"If the train is fully booked, as stated earlier, how is Princess Dragomiroff getting extra options?" Cause if the Princess of Imperial Russia wants your cabin, you give her your cabin and get off the damn train lol.
Judy Densch was traveling with companion/servants. She booked 3 cabins so there would be room for all of them. She then took her choice of which one she wanted.
Many Russian aristocrats or members of the royal family (by blood or marriage, but of course not the immediate royal family that everyone knows got assassinated) who escaped continued to live in luxury and with power and authority. Other countries hosted them. The Dowager Empress is one example. Hell, descendants of the Romanov line still exist, hold power, and use their titles. The current "Empress" has a son who will succeed her and there is an entire website set up in an offical governmenty type of way. It's pretty easy to look up. My one professor, Dr. Russell Martin is on her staff and edits the annuals and such that get sent out her posted.
Sinning the fact that Poirot coincidentally stumbles upon a murder is kinda sinning the very premise of every Agatha Christie story ever lol. Poirot and Ms. Marple are basically murder magnets.
Plus they almost always overhear crucial conversations between suspects well before any murder takes place. From the top of my head: This happens twice in Orient Express and at least once in Death on the Nile.
Sin 33: They left those clues on purpose to confuse whoever was in charge of the case. The clues would make certain characters look suspicious but they would make sure those characters had an alibi supported by another character, thus making the police not know who was guilty. There was only one clue that was left by accident (a piece of burnt paper) and what Poirot did was discover which of the many "clues" left at the scene was fake and which one was real. Dude.
I agreee, @PaolaP. People, including CinemaSins never read the book. This is the second instance I have watched where @CinemaSins is makes an error for not having read the original source, which has reasonable logic as to why, the movie either shorthands original novel's exposition or deletes for time.
@@CalBruin Not reading the book is not making "an error." He sins them on the movie alone. You shouldn't have to read a book to make sense of the movie. Sorry, I normally don't leave comments, but you people leave these types of commemts on every book adaptation he sins.
@@georgewashington6347 , that would be fair but, the some of the sins are based upon the movie's direct translation of the book. In other words, they are sinning the movie for what was done in the book. NOT the movie's variation from the book BUT the direct quote from the book. Rather like chastising someone for their quoting another person's use of the F-word.
@@CalBruin actually, have you watched cinemasins' intro? i think he said he reads the books but one of the point of the channel was "the books don't matter"
@ In most societies, murder tends to be illegal. I assume the situation is relatively unchanged if the murder were to take place on the Orient Express.
4 года назад+2
@@Rougarou99 mate! I got it now. 'Murder' which is illegal. 🤣🤣PUny Brain of mine
Some of these question are actually answered in the movie. Poirot made the connection to Caseti because he discovered the mostly burned note, which was the one genuine clue, which game him the Armstrong name and allowed him to connect to the dots. If anyone but Poirot had found that note, it probably would have gone unidentified and its significance lost. All of the finger pointing and deliberate clues left behind were to create confusion, pointing the investigation towards one suspect or another, who would then be exonerated by the testimony of another suspect (since they're all in on it). The idea was to try and create a situation where NONE of them could possibly be the killer, and it would be blamed on the "small man with the high pitched voice" that they invented. In the books Poirot even remarks on the matter himself when reacts to be confounded by saying to himself: "They can't ALL be in on it", which is when he realizes that, in fact, they ARE all in on it. Their plan relied on the investigation never reaching that conclusion. And for most normal people, it probably wouldn't have.
You missed out the fact that Death on the Nile only works if Poirot is there at the start, before the murder happens, and yet he's only being told about it now, after the murder happens
Oh good. I thought I was remembering that wrong. Yeah, that scene doesn't work at all with the actual plot of Death on the Nile. Pretty big oversight. Akin to the last joke in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie which also made no sense and wouldn't fit the story of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
My guess would be he goes to the Nile to solve that murder and coincidentally ANOTHER more INTERESTING murder happens just as he's solving the last one.
In the book that murder seemed spontanius and the only two with motiv Also has aliby sort of, but Also he sleeped through it all becuse he was sedated so it was not a spere of the moment. Him turning up now works by taking That out. Than again how long dose it takes to travel from London to cairo 1934?
That's Dr Watson for Sherlock Holmes. Hastings never writes anything. He's only in 7 of the books. Ariadne Oliver is the writer, and she doesn't write about Poirot. Poirot is famous because of the newspapers and the high profile cases he has investigated and solved.
Cher Hastings also wrote a bunch of the short stories. There are probably a couple dozen cases he chronicled. Made a bit of a living at it, as I recall.
5:05 For the record, the reason they all blamed each other was because they wanted to confuse the shit out of Poirot so he would keep suspecting that it was just one specific person and never be able to find out exactly who it was.
@@meerkat10 as in the book where they share some, Oh I do not like the guy I am rooming with for he is a foraigner, but I am giving him a solid as stone aliby and give a testament of his good character?
