Murder on the Orient Express ~ Lost in Adaptation
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 дек 2024
- An investigation into what Kenneth Brannah did to Agatha Cristie's most famous novel.
More Dom:
Patreon: / domsmith
Website: www.dominic-no...
Second channel: / @domnobletoo8238
Twitter: / dominic__noble
Instagram: / dominic__noble
Merch: www.teespring....
For information about sponsoring a video, convention appearances and similar business inquiries please contact my representation at dominicnoble@viralnationtalent.com
Editor: sophiakricci.com
Original music by Il Neige: / djilneige
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Quick note: SAG is fine with indie studios who HAVE agreed to their terms, such as A24, and actively encourages people to work with them to show you CAN make successful films AND pay your crew. So any adaptations done by approved indie studios would be in the clear!
Ooh this is good to know!!
So Roadside Picnic/ Stalker adaptation would be OK
Nice, get to support the rackaracka boys then
Yes!! Seeing and learning about indie studios would be amazing! I’m in Turkey so we don’t hear much from indie studios
I read in an article that Mark Ruffalo is urging actors to support and work with indie sttudios. He believes that they are the key to changing the working conditions of the film industry. I already loved him, but he just made me love him more
I always felt bad for Poirot. Sure most of the murders are him being called in to solve them after the fact, but quite a lot of them are Poirot is just trying to take a nice vacation and have some time to himself and then someone has to go and get murdered and ruin the whole thing.
I'm with u, man. Poirot always looks so tired and fed up by the murders around him, especially when he's on holiday. Poor guy just can't take anymore human evil
Poirot: * just trying to relax and have a nice time somewhere after a case *
Some impolite folks: * murder someone *
Poirot: "Ha crotte, nous y revoilà!"
If I was on holiday and Poirot turned up, I’d get the hell out of there; wherever the guy turns up there’s a murder.
@@shaitarn1869 At least you have a better chance of surviving a chance encounter with Poirot, then Shinichi Kudo/ Edogawa Conan. Poirot only get the ocassional murder some time appart, Conan brings death like a Grimm Ripper in 7 year old's body.
@@Azmodeus87Everyone brings Conan up and sometimes Jessica Fletcher. Bringers of death, those two.
I think my favourite fact about Christie is that she wrote Miss Marple's character as an older woman because she found that there weren't enough retired lady detectives ^^
Didn't she use her own grandmother for inspiration when it came Miss Marple?
That's very interesting because it reminds me of my favorite version of Marple - Angela Lansbury as Jessica Fletcher in Murder She Wrote. Lansbury, who was already no spring chicken at the beginning of filming, arranged for many of her elderly actor friends to appear in the show because they found it hard to get acting jobs.
I just love how somewhat mischievous she is, like that feisty old lady u meet one day and she sticks in ur head how funny and lively she was.
@@mikagrossmann5370 murder she wrote is a major part of my childhood. I would watch it with my grandma when I was a kid.
It always surprises me that she didn't write more Miss Marple novels than Poirot novels.
fun fact: the train in the movie stops in Slavonia, which is portrayed as a place with huge mountains - in real life it is literally one of the BIGGEST PLAINs in this part of Europe.
More correctly in Croatia, what Slavonia is part of.
The explanation that I have is that Agatha probably confused Slovenia with Slavonia?
@@ExtremeMadnessXI dont think so because in the movie their train stops are at Vinkovci and Slavonski Brod which are both towns that are located in Slavonia.
😂
Fun fact about the David Suchet Poirot series: One of the main reasons the show ended was because they RAN OUT OF MATERIAL TO ADAPT
I'm still waiting on a Parker Pyne adaptation. There are so many detectives, both Christie and not, that could be adapted. Why must everyone just rehash what's already been done well?
@@PandoraBear357 100% agree.
FYI:Parker Pyne was adapted in
"The Agatha Christie Hour" series (one episode).
Very well done. I hoping for the Mr. Quinn Series.
I am actually surprised there was so much material that they could make 13 seasons out of. And I think I'm right in assuming that each episode was like 90 minutes and adapted one book and story? And for 70 episodes like this? I'm impressed how much stuff about Poirot exists honestly and so few movies about him.
@@MamadNobariMost of the episodes based on the short stories were 50 minutes, and over half of the episodes were adapted from the short stories, but it’s still very impressive
Vs hundreds of Holmes "adaptations" just making their own sh-t up
A little fun fact about the final Poirot novel, where the character died. Though it was published in the 70's, Agatha Christie actually wrote the original version of the book during WW2, as sort of a safety measure for the character. Should she have died as a result of the war, the book would have been published posthumously, taking her character with her. Over the years, she basically tweaked it off and on to keep it as a backup.
Yep. And she also wrote a Miss Marple story - Sleeping Murder - for the same reason
Dear lord this Lady is clever! That is a great idea.
Smart!
@@emilyrln
Curtain isn't one of her best, but it's pretty good.
@@ProfessorChaosKittyHowever, Miss Marple does not die in Sleeping Murder, nor do we ever read about her death. In fact, Miss Marple goes on to do more sleuthing.
Fun fact: Agatha Christie also has a self-insert character in the Poirot series!
Her name is Ariadne Oliver, played by Zoe Wanamaker in the popular TV run of Poirot from the 2000's, and she's a mystery authoress who's main character is a Finnish detective named Sven Hjerson.
In stories that Ariadne appears, she can often be found complaining about the life of authors and her growing irritation with her foreign character.
The best example is probably in Mrs. McGinty's Dead where she continuously argues with a playwright about Sven. They argue about his age (the playwright wants to make him young while Ariadne points out that he has gotten older as the stories progressed and that the fans would notice the age change), his diet (Ariadne made him a vegetarian for some reason and the playwright wants to change that), and other stuff I cannot recall off the top of my head.
She complains about fans and interviewers asking her about her writing process, as she just sits down and writes whatever is in her head. She's also shown dislike over having to go to conventions and other social gatherings to promote herself and her work and otherwise socialize with complete strangers who act like they know her through her work.
And there are a bunch of other scenes where it's pretty clear that Agatha Christie is just venting through this character. It's amazing.
Ariadne Oliver is by far one of my favorite characters Agatha Christie has ever written. She's so funny and plays off Poirot really well. She is a chaotic gift and I love her.
She also complains to Poirot that she hates the main character of her own mystery novels…the irony!!
THAT WAS SELF INSERT!?
@@LaineMann Yes, it's a well known fact that Christie used Ariadne as a way to vent and air her grievances towards her own character and his popularity. And the thing about the play is also based on a true experience she had when producing her first play.
While Ariadne is clearly not a one-for-one replica of Christie, the two do share a number of similarities (such as neither of them consuming alcohol).
And also, her amazing wallpapers!
She was obsessed with home renovations (I think I read somewhere that was one of the favorite hobbies of Christie's parents) and if I remember this correctly, every time Poirot visited Ariadne Oliver's house, a new ugly and fabulously gauche wallpaper was covering all her office walls.
He was rendered speechless by one with a cascade of a billion apples in some weird vibrant color that just managed to not be red, MATCHING her outfit and a bowl of real apples only for her to complain that it was way too subtle and that she was tempted to thorn it off the walls for something a bit more exotic, prompting Poirot to intervene with declarations of love towards the current set. Lol
@@edisonlima4647 I believe she also had a time where she had a bunch of tropical birds on her walls.
So about the ballet ninja count - the actor playing him was the prodigy of the Royal Ballet for some years before he quit over “not being allowed enough creative freedom”. He appeared in The Phantom of the Opera 25th Anniversary gala where his role was significantly expanded on - you definitely get the impression from the dvd extras that the creative team are trying to politely talk around the fact he is difficult to work with. He’s got a pretty bad reputation at this point. He’s made a lot of sexist and homophobic comments - his most recent controversy being his support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
So it seems almost like they made the Count a ballet dancer with aggression issues… because the actor is a ballet dancer with aggression issues???
I guess the production team didn't wanna chance receiving a roundhouse to the face during filming
Who was he in the Phantom 25th production? (I think that was the Albert Hall one, that they put out the dvd of, yeah?)
@@FranNyanhe's the lead male dancer. He's the one leading the chorus at the end of the Hannibal opening
There was a period where they tried to make fetch happen with Sergei Polunin. After Take Me to Church and his documentary, there was a lot of good will towards him, until he turned out to be a Putin-loving homophobe. Shame though, he wasn't half bad in The White Crow.
