Reviews of Murder on the Orient Express Movie
Everything wrong with Hollywood
Warning: Spoilers
An uninteresting new version of the classic Agatha Christie murder mystery, MURDER ON THE ORIENT Express screams everything that's wrong with modernistic Hollywood. It'south been shot on a fake-looking dark-green screen of snowbound vistas, and from the moment information technology randomly adds martial arts into the story early on I knew it wouldn't be much good. An impressive all-star cast is assembled only for the actors to be wasted in paper-thin roles, while Kenneth Branagh'due south Poirot gets all of the screen fourth dimension and attention. He's surprisingly boilerplate in the function, hands exceeded by the earlier stars who played the character; Ustinov, for case, but in particular the definitive Suchet. The pic adds humour and quirk to the tale but just begins dragging after a while, leading to a shrill and hysterical climax.
50 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Difficult to Review
Difficult Kenneth Branagh makes, produces, and stars in good movies, and this version of Murder on the Orient Limited features impressive sets, beautiful scenery, and lovely flow dress. An impressive case features Penélope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Kennth Branagh equally Hercule Poirot. I think those who are non familiar with Agatha Christie, Poirot, or the story may very well like this movie.
I, on the other manus, was massively disappointed, specially by Branagh equally a sort of English upper-class colonel with a stick-on cavalry moustache and past the needless addition of an introductory scene at the Wailing Wall. But I am prejudiced. I read the 1934 novel decades ago and once more more recently. I liked the 1974 star-studded version with Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, and Michael York—despite the fact that Albert Finney was a very poor version of Christie's Hercule Poirot.
In my opinion, the 2010 goggle box version of the story starred David Suchet as the definitive Poirot, and the ending was far and abroad the best of all the versions with which I am familiar. And then I recollect Christie fans may want to skip this edition of the classic.
399 out of 538 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why was this made?
This pic manifestly wants to exist both a archetype mystery and one that appeals to the video game generation. It doesn't work. The CGI backgrounds are and so obvious, in that location is no existent sense of identify. Poirot has been turned into an action figure, racing up and down a rickety trestle in a completely unnecessary scene. You may be tempted to look for the push that shoots out lasers or something. The film focuses and then much on Branagh that the audience never really connects with the rest of the cast, making the summation a bit baffling. In a final insult, the closing credits are accompanied by a perfectly dreadful, doleful vocal.
A waste product of time, talent, and coin.
28 out of 34 plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doesn't completely derail, but doesn't have enough steam
'Murder on the Orient Express' every bit a volume is, speaking as a big Agatha Christie fan, one of her all-time with a compelling and twisty story, many characters that are as well nicely developed and one of her most ingenious endings (along with 'And Then There Were None', 'Death on the Nile', 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd' and 'Witness for the Prosecution').
Of the four filmed adaptations of 'Murder on the Orient Express' the only outstanding one is the 1974 Sidney Lumet film, which is one of the best cinematic Agatha Christie adaptations to me. The others are the David Suchet version, which is frequently considered one of the worst of the series but from personal opinion while very flawed information technology's ameliorate than given credit for, and the 2001 Alfred Molina version which is a mess. This latest version has a good deal going for information technology but feels like an adaptation as well far. Actually saw information technology a couple of days ago, only was not sure what my thoughts on it were.
Let's start with 'Murder on the Orient Express'southward' good things. Information technology is a very beautiful motion picture visually, very elegantly shot, lots of stunning scenery, sumptuous costumes that are evocative of the period and a train that has the grandeur and claustrophobic confinement that is necessary. The brand-upwards is also wonderfully elaborate. The story does have some intriguing moments and information technology is a very clever one in the showtime place. Poirot is an interesting equally he should be. Kenneth Branagh does a very overnice job with the visual mode, the script is thought-provoking and Poirot's law-breaking-solving is delightful. The relative faithfulness to the source material is commendable too.
He also stars as Poirot and generally is surprisingly good, he is very commanding, suitably steely and captures his criminal offense-solving skills beautifully. He could yet accept brought out more of Poirot'due south lighter and more than eccentric side, like the obsessiveness, there isn't plenty of that hither. The cast is star studded and mostly the interim is very good. Standouts include Judi Dench, Michelle Pfeiffer, a surprisingly well-cast and suitably conflicted Josh Gad and Daisy Ridley, Derek Jacobi and Willem Dafoe likewise brand much of not very much.
