to the movie. I still enjoyed the hell out of it though. There’s plenty of room for “Death on the Nile” and “Belfast” and lucky Ken gets to do both. 😎
The problem is that since orient express came out, we’ve had Knives Out, a truly great 21st century whodunnit. And that’s what this is going to be compared to.
Anyone notice the central triangles popping up in so many frames? I was sure that would get a mention. Other observations a) There is only one Poirot and that is the great David Suchet b) Didn't feel like they were anywhere near Egypt, even though a lot of swooping location shots and tourist props were used. Again the art deco love of the telly series was way too good by comparison. Apart from that it did have Christie's lovely whodunit backbone and the revelation scene felt less contrived than they usually are. I think Branagh enjoyed playing Poirot more than I enjoyed watching him, but an ok film overall.
People may justifiably complain about Suchet's conservative, heavily catholic portrayal of Poirot - there are moments when it veers into tendentious moralism... but then the same can be frequently said of Christie. And there it is, really - only Suchet cares much about the source, a concern which some of us share. After all, there are so many detectives, and they are not so hard to create. If one is going to do Poirot, who has been read so widely for so long, it is jarring to care so little. Branagh is funny, even charming. But Poirot does not so often say funny things on purpose, especially in dealing with high status people. He is a snob, he respects title and position, and maintains the niceties and the formalities. It is when he is with characters he need not by his own lights respect, servants, Ariadne Oliver, narrow middle class ladies... that is when Poirot unbends, becomes magnanimous and witty and charming and gracious. He does fence with peers and betters, but in moments of crisis and need, not casually upon meeting someone. That aspect of Branagh's take is just all wrong for anyone who knows the originals well... and that is so so many people, even now. What is a Christie movie for if it fails that test?
Myself and my better half both thoroughly enjoyed Branagh’s take on ‘Orient Express’, and were enthralled by ‘Belfast’ at the cinema. Our Valentine’s Day plan was dinner out and this movie until Covid said “hello” today. I do hope it lasts a wee while at the local Cineworld so we can catch it on the big screen post isolation; the cast looks stellar enough to even overcome the presence of Russell Brand!
@@sorenpx I've seen him live a couple of times and found he was exceptionally successful at not being funny. Joking aside, art and comedy is subjective, and his stuff if very much not my thing.
It’s a very charitable review IMO. Casting three top UK talents and denying them a single joke is simply baffling. The cast never got to gel or cut loose, Angela Lansbury in the 78 version is instantly a joy. This has made a very cynical decision to follow Bond and focus on meaningless backstory
Thank you!! Why cast French and Saunders, one of the most iconic comedy duos of all time, and not give them one single comedic moment? I thought they were going to save the movie for me but it never came 😓
I love Kenneth Branagh, but I love Hurcule Poirot even more. He doesn’t need a back story, he doesn’t need to be sold to his audience. HP already has an audience and we are disappointed once again with Branagh’s interpretation. The Ustinov film was the best for this story.
There is a continuity error - at the end of Murder on the Orient Express, a police officer appears and wants to escort Poirot to Egypt, where there has been a murder. Now, we see Poirot already in Egypt when the murder happens. Unless I've misunderstood something?
Obviously each to their own but if you honestly think Oldman (or anyone else) can improve on Guiness you're deluded. Thinking of TTSS, the original was perfectly cast and the re-make embarrassingly inferior. To cite only one example Beryl Reid wipes the floor with Kathy Burke in their portrayal of Connie Sachs.
I enjoyed the movie overall - good build up to the first death but the ending and the reveal seemed very rushed to me unlike the 1978 movie. The original went out of its way to plot each death in the reveal - and we could understand why and how they happened. The movie also departs from the original story in quite a shocking way - I thought surely not as that particular scene was on but they went and did it. Worth seeing - as we need more traditional movies like this.
As someone who never read the novels or seen the TV shows/movies, I found this a bit lesser then Orient Express because they mention a very big clue early on that made it obvious who the culprits were.
Emotionally, the film, eventually connects. Michael Greens' screenplay is intelligent and deft. It's just a shame that the film's" visuals are, for the most part flat and lifeless. I don't think I've seen a more overlit production. Combined with the almost constantly moving camera and the eyes of God CGI landscape shots that often blend into clearly studio based, green screen set ups. As illustrated by the clip. It is such a flawless digital looking production. More a Video game look and feel. To polished, nothing organic and flawed in sight. It takes You completely out of the 30's time period. Only a few later close ups in confined quarters give the film visual life. Certainly a waste of Kodak's 65mm stock. It is still an enjoyable ride, thanks to the fine cast. Just don't pay top dollar,/pound to see it.
He makes lots of mainstream movies though, I don't think he just does them for the money (this isn't even his first Poirot movie). I'm wildly speculating here, but I actually think he enjoys making this kind of movie as much or more than something like Belfast; Belfast is basically his memoir, something personal he felt he had to make before he got too old.
You are far too charitable. I hated Murder on the Orient Express for a variety of reasons. The only reason to remake a Chistie antiquity is to give it some glamour and cast it with wonderful actors even though the Poirot paled next to Suchet. Nile lacked the glamour of the cast of the earlier film and even though Ustinov doesn't begin to resemble the Poirot of the books he is at one with the spirit. I can't imagine why Branaugh felt the need to remake these two books and in the case of Nile tinker with Christie--I know he didn't write the screen play but he was an executive producer. Christies's books are entertainments and the TV versions with Suchet realized that. The Jean Dixon Miss Marple also captured the same spirit. Bransugh's facial hair be dammed.
Its an interesting point of view to hear review like that. i, for one thing, just left the cinema, and I gotta say, I loved every second of this film. I really liked Murder on Orient Express, so I was hyped to see Death on a Nile, so I was not disapointed. Question that I have is, was the fact that I was really interested in story stemed more from the execution, or from the fact that I was not aquainted with works od Agatha Christie before...
Maybe because your opinion of Armie Hammer is not relevant to the movie? The investigations into the allegations against him have been concluded and no charges are being pressed against him. Even the lawyer for his accusers has dropped the case. There is nothing to it and there never was.