Also I have a brother who does ballet and most of those moves are things you can taught in ballet, the trick for fighting is to speed up the movements
Yes, if you read a lot of Poirot stories, you realize some are consecutive. Poirot goes on holiday to Egypt and on the journey is The Mystery of the Blue Train (maybe), Murder in Mesopotamia, Death on the Nile, Appointment With Death, Problem at Sea (ss) and then Murder on the Orient Express when Poirot goes back to England. There might be more, I didn't read the books in any order and only realised this later.
Also, fun fact: Poirot's eyes are green, but it's only mentioned in two books, briefly.
Ugh, a busman's holiday.
I also found it interesting that in the very beginning of orient express, Poirot is described as a "dark" gentleman, suggesting his hair and mustache at least should be dark in colour, yet in this movie he's rather light in colour
I remember a retired police detective saying Poirot would be a prime suspect because wherever he goes, murder happens :D.
@@shaitarn1869
The "serial - killer Angela Lansbury" problem.
Dude just cannot catch a break.
My mom, a massive Agatha Christie fan who frequently cites her as the reason she loves mysteries so much, said the mustache alone was enough to make her not watch this movie because 'it looks like a hairy worm or ferret'. She loves the TV show, and says that is the definitive adaptation of Poirot.
my mum was exactly the same! We watched the Suchet Orient Express together and she wept through the end. Such an experience. I don't think she had a big opinion on Kenneth Brannagh before this but oh did she -loathe- him after his Poirot films.
@@svipulvalke9913I love Sir Kenneth, but his interpretation of Poirot is just wrong. Suchet is Poirot.
I don't mind Brannaugh's Poirot...but I always picture David Suchet's Poirot when I read the books.
@@Faretheewell608 Yes, Suchet all the way!
The mustache is the reason I do not watch the film
We don't mind if you don't talk about adaptations for a while. We all love it when you recommend books and talk about things your passionate about
yeah some of my fave videos is when he talks about books/book series he loves
i kinda wish he did those more often
@@mrroboshadowI had an embarrassingly small book collection before I discovered Dominic Noble (back when he was still The Dom) and now I could start my own library 🤣
Maybe a book club series where viewers request books for Dom to review?
Me too!
Hear hear! Solidarity with the workers.
Part of the reason Poirot was okay with letting the Orient Express killers get away with it was that they acted in concert. It's literally compared to a jury. And book Poirot, who is very Catholic, states his core objection to murder as a kind of blasphemy: one person usurping the power of deciding life and death from god. It's the solo assumption of an unjustified moral authority that offends him.
Sherlock Holmes occasionally decided that the murderer was justified and allowed him to escape.
There's also a principle in Poirot's morality that murder begets murder. Since these murders are extremely unlikely to all agree to murder again, they can be safely excused. Other murders whose victims arguably deserve death have to themselves die before the end of the book so they cannot be tempted to kill again (including SPOILERS
Poirot himself)
@@alanpennie8013
Holmes generally has a much more utilitarian take on justice than Poirot's though. Or at least he flips the god thing the other way, believing that the human justice system is flawed and that justified killing is between the killer and god.
Totally agree. I mentioned it somewhere else in a reply to a different comment, but this is actually the first time I see someone other than me notice this part about the ending. It probably helped, that Cassetti only escaped his lawful execution in the states by paying off the right people and fleeing pretty much immediately. And considering how often Poirot mentions not only his general disapproval of murder, but how it affects the character of the killer to take the law into their own hands, the ending is actually pretty significant as the only case (at least that I remember) where Poirot ever lets murderers escape.
Hi, not a SAG guy here, but I am a WGA member; what we're hearing is that it actually helps the strikes to go to the movies and to promote films, since it illustrates the value of the labor that we do. If nobody's watching movies, it makes it easier for studios to lowball the unions by claiming demand isn't strong enough.
This is what I understand as well
That is the problem that the writers are facing is value. They do not have much Value to use as leverage in negotiations with the work they have produced with in the last 15 years or so. Multiple film and television franchises have been decimated because of bad writers who cared more for their personal views to be promoted than being true to the established parameters of the franchise they are working in.
@@insanehippiehippieinsane3828:
Speaking of movie theaters, here's some projection.
@@Tamlinearthly The only thing I am projecting is a light on the poor quality of writing being done. When you are more concerned with a quota of who is in the writers room instead of the qualifications based on merit you are weakening your position for better pay because you will be producing an inferior product and that is already showing. Hiring someone to write based more on their skin color, gender or anything other than merit is just foolish and trying to get that using the writers strike is just as foolish.
@@insanehippiehippieinsane3828: We get it, you're a victim, give it a rest.
I think my favourite thing about Agatha Christie is that she created Ariande Oliver, who comes off as a parody of herself, and who writes about a Finnish detective called Sven... and gets annoyed with him being so unlikable. That's pretty meta stuff for back then.
Also, IIRC, Christie frequently wrote Poirot out of stage adaptations of his stories completely, so... arguably the least faithful adaptations of her work are her own.
I love Christie for doing that! Showed she not only had a sense of humour, but self-irony as well.
But why did she think of Poirot as unlikable? In the stories and novels I've read, he can be fussy and prone to ego, but he's also very kind and compassionate, especially towards hard-luck cases. He even gives a thief a second chance in Death on the Nile because a young passenger he's grown fond of is in love with said thief and he wants to give them a chance at a life together.
@@jenniferschillig3768 - tbh I think the Ariadne Oliver/Sven thing was kind of exaggerating who she felt about it. But still, from what little writing I've done, I can imagine that characters can become annoying to authors because you just spend so much time with them.
Still, she does punish him for his arrogance now and then, which is nice - like when he tries to prove he'd be some kind of master criminal if he felt like it, and gets caught immediately because he pisses someone off.
Wonder what you would think of David Suchet's rendition of this story. I, for one, consider Suchet to be THE quintessential Poirot. The TV series is endlessly watchable. He brings enough bombast and self-satisfaction to be the character from the book, but enough charm so that you're never really angry about it. If you haven't seen the series, seek it out, WELL worth watching.
I loved the Suchet series. Used to watch them all the time when I watched TV.
I read Suchet's Poirot as autistic for many reasons, so it's interesting that Dom reads Branagh's Poirot as OCD.
@@lucyj8204 In fact, I remember that in one of Suchet's films he was irritated that he couldn't quite crack the case and while at breakfast he complained about it and in a state of distress said something like: 'I can't even eat these eggs! They are completely different in size!" But of course, he came to the right solution a few moments later based on some off the cuff remark Hastings had made.
Now I don't know whether that scene was in the Christie's book or it was made up for the film, but that was probably the Branagh's inspiration for the egg thing.
While the Suchet version deviates from the book -- mostly at the end -- it's actually *better* than the book ending (and mind, MotOE is one of my favorite Christie novels). Book Poirot pretty much lets everyone off the hook with little more than a shrug. Considering how many other times Book Poirot is shown to despise murderers and how deep his religious convictions against it run, the book ending is too casual and "off". It's clear in the book that Christie sides with the travellers/murderers (with the book being somewhat based on the real-life tragedy of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping), but it's not what Poirot would've done, given how he's portrayed in the rest of the stories.
Suchet's version, though -- it's not so easily dealt with. Poirot is deeply conflicted: the victim having brutally kidnapped a killed a child, and had escaped justice with a not-guilty verdict through bribery and court corruption. Poirot slams straight into the conflict between justice, law, and reality, and nobody wins. He finally lets the murderers go, but every line of Suchet's Poirot shows his deep internal conflict over that decison. It's a must-watch scene.
@@zenfrodo I definitely had goosebumps with his speech about when justice falls you must pick it up and hold it even higher. Suchet certainly earned his knighthood for services to drama and charity.
Fun fact Dom: The kidnapping of Armstrong's daughter in the book was inspired by the real-life kidnapping and death of Charles Lindbergh Jr. in 1932. In fact, the filmmakers made that inspiration more noticeable by changing the location of the kidnapping from Long Island, NY to New Jersey, where the Lindbergh kidnapping took place.
They even used the NJ State Police logs on the officers in the film.
@@ThumperE23 wow, I completely missed that part! Thanks for pointing it out! 🙂
@@AMERICANNERD76 yes, got to know it well when Operation Desert Storm happened as Norman Schwarzkopf's father oversaw the Lindbergh kidnapping.
I have never been much of an Agatha Christie fan (although I've been casually watching various adaptation tv series as a kid), but I'm very much aware of a Lindbergh kidnapping case, so when it slowly dawned on me while watching MontOE in the cinema that this is clearly it I was like "WHOA!". To be honest, it actually dissapointed me because it made a complicated real life case into a grotesque melodrama and the movie basically lost me right there.
p.s. I find it especially, for lack of a better word, jarring how the real-life Lindberghs conduct compares with the one presented in the movie (will not speak for the book) - it's almost like it is suggested THIS was how parents of a kidnapped child should be feeling and behaving, while, obvioulsy, that was not how it was win the real life case. But that's just my subjective opinion)
@@ThumperE23 yep! Norman Schwarzkopf Sr.