Conversely, there are other elements that don't work. The mystery itself is intriguing equally a story but doesn't accept plenty tension or energy. With and so many characters and so much focus on Poirot, the exploration of the supporting characters is express, meaning many of the characters are really sketchy in development. Branagh excels in the visual side of the direction simply information technology comes at the expense at providing enough depth to the mystery.
The film has a ho-hum and awkwardly staged outset and the ingenious denouement feels nether-cooked and contrived for an ending so justifiably famous and bright. Just to arrive clear, the trouble is not the denouement itself, information technology'due south the execution of information technology that'south the problem. While the cast are on very good form mostly, an exception is Johnny Depp. Actually didn't get the sense that Rachett was a nasty piece of piece of work, similar in the book and especially Toby Jones' interpretation in the Suchet adaptation when talking of the previous versions, and that the operation was too much of a pale caricature of Depp'southward lesser roles. Have actually liked a lot of what Patrick Doyle has done, but this is non one of his improve music scores. Information technology's not atrocious, just it is blandly bromidic and its slightly syrupy feel doesn't fit. Oh, and Branagh's moustache is like a graphic symbol of its ain and am really not sure as to whether that is a compliment or non.
In summary, some good things that stops it from completely derailing only the lack of steam makes it a bland endeavour, this wonderful story and Christie deserve better. 5/ten Bethany Cox
67 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How Agatha Christie was brutally ruined
This movie is actually a piece of art. Information technology takes a really true artist to ruin Agatha Christie at her best and a Dench-lead bandage and come with a tiresome Branagh soliloquy. What he has fabricated out of Poirot, it's only unbelievable. I don't remember him being described equally a walrus in any of the books where he too has converstations with all involved so that readers/audience can participate somehow. In this movie it's only Branagh, he knows it all, he sees it all and he understands it all. Out of thin air. Such wonderful actors were gathered for this monstrosity and information technology felt equally is they were at that place only a prepare for Branagh. And oh yes, when talking well-nigh scenery - which ignorant fool came up with alps between Vinkovci and Brod??????? The thing is, there is nothing going on in this flick, no suspension edifice up, no substance. It is just a pale vessel for Kenneth Branagh to try shining. Lookout 1974 Lumet version. And from what i hear, it's going to exist a sequel, Death on the Nile. Scout 1978 John Guillermin version. Branagh should. My review does not contain spoilers, at that place'south not enough substance to spoil annihilation.
240 out of 331 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's time to stop
Information technology'due south time to stop with the remakes. Just because the flick has "famous" actors doesnt make it good.
49 out of 66 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Why did they bother?
Alert: Spoilers
Why did Kenneth Branagh want to make a third version of this classic Agatha Christie story knowing remakes of classic films rarely are successful?
The previous ii versions the film in 1974 with Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot and the 2010 television receiver version with David Suchet are both superb.
If y'all oasis't seen either yous probably may enjoy this as I don't criticise the interim or product . It's an interesting cast I enjoyed Michelle Pfeiffer in the role of Caroline Hubbard and then classily played in the original past Lauren Bacall and Branagh gives a credible performance as Poirot.
What I missed was the elegance of the original the original score by Richard Rodney Bennett is one of my all fourth dimension favourite film scores ,used and then evocatively in the original movie it gave the Orient Express an identity motif forever etched in motion-picture show history.
The music score in this attempt is bland and the song at the end credits so saccharine sugariness and forgettable I've forgotten information technology already.
If you make a remake movie that'southward so well known you can't help comparing the original bandage and in 1974 we had Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall , Dame Wendy Huller , Richard Widmark, Sean Connery, John Gielgud , Rachel Roberts and Vanessa Redgrave to name a few , all the same not one of the new cast including Matriarch Judy Dench eclipses whatsoever of the performances of the original film . The costumes and sets are very good in this version but again in 1974 even without bluish screens and cgi effects the elegance and luxury of the original is not improved with this version. So to me the good performances and production of this movie were wasted on this expensive film and the tweaking of the story line was totally unnecessary and in ane example concerning the Caroline Hubbard part ridiculous.
Without giving annihilation away or spoiling it for audiences who haven't seen the original, apart from recommending the 1974 version to this one I was horrified at the hint at the end of the moving-picture show that Kenneth Branagh may remake "Expiry on the Nile"I sincerely hope not. What next will we a take Kenneth Branagh remake of Gone With The Current of air starting himself as Rhett Butler and Anne Hathaway every bit Scarlett??.