The 128.54 carat yellow Tiffany Diamond necklace the character Linnet Ridgeway Doyle _(Gal Gadot)_ receives as a gift from her husband is a "recreation"/replica of the actual "blood/conflict diamond" necklace which Beyonce had caught backlash for -- because Beyonce unwittingly wore it _(oblivous to the diamond's history)_ in Tiffany _"About Love"_ ad campaigns, and while singing _'Moon River'_ : ▪️ ua-cam.com/video/ZOXO1Cyu1WY/v-deo.html ▪️ ua-cam.com/video/4_Ir0oBwyUQ/v-deo.html Tiffany made replicas of the necklace for use in *_'Death on the Nile'_* . _"Traditionally, a blood diamond, also known as a conflict diamond, is any gem that has been mined and sold in order to fund military action against a government - as defined by the United Nations._ _However, the term has also been applied to rough gems that were mined by people who were subjected to the kinds of conditions that Kimberley miners suffered during the 1870s - as with the Tiffany diamond that Beyonce modeled in her campaign."_ Beyonce is just the fourth female - _and the first black woman_ - to ever wear the actual Tiffany Diamond _(previously worn by Audrey Hepburn and Lady Gaga)._
If the scene with the pyramids is meant to look that way, then I applaud Branagh for making a modern film look like it was shot in the late 50s. If it was meant to look more realistic, then it clearly failed, because the color and lighting and even the compositions of those shots look so off.
With all the beautiful books written By Agatha Christie, why do they always make movies on the same ones? This movie was not needed, just like X-Men: Dark Phoenix...
The 'exterior' clip feels as convincing as a scene from The Mighty Boosh. It betrays a condescending attitude from the filmmakers for the audience, a feeling of 'I suppose this will have to do'.
Agree with the review. Against the odds - Suchet is still my standard for Poirot, despite also having seen the Ustinov version - I really enjoyed Orient Express. But this one didn’t really reach that ‘more than the sum of its parts’-feeling for me. There was too much artifice going on, and I find Brannagh’s Poirot a bit too cartoonish. There is a whole feeling you get with that title ‘Murder on the Nile’ that is just great. It makes you think of Egypt, Pyramids, classic adventure, grainy Sunday-afternoon movies, but this was more plastic. Interestingly, out of all the splendid cast, I really enjoyed Russell Brand’s performance, to the point where I was going: ‘yes, more of that serious Russell!’ But the rest ... ehh. And thinking about that, I think it’s a control-thing. The whole CGI/limited environment lends itself very well to establishing a very specific vision. You see where the director puts its focus. That can either work, or it doesn’t. (Baz Luhrman did it quite effectively in The Great Gatsby for example, and the ‘Hollywood’ show is another example). On the technical side it stood out to me very much that I really, really didn’t like the framing - to the point where it started to annoy me a lot. There was a lot of ‘two characters in a frame, really, really closeup because otherwise more cgi....’. But maybe that’s just me. Thing is: I really like what Brannagh is doing with the movies, and loved the first one. So let’s see where it goes. It was alright, but I’m sure he can perfect it further. Also: Miss Marple - Dame Maggie Smith, anyone? ✌️
I don't know why Branagh thought it necessary to revisit both Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile as movies. Both versions from the 1970's were classics with amazing performances, screenplays and cinematography. And both had better Proirot's than Branagh's in my opinion. The War segment in Branagh's Death on the Nile was ridiculous. The gas comes creeping towards the Germans and they see it and just stand there mesmerized instead of getting their gas masks on! And Poirot's face is badly cut on the right side in his cheek area as well as his upper lip which would have left a lasting scar that a moustache would not have disguised and yet when we see him in 1937 he has no scar at all!! I could go on but I give up.
Wow... Kermode thinks it is worse than Murder on the Orient Express which is one of the worst films I have seen (and one of the few I regret going to see) and where the sum of the actors produces something below ground.... I cant imagine how terrible this might be (although a back story on Poirot's moustache does give us a clue). Poor Agatha Christie must be turning in her grave....
How is that relevant to reviewing the movie itself? Or were you hoping to hear one of its actors trashed over false allegations which have not been proven?
For me this review could be about Orient Express. Sounds like the producers didn't learn from their mistakes and create engaging characters that you care about with a genuine feeling of tension or mystery, instead they made another CGI tour of the good old days. With these budgets... it drives you mad. Sad to hear as I really hoped this one would be an improvement, I'll watch it on a Sunday afternoon so I won't mind if it sends me to sleep.
Two of my main gripes with the movie: 1. If Poirot is the greatest detective ever, how was he not able to find the culprit immediately, I mean I think like 80 % of the movie's watchers are able to guess who did it as soon as it happens 2. If the killers go on to such great lengths to shut up anyone who knows what they did, why the hell don't they also kill the only man who's on the boat to specifically figure out who is the assassin out of them?
We are supposed to be in a time of realistic CGI and yet all the major blockbusters of recent times you can see they are blatantly standing infront of a green screen, it's so lazy and it's getting lazier it's starting to really show now.
Kermode's words, "Clunky and insubstantial," are as perfect as any to describe this miserable embarrassment of a film. Just watch the 1978 version with Peter Ustinov and/or the 2004 version with David Suchet. Both have their own, distinctive feel and are, in their own ways, equally good.
To be honest, it was always going to have a lot of the same problem that Murder on the Orient Express had, a lot of the people who would go to see this are from the generation who grew up with this in the TV cycle. "Sing along if you know the words!" All they need now is Evil Under the Sun to complete the set...
They’re not really. They just had to sit on this for a lot longer than they planned due to the whole Armie Hammer situation. Surprised Mark didn’t mention it. Also the reason you won’t see much promotion for the film either.
It was a very nice movie. A getaway movie, you just drift off and not think about anything too much. It’s was pretty and it’s nice that a movie has a start, end and an finish.