What's absolutely hilarious is that this almost mirrors what happens in one of the Poirot novels to Agatha Christie's alter ego character, the detective novel author Ariadne Oliver. Someone wants to make a movie about that character's detective hero and make him younger, more attractive, and more romantic.
"Mrs.McGinty's Dead" is the novel. For me David Sachet is the best Poirot.
Ariadne complained about it in the novels because that was what was going on with Poirot even back then. Adaptations always made him thinner, more active, younger, less OCD, or some other change to turn him into the typical protagonist of the time, and it very much annoyed Agatha Christie. She hated every adapted version of him because they got him so wrong. I sometimes wonder if she would have enjoyed Suchet's version.
@@SharmClucas Matthew Pritchard thought that his grandmother would have loved Suchet's take on Poirot.
Ariadne also mentions in several books that she should never have made her detective a Finn because people were always writing to tell her things she got wrong about Finland and Finns. Agatha obviously writing from personal experience about her Belgian detective and having some fun with it!
I would not be surprised, if that wasn't already a real life inspired book trope... Probably a theater play if it's early Poirot and Christie writing about it, but seeing a totally unfitting actor cast to play the irate belgian would probably have annoyed her.
The egg thing actually appears in a couple different Poirot stories. It’s also in the Suchet adaptations of them. But the excrement is definitely taking things too far!
I think the OCD thing is a fair reading. Poirot is constantly fixing askew pictures, extolling the virtues of symmetry, insists on matching things like his breakfast eggs being the same size, colour and shape, adjusting items on shelves, and fixing other people’s clothes. He mentions how it causes him distress and how he can’t concentrate or continue speaking until he fixes something, Without going into spoilers, Curtain, his final case, has an important detail that hinges on these compunctions. It actually almost jeopardizes his entire scheme because he couldn’t help but make something symmetrical.
This is also often played for laughs on the books and the Suchet adaptations, and is an endearing part of the character people love. It’s also mentioned as a tragedy in books, Suchet, and Branagh versions, because it prevents him from,ending a normal life.
So because the compunction is debilitating, OCD is a fair reading. It’s not at Adrian Monk levels, but Monk is almost certainly inspired by Poirot.
Yeah Poirot's need for symmetry has always been there in the books, too, and its how he notices clues sometimes.
i recall in, I think its "the affair at styles" he finds a clue by straightening some knickknacks on a fireplace mantel then remembering "wait; I straightened these already yesterday, someone's been in this room again, and specifically touched these objects!"
I remember how in one of the books, Poirot went on about how wonderful New York was set up, with all the neatly arrayed streets with logical numbers, unlike London with its twisting avenues. Also he always had to have his toast cut into nine symmetrical pieces.
Yeah, the egg thing may not be to the point where he truly will not eat two slightly different sized eggs, but it definitly is to the point where he will complain about hens not laying same sized eggs. (He'd like the eggs in shops nowadays, they seem a lot more uniform than in the early 20h century).
.
The excrement thing? Poirot would CLEAN the offending shoe as fast as possible, not add more icikiness. He likes things clean and neat.
Also there is the way he died, and his letter to Hastings about it.
I agree, the books are full of Poirot moving objects infinitesimal distances so that they are perfectly aligned or equidistant from something. Also at the end of ‘Curtain’ doesn’t Hastings realise that he should have know that Poirot was the killer because Norton was shot in the exact centre of his forehead? So I think that Poirot definitely hade some OCD like traits.
My personal grievance with the movie is that it's not a murder mystery the audience can follow along and solve. For example when Poirot reveals that a hankerchief with the initial H belongs to Natalia (Наталья in cyrillic) we have never heard that character's first name before, she has always been Princess Dragorimoff. Also the passenger interviews feel like they were cut for time and not for clarity as multiple times the conversations start with “And after that?” or “No I didn’t say I was a chauffeur” without any indication what prompted the responses. I've read the original script and these were not problems in that so I feel like someone, were it Branagh or some higher ups, really didn't like the slower pace of the story and forced it to be shorter.
I've always been quite confused by Branagh's decisions to adapt Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. Christie was such a prolific writer, and there are plenty of her stories that either haven't been adapted, or not been adapted particularly well. Both of those books have fantastic adaptations from the 70s. I highly recommend watching them if you haven't already.
He adapts what the studios will greenlight. These aren't self-funded indie projects.
Orient and Nile are the most celebrated and popular Poirot stories. As such the studio saw them as safer bets. Branagh's next movie is based the more osbcure Hallo'een Party though I don't expect it to be more faithfull than his previous films. More so than less people will care about him putting his stamp on a lesser know plot.
I’m just kind of grateful he didn’t touch the murder of Roger Ackroyd, because if you don’t handle that carefully, it all falls apart
@@martianmanhunter37 The newest one didn't even come close to the plot of Halloween Party.
Didn't Suchet's version adapt literally every story? I know they changed the short stories a lot more or combined them to get stories of neccesary lenght but I feel like there is a decent to good adaption of basically every story out there due to it.
The irory of the casting is that Poirot is an absolute peacock (and proud of it), but physically, he's ridiculous almost on purpose to make himself appear like an adorable, harmless old man who's surely past his prime, and characters often dismiss him and end up falling for his persona and they all become chatty Cathys to him, thus always revealing more than they may have wanted to because he's just that good at making suspects and criminals alike feel at ease.
Branagh looks so outrageous it's impossible to take him seriously. He can't help being younger and handsome, but that darn mustache was well within his purview, much like the bizarre decision to add action (or runtime?) to the plot. Poirot only walks around in the books to chat, like he's an Aaron Sorkin character, but truly, he prefers to lay about and just hang.
My opinion on the book though - it's pretty short to adapt into a full length story, actually, and the characters really are their stereotype rather than a real character. Also, and maybe this will sound weird, but this book really lacks in romance (which is a big deal in a lot of her Poirot books), and I like the way Christie wrote romance and just character relationships. On the topic of her being a badass woman herself, many of her books have a female protagonists that, in her own way, doesn't conform to the norms of society, and becomes Poirot's little investigation buddy (with varied involvement).
Can't wait for your video on Death on the Nile though, oh boy.
I love her female protagonists!
She does that a lot: stick up for the minority, or the underdog. At least as much as an upper class person born at the beginning of the 1900's can do that!
Handsome, sure, but Brannagh is 63. He is a full 20 years older than Suchet was when he started playing Poirot. 14 years older, when he first played Poirot himself.
Movie stars used to age a LOT faster than they do today. Science and money are a wonderful thing.
@mademedothis424 I stand corrected on younger. Damn, looking good Branagh lol
I maintain all else (though given how long the series went on for, it was a good thing Suchet wasn't 60 when he started, then he would have been way too old by the time he finished).
OMG yes! Those moustache just scream makeup! Unlike those of David Suchet or Albert Finney's (oh hi Oriental Express motion picxture that does work!)
Great vid
Dom I think you may have misunderstood what the guilds were saying, they were saying they don’t want people promoting struck work, so anything made DURING these strikes. Anything made before May 2023 is perfectly within boundaries
Maybe, but sometimes the Belt and Braces method of being extra careful not to cross a line can be helpful, especially if you're someone who gets anxious about the stuff you make.
Also only applies to people being paid by studios, not independent creators paid by patreon
@@eugenideddis It's a slippery slope. The biggest concern is that the guilds take pick-crossing very very seriously. That means that they'll ban *anyone* who crosses from joining forever--even if it was unknowingly or accidentally. I do not blame any smaller creators for going "not chancing it" if they can afford to, because the consequences of getting it wrong are pretty dire.
For good reason, too. Otherwise it'd be very easy to just say "oh dear, I didn't know!" and still reap the benefits of a union that one had helped to undermine.
@@mallk238 There's a difference between "not chancing it" and "spreading misinformation". The biggest "slippery slope" right now is people getting harassed over stuff the guild didn't say
Excellent point though if he wanted to continue his current action in solidarity would be admirable.
Yay!! Return of the skit segment in which Dom acts alongside himself shockingly effectively
Yes! Dom acting against Dom is always my favorite Dom bit!
I agree with you both! These sketches are the cherry on top ❤
As a female author and feminist, Agatha Christie and Jane Austen are my heroes. Glad they still get so much recognition.
Also, THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT THE MUSTACHE! GOD, THAT BUGS ME EVERY TIME I SEE IT! What were they THINKING with that?!