Sin 30: They're implicating each other in order to make solving the case more difficult. They can make accusations all day and it won't matter. Everyone has an alibi corroborated by another passenger.
djhutchison the fact that they had an alibi each and was supported by another pretty much told you that either several of them or every single one of them was the murderer. They tried too hard to make it difficult.
Harmon Lanager that is true, but here we are talking about a group of people who planned for this many, many years. Enough that they were prepared for almost any kind of situation. How could they have not realized that? Because at least one or two characters seemed the type to disagree with everything. Were they all that blinded with rage and guilt that they made a barely halfassed plan that could cost their lives?.. well, maybe, but the movie was trying to portray (?) them as intelligent or charming, etc, why go to this lenght to make them seem way more than they were? (Probably this has an obvious answer as well.)
Eggellent taste in puns this guy has. I'm eggited to hear this I just hope I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch you know but I have the feeling there will be more than just egg puns! This is going to be grate! I love puns!
The biggest problem I had with this version is they skip most of his interrogations of passengers; then he pulls deductions out of his ass in the big confrontation scene.
The scene where Poirot stands on the top of a train that has just been hit by an avalanche and is barely standing on a bridge next to an abyss while looking for evidence without even wearing a coat out in the cold, might just be the most unlike Poirot thing I've ever seen.
I wish you mentioned the fact that Hercule took the place of another passenger right before they left, which leaves you with the question: Was that person supposed to be apart of the plan? Were the other passengers dumb enough to have one person who wasn't involved in the murder be on the train? and How lucky/unlikely is it that Hercule would have bumped that one person who wasn't involved (presumably)?
I was wondering that as well. From what I read that was supposed to be the fall guy. They booked an extra ticket using a fake name. A.M. Harris With the conductor in on the plan, he would have said that this person was actually aboard the train (ake he never was). This was why McQueen was confused when the detective suddenly became his roommate. His original roommate was supposed to be A.M. Harris. So then that way, when the murder took place, they could have blamed A.M. Harris, as he is not there anymore. Police would then be searching for someone that never existed to begin with.
No, they booked that car under a false name. It was always supposed to be empty. At least in the book -- I can't recall if they mention this in the movie. There was no fall guy. The killers were obsessed with JUSTICE. That's why they needed to have exactly 12 people involved in the plot. 12 people is a jury. They would not have involved an innocent party.
It was booked under a false name in the movie as well. It was mentioned at the beginning when the detective usurped the spot on the train as A.M. Harris never "checked in". A.M. Harris would have been the one that was missing when the train arrived at the station when the police would have been looking for the killer. Otherwise they would run the chance of any one of them or all of them being put in jail. Otherwise, why bother booking another passenger? Just write the story so that there were no extra seats for A.M. Harris to fill. Give just enough rooms for the 12 killers and the victim.
Actually,a lot of people get excited about a train leaving XD I got on a train once and throughout the whole ride everyone outside were waving at the people in the train Because Trains
"Who gets this excited about a train leaving?" Jeremy clearly doesn't have children or he would have witnessed them exploding with excitement and waving so hard they give themselves a dislocated arm every time a train passes by!
David Suchet plays Poirot brilliantly, and he's done about 40 2 hour episodes/movies. They're all good, especially with Hugh Fraser playing Arthur Hastings and Philip Jackson playing Chief Inspector Japp. I highly recommend it to any Agatha Christie fans such as myself :D
No he doesn’t play Poirot brilliantly. Poirot was humble, this Poirot loudly claims he’s the best detective in the world. This Poirot speaks complete nonsense at times like the rubbish about the eggs and the bread, book Poirot only spoke when he needed to. Also this Poirot lost his cool and for some reason got angry at times for very little reason, in the book he never got angry. Also, also it seemed he accidentally stumbled on the conclusion. This Poirot was terrible.
I think you have to at least be a little dickish to choose to make a living crapping on people's work. Doesn't mean he's evil, but at least a bit of a dick. I'm kinda a dick too, since I only come here to point out logical flaws in their arguments and crap like that. Like the one I made below about monk.
That's not what cinema sins is about. It's not about reviewing, that would entail a recommendation for/against it. Cinema sins is about showing us that ALL movies have sins, none of them are perfect, it can always improve.
Sin 35: Poirot is able to read part of the note left for Rachett. It said, "Remember Daisy Armstrong." Who else would the note be for if not Cassetti? It's a revenge killing, and they wanted him to know why he was going to die. Poirot knew Cassetti fled they U.S. with his fortune. He knew Rachett wasn't what he claimed to be. The note answered a lot of questions.
Unfortunately that's the destiny of most novel based movies. Movies will never do justice to good novels simply because of the amount of detail the move has to skip in order to not be 5 hours long.
Yeah, but some of the changes they make just... make no sense! Or fully contradict what the book says. Like here, Miss Debenham is not supposed to be a redhead; yes, Helena said her governess was red-headed and called Freebody, which Poirot knows is a lie because she's going the complete opposite of what Debenham looks like. ...and then you have crap like the Harry Potter movies, which altered so much, you pretty much can't understand half of what's going on in the last one, unless you've read the book. That's one of the worst things an adaptation can do: be incapable of standing on its own, without knowing the original source.