I enjoyed it even thought I've seen all the other versions. I think GG was good casting as she is allot like her character seemingly has everything & it's good to see her not just as an action hero. I did realise there'd be a de-aged KB & I liked that side plot. I appreciate this more than the Albert Finney's version in which his idiosyncrasy's were something to laugh at rather than Ustinov's that you laughed with him. KB has that quality, I also felt sorry for him at the end. I did enjoy an addition in David Suchet's where it showed the beginning of Simon & Jacqueline romance, ending with that. It helped explain why they chose to go to down that path. I did like the choice of where it began & ended in this, as Poirot understands people by watching them. I hope there are more, maybe a series?
I think this franchise sadly has one hand tied behind its back by firstly the David Suchet Poirot TV series and also more recently the Knives Out franchise(which I think was better than Branagh's adaption of Murder on the Orient Express). Branagh can do B movies(look at Dead Again - which I love) - but of recent times - he seems to be struggling with them.
As a man of a certain age I have to say that I enjoyed this. It was predictable and you didn't need a criminology degree to work out whodunnit, but it took me back several years to Sunday afternoon, post lunch matinee's with my Grandparents. Simpler times with simpler needs - thanks for the memories.
I've watched this version several times now and it is awful. The Suchet version was ok but Ustinov's is still the best. There was no chemistry between the actors who played Simon and Linnet and there was a big shake up of the characters that they no longer seemed recognisable from those in the book. You want to watch a good version then watch the 1978 movie.
I didn't like this one. Just seems like a façade. Everything looks too polished and fake. The characters seem contrived. I really loved the 1978 version. You can tell they were actually in Egypt. Everything feels more bookish (which has it's own charm) and the characters bring life to the screen. I don't think some of the choices in the 2022 version seem to reflect that era. What was the point of the end? Was it to set up the next movie? I thought the Bouc storyline was a wasted effort. I just didn't buy it. Everything Poirot had on them seems much more circumstantial in this one. It doesn't feel like one thing leads to the other. The 1978 version just seems more consistent and flows much much better. This one seems confusing at times. I didn't enjoy this one. I didn't like the characters. I thought the 1978 version was superior on all counts. Only saving grace on this one, was I didn't mind the backstory with Poirot or Kenneth Branaghs portrayal of him. Why were white women servants on the boat? I don't think you get that on this day and age either in Egypt. Just seems glaring to me.
Agree with assessment. A ridiculous plot assuming complex murder can be done on a ship with common outdoor corridors and no chance of witnesses!!! And then the solution to that risk is simply kill the witnesses! One of the dumbest stories Christie ever penned. One missed opportunity is when Rosalie Otterbourne, whose beau Bout Jacqueline de Bellefort killed, tells the murderess: "I'll see you die for this, I swear it . . I swear it." And the villainess then cavalierly dismisses the woman's threat. At which point if the film had been true to form, then Rosalie would have whipped de Bellefort's a$$ up and down that Nile from the Mediterranean Delta to the Sudanese border. A truly blown opportunity for truly epic ending.
Peter Ustinov made Poirot very funny and very sweet much like Margaret Rutherford did with her Miss Marple. Finney and Suchet while closer to Agatha's Poirot were deadly serious bores. I don't have an opinion yet about Branagh.
I was so confused by the addition of Bouc, seemingly put in to add a 'human' touch to Poirot (which really isn't needed, he shows his human side over being a stickler for the law many times) but then still having the other characters refer to Poirot as cold? Poirot in the source material is far from cold, and if that is your interpretation of him, then maybe don't start your franchise off with murder on the orient express....
Took a half day as I just couldn't adult that day. Ended up going to this movie as it was on screen 1 with the reclining chairs. Really really enjoyed it
I don't know well the film Belfast, but all I know is that is not Poirot. Several plots make me wonder who is he in front of me? But that is not Poirot is definitely.
The main thing that irritated me about his Murder On The Orient Express was the needless fiddling with the plot to make it into more of an action movie. Instead it just made the story needlessly convoluted and came out very much ‘style over substance’. I fear this film will go down that same road.
i hate it when its stated they are the best in something and so bright and then they proceed to do the stupidest thing you can imagine. like spoiler: „oh look there has been a murder on board of this ship. no one leaves, everyone go unsupervised back to your cabin and pretend nothing happened!“ „what? there has been a second murder on board of this isolated ship and someone of you definitely has to be the killer. lets go back into our cabin, unsupervised and pretend nothing happened!“ „what? there has been a third murder on board. now its personal! lets put everyone into the one large dining room and figure this out. would have been a good idea to take away all the guns i learned about over the course of the 3 murders but whats the worst that could happen- another murder? ;)“
I'll watch remakes but I struggle to totally enjoy them. I know the original too well so end up spending the movie waiting for things to happen and wondering if anything will be changed. All my attention is on that. Then I'm unsure whether changing the story is the right thing to do or not. (They did actually change a few things, here and there.) I know there are umpteen versions of (e.g.) MacBeth. Some historical, some contemporary, some with old MacBeth, some young, probably some different ethnicities playing the lead, maybe a gender-swap. I'm more okay with that because there is a history of remaking and changing things up, but I struggle with most remakes and can never really find much interest in them. It feels like it'd be more interesting to me to simply not have the AG rights and to make an original murder mystery. Anyway...I watched it. It was average enough. Or about as mysterious as any story you know beat-for-beat being remade can be. I'm just not so sure it adds all that much to cinema as a whole really. Perhaps I'm wrong though and there is a massive demand for this.
The Scottish Play has such depth that it repays endless different productions. Christie's books are simply puzzles, now with nostalgic period appeal. Hollywood usually re-made everything every 15 years, usually suppressing previous versions, but now everything is available to see. There is a case (both commercially and artistically) for re-inventing, or re-booting 'franchises' for new generations - Sherlock, for example - but we are usually happiest with the version we grew up with. Also, laziness and lack of imagination plays a part. It's far easier to promote an updated concept than invent a completely new idea.