Cam down woman! I'm sure whatever they were thinking about the moustache was simply : ,,HIS MOUSTACHE MUST OUTMOUSTACHES ALL THE MOUSTACHES IN THE WORRLD"
@@danielcantiego9374 🤣🤣🤣
Russian mustache not French
He is supposed to look like a "funny little man" right, unless I completely missed something. That mustache makes him look like a "funny little man". Admittedly I like mustaches probably more than a normal person, but I really don't get why everyone seems to hate it so much.
@@ZiCUnlivedbirch Because it's uncomfortable to look at. It's hard to describe, but the fact that it has two points with one of the points coming out from the other part just makes it distracting and uncomfortable.
Poirot shaving his mustache in Death on the Nile is the most unforgivable aspect of Branaugh's Poirot adaptations.
Just remembered that The Big Four adaptation never featured an alter ego of Poirot without his iconic moustache...what a waste of ideas
He grew it back for the new movie.
As to the eggs:
“I detailed some of Poirot’s minor peculiarities - toast that had to be made from a square loaf - eggs matching in size” Arthur Hastings in Peril at End House. This is also depicted in the extremely accurate ITV series
”For my breakfast, I have only toast which is cut into neat little squares. The eggs - there must be two - they must be identical in size.” - Agatha Christie writing as Poirot in a letter to her US Publisher
To be fair, he has eaten two not exactly same sized eggs... but he did gripe sbout the fact that hens do not lay same sized eggs and that the shops at least should sort them.
I was thinking the same! But there’s absolutely no way he would have purposefully stepped in manure
I always read that as a quaint old world aristocrat fancy rather than something that made Poirot specifically "weird". Peculiar, yes, but not that unusual, as most such high society gentlemen would be capricious in one way or another.
That's more Damme Agatha Christie humor than an obsession, though.
Just like when she wrote in... I think it was in "They Came to Bagdad", a scene in which an English aristocrat complained that the Italians were stupid because she asked for her water "calda" which sounds like cold but is actually scalding hot and that such a similar sound is inconvenient to English tourists, so "the Italian government should 'sort' their so called language".
Christie, who grew surrounded by way richer, way fancier people than herself, loved to poke fun of self important silly demands.
@@misfithog5855Actually in Peril At End House he refused to eat his eggs at breakfast because they were totally different sizes 🥚🥚
Something that made David Suchets version better for me is the way he made the acccent for Poirot by listening to french and flemish. There is a video of it on youtube and it's absolutely perfect. Also something that differs from the book if I am not mistaken is that Poirot absolutely struggled with letting them go. But if you look at the film as a seperate entity it is quite enjoyable.
About 10 years ago David Suchet did a travel show (one episode) about the modern Orient Express (right before his version of Murder on the Orient Express aired in the US) and it was so weird hearing his own British accent, because I'd only ever seen him as Poirot. Also, one can find a lot of those Poirot shows around on these here Tubes, if anyone wants to watch.
I love the fact that Poirot is Belgian and so is David Suchet
@@gloriamontgomery6900 the Belgian adoption of David Suchet 😉😛
David Suchet portrayal is amazing!!.. I liked his version adding in the moral quandary about the morality of breaking the law.
Suchet practically became Poirot. The amount of dedication and effort he puored into his character was beyond impressive, down to the smallest detail and a convincing accent.
@@jwisemanm I grew up with the Suchet's version and loved it. Especially loved his accent. I don't remember this one, but when I rediscovered it a few years ago I only watched a few episodes. I especially concentrated on a 2 part-er that I actually remembered. I don't remember the title, but it was one where the murdered woman's dog gave Poirot the important clue. He had a trick where he raced his favorite ball down a flight of stairs and caught it at the bottom. But he always returned it to his basket. At one point the owner seems to step on the ball left on the stairs and falls down. Later she is actually murdered. Funny plot point: Poirot temporarily inherits the dog and has to take it on walks. Poor man cannot keep up. I think it's Hastings who has to help him with it.
@@margaretschaufele6502, It was called Dumb Witness. I really enjoyed that one. Fun fact: the wife of one of the suspects was played by Julia St John, who's best known for playing Laura Lancing on The Brittas Empire! LOVE that show :)
Suchet's portrayal of Poirot got him knighted, if anyone is interested. My late grandmother was a big fan of British murder mysteries, and we watched imported reruns of Suchet's Poirot every Sunday on our PBS station when I was young.
@@Craxin01it interests me, thank you!
Branagh's Death on the Nile was so disappointing that it made me go watch the Suchet series. And it was an enormous improvement. Death on the Nile is one of my favorites, maybe my favorite Poirot. Branagh broke it.
The strength of Christie's works, to me, lies in the cleanness of the writing. She knows how to trim the fat. This movie added so much fat!
she also knows how to have all the pieces of the puzzle in mind so it all makes sense in the end, he had no clue what he was doing with the clues or worse in nile where he mix and matched the characters and their background and all and all the nuance of her writing was lost
@@SingingSealRianaas somebody who is a newbie when it comes to Agatha’s written works, thank you so much for putting this into words! It’s hard for me to articulate why the movies, while obviously having a big budget and path, feel like they lack something in order to be satisfying watches. When it comes to mysteries like this I feel it takes a certain charm to pull them off and an awareness that feel it’s lost in order to try to come off as a very serious movie.
As a lover of the Suchet series, getting people to go watch it instead might be the biggest win of Branagh's films.
@@crizmeow8394 glad you got something from it ^^
you need to be clever to, you need the right clues, the right presentation... The whole pull zu mysteries is trying to figure it out and have everything fall into place at the end and he tried to make an action film out of it where details are not that revelant, where its more importent to look good and well, it did look good, but the story did not work anymore
Death on The Nile lost me when it showed an establishing shot of the Nile and the pyramids in the background, a location that could only be Egypt, and then a title card appeared that said "The Nile River, Egypt" and then it never really recovered from there. This sounds like a nitpick and like it probably kind of is, but it just felt like the movie was talking down a bit to me at that point and then the rest of it was real dumb.
I also wound up liking this movie...but even from only having read the one Poirot book, I thought they made a mess of the character. Part of what I love about Poirot is how soft-spoken he is, how he's sort of an extremely clever but very gentle man. The whole bit at the end with Poirot threatening everyone with a gun was just so wildly out of character. I'm very curious to read more of the books, and can't wait to see your video on Death on the Nile!
Yeah, I basically had to accept that this was a totally different work in order to enjoy this, even as a guilty pleasure
If I remember well, the only time book Poirot is outwardly spiteful is either when he's confronting a vile murderer/person, or when someone calls him French.
The most interesting thing about both these films to me is how much Baranagh digs into the real emotions that people would be going through during a standard murder mystery plot. The exact same approach he took to Henry V, and it works just as well here.
The opening was so cool, thank you for supporting the movement
Good on you for the opening Dom! As a non film/TV writer, but one who still stands very firmly with the strike I really appreciate your solidarity! 💜
As odd as the movies are compared to the books, this movie is what introduced me to proper murder mysteries and Agatha Christie and I’m so so thankful for it. If the movie hadn’t been made I never would have discovered my love for mystery books!
What disappointed me was a specific part of the ending. In the book, when Mrs. Hubbard is revealed to be Linda Ardent, she takes off this 'mask' with dignity. She's realised that Poirot knows everything now - he found enough clues in the end to uncover the fabricated story. Although, they both recognise each others' intelligence in how they both played this game. She's a smart woman, and she recognises Poirot's cornered her in a sense, but she then appeals to his sense of decency and humanity in a calm, yet emotionally powerful way. She doesn't have to yell or threaten to kill herself to get the point across. Her words and her cadence are enough - partly because she's a brilliant actress, but also because she's firm in her convictions. The woman who started this plan and carried it through is the same one who admits defeat but maintains her conviction in her actions. That's why I love her as a character. She emulated a kind of strength and emotional catharsis which suddenly encapsulated the emotional core of the whole book. She's been caught, but she still owns the stage in this production. And her conviction is part of what convinces Poirot and Bouc to let them go.
In the movie, she's portrayed as hysterical and panicking the moment she gets found out. It's reasonable for someone in this situation to be scared or to panic, but this does not align with Linda Ardent's character arc, and it takes so much of the final emotional catharsis out of the story. It's also such a backwards move to take this strong, emotionally complex, determined woman - who orchestrated such a well-crafted plot and didn't falter even when carrying out the most permanent of retributive justice - and instead make her go into a hysterical frenzy and try to shoot herself. How is the artist who was the core of carrying out this plan also the same person who panics and forgets her convictions as soon as she gets caught? It's just so thoughtless and over-dramatised. Of course, I'm heavily biased because of how reading the book made me feel, but I truly believe that the movie botched the characterisation of Linda Ardent and screwed up the emotional payoff of this moment. They took away her agency, strength, and intelligence, and tried to make Poirot seem like more of a main character because he tricked her into proving that she felt so guilty about killing Casetti that she would die for it. Absolutely ridiculous, and kind of a sexist move imo.