181 out of 276 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kenneth Branagh'due south massive ego trip
Awful film where Kenneth Branagh self indulges himself at every turn. He clearly believes he is a slap-up actor, just is in fact awful and unbelievable as Poirot. His directing is fifty-fifty worse and why all those much amend actors agreed to appear in this trash is the existent mystery.
xiii out of sixteen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
From The Vast Agatha Christie Collection
Warning: Spoilers
Why remake Murder On The Orient Limited when there are so many titles from Agatha Christie's bibliography that have never been made. Specially this 1, directed in 1974 by Sidney Lumet - a genius at having many great actors inside a bars infinite, remember 12 Angry Men - with a bandage that was to die for. The 2017 Kenneth Brannagh couldn't survive the comparing and it doesn't. I missed the elegance and the wit. Albert Finney got an Oscar nomination for his Hercules Poirot hither Kenneth Brannagh's mustache will get all the attention besides as Johnny Depp'south incomprehensible performance. And so, of course, the score. The original Richard Rodney Bennett became a classic. So, I ask you, was this necessary?
304 out of 426 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I Had A Bad Feeling About This
I had a bad feeling nigh this...
A thwarting of the century. So again, it is a remake so I knew.
The main problem of this film is Hollywood's structural reliance on previous films and works already covered, just the actors and actresses are also phoning it in.
For me It felt that I am rewatching something inferior, which I was, with little extras and improved special effects thirty years...
There is admittedly nothing new and interesting.
54 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
L-A-G-E
Deadening motion-picture show! Was a bit sceptical in the get-go with the remake thing but I saw it - and I definitely disliked information technology! Total of wearisome and drab and you are going to snooze with some of the characters. I had the thought of it beingness really predictable and information technology was no surprise, actually many anticipated scenes and that made it standard.
51 out of 63 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Poirot for the clinicaly dumb
Warning: Spoilers
Ever since I heard that Kenneth Brannagh was going to directly, produce and star in this movie that I dreaded this would happen, and it did - Brannagh is and then self centered that he made the whole film nigh himself, turning the residuum of the cast into mere decorations. He managed to turn this Christie's masterpiece into a self agrandising piece of crap. Let's just say that information technology makes the 2002 version with Alfred Molina look like a masterpiece in comparing - and that's saying a lot, because it was simply ane of the worst films I'd e'er seen. I don't know who the hell Brannagh is supposed to be playing, but information technology sure as hell isn't Poirot - not the one Agatha Christie wrote about. Anyone who has read her books about the egg shapped belgian sleuth - and I take, all of them, more than than once - knows that he'southward null similar the buffon Brannagh plays in the picture show: Poirot walking on superlative of the train!?? Going beneath the train!?? Poirot willingly plunging his shoe into a pile of excrements just so both his shoes become equally muddied, all in the name of simetry!?? For the honey of all that is holy! Poirot would take an apoplexy if only 1 of his shoes got accidently muddy with sh@t, tin can you imagine him doing it on purpose!? And what most that freaking mustache? It'due south and then damn big it becomes distracting. Poirot'south mustache is supposed to be big, yes, merely non gigantic! And what's with the fly in his chin? Poirot doesn't have one, what was Brannagh thinking? Oh yeah, I forgot, he wasn't. And don't let me get started on the annoyingly fake french accent he uses throughout all the freaking moving picture - he even mispronounces repeatedly the plural for egg (oeufs), and Poirot is supposed to exist a french speaking belgian! Also, on this film Poirot doesn't have conversations with people, as he does in the novel, he merely delivers endless monologues, conjuring facts out of sparse air (or out of his ass, is more likely), things he couldn't possibly accept known. He looks more like a witch than a detective. And he's everywhere, in every freaking scene. Ego much, Brannagh? Brannagh's direction is so pedestrian information technology hurts. All those freaking photographic camera angles - shooting the damn train from every possible position, shooting the activeness literaly from in a higher place, - were so ridiculous and pretensious, information technology's beyond words. It's the worst kind of in your face grandstanding directing yous could get. The screenplay is beyond bad - it completely butchers 1 of Christie'southward masterpieces past adding sexual practice and violence that wasn't there, dumbing downwards her good grapheme development and plot, and adding artificial diversity simply to please the hollywwod pc bullshit brigade. Don't become me wrong, I'm all in favor of variety, but in movies that take place in na era where diversity exists, like today or the time to come. Merely in a story that takes place in 1934, in the most luxurious railroad train in the world? Really? Tin can y'all really see a black doctor travelling in first class on the Orient Express in 1934? As much equally I detest it, the answer tin only be one to anyone familiar with the world'due south history: hell no! Nonetheless, that'southward what you take: an amalgamation of two characters into one black british doctor in love with a white heart class english girl, all for the sake of hit the audience over the head with not so subtle references to the terrible evils of racism. If only Hollywood would get it in their thick heads that audiences but desire to exist told a good story, not to exist preached at every fourth dimension they go to watch a movie... In decision, this is Poirot for the clinicaly dumb. You want to meet the existent Poirot, as he should exist played? Lookout the ITV series "Agatha Christie's Poirot" with David Suchet - he IS Poirot, period. Want to lookout man the best version of this story? Watch the 1974 version, directed by Sidney Lumet and larn how to correctly adapt Agatha Christie. But better yet, buy the freaking novel and read it - you all the same know what reading an actual book is similar, don't you? Either way, do yourself a favor and stay away from this piece of garbage (I'm giving information technology three stars for the sets and costumes, for Judi Dench and for Johnny Deep, that's it).