That's the most ludicrous green screen background I've seen since Gods of Egypt. At least the Ustinov version was filmed in the right country
Most won't care when they're looking for something quick and to watch, but I have to admit, after having watched the 1978 film and how much more...old-fashioned that felt, the green screens and CGI do take me out of the newer one a little bit in realizing it's an obvious set on a green screen. That's adding a little too much noticeable polish to a story that should feel more like you're in an older time. But maybe that's just what my dumb brain thinks.
yeah i don't tend to notice bad CGI/ green screen that much because i'm an idiot & i don't understand anything but even i can agree you
The lighting is all wrong is what stands out to me
yeah, have the VFX guys never watched the making of The Mandalorian ?
@@tma2001 I was going to say. This movie and season one of the Mandalorian had similar budgets. I think most of the budget of Death in the Nile went on its glitzy cast
His moustache has an origin story, he hides behind a "mask" and he's the world's greatest detective? Sacre bleu, it's not Poirot, it's Batman!
Russell Brand is the Joker.
I know you're joking, but you're more right than you realize. The end of the movie's prologue rips-off a certain scene from "The Dark Knight".
The environment in the clip they showed looked less realistic than an old Mighty Boosh adventure.
Wow that’s the first thought I had when viewing that clip! A lot of films these days are look so fake, almost like story scenes from video games. I much prefer classic films which used practical effects and authentic looking locations for filming . Felt so much more real.
@@DamienHurts the flip side would be a film like Mirrormask, where they took advantage of the green screen to make places aggressively unrealistic. This movie just looks like some middle ground visual DMZ.
It looks terrible!
It looked surprisingly cheap and flat! Was it all greenscreen??
@@RightNowMan nah
I love the '78 version, which was my introduction to the Hercule Poirot mysteries. I suspect it will always be my favourite of the Christie adaptations, but this should be fun, too.
The clip from the movie reminded me of the rooftop from The Room more than anything. Half expected Tommy Wisseau to step from behind the pyramid and hear "O hi Poirot"
“I did nat murder her, that’s total bullshit, I did naaaaaaaaaawt!”
I did not kill her it's not true its bullshit I did not kill her I did naaaattt. Oh hi Poirot 😄🤣
Making David Suchet's performance look even more unassailable than it did before..
and the Orient Express in that series was incredible!!!!!! what an interpretation.
I don't think it's a fair comparison. Suchet had years to grow into the part. His turn was a complete telling of the Poirot novels. This is an amuse bouche, that doesn't take itself too seriously, and plays with the genre.
@@BigHenFor That's a fair point. Suchet's personable yet reserved performance wouldn't fly in a lavish feature film. It's still my favorite version of the character by far, but I tend to prefer series or mini-series for character- or dialogue-focused works, given all the time and breathing room it allows its screenwriters, directors, actors, and editors to get everything about the performance right. I don't want to take people's big screen fun away from them, and I hope these films whet fans' appetite for the series. Not sure we're gonna see a third Branaugh adaptation (not least because they already did the only ones that have any name recognition).
I’m rewatching my way through the series atm, and I’m constantly being struck by just how nuanced and skilful Suchet’s performance is. Brannah’s performance is good, but it seems like a pastiche of Suchet.
As much as I love Suchet's interpretation of Poirot, I'm fed up of people acting like they can't enjoy something just because "it's not like the good ol' days..."
One interpretation does not affect the others.
The 1978 version is brilliant. Ustinov, Mia Farrow, David Niven, Jane Birkin, Olivia Hussey, Maggie Smith... Fantastic. This new one is poor.
You're poor. And so is your mom
Agreed. Reminds me of the dismal attempts to resurrect the Carry on series. You can't get the same talent these days.
This new version is truly abysmal. Not a patch on the original.
It was awful
I hope the moustache gets to star in it's own spin-off film.
POIROT. With a young flavor of the month. I can see it now....
“Hair-cule Poirot”
How about “The Moustache” 😂
I've been a Kenneth Branaugh fan since watching Dead Again in the theatre. He is really "in love" with what he does, whether acting or directing and THAT shows, even when the material may lack.
Except it never lacks
@Striker Bowls Right, Years from now they will be teaching Thor & Artemis Fowl is film school...
Can you read his mind when he’s in love
He swings for the fences every time. I respect that so much.
Kenneth Brannah can be very funny. His part in Harry Potter is very underrated and unremembered (if that's a word).
Wild Wild West too
Serves him right. He tried that spell at the end to make Harry and Ron “unremember.”
David Suchet has set the bar very high for Poirot actors,which is why I feel a bit sorry for Mr Branaugh
The problem for me is that David Suchet really is the definitive Poirot.
I totally agree . David Suchet owns the role , even though he wasn’t the first to play the detective . But i will say the 70s Lumet films with Peter Ustinov as Poirot are also very enjoyable views (even though his portrayal of Poirot is a bit lacking in fun)
Seconded. I just can’t take this portrayal seriously.
Suchet will always be the first Poirot I think of, and the definitive one as well. However, I'm OK with having different versions pitched to different audiences. Suchet's style wouldn't impress most moviegoers, who want bigger, broader performances like Branaugh's. And I do prefer Branaugh's blustery performance to Ustinov's, who felt more pantomime-y.
On a related note, I'm very eager to see how Benoit Blanc (Knives Out) develops as he goes from being a one-off debut performance into a series of movies, maybe even a regular Netflix series, in a reverse of what Poirot is going through nowadays. Will they dial him back a bit and flesh him out as a believable character with eccentricities a la Suchet, or just make him bigger and highlight every quirk until he become a cartoon?
I think Lumet only did Murder on the Orient Express with Albert Finney.
@@HuntingViolets yes you are absolutely right. Peter Ustinov was in Evil Under The Sun and Death on the Nile.
Sadly for me there were too many creative liberties taken with the story and the character of Poirot , the CGI was awful too
I loved it, it's pure escapism and fun cinema that all generations of the family can enjoy, without superheroes, something different on the billboard. Branagh is an excellent Poirot, hopefully he can develop the character more. I will see this movie again, I want more, please!
BINGO 👌
yes, absolutely loved his presence in the film. Wished to see more of him in the film
I liked it very much.
Not a good detective movie, terrible acting, self indulgent scenes dragging on too long
That clip contains possibly the worst green screen I've seen in years.
It might has well have been an animated film, sack the actors off entirely, it would have looked better!