Good video though. I agreed with most of the points, but I'm one of the people who unfortunately can't enjoy the movie because of how much it missed the mark on the characterisation. Linda Ardent as a character holds a very special place in my heart because of how emotionally powerful she is, and it's disappointing to see a modern movie take such a strong female character as her and make her into a 'crazy woman' who needs a man to validate her own beliefs.
Thank you so much for this analysis and your appreciation of this character. It was such a powerful moment to imagine when suddenly, her voice changes and she drops her character, revealing herself in all of her complexity, intelligence and grief while keeping entirely calm. To take away this moment, which Michelle pfeiffer could have played perfectly, is so disappointing.
Oh man, I firmly agree. Linda Ardent was a famous dramatic/tragic actress, so her being the comedy for much of the novel made it even more of a twist when she dropped the act. And that she acted with so. much. poise.
So she was... ardent, was she?
...I'll see myself out.
(I actually agree with you.)
And it's just so backwards to make her feel guilty, when in the book she calmly states, that she would take the blame alone, not only because she wanted to protect her friends and co-conspirators but also because she gladly would have stabbed Cassetti twelve times instead of just once. And I don't know if it ever gets mentioned (by anyone really) but I feel it's kind of important, that Poirot doesn't let them get away with it out of purely emotional reasons, but also because Cassetti was clearly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and used further criminal means to escape his lawful execution. Since Poirot while sometimes sympathetic is always very adamant that nothing justifies taking the law into your own hands, I feel this point is often underappreciated.
I think he was trying to turn Poirot into Sherlock Holmes, or rather the Sherlock Holmes that Holmes has become. A clever action hero with neurological quirks
Holmes was an action hero in the original stories as well. He's mentioned as knowing martial arts and having immense strength (like being able to bend a fire poker back into shape after somebody bent it as a show of strength)
@@Leo-sd3jt sherlock could do that if absolutly needed but it was a last resort, there is a reason why so many fans hated the rdj adaptions. Stop making peole actionheros, that are not supposed to be ones!!!!
@@SingingSealRiana If you've read the original Arthur Conan Doyle films then you'd see that the RDJ adaptations were faithful. Watson was very competent and Sherlock Holmes was a master of deduction, criminal science, and martial arts. Even in the first story he was in, "A Study in Scarlet", he's called "an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.". In other stories he's said to practice the martial art "Baritsu". In Sign of the four", a professional boxer recognizes Holmes as somebody who once knocked him out in a fight. Sherlock Holmes was always an action hero in the original stories.
@@Leo-sd3jt
Well, faithful on that point. From there they fell apart pretty badly 😅
We’ll they did both become so popular that their respective authors got sick of them but were too popular to (permanently) kill off.
My mother *LOVES* Poirot so, so much. I think she's read and listened to just about every one of his adventures. She also loves the occasional screen adaptation such as the David Suchet TV show. She has good taste, I think. I have never heard such a cry of despair from her as I did the moment when she saw the trailer for this adaptation. Oh, how they massacred her boy. To this day, I don't think she's fully recovered.
I was willing to give this movie a fair chance, although I assumed it wouldn't be as great as Suchet's Poirot. I still can't believe they had the audacity to make TWO movies!!! They are so, so bad!
@@MVmvmmvm4432hate to break it to you but a third one is on its way. It’s called A Haunting in Venice and it’s based on Hallowe’en Party. It’s also meant to be a horror. I don’t know why he’s even attempting to call himself Poirot. I might have enjoyed them if he went by a different character name.
@@beexcellenttoeachother1763A Haunting in Venice? That completely breaks away from Hallowe'en Party, which starts with all the old-fashioned pastimes like bobbing for apples, or seeing your true love in a mirror. It also revolves around English schoolchildren. Might indeed as well make a non-Poirot movie.
As a long-time Christie fan, I love these two films. Branagh is a bombastic, over-the-top artist and the tone he creates matches Poirot very well. Sure, there are many silly moments, but I personally think it works within the context. And I quite like the way he translates the end-of-the-book explanation to the screen by cutting it up and dispersing it throughout the story.
I also kind of like these movies. They work as a fun campy retelling of the novels. I mean if I want something more book accurate I have that option with David Suchet’s wonderfully versions. I don’t need another.
I agree! I grew up with Suchet, but I'm glad we're getting something new after the show wrapped up. And I always Enjoy Branagh and his earnest over-the-top-ness.
I skipped over Suchet's portrayal so I read the book and jumped straight to these films and was perfectly satisfied with them all.
I preferred the Albert Finney version frankly. Branagh's Poirot skipped too much of the interviews with the passengers, but somehow got the information they would have told him. So it looks like he just pulled explanations out of his posterior.
I thought this one was okay, but Death on the Nile I thought was really good, especially as it built on this one in a way I hadn’t expected. As sad as I always am that they invariably cut Cornelia from the story whenever they adapt it.
I really liked a lot about the film, but it's just very difficult as a huge Poirot fan to not compare any other Poirot to Suchet, who was not just faithful to the books, but also played the part so brilliantly for almost 25 years, adapting every short story and novel, with both humor and quite moving moments. He truly was Poirot. I can enjoy other films and I really enjoy that people who aren't familiar with Poirot are enjoying them! But no one will ever play Poirot like Suchet. And that seems to be how everyone else who knows the Suchet series feels too, haha.
years before I saw this film, I watched the David Suchet Murder on the Orient Express. I hadn't read the books and didn't know the ending, and the whole experience was such a different vibe to this film., It was dark, and moody, a real tonal shift from the other Suchet Poirots honestly, and the ending was absolutely harrowing. You could see the weight of the truth in Suchet's face, like it was physically and emotionally destroying him to realise such a crime, with a touch of moral dilemma thrown in. I thought it was his best performance as Poirot to date. So honestly this film never stood a chance; it was inoffensive to me, I love the Suchet Poirot series but I've never been super passionate about the books. But idk, I always dislike it when I get the sense that the filmmaker thinks they know better than the OG author, especially the creative license he took on Poirot. He should have just directed and produced, and cast someone true to the physicality and nature of the character. But feels like ego got in the way there.
Also the Believer memes from the trailer were pretty good
David Suchet ruined every subsequent adaptation of Poirot. His portrayal was so good that I can’t watch any other actor in the role without thinking “this isn’t Poirot”. Suchet nailed it.
@@Fluffykeith Suchet is my favourite Poirot and I agree he ruined any subsequent attempts at adapting Poirot, but for Murder on the Orient Express specifically (after all these years still my favourite Christie) I prefer the Peter Ustinov adaptation. I especially disliked that they made it such a big moral dilemma at the end. Of course it probably *should* be one, irl, but it's just not how the story originally plays out
@@Casutama Ustinov wasn't in Murder on the Orient Express. It was Albert Finney. Ustinov came in for Death on the Nile. It's funny, the Sidney Lumet adaptation of Orient Express might be my favourite Poirot film, but while I enjoyed Finney he might be my least favourite Poirot.
@@martianmanhunter37 You're completely right, I'd forgotten - clearly need to rewatch again!
I feel similarly - it's my favourite Orient Express adaptation, but not necessarily my favourite Poirot, although I think I like Branagh less than Finney.
@@Fluffykeith Suchet ruined ALL Poirots, not just the subsequent ones but even the previous ones. 😀
Been waiting for this one! I love Agatha Christie's works.
Huge respect for your decision to pause adaptation videos for a while! I'll also add that critics are not obligated to stop reviewing movies or TV shows during the strike action, and personally I would count your work under that umbrella.
However, I appreciate and echo your support for SAG-AFTRA! I also want to see the WGA demands met! Support unions, folks!
One of the suspects, Pilar, is actually a character from a different Poirot book swapped in for the film.
The action stuff really dragged the film down. It was all very rote and actually made the film feel slower, imo.
With Poirot's character, this suffers partly from the same problem as the Suchet version: golden-age "great detective" characters don't *have* arcs, and modern screenwriters refuse to accept that. Holmes, Poirot, Marple, Father Brown, Hanshichi, Akechi, Di Renjie, etc. function as fixed points around whom events unfolds. Dramatically speaking, they are agents of order, not heroes on a journey of self-discovery.
