So.... this has me intrigued, can't get to the cinema in the near future, I am assuming I'd be ruining it by watching the Sidney Lumet version now and catching this one later?
Well they both have the same killer reveal so if you don't already know 'whodunit' then one version will be a spoiler for the others. Having just seen it, I'd say Sir Ken's version is the superior in so far as his take on Poirot isn't nearly as gratingly annoying as Albert Finney's was.
Kenneth Branagh always brings a little too much 'kenneth branagh' to his roles I find. Watch Albert Finney in this and then right after go watch 'wolfen', which is kind of a shitty movie but well worth watching if for nothing more than the views of New York in that time period...and Albert Finney. The beginning of Branagh's film seems a little too 'committee demanded', and not really essential. In the Lumet version its also much more of a 'team' effort, whereas Hollywood increasingly prefers the 'singular genius' who stands out because of their brilliance. Finney's Poirot is really that ingratiating detective that you really loathe when he talks, like Columbo. My problem was just understanding him when he really gets on a role. It may be good actiing and realistic and all that shit but if you can't understand what he's saying the film reallly loses it. The biggest drawback to both films is that perennial difficulty which in today's society is 'casting stars'. You simply can't get into Michele Pfeiffer or Johnny Depp as anything other than Michelle Pfeiffer and Johnny Depp. And trying to picture Sean Connery as anything other than Sean Connery means the same. So then it becomes an analsis of a 'movie', rather than a 'film', which I guess is fine for the reasons that most of the people involved are making a 'movie' and not a film. In todays online society I don't think you can even DO 'film' any other way than Antonioni did, with people who aren't even actors. Or at least using stage actors that almost nobody has seen before. OH shit, I just realized this is from three years ago. Damn, I thought this movie just came out, no wonder it was so easy to find.
so go watch the 30 years worth of performances he did....other people can and should play famous characters so as to keep them fresh....David played him for a billion years time for someone else to have a turn ;)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Got to love Kenneth Branagh, such an eloquent and endearing man.
Kenneth Branagh: always a pleasure to listen to!
I loved this movie😊 Kenneth Branagh did a beauitful job!!
Yes that is a very recognisable moustache
He should have been Obi Wan. I'm Scottish. I love Trainspotting. But Sir Ken really should have or should be Kenobi
So.... this has me intrigued, can't get to the cinema in the near future, I am assuming I'd be ruining it by watching the Sidney Lumet version now and catching this one later?
Well they both have the same killer reveal so if you don't already know 'whodunit' then one version will be a spoiler for the others. Having just seen it, I'd say Sir Ken's version is the superior in so far as his take on Poirot isn't nearly as gratingly annoying as Albert Finney's was.
that's HOW mark twain SPOKE so if u find it annoying fine but they were portraying him accurately
Kenneth Branagh always brings a little too much 'kenneth branagh' to his roles I find. Watch Albert Finney in this and then right after go watch 'wolfen', which is kind of a shitty movie but well worth watching if for nothing more than the views of New York in that time period...and Albert Finney. The beginning of Branagh's film seems a little too 'committee demanded', and not really essential. In the Lumet version its also much more of a 'team' effort, whereas Hollywood increasingly prefers the 'singular genius' who stands out because of their brilliance. Finney's Poirot is really that ingratiating detective that you really loathe when he talks, like Columbo. My problem was just understanding him when he really gets on a role. It may be good actiing and realistic and all that shit but if you can't understand what he's saying the film reallly loses it.
The biggest drawback to both films is that perennial difficulty which in today's society is 'casting stars'. You simply can't get into Michele Pfeiffer or Johnny Depp as anything other than Michelle Pfeiffer and Johnny Depp. And trying to picture Sean Connery as anything other than Sean Connery means the same. So then it becomes an analsis of a 'movie', rather than a 'film', which I guess is fine for the reasons that most of the people involved are making a 'movie' and not a film. In todays online society I don't think you can even DO 'film' any other way than Antonioni did, with people who aren't even actors. Or at least using stage actors that almost nobody has seen before. OH shit, I just realized this is from three years ago. Damn, I thought this movie just came out, no wonder it was so easy to find.
Flashbacks to Wild Wild West with that picture!
LOL, three words never meant to be remembered ever again!
Nah, David Suchet IS Poirot!
so go watch the 30 years worth of performances he did....other people can and should play famous characters so as to keep them fresh....David played him for a billion years time for someone else to have a turn ;)