THE 1978 VERSION IS STILL THE BEST!!! 2022 LACKS HUMOR AND CAST COMES OFF FLAT BUT BEAUTIFULLY FILMED!!!
The writing and acting in that clip are embarrassing! What happened to Branagh???
has Gal Gadot learnt to act yet?
- genuine question
No
Oh good I thought it was just me!
See the original 78 version for a perfect film of the story with a great, great cast.
I do hope this movie does well, just so this type of movie continues to get made. Also, so that we can continue to see these books get adapted.
You do know there was a classic version of this in the 1970s with Peter Ustinov as Poirot dont you?
@@kernowarty Yes, but I'm always open to see different adaptations. Here's the thing, movies like this come to the cinema less and less. Even the Knives Out sequel is going to Netflix. I just want more adult themed and non comic book movies to be successful. Love CBM's and big blockbusters, but there should be variety.
David Suchet did every Poirot book adaptation in 13 series or 70 episodes that ran from 1989 to 2013.
Well worth watching!
I enjoyed this film greatly it is not as good as the original no Angela Lansbury for a start but Branagh is very good in the role and Emma Mackey the standout performance is far more convincing than Mia Farrow ,s frazzled and rather unhinged performance in the original .
Kermode somehow got inside my head and saw my own reaction to the movie. I still enjoyed the hell out of it though. There’s plenty of room for “Death on the Nile” and “Belfast” and lucky Ken gets to do both. 😎
I found Mark's review of The Exorcist somewhat wanting this week. Hope for better things from next week's review of it.
The Pyramids LOOKED like CGI. In 2022!! C'MON!
The problem is that since orient express came out, we’ve had Knives Out, a truly great 21st century whodunnit. And that’s what this is going to be compared to.
Knives Out could've been great but decided to be a political treatise instead of a piece of entertainment.
@@sorenpx have you ever read an Agatha Christie novel?
@@T4terrible I have read MOTOE, Cards on the Table, Hercule Poirot's Christmas, And Then There Were None and Crooked House.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought “Did I just get an origin story for a moustache?!?”
I liked Angela Lansbury drunk performance in the 1970s version and Peter Ustinov. Im bored of these remakes.
It was another adaptation of the novel, not a remake.
The 70's film had no effects. It was filmed in Egypt.
Anyone notice the central triangles popping up in so many frames? I was sure that would get a mention. Other observations a) There is only one Poirot and that is the great David Suchet b) Didn't feel like they were anywhere near Egypt, even though a lot of swooping location shots and tourist props were used. Again the art deco love of the telly series was way too good by comparison. Apart from that it did have Christie's lovely whodunit backbone and the revelation scene felt less contrived than they usually are. I think Branagh enjoyed playing Poirot more than I enjoyed watching him, but an ok film overall.
People may justifiably complain about Suchet's conservative, heavily catholic portrayal of Poirot - there are moments when it veers into tendentious moralism... but then the same can be frequently said of Christie. And there it is, really - only Suchet cares much about the source, a concern which some of us share. After all, there are so many detectives, and they are not so hard to create. If one is going to do Poirot, who has been read so widely for so long, it is jarring to care so little.
Branagh is funny, even charming. But Poirot does not so often say funny things on purpose, especially in dealing with high status people. He is a snob, he respects title and position, and maintains the niceties and the formalities. It is when he is with characters he need not by his own lights respect, servants, Ariadne Oliver, narrow middle class ladies... that is when Poirot unbends, becomes magnanimous and witty and charming and gracious. He does fence with peers and betters, but in moments of crisis and need, not casually upon meeting someone. That aspect of Branagh's take is just all wrong for anyone who knows the originals well... and that is so so many people, even now. What is a Christie movie for if it fails that test?
Myself and my better half both thoroughly enjoyed Branagh’s take on ‘Orient Express’, and were enthralled by ‘Belfast’ at the cinema. Our Valentine’s Day plan was dinner out and this movie until Covid said “hello” today. I do hope it lasts a wee while at the local Cineworld so we can catch it on the big screen post isolation; the cast looks stellar enough to even overcome the presence of Russell Brand!
Russell Brand's performance is perhaps the most interesting, just because it feels so unusual to see him NOT trying to be funny.
@@sorenpx I've seen him live a couple of times and found he was exceptionally successful at not being funny. Joking aside, art and comedy is subjective, and his stuff if very much not my thing.
Branagh is a stronger actor than director.
he is bad at both honestly
@@alexm2136 Is it strange that I think one of his best performances was in Wild Wild West?
@@alexm2136 so glad someone else agrees
He was the only good thing about it for sure.🧀
@@alexm2136 What?
With apologies to Mr. Branagh, the 1978 version was a much better adaptation and so much more fun to watch.
It’s a very charitable review IMO. Casting three top UK talents and denying them a single joke is simply baffling. The cast never got to gel or cut loose, Angela Lansbury in the 78 version is instantly a joy. This has made a very cynical decision to follow Bond and focus on meaningless backstory
Bleagh. It added heart and depth. You're wrong.
@@mindfuldrone To tell somebody they're wrong in a subjective review is idiotic. YOU are actually wrong here, objectively. Have a nice day!
Thank you!! Why cast French and Saunders, one of the most iconic comedy duos of all time, and not give them one single comedic moment? I thought they were going to save the movie for me but it never came 😓
Id love to ask Mr Kermode how that jarring CGI doesn't take you out of the film.
I love Kenneth Branagh, but I love Hurcule Poirot even more. He doesn’t need a back story, he doesn’t need to be sold to his audience. HP already has an audience and we are disappointed once again with Branagh’s interpretation. The Ustinov film was the best for this story.
Lol that green screen looked terrible
There is a continuity error - at the end of Murder on the Orient Express, a police officer appears and wants to escort Poirot to Egypt, where there has been a murder. Now, we see Poirot already in Egypt when the murder happens. Unless I've misunderstood something?
Different case?
They mention the other case in the opening as Poirot goes into night club.
They are trying to create a franchise out of a shallow Poirot, meanwhile I've been waiting for Smiley's People for 11 years.