The name yes, but Pilar is a very different character than what we get here
The part about Poirot running made me laugh because I distinctly remember in one of her less read novels, (I can't remember which it might have been ABC Murders..) theres a description of poirot running as fast as he could to see if he could do the murder in a certain time, jumping through a window with muddy boots, waddling around as an egg shaped man whilest timing himself. The concept of that was so humorous based on everything you know about him not being an athletic character.
Re. the action sequences bit: I can think of exactly one book in which Poirot participated in any form of action scene, and that was The Big Four. He jumped from a moving train, held a would-be killer up with a blow pipe, climbed down the wall of a house, and survived two explosions.
This is widely considered one of, if not the worst, of the series.
Although this movie isn't that bad, I think Branagh was fighting an uphill battle with this one. With famous characters there seems to be one actor that comes along to define the role. For me the ultimate Sherlock remains Jeremy Brett, and David Suchet IS Hercule Poirot. You rightly pointed out how famous this plot is. So it was very unlikely any long time Poirot fans were going to love this.
I read the books and as a proud Belgian, for me too David Suchet nailed the character. But I also agree that this adaptation is still worth a watch when you focus on the cast besides Poirot...
Jeremy Brett is absolutely the best Sherlock Holmes. The granada adaptations are wonderful.
This. I adore Peter Ustinov and I still love his Poirot, but David Suchet simply is perfection in the role.
I'm a bit older, so I see Basil Rathbone as Holmes.
I’m a Peter Ustinov fan, he so embodies the role, a bit egotistical but not revoltingly so. Not an action hero in any way. I love 1979’s Death on the Nile. The supporting cast is brilliant. I can’t decide if that movie, or the 50s Witness For The Prosecution is my favorite. Both are leavened with such humor!
David Suchet is the perfect Poirot to me, but I really enjoyed John Malkovich's take on the character. The back story they gave him could be easily ignored if you wished, though I kind of liked how they came up with a plausible explanation of where he came from.
Don't care how good the adaptation was, that scene with Brannagh acting his heart out and Michelle Pfeiffer meeting his skills and surpassing them with the big reveal, was amazing
I am a massive poirot fan and like many see David suchet as the pinnacle of poirot-ness. So I had to keep reminding myself to give this film a fair go when I saw it, and while I thought the film was good I have always had a massive issue with it that stuck with me and all I could say to people was 'its not poirot' and for ages I felt like this was unfair bias towards previous actors like suchet or Peter Ustinov but no! Thankyou for vocalising it you are spot on, it's the comedy OCD, the gun, the violence the aggression. Poirot' had many quirks and idiosyncrasies but we're suchet built these fussy moments into the character as unconscious action, the fact they were played up, the fact he was so physical how much he screamed at them. It just wasn't poirot.
It's weirdly reassuring having Dominic like the films despite them having adaptation issues. I haven't read any Agatha Christie novels before, my biggest exposure to her is when she appeared in Doctor who, so I had no preconceptions going into this film. And I really enjoyed it, the cast was a lot of fun and as someone who didn't know the twist going in it was quite a compelling ending. I think I definitely will try reading the book to see the difference for myself, especially with Poirot's character, but as an outsider I had fun with this film.
Though I do sympathise with Poirot fans who don't like what was done with the character, especially after being reminded of what Branagh did to Artemis Fowl. That film still hurts.
Same.
I already was familiar with Agatha Christie when I saw that Doctor Who episode and I actually showed it to my mom when she was visiting me in California for some family business because she’s an Agatha Christie fan, but she didn’t really like the episode because she thought it was to slap-sticky.
Yeah, I had the same feeling, although I've read many of the books.
Imo you can't take for granted that people know the twist, sure it was a famous twist but new generations come to all the time, who don't necessarily know it.
Which is also the reason why I always maintain that it's not okay to spoil a book or movie just because they're old. They might be old, but people are often new.
Two things: first, thank you for being conscious of the strike when so many content creators are blatantly ignoring the recommendations. Two, I hope to see more discussion in this channel of Christie's adaptations in the future.
A huge Christie fan here, on of the books I've read many times, and really enjoyed the previous adaptions.. I'm one of those who can't watch this for the action hero Poirot, it is the antitheist of what makes the character to me, to me the soul of the movie is "In name only" (I sorta feel the same way about the theatrical Sherlock Holmes movies from a decade or so back as well)
I habitually rewatch Poirot television series with David Suchet. Partially for the comfort of a familiar plot, but mostly because of the stunning set and costume design. I find the show extremely aesthetically pleasing. Kenneth Branagh's movies, while polished and arguably visually appealing, look like something created by an AI. On some subliminal level it disturbs me.
I think fans rebelled against this not just because of the inconsistencies with Poirot's character vs. books but also because David Suchet so completely owned the role. We had seen Poirot played with near perfect fidelity to the books so it was a bit wrenching.
A bit like seeing Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and then...Robert Downey Jr 😢 the disconnect isn't nearly as bad as that example but I get what you're saying
TBH Suchet's version is really hard to beat, method acting does work anyway and he was very dedicated up to making the director giong hooaaayy. But in general, the problem of this version, as well as of Death on The Nile is a miscast issue as a whole (and why did they insert Pilar Estravados instead of the original character once again? Beacuse they could?)
Absolutely, Suchet is definitive!
Dom, you're such a good dude. Seriously. You just. You make me feel better about humans. Like just, all the time. I think it is so respectable, how you're gonna not talk about movies for a bit because of the sag-aftra strike. I fully support what you're doing and I'm gonna continue to watch whatever stuff you make.
Just a heads up though, even union members can talk about anything done before the strike, since it was made under contract. In fact, union members have said it is important to talk about movies and even to go see new films to show the studios how important the work it. The best way to show support is to keep talking about films and to highlight the workers involved!!
"The man has a moustache growing out of his moustache!"
Dom, you are actually correct -- apparently the makeup team layered a fake moustache on top of another fake moustache to make it that much bigger and fuller.
As far as I'm aware you can still do content for movies that came out before the strike, as long as you're not promoting anything current. So this could be a good excuse to dig into some older adaptations. But either way I'm so glad to see you on the right side of this, not that I expected anything else ❤
As for the video! I also have a weird fondness for this movie that no one else understands lmao, but I love your analysis. I think you're right that the rest of the movie worked perfectly, if they had only kept Poirot more accurate to the books it probably would have been much more well received.
That book launch you went to, the book makes it clear that Christie’s disappearance and mental health crisis was genuine.
Given her disappearance nearly cost her custody of her daughter, I can’t see her faking that to get back at her shitheel of a husband. Also the only people who would think that would work are, no offence, men.
Glad someone beat me to saying it. She was kickass but, yeah.
From what I've read and heard it seems to be very much up for debate what really happened. Various accounts give very different interpretations of what went down during and after her disappearance. I haven't read this book in particular, but if it claims to have a definitive answer I would be very skeptical since no one seems to have a definitive answer.
I'm pretty sure it's now commonly known that Christie went missing after a bout of amnesia brought on by surviving an attack from a giant half alien half human wasp. 😂
@@CalliopePony The biography I’m talking about is Lucy Worsley’s. But the reason I believe her account is simple, she believes Agatha Christie. Who, contrary to popular belief, did give her own version of events, including an interview with a national newspaper.
The people who perpetuated the fiction that it could’ve been fake to punish her husband were overwhelmingly men, in the defence and protection of men. If she faked her disappearance it makes her husband leaving her look more understandable, and it makes the Superintendent who decided she was dead and Archie had murdered her, not incompetent, just taken in by the best detective writer in the world.
If Christie was so vindictive towards Archie, then why is she quite even handed towards him in her autobiography, why did she agree to keep his mistresses name out of their divorce?
And honestly if Agatha Christie wanted to fabricate a disappearance, do you really think it would be a story anyone could cast doubt on?
@@MsJayteeListens
I think there's a grey area here.
Her perfectly understandable desire to punish Archie may have operated on a subconscious rather than a conscious level.
This is particularly true because she hated being the central character in a newspaper sensation and that's what her disappearance led to.
Kudos for standing with the strikers, my guy. It helps make up for how much I die inside hearing the way you pronounce "PRA-row" 😂
"Charcuterie of clues" is such a great phrase!
I'm genuinely glad you didn't rip this movie a new one. The novel was my first Christie as a wee 13 year old. This novel (and many other Christies) have had so many adaptations that as a filmmaker you /have/ to do something unique to make it worth watching /another/ iteration of Murder on the Orient Express.
I also didn't find this version that bad. You mentioned the same issues I had with it, but really, in the past 10 years or so, I've started to see books and their adaptations as separate entities, able to stand or flop on their own merits.