201 out of 281 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not Black, not White, just Greyness
I am a great fan of virtually of the movie adaptions of Agatha Christie'due south stories, e.chiliad. Murder on the Orient Express (1974), Decease on the Nile (1978) or Evil Under the Sun (1982) and all the other stories around Miss Marple, and I even read some of the books.
Starting time of all - Peter Ustinov and Albert Finney beat Kenneth Branagh in the role of Hercule Poirot. Kenneth Branagh is non doing a bad task, simply the other 2 merely play imo the role of the Belgian mastermind more convincing and with more charisma and with a finer, more than fragile humor. 2nd: fifty-fifty as the cast of the remake is filled with nowadays famous actors they cannot compete with actors like Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery or Anthony Perkins (only to proper noun a few of bandage from the 1974 adaption of Murder on the Orient Express).
As the story is known the only outstanding "merits" of this remake are the implements of the outcome of racism (for some historical reasons imo poorly implemented and presented). An piece of cake mode nowadays to go some applause and attention. As the story doesn't gives yous the chance to hide behind Fx and activeness-scenes the attending of the audience is focused mostly on the actors/acting. Well, they all do are decent job, but imo nothing outstanding.
Conclusion: Kenneth Branagh'south remake is no hurting in the a** but no "must-see". If I would have to choose for an evening motion-picture show to sentry between Sidney Lumet'south or Kenneth'due south pic, I would re-watch the classic from 1974.
Recommendable for fans of the involved actors like Depp, Ridley, Cruz, Dafoe etc. and Kenneth himself of course. To the younger audience who may not know the version from 1974 - give the old one a chance at your home movie theatre.
7 out of eight found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
How-do-you-do. We Are Out Of Ideas said Hollywood
Some other remake. Why didn't Agatha Christie write the same volume half-dozen times? Desperately written, mechanically acted and some of the worst cinematography I take seen all yr. A boring adaptation of an older novel that every generation is already familiar with
141 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Thoughtless Remake
Sidney Lumet directed this Agatha Christie classic back in 1974. Albert Finney played Poirot and he was succulent and got an Oscar nomination for it. The rest of the cast was a cohesive group of heavyweights from Ingrid Bergman to Vanessa Redgrave, from Sean Connery to John Gielgud it as well had a period reconstruction in scrumptious detail, wit, elegance and an infectious score. None of it is present in this new incarnation. None of it. No, the new version reeks of thoughtlessness and CGI. The actors seem to accept been invited, not to play characters, just to watch Kenneth Brannagh act.
244 out of 352 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fans of Poirot steer clear, for there is no Poirot hither
This movie was clearly made for a mod audience with no familiarity with Agatha Christie's work. Branagh's portrayal of the legendary Belgian detective Hercule Poirot bares simply a passing resemblance to the source material with an inconsistent accent, the wrong mustache, and merely some of his iconic quirks and mannerisms. That being said, it is a decent mystery that follows the plot of the story pretty well and it would probably exist enjoyable to people seeing the story for the commencement time and having no preconceived notions of what Poirot should exist.
A strong supporting bandage featuring Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, and many other familiar faces performs well. However, no one stands out in the way Ingrid Bergman did in the 1974 adaptation or Jessica Chastain in the 2010 version.