Obviously each to their own but if you honestly think Oldman (or anyone else) can improve on Guiness you're deluded. Thinking of TTSS, the original was perfectly cast and the re-make embarrassingly inferior. To cite only one example Beryl Reid wipes the floor with Kathy Burke in their portrayal of Connie Sachs.
I think the time for that has passed even if Smiley's People would work better in a 2 hour movie than thinker tailor did in my opinion.
I enjoyed the movie overall - good build up to the first death but the ending and the reveal seemed very rushed to me unlike the 1978 movie. The original went out of its way to plot each death in the reveal - and we could understand why and how they happened. The movie also departs from the original story in quite a shocking way - I thought surely not as that particular scene was on but they went and did it. Worth seeing - as we need more traditional movies like this.
What scene are you talking about?
@@DeltaSpartan141 The final murder scene - and the one that for obvious reasons upset Poirot the most!
As someone who never read the novels or seen the TV shows/movies, I found this a bit lesser then Orient Express because they mention a very big clue early on that made it obvious who the culprits were.
based on that clip this looks very naff.
Branagh always casts himself in the main role regardless of whether he's suited to it or not and that attitude puts me off him insurmountably.
Now, be fair... He didn't cast himself as Thor.
@@wellington-rq2br Or as himself in Belfast
@@macylightfoot it wasn't a surprise to anyone that he made a film about himself though, was it?!
@Flying Log Frogmorton surely, he was only good in Harry Potter because he played a smug, self-serving fraud! Okay, I'll stop 😂
@@applepye87 well lots of actors, writers, and directors have done that. It's hardly something he's alone in
Emotionally, the film, eventually connects. Michael Greens' screenplay is intelligent and deft. It's just a shame that the film's" visuals are, for the most part flat and lifeless. I don't think I've seen a more overlit production. Combined with the almost constantly moving camera and the eyes of God CGI landscape shots that often blend into clearly studio based, green screen set ups. As illustrated by the clip. It is such a flawless digital looking production. More a Video game look and feel. To polished, nothing organic and flawed in sight. It takes You completely out of the 30's time period. Only a few later close ups in confined quarters give the film visual life. Certainly a waste of Kodak's 65mm stock. It is still an enjoyable ride, thanks to the fine cast. Just don't pay top dollar,/pound to see it.
What utter bollox. It's sumptuous to look at. Ignore this pretentious pseud and see it.
You’re right it looks horrid in the clip.
Do you think he did this film to pay for Belfast?
He makes lots of mainstream movies though, I don't think he just does them for the money (this isn't even his first Poirot movie).
I'm wildly speculating here, but I actually think he enjoys making this kind of movie as much or more than something like Belfast; Belfast is basically his memoir, something personal he felt he had to make before he got too old.
Bouc and his mother weren't in the book or other versions. It should have stayed that way. The 1978 movie and Suchet's version were much better.
You are far too charitable. I hated Murder on the Orient Express for a variety of reasons. The only reason to remake a Chistie antiquity is to give it some glamour and cast it with wonderful actors even though the Poirot paled next to Suchet. Nile lacked the glamour of the cast of the earlier film and even though Ustinov doesn't begin to resemble the Poirot of the books he is at one with the spirit. I can't imagine why Branaugh felt the need to remake these two books and in the case of Nile tinker with Christie--I know he didn't write the screen play but he was an executive producer. Christies's books are entertainments and the TV versions with Suchet realized that. The Jean Dixon Miss Marple also captured the same spirit. Bransugh's facial hair be dammed.
Nothing will top the Peter Ustinov one.
I'm just guessing but is the origin story of the mustache a nod to the wonderful The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp?
Powell and Pressburger, now they were film-makers, and the audience for this film have probably never heard of them.
Comparing Belfast and Death on the Nile is like comparing Graham Green's serious novels and his "entertainments."
Certainly lit like a stage show.
i loved Angela Lansbury in this .
Its an interesting point of view to hear review like that. i, for one thing, just left the cinema, and I gotta say, I loved every second of this film. I really liked Murder on Orient Express, so I was hyped to see Death on a Nile, so I was not disapointed. Question that I have is, was the fact that I was really interested in story stemed more from the execution, or from the fact that I was not aquainted with works od Agatha Christie before...
Funny, no mention of the fact that possible/probable/definite scumbag Armie Hammer is in the movie.
Maybe because your opinion of Armie Hammer is not relevant to the movie? The investigations into the allegations against him have been concluded and no charges are being pressed against him. Even the lawyer for his accusers has dropped the case. There is nothing to it and there never was.
The 128.54 carat yellow Tiffany Diamond necklace the character Linnet Ridgeway Doyle _(Gal Gadot)_ receives as a gift from her husband is a "recreation"/replica of the actual "blood/conflict diamond" necklace which Beyonce had caught backlash for -- because Beyonce unwittingly wore it _(oblivous to the diamond's history)_ in Tiffany _"About Love"_ ad campaigns, and while singing _'Moon River'_ :
▪️ ua-cam.com/video/ZOXO1Cyu1WY/v-deo.html
▪️ ua-cam.com/video/4_Ir0oBwyUQ/v-deo.html
Tiffany made replicas of the necklace for use in *_'Death on the Nile'_* .
_"Traditionally, a blood diamond, also known as a conflict diamond, is any gem that has been mined and sold in order to fund military action against a government - as defined by the United Nations._
_However, the term has also been applied to rough gems that were mined by people who were subjected to the kinds of conditions that Kimberley miners suffered during the 1870s - as with the Tiffany diamond that Beyonce modeled in her campaign."_
Beyonce is just the fourth female - _and the first black woman_ - to ever wear the actual Tiffany Diamond _(previously worn by Audrey Hepburn and Lady Gaga)._
If the scene with the pyramids is meant to look that way, then I applaud Branagh for making a modern film look like it was shot in the late 50s. If it was meant to look more realistic, then it clearly failed, because the color and lighting and even the compositions of those shots look so off.
Saw this yesterday with my wife and we loved it. Really felt a good old throw back to classic cinema. Just fun.
With all the beautiful books written By Agatha Christie, why do they always make movies on the same ones?