I just really loved the TV special they did of this story so when I watched the movie I could not help but compare it to that.
David Suchet's performance of Poirot's very mixed to negative feelings about letting them all go free was just SO good!
Well done for addressing the strike Dom I didn't know the writers and actors had made a statement regarding people with your profession, thank you for informative information.
Frankly I don't see the need for any statement with people of Dom's profession. It's not like the dude is a part of any guilds or even directly linked to the industry. There's no real reason for it to be anything other than a personal choice for an internet reviewer.
I am prettysure its extra ok mentioning the ongoing strike and effects if relevant as independent creator.
I dont think they did or care unless you shill for like disney. Pretty sure they want news about the strike from sympsthic sources, i imagine.
I wasn't expecting to get re traumatised by the Artemis Fowl mention 😭 Branagh must have some vendetta against adaptations
I had to say Dom you did an outstanding work on Murder at the Orient Express. And I cannot wait until I can see Death on the Nile.
Good on you for supporting the strike and taking the most cautious approach to SAG AFTRA's instructions to performers.
The two identical eggs showed up in earlier adaptations as well and if it wasn't original to the book would have been a reference to them (been to long since I've either read the novel or seen either of Suchet's runs at the story or the Albert Finney version to say which of them had the bit).
The problem with Brannagh is that while he is an excellent actor and director when he is doing both jobs he gets UNPARDONABLY self indulgent.
My favourite cinematic Poirot scenes are in Peter Ustinov’s Evil Under the Sun when he dresses for a dip in the sea and just wades in barely up to his ankles, breast strokes the air and calls it a day. When talking with a witness later, he saves face by confirming the witness didn’t observe his vigourous exertions. 🧐
Poirot certainly wouldn't like the sea.
It's too disorganised and wild.
I loved the way that movie used Cole Porter tunes for its background score...so much that they gave him a credit for it. As my friend Alan put it, "I don't think Cole Porter's boyfriends loved him as much as the makers of this movie!"
I think Peter Ustinov does a great job of portraying Poirot as idiosyncratic! I also love the moment in Death on the Nile when he takes the husband’s lunch after he says he’s too worried to eat 😅
Completely agree! It is just a fantastic film all together.
Peter Ustinov is just great.
I know your “to be reviewed” list is SUPER long but it would be AWESOME if one day you’d consider (or one of the patrons requested) doing a Lost In Adaptation for one episode of Agatha Christie’s Poirot!
seconded
Respect for that opening, Dom. Thanks for the support.
I like the ending cold take that is basically "Agatha Christie has a deeper and more profound understanding of one of her most beloved characters (vis a vis what changes can be made) than Hollywood writing teams do."
Thank you for your kind concern for the striking writers and actors. Support such as yours is most appreciated.
If there’s one change that sank the movie for me, it’s when the doctor claims that Cassetti didn’t deserve a trial, even though one of the characters he’s based on was a firm believer in trial by jury.
I've had a bad day. I wish I could convey to Dominic just how better I felt when I saw that he had uploaded a LiA. Just what I needed after a really, really crappy day. ❤
Hoping you've had better days since!
Really appreciate you being as cautious as possible not to cross the picket line! Also, the 1974 film by Sidney Lumet is one of my favorite films of all time, and it has the bonus of not having Johnny Depp, so I found this one hard to take much of an interest in. Lauren Bacall in particular is amazing in that film, but like this adaptation it is the definition of star-studded so it’s just outstanding from start to finish.
The 1974 film also features Jane Birkin, who recently died. I always liked her performances.
He's not a member of SAG or WGA, and his work doesn't benefit AMPTP or the studios they represent, he's not crossing any lines. "Crossing the picket line" is just a term for doing union work while not under a union contract. In any event, even actors and writers can still talk about movies as individuals, just not movies that are in production or still in release.
@fikanera838 Actually, Jane Birkin was in 'Death on The Nile' and 'Evil Under the Sun'.
You were probably confusing Jacqueline Bisset with her.
Great video! Just a small note on pronunciation, it's not Prah-ro but Pwah-ro ;) Looking forward to the next one!
I haven't watched this version of the movie, but I adore all things Christie!
The one exception was an overwhelmingly gloomy and sour limited adaptation of The ABC Murders starring John Malkovich.
I really wanted to like it, but I just felt so sad the entire time.
When I was little, I read a bunch of the books, and loved them, but I could also tell that I was also missing a lot of information and connections. I have so much appreciation for stories and movies that seem to have an endless supply of secrets to reveal.
Thank you for supporting the strike! I'm not an actor or anything, just a person that wants everyone to have thriving wages. ❤
Gotta admit, I'm kinda surprised you hadn't done an Agatha Christie until now. Definitely looking forward to the next one.
I gotta say, I'm with Dom on this one. While the Brannagh Poirot films may not be completely faithful to the books, I personally liked them. And I say this as a fan of stuff that hasn't had the best adaptations😅
Looking forward to seeing your analysis of the Death on the Nile adaptation, keep up the good work.
I honestly found it okay. Not the best, but far from the worst..! And it was quite funny see such a different take on the character, with some things exaggerated and other things downplayed. Makes me wonder what would have happened if Christie had changed him..!
Yeah, aside from the unnecessary action beats, I was basically OK with this adaptation. I agree with Dom that Branagh was smart to not lean into the murder itself, and focus on the characters instead. That's what makes Orient Express so special. It's a rare murder mystery novel where the series detective actually gets a character arc.
I don't know, I've read that book two or three times now, and knowing the ending never spoiled the pleasure for me ^^'
I haven't read the book but having watched the Suchet version a number of the changes you mentioned here such as the backstories are also changed in that version. However I have never heard a Poirot fan cause a fuss over those like they did for this version. Which I think proves the point that it really all hinges on Poirot himself.
Suchet is amazing as Poirot and nailed his description and mannerisms perfectly. Where as Brannah just doesn't.
I recommend the 1970's film version with Albert Finney as Poirot. It's a beautifully made film that made no changes to the story (or at least none I could detect).
That said, I didn't really have that much of a problem with this film. It was what it was.
Love your videos, Dom! I do want to put in a small word in favor of Mr. Branagh's Poirot, though - I was diagnosed with OCD as a child and received treatment early enough that, thankfully, I'm able to live a relatively normal and functional adult life. I was at the end of my undergrad when the movie came out and I was in tears at the end - I felt seen and understood in a way I'd never realized it was possible to feel. It was a very emotional and positive experience for me, and I never felt as if Poirot's OCD-ness was played for laughs. His quirks were noticeable, but people still treated him with respect and indulged his more harmless compulsions; in my own experience, people get annoyed and frustrated with you instead, maybe even go out of their way to avoid or exclude you. Compared to media like Monk or The Big Bang Theory where characters are ridiculed for their OCD it was a breath of fresh air and very validating to see the respect that Poirot garnered even with his quirks!
(Disclaimer: I hadn't read the book before seeing the movie. Actually, I hadn't ever read any Agatha Christie novel before then, my only exposure was that one episode of Doctor Who 😅)
Interestingly this is the first time that I’ve seen someone interpret the character as OCD. I’ve more commonly seen an autistic reading which is appealing to me as a neurodivergent person. But that’s what’s great about films, you can watch them however you want
Please watch the poirot BBC series too. Honestly, I can't stress how respectfully Davis Suchet plays all of poirot's idiosyncrasies - and while some people are taken aback or surprised, Poirot could not give .5% of a crap. He is a genius and knows it, and he is who he is - and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
@@lauramitreatrue, I'm a big fan of the David Suchet series, and even when people straight up insult him or/and his "quirks", Poirot will be offended for 5min, but it won't change him, and I love that a lot. His quirks are harmless, his friends and acquaintances don't really mind, and sometimes it's what help him gather evidences and solve cases.
I think my favorite moments with David Suchet is when people mistakenly call him french and he looks so offended XD he nails the facial expressions of Poirot!
I remember enjoying the film when it came out, but I've never read the original film. Even still, Poirot's ""ocd"" tendancies and dead wife felt shoehorned in by the film creators. Glad to know my insticts were right there
Poirot is actually quite ocd in the books, but not to a detrimental degree. If he enters a room that is not a crime scene, he'll straighten pictures and rearranges flowers. His toast had to be cut into nine pieces from a square loaf, and the egg thing was spot on, but in the books he would just take a butter knife and judge them. It's just not an extreme compulsion, more of a deep desire for cleanliness and perfection.
@@robertgronewold3326 But I meant more along the lines of media OCD target than actual tenancies. The way they played it up for the film is a bit 😬
Another great video!! Thank you so much for your work and for supporting the writers on strike!