At that place were also several semi-action moments that were incredibly out of grapheme for Poirot, yet provided no actual excitement to justify the sudden stylistic change. The catastrophe hints at Expiry on the Nile being the next mystery for this detective masquerading as Poirot to tackle, but Poirot should non exist summoned to solve a murder, he just stumbles upon them whenever he goes on holiday.
sixty out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the worst films always fabricated by a reputable and talented manager/actor!
Then bad that information technology takes your breath away. Appallingly atrocious; it actually led me to revisit the David Suchet version made for British television, and upgrade my previously poor opinion of that strangely conceived version of Agatha Christie's best book. Of course, neither is a match for the extraordinary 1974 Sidney Lumet film, with its extraordinary cast and transcendent Richard Rodney Bennett score--despite the eccentric (only ultimately quite serviceable) performance of Alfred Finney equally Poirot. But the Suchet version is better than this monstrosity. The less said well-nigh Branagh the role player's crazy rendition of the detective the better...other than to wonder how Branagh the director let him get away with it (or those mustaches!). Poor KB has not been himself since the break with Emma Thompson. Near all of his excellent films were made before that divorce. Since then he has become progressively more cocky-indulgent and commercialized. If not his muse (or perhaps fifty-fifty a co-creator), she certainly seemed to supply some kind of governor, which is now sorely missed. Her career has moved on from forcefulness to strength; his seems to exist going downwards the crapper.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dull
Tried watching this movie on the plane and turned it off. So incredibly irksome. But thought perhaps it didn't transfer well as a flight movie so tried again at home. Shouldn't have bothered. He is no Poirot. Can't stand up Johnny Depp. And the other and so called big actors acted like they were in it for the money they were just i dimensional. What was with his credible magical skills in knowing??? The book is and so good. And Agatha Christie would have turned in her grave. I as well agree with another reviewer who points out that however wrong it was. There would accept been no black doctor and not i travelling commencement course in those days. Don't try and be politically correct when the story was set in a different era. (And aye. It was sooo wrong during that period merely portraying it differently doesn't change it). All in all. A shocker of a movie
17 out of 21 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Who Is This For?
Who finances these unneeded remakes??
How desperate is Hollywood for ideas and remakes?
I mean you won't similar information technology if you are not a fan of Agatha Chritie. You would not like it if you are a fan of her piece of work! Why remake when meliorate movie and series versions already exist? Even if those were not improve yet another remake is uncalled for!!
I am beginning to think cast and crew who work on these remakes are just cast out has-beens.
l out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Agatha Christie made wearisome!
How can they make Agatha Christie dull and drab and monochromatic??
Wow.
They should have spent more than time with shots of Palestine and Turkey to brand this film more interesting. It is so boring and dull.
May I advise throwing in the towel perpetual remakers?
134 out of 184 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Remake of a classic falls a bit flat
Warning: Spoilers
But don't mess with something unless you lot can do it better. Kenneth Branagh directs and stars equally Hercule Poirot in this rendition Agatha Christie's archetype. The cinematography is worth talking about. Watching the fabled Oriental Express race through snow-swept mountains before information technology derails. The claustrophobic luxury train of course becomes the site of a murder that Poirot is all but obligated to solve.
Big star names flood the bandage; Johnny Depp and Michelle Pfeiffer are the only two who earned their paycheck. As well featured are Willem Dafoe, Josh Gad, Tom Bateman,Daisy Ridley, Leslie Odom Jr., Olivia Colman and Judi Dench. Branagh is all thumbs trying to evidence masculinity in the lead character.
6 out of vii found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hollywood has reached pinnacle remake season
I am not sure why Hollywood keeps remaking and remaking (hullo Lion King) films. Well, I suppose it has to do with taking cash from elementary folks and a lack of ideas simply how about a minor nod to integrity and art, folks? Get some of the latter and stop making and remaking delight. Murder On The Orient Express is as needed in a new movie as nonetheless some other trashy tattoo on a footballer or another Miley Cyrus affair, er matrimony... Specifically the acting is bad.. the girl from Star Wars should merely throw in the towel and the managing director has forgone colors in favor of greyness all over. SIgh.
235 out of 334 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unnecessary remake.