This movie was not needed, just like X-Men: Dark Phoenix...
Exotic locations are considered more internationally appealing.
Yeah, well, if you've read the book, seen the Peter Unstinov version AND the David Suchet version, then it's not a gripping mystery
The 'exterior' clip feels as convincing as a scene from The Mighty Boosh. It betrays a condescending attitude from the filmmakers for the audience, a feeling of 'I suppose this will have to do'.
They changed location because of COVID, it’s all shot in Surrey somewhere.
Agree with the review. Against the odds - Suchet is still my standard for Poirot, despite also having seen the Ustinov version - I really enjoyed Orient Express. But this one didn’t really reach that ‘more than the sum of its parts’-feeling for me. There was too much artifice going on, and I find Brannagh’s Poirot a bit too cartoonish.
There is a whole feeling you get with that title ‘Murder on the Nile’ that is just great. It makes you think of Egypt, Pyramids, classic adventure, grainy Sunday-afternoon movies, but this was more plastic.
Interestingly, out of all the splendid cast, I really enjoyed Russell Brand’s performance, to the point where I was going: ‘yes, more of that serious Russell!’
But the rest ... ehh. And thinking about that, I think it’s a control-thing. The whole CGI/limited environment lends itself very well to establishing a very specific vision. You see where the director puts its focus. That can either work, or it doesn’t. (Baz Luhrman did it quite effectively in The Great Gatsby for example, and the ‘Hollywood’ show is another example). On the technical side it stood out to me very much that I really, really didn’t like the framing - to the point where it started to annoy me a lot. There was a lot of ‘two characters in a frame, really, really closeup because otherwise more cgi....’. But maybe that’s just me.
Thing is: I really like what Brannagh is doing with the movies, and loved the first one. So let’s see where it goes. It was alright, but I’m sure he can perfect it further.
Also: Miss Marple - Dame Maggie Smith, anyone? ✌️
I don't know why Branagh thought it necessary to revisit both Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile as movies. Both versions from the 1970's were classics with amazing performances, screenplays and cinematography. And both had better Proirot's than Branagh's in my opinion. The War segment in Branagh's Death on the Nile was ridiculous. The gas comes creeping towards the Germans and they see it and just stand there mesmerized instead of getting their gas masks on! And Poirot's face is badly cut on the right side in his cheek area as well as his upper lip which would have left a lasting scar that a moustache would not have disguised and yet when we see him in 1937 he has no scar at all!! I could go on but I give up.
Wow... Kermode thinks it is worse than Murder on the Orient Express which is one of the worst films I have seen (and one of the few I regret going to see) and where the sum of the actors produces something below ground.... I cant imagine how terrible this might be (although a back story on Poirot's moustache does give us a clue). Poor Agatha Christie must be turning in her grave....
If you like UHD PQ, MotOE is a reference disc ! Looking forward to this too
A bit odd that Mark didn’t mention the reason this film has been delayed over a year and why you won’t see much promotion for it.
How is that relevant to reviewing the movie itself? Or were you hoping to hear one of its actors trashed over false allegations which have not been proven?
For me this review could be about Orient Express. Sounds like the producers didn't learn from their mistakes and create engaging characters that you care about with a genuine feeling of tension or mystery, instead they made another CGI tour of the good old days. With these budgets... it drives you mad. Sad to hear as I really hoped this one would be an improvement, I'll watch it on a Sunday afternoon so I won't mind if it sends me to sleep.
Two of my main gripes with the movie:
1. If Poirot is the greatest detective ever, how was he not able to find the culprit immediately, I mean I think like 80 % of the movie's watchers are able to guess who did it as soon as it happens
2. If the killers go on to such great lengths to shut up anyone who knows what they did, why the hell don't they also kill the only man who's on the boat to specifically figure out who is the assassin out of them?
I mean, those sound more like gripes with Christies work than the films fault
We are supposed to be in a time of realistic CGI and yet all the major blockbusters of recent times you can see they are blatantly standing infront of a green screen, it's so lazy and it's getting lazier it's starting to really show now.
Kermode's words, "Clunky and insubstantial," are as perfect as any to describe this miserable embarrassment of a film. Just watch the 1978 version with Peter Ustinov and/or the 2004 version with David Suchet. Both have their own, distinctive feel and are, in their own ways, equally good.
Beats neither David Suchet or the late great Peter Ustinov
To be honest, it was always going to have a lot of the same problem that Murder on the Orient Express had, a lot of the people who would go to see this are from the generation who grew up with this in the TV cycle. "Sing along if you know the words!"
All they need now is Evil Under the Sun to complete the set...
FRENCH & SAUNDERS?!
In the clip that was used the background looks like it was superimposed.
They're doing the back to the future thing where they shoot them at the same time and then they just have to sit on them
They’re not really. They just had to sit on this for a lot longer than they planned due to the whole Armie Hammer situation. Surprised Mark didn’t mention it. Also the reason you won’t see much promotion for the film either.
@@Zeppelin180 why
It was a very nice movie. A getaway movie, you just drift off and not think about anything too much. It’s was pretty and it’s nice that a movie has a start, end and an finish.
I enjoyed it even thought I've seen all the other versions. I think GG was good casting as she is allot like her character seemingly has everything & it's good to see her not just as an action hero. I did realise there'd be a de-aged KB & I liked that side plot. I appreciate this more than the Albert Finney's version in which his idiosyncrasy's were something to laugh at rather than Ustinov's that you laughed with him. KB has that quality, I also felt sorry for him at the end. I did enjoy an addition in David Suchet's where it showed the beginning of Simon & Jacqueline romance, ending with that. It helped explain why they chose to go to down that path. I did like the choice of where it began & ended in this, as Poirot understands people by watching them. I hope there are more, maybe a series?
I think this franchise sadly has one hand tied behind its back by firstly the David Suchet Poirot TV series and also more recently the Knives Out franchise(which I think was better than Branagh's adaption of Murder on the Orient Express).
Branagh can do B movies(look at Dead Again - which I love) - but of recent times - he seems to be struggling with them.