As far as this adaptation goes… I enjoyed it well enough, but more than Poirot himself what annoyed me most was the unnecessary action scenes. This book is a cozy mystery. I’d say that it’s THE cozy mystery. I usually like to read it just as the weather is turning cold, with tea or hot chocolate and my phone away in another room. It’s not a page-turner thriller, it’s the mystery equivalent of a comfortable sweater and a nice blanket. So more than anything, the unnecessary action scenes killed that vibe for me.
Still, I think the film itself can be enjoyable. The book is definitely better, but I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to showing this film to someone who has never read any of Agatha Christie’s work.
Support to your support of the strikes! I love Agatha Christie. This was fun and fantastic!
By any chance have you ever covered The Secret Garden? If you have I will search it up and if not, we'll you should get on that because it's got some crazy adaptations and the book is almost a perfect book. Love your work, I hope you get to keep doing this thing forever.
I don't think he's covered it. I love that book, so I'm pretty sure I'd remember. And yeah, I recall watching the trailer for the newest version and thinking "What the hell is this?", then absolutely refusing to watch it. It just looked like they were using an excuse to go all out with a CGI for a story which absolutely has no need for it.
There's a Broadway musical adaptation that goes hardcore into the Orientalism that shows up in a few places in the original novel--great songs, but some pretty serious yikes moments.
Yeah, why is it that people keep trying to add things to a perfect book? I've yet to see anyone adapt it correctly?
@@MsMeiriona Probably because the structure of the book is more internal--changes in characters' attitudes, without any external conflict that would make the stakes any higher. That's probably why adaptations are prone to make one or more characters more antagonistic.
I love Agatha Christie and the Poirot mysteries. I loved the recent adaptation of Orient Express, but I gotta say David Suchet is my favorite Poirot, it would be so cool if you could do Lost in Adaptation for that series, since they’re sorta like mini-movies at an hour or so long. That is of there is any differences from the Novels the episode is based off of and the Television version.
I took my Poirot-loving mom to see this in the theatre. At some point, I dozed off. When I awoke, I was worried she'd noticed and would never let me live it down. I glanced over at her and discovered she was asleep.
ahaha the only appropriate response to this adaptation tbh
This "Praro" instead of Poirot was like a knife stab more painful than those of Ratchets.
as someone who loves both novels AND these film adaptations, i was very relieved to hear you say you enjoyed them 😆
I gotta say, I absolutely would have never guessed that this is how Hercule Poirot's name was pronounced when I was reading this back in the day.
I am French and Dom almost got it right but the R is definitely not pronounced like that. Admittedly, it is very hard for a non-native speaker to do it correctly.
Yeah, unless I'm deeply mistaken, it's a "Pwaa" sound, not a "Pra".
@@newsystembad yes exactly! He messed it up once at the end but he was being very vehement so it's understandable. I've never seen Poi written like Pwa before and it's very funny and accurate so thank you for that!
@@thedragonwriter1073 Actually, I was hearing him pronounce it as "PRA-row" for the _entire_ video and physically cringing out of my skin every time. XD
@@newsystembad ah maybe you're right. I've heard it pronounced that way so many times I only noticed at the end when it was obvious. 😂
David Suchet got it so right though! It was so pleasing to hear him introduce himself perfectly!
I may be the only person around who watched a lot of the poirot series my whole life, knew about murder on the orient express, but never knew much about the actual story and how it ended (or even read any of the poirot books lol). So I just quickly read the book before watching this video and I think I'm hooked. Thank you, Dom!
agatha christie was one of my favorite authors growing up. I remember sitting on the floor in the library after school in front of the c's section and just rereading her books over and over. Luckily I have amnesia, so the ending was always a surprise.
I’d never read the book, and don’t particularly care for mysteries, but this movie (which I quite enjoyed) introduced me to a story and genre that I otherwise would have ignore.
one of my loved traits of this movie (I relate and love Orient Express, book AND this film) were certain scenes that were filmed as stage plays. The searching of the room, and the finale confronting everyone at the table, were laid out VERY much like a theatrical play. the cinematography, level of the camera and panning were very un-movielike and much more play-like.
Makes sense considering Branagh has a background in directing stage plays.
The point in this film where you see Poirot struggling with what to do when he knows they are all guilty but he feels they are justified is exceptional, IMO. You can see the inner wrestling with what is right and what is just.
As to the added diversity, it's absolutely in the character of the novel. A big point of the mystery is that we have 12 passengers from completely different backgrounds, classes, careers, countries, etc. to the extent that we would never imagine them ever having anything in common with each other. Some of those differences are less apparent to modern audiences, because we don't distinguish class by how people dress or mingle anymore, and nor do we see people from the Balkans or Russia as anywhere near as "exotic" as a 1930s readership would have. To play up the differences in a way that is more obvious for a modern audience, it made sense for the movie to use race as another distinguishing feature.
I watched this movie and don't remember much of it tbh aside form the 'omg its that guy!' of it. But Death on the nile left me enraged (the seeds for why obvs. were planted here) as well as dizzy because they can not keep that camera still even if its just people talking. Excited for next week!
I've never read an Agatha Cristie novel and my first exposure to her work is this and Death on the Nile and I really enjoyed them! I love Book and Poirot's friendship here. Maybe having no other context makes everything not feel goofy to me? Maybe my own neurodiverse brain isn't picking up on it, but Poirot's habits felt natural to me and not for laughs? I found a lot of his behavior very relatable.
I personally think that a great way to summarize the difference between Book Poirot and Movie Poirot is, somewhat tautologically, one is made for a book, and the other is made for a big-budget movie, so the second one has had a bunch of stuff painted onto him that doesn't exist in the books to make him more "appealing" for a movie audience. How do we make sure people don't fall asleep during the movie when the story is basically just "a bunch of people on a train, talking"? Throw in a couple action scenes! Have the normally quiet and polite guy yell, to sell that this moment is pretty important! Dial up his quirks, give him a tragic backstory, etc, etc.
They aren't BAD things, like you said, they're just...MOVIE things. We have to make him a little sillier, a little louder, a little more action-packed, than he is in the books, because we don't have the time or pacing. Which runs into another issue: in the books, Poirot is, explicitly and openly, super-dismissive of that kind of detective. He thinks "clues" are nonsense for people who can't see the big picture, instead treating every case like a complicated logic problem. So that's why he comes across as very different to book Poirot fans.
Personally, I've only read about 3-4 Poirot stories, and, watching this movie, I was perfectly fine with it. It's different, sure, but in very much the way I expected it to be different.
@@AllWIllFall2Me This isn't the first time this book or a Poirot adventure is being made into a movie. They don't need to be blockbuster to be good movies. The actor wanted to play a more exciting role and well, he shouldn't have chosen to play Poirot then.
@nor6399 You may note, mon ami, that I did not specify simply "a movie," but rather a "big-budget" movie.
Yes, certainly you can have more thoughtful and less action-addicted films, you just aren't going to also get budgets in the tens of millions from modern Hollywood studios for such things.
It's like having your only exposure to Sherlock Holmes the Robert Downey, Jr. versions. It is VERY goofy and only distantly related to the character, but not quite enough for someone who hasn't read the stories to have a problem with it. Have a look at the 1974 Murder On the Orient Express, directed by Sidney Lumet. It is possible to have fun with material, while still respecting it.
@@AllWIllFall2Methe 1978 Death on the Nile had about 3/4 the budget (adjusting for inflation) as the 1922
Thanks for supporting the writers! Hope the strike gets resolved soon - and love the agatha christie episode!!!
As someone who grew up with the series, I am a huge fan of Poirot (and Agatha Christie). I loved this adaptation. It was fun and a little different, but the heart was still there. After you play all the games, read all the books and watch the adaptations you learn to appreciate the nuances, and I fully agree that the changes to this Poirot were needed to draw in people to the theatres. Honestly, while I do understand why longtime fans were not entirely happy with this Poirot, the simple fact that we are getting a THIRD adaptation is something we should all be happy about.
Yeah, that's what I thought too "adding a lot of action, yeah, studios don't trust people to watch a purely intellectual mystery anymore" ^^
I haven't seen Branagh as Poirot yet, but the way you're describing this movie, I can't stop thinking that this is a an American version of Poirot. Yes, yes, I know Branagh is English, but he needs to attract a large audience, and that means the U.S. So it has to be shown in a way that Americans will like it. And this is what you're describing - an Americanized Agatha Christie film.
ALSO THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING ENBYS IN THE BIT IN THE VIDEO. I LOVE FEELING INCLUDED! ITS SO IMPORTANT!
Your Thumpnails are always top work! Your creaitivity is such Dom!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