I am loathe to put the boot in to any film but the avalanche of publicity for this, plastered all over the BBC news and conversation shows - Graham Norton and Andrew Marr interviewing the phalanx of "stars" in a suitable subservient manner - has pushed this reviewer over the edge. It is a film that didn't need a remake since the original was perfectly acted and nuanced. Perhaps that is half the problem - I know the "solution" and therefore the denouement is no surprise- merely at that place is something more securely flawed with this movie. Firstly - that moustache. Ridiculous and in the end it becomes something that y'all stare at and wonder just why something and then outrageously stupid would NOT get in the way of what words the actor is actually maxim. You stop listening and just try and see where information technology is stuck on. Branagh stomps effectually the diverse scenes like Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia (even downward to walking along the top of the snow-covered carriage as if he was king of the castle) and then addresses the suspects in a scene that is reminiscent of The Final Supper painting. Everywhere he goes everyone knows him. Absolutely everyone. The opening scenes in Jerusalem are unnecessary and only serve to raise Branagh/Poirot into God similar status where the population of the metropolis are happy to take his word and trample a suspect policeman to decease. No jury, no trial, lynch mob rules. All of which seems to bother the guardian of justice not ane jot.
Cutting to the train - at last. We hear that the train is total and that Poirot will have to share a motel for at least one night. Every bit we find that there are just 12 passengers on the whole train I wondered what happened to all the other empty berths on the other carriages. Let's merely pass over that one. We are now introduced to the various characters. I don't know how much these stars got paid for this motion-picture show but boy, apart from Michelle Pfeiffer, they don't have besides many words to say. The principal action is sitting around looking suspiciously at each other. Depp is more often than not unintelligible evidenced by his contempo functioning on the Graham Norton show where he plant information technology hard to string 2 words together. Information technology is just Branagh who has the dialogue - and he works information technology as hard every bit he can into some kind of Shakespearean dialogue. Judi Dench plays the part Wendy Hiller took in the 1974 film. I know Dench is supposed to be the public's "favourite" only Hiller's sneering haughtiness will remain one of the highlights of the earlier motion picture long later this one is forgotten.
In the novel and the 1974 film the train gets stuck in a migrate. Here information technology is struck past an avalanche and teeters on a wooden viaduct. Ain't CGI wonderful? The engine is derailed but never fear he comes a gang of ten workers who will dig abroad the snow and pull a 100 ton engine back on to the tracks - with their bare easily. Marvellous.
And the music score? Mayhap the well-nigh disappointing part of the whole picture show when i considers the classic Richard Rodney Bennett score for the 1974 film. Patrick Doyle'south offering is only insipid and uninspired. The closing credits roll with some vapid popular song barmy abroad in the background.
Well, if you've never seen the 1974 film and y'all don't know the ending you may enjoy this but perhaps you should locate that earlier film and wait for this to end upward on the £3 shelf at Tesco. It would announced, to guess by the final quip by Poirot in the motion picture that Branagh is planning to redo Death on the Nile. God assist u.s..
362 out of 591 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daze! Horror!!! Gasp!!!!!
Who knew?? Not every (whatever) motion-picture show needs to be remade and remade and remade. Don't make a film if you have no ideas. That is how it works! This film was terrible. Information technology was dull in script and visuals and also fabricated the boring and vapid morals seem even more than tired.
What I too suggest is that the eye for an eye opinion is immoral and incorrect. Ane crime does not deserve another. It is understood that Poirot brings the ready of criminals to justice, merely let'southward not presume that revenge is justified.
204 out of 291 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Visually stunning, fairly decent pic.
I must admit equally an Agatha Christie obsessed fan, my initial thoughts were of pure joy, it's been a while since Agatha Christie was on the big screen, appealing to new fans, and how magnificent that such a stellar cast was assembled. Then I thought, of all the titles, why get for such an obvious option, which has been done several times.
Firstly, the film is undeniably beautiful, the costumes, sets, filming etc, the motion-picture show will undoubtedly win an Oscar for the visuals. You can see large coin was put into the await of the picture show.
My major irritation throughout, was his moustache, just absurdly over the superlative, when Depp and Pfeiffer should take been dominating scenes, all I could await at was that moustache. That apart Branagh was excellent, I never thought he'd carry it off, but he did.
I am intrigued as to whether this is a one off film, or if there'll be the odd advent on the big screen. Only time volition tell.
All in all, it was proficient, I wanted and hoped to absolutely honey it, unfortunately I didn't, only no way is it equally bad as some say, too much quality for that.
7/ten (hoped for a perfect x!)
94 out of 173 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
pattersonsamostow.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3402236/reviews
0 Response to "Reviews of Murder on the Orient Express Movie"
Post a Comment