"You must meet hercule poirot"
"Waaaaai"
Don't forget the top notch tv version with Emily blunt
Beats all
As a man of a certain age I have to say that I enjoyed this. It was predictable and you didn't need a criminology degree to work out whodunnit, but it took me back several years to Sunday afternoon, post lunch matinee's with my Grandparents. Simpler times with simpler needs - thanks for the memories.
I've watched this version several times now and it is awful. The Suchet version was ok but Ustinov's is still the best. There was no chemistry between the actors who played Simon and Linnet and there was a big shake up of the characters that they no longer seemed recognisable from those in the book. You want to watch a good version then watch the 1978 movie.
Tacheman Begins
I didn't like this one. Just seems like a façade. Everything looks too polished and fake. The characters seem contrived.
I really loved the 1978 version. You can tell they were actually in Egypt. Everything feels more bookish (which has it's own charm) and the characters bring life to the screen.
I don't think some of the choices in the 2022 version seem to reflect that era. What was the point of the end? Was it to set up the next movie? I thought the Bouc storyline was a wasted effort.
I just didn't buy it. Everything Poirot had on them seems much more circumstantial in this one. It doesn't feel like one thing leads to the other. The 1978 version just seems more consistent and flows much much better. This one seems confusing at times.
I didn't enjoy this one. I didn't like the characters. I thought the 1978 version was superior on all counts. Only saving grace on this one, was I didn't mind the backstory with Poirot or Kenneth Branaghs portrayal of him.
Why were white women servants on the boat? I don't think you get that on this day and age either in Egypt. Just seems glaring to me.
It‘s good they went to Egypt to film on location, though. Stunning view in the clip!
Kenneth branagh is so lucky to get all these parts and direct as he is the same in every film and the ones he directs are all average
Okenedo and Cobley: together at last!
Agree with assessment. A ridiculous plot assuming complex murder can be done on a ship with common outdoor corridors and no chance of witnesses!!! And then the solution to that risk is simply kill the witnesses! One of the dumbest stories Christie ever penned.
One missed opportunity is when Rosalie Otterbourne, whose beau Bout Jacqueline de Bellefort killed, tells the murderess: "I'll see you die for this, I swear it . . I swear it." And the villainess then cavalierly dismisses the woman's threat. At which point if the film had been true to form, then Rosalie would have whipped de Bellefort's a$$ up and down that Nile from the Mediterranean Delta to the Sudanese border. A truly blown opportunity for truly epic ending.
Peter Ustinov made Poirot very funny and very sweet much like Margaret Rutherford did with her Miss Marple. Finney and Suchet while closer to Agatha's Poirot were deadly serious bores. I don't have an opinion yet about Branagh.
I was so confused by the addition of Bouc, seemingly put in to add a 'human' touch to Poirot (which really isn't needed, he shows his human side over being a stickler for the law many times) but then still having the other characters refer to Poirot as cold? Poirot in the source material is far from cold, and if that is your interpretation of him, then maybe don't start your franchise off with murder on the orient express....
Mark doesn’t read the room very well as to what film can be for an audience . Just a tad too smug
Its 'MEH'
Seconded: with yawning. .
Took a half day as I just couldn't adult that day. Ended up going to this movie as it was on screen 1 with the reclining chairs. Really really enjoyed it
I don't know well the film Belfast, but all I know is that is not Poirot. Several plots make me wonder who is he in front of me? But that is not Poirot is definitely.
Where's the fat suit Kenneth? And would this happen to have been entirely shot in an air conditioned studio somewhere?
I really enjoyed it.
Thought it was loads of fun.
Bluesy music and cigarettes of various compositions. lol. I enjoyed it.
The main thing that irritated me about his Murder On The Orient Express was the needless fiddling with the plot to make it into more of an action movie. Instead it just made the story needlessly convoluted and came out very much ‘style over substance’. I fear this film will go down that same road.
Without the style
i hate it when its stated they are the best in something and so bright and then they proceed to do the stupidest thing you can imagine.
like spoiler:
„oh look there has been a murder on board of this ship. no one leaves, everyone go unsupervised back to your cabin and pretend nothing happened!“
„what? there has been a second murder on board of this isolated ship and someone of you definitely has to be the killer. lets go back into our cabin, unsupervised and pretend nothing happened!“
„what? there has been a third murder on board. now its personal! lets put everyone into the one large dining room and figure this out. would have been a good idea to take away all the guns i learned about over the course of the 3 murders but whats the worst that could happen- another murder? ;)“
I'll watch remakes but I struggle to totally enjoy them. I know the original too well so end up spending the movie waiting for things to happen and wondering if anything will be changed. All my attention is on that. Then I'm unsure whether changing the story is the right thing to do or not. (They did actually change a few things, here and there.)
I know there are umpteen versions of (e.g.) MacBeth. Some historical, some contemporary, some with old MacBeth, some young, probably some different ethnicities playing the lead, maybe a gender-swap. I'm more okay with that because there is a history of remaking and changing things up, but I struggle with most remakes and can never really find much interest in them. It feels like it'd be more interesting to me to simply not have the AG rights and to make an original murder mystery.
Anyway...I watched it. It was average enough. Or about as mysterious as any story you know beat-for-beat being remade can be. I'm just not so sure it adds all that much to cinema as a whole really. Perhaps I'm wrong though and there is a massive demand for this.
The Scottish Play has such depth that it repays endless different productions. Christie's books are simply puzzles, now with nostalgic period appeal.
Hollywood usually re-made everything every 15 years, usually suppressing previous versions, but now everything is available to see.
There is a case (both commercially and artistically) for re-inventing, or re-booting 'franchises' for new generations - Sherlock, for example - but we are usually happiest with the version we grew up with.
Also, laziness and lack of imagination plays a part. It's far easier to promote an updated concept than invent a completely new idea.
Perhaps this is what Graham Greene called "an entertainment." Belfast is a serious movie.
The clip in front of the pyramids looked 1970's BBC in the studio awful.
enuff champaiyn! tuffeel denaiyil!
The re-make/adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express was ludicrous - with snow action scenes and inexplicable scenes in cave. I'm avoiding this one