5:24 It was explained in the books and probably in the movie as well. They left all the clues, because they contradicted themselves (time of the murder, the owner of the pipecleaner, the handkerchief). It was supposed to make the solving of the crime impossible for Poirot as paradoxically the excess of clues was harder for him to solve than the lack of them.
I know the creators of Monk talk about how Sherlock Holmes was “the” major inspiration for the character of Adrian Monk, but even in the BBC/Suchet productions - where they don’t play up the obsessive-compulsive angle so much - it’s pretty clear that the Monk concept fits the Poirot mold more closely than it does Holmes. The persnicketiness of the main character is more in line with Poirot, and the way Monk and Stottlemeyer interacted was far closer to the cooperative Poirot-and-Japp dynamic than the competitive Holmes-and-Lestrade dynamic.
Another sin is the setting, between vinkovci and brod is some of flattest land in croatia (part of yugoslavia) nowhere near Alps like mountains shown. Plus the black yugoslavian policeman at the end is also hillarious
I have heard this comment before, but that is a sin to the book, not the movie, as the original Novel had the same exact issue, so can't blame the movie for that
@@vrededromer8955 Have you read the novel? It did not have the exact same issue. In the novel the train is held up by a snowdrift. No mountains, no avalanche.
8:33 When the book was originally published, it was not entitled “Murder on the Orient Express” but “Murder in the Calais Coach.” The Istanbul-Calais Passenger Coach was where the murder took place, and because all the passenger coaches were locked during the night and were under guard by the coach attendant (in this case, Pierre Michel), it was deemed by Poirot as impossible that the murder could’ve been committed by anyone outside of that coach. You could say that the piano player and most of the train staff have alibis.
In addition, one running theme through all of Agatha Christie’s novels is that the lower classes, the employees, the help, are almost never the murderers. In fact, in most of her novels they rarely get even a mention, as if they don’t exist.
@@christophermaybury4918 Murder in the Calais Coach was the original title of the serialised first publication in a magazine, before it became the novel.
You forgot two sins that could’ve easily been avoided by looking at a map. There are no mountains or even hills nowhere near Vinkovci, for 150km. That area is known for its flatness. And the other thing is that when the train arrived in Slavonski Brod (which is a city, not just a station) the officers were not Yugoslavs and trust me, there were little to no African immigrants in Yugoslavia in that time.
That also stood out to me. The whole reason that Poirot gave in and took the case was because Bouc told him that if he didn't the Yugoslavian police would charge and hang Arbuthnot or Marquez for the murder due to their skin color/ethnicity. Why would such a prejudiced organization hire the very people they were prejudiced against?
Jeesus I read it as sherlock gnomes and when I reread it, It really did read that... what has my life become when this is the funniest thing happened to me today
Frizzey Gaming bmovies.to, ymovies, 123movies, gostream.ag, gostream.is, or google the name of the movie and type putloker next to it, or use kodi or popcorn time
indeed, they even give sins for unanswered questions that they themselves answer in later sins such as why didn't one person just murder him (they all wanted a shot and it was conspiracy), how did they all fit in one tiny cabin at the same time (followed by clip of them queuing in the corridor to take turns), why did they do it on a train how did they expect to get away with it (by planting the evidence to point to disgruntled Mafia business associate and to make it look like the murderer was an intruder on the train that had already fled) and why were they all in the same coach on a fully booked train (they had booked out the entire carriage for conspiracy members but Hercule was moved there at the last moment taking the room reserved for company directors)
I also really liked it, but it seemed that they unnecessarily changed certain details from the book for the heck of it. I get the stuff like the dramatic chase and shooting cause, y’know Movies. But what was wrong with the Chauffeur being Italian? Why did we have to start in Jerusalem rather than Aleppo? Additionally, the original line in French was “Ce n’est rien. Je me suis trompé”. Why did this need to be shortened?! Also, in the film, I’m pretty sure that Daisy Armstrong’s name doesn’t feature on the burnt scrap, but in the book the only reason Poirot makes the connection is because it says “... remember little Daisy Armstrong...”. Perhaps it was a mistake reading the book directly before seeing the film...!😂
I really like the camera work in this movie. 5:20 Is a shot that normally would be taken by the standard aim and shoot approach. But in this we get a nice top down view letting us see the entire room even more meaning they had to put even extra work into making sure nothing is out of place.
I watch your videos for 3 reasons: 1) make fun of movies I hate. 2) laugh at movies I love. 3) your wit. This video is all about reasons 2 and 3. I still love this movie.
I really liked this movie. The only thing that really bothered me is that there are so many scenes outside the train. If they would have been in the train the whole time it would have been more interesting in my own opinion.
I loooove this channel, even when sometimes it ruins movies that I enjoyed... like this one. Interesting fact about sin number 31, in the book Poirot deduces that they only pointed fingers at each other when that other’s alibi could immediately be verified, so that their relationship was concealed. Also, in the book, alibis were given only by people who initially claimed to dislike each other.
I feel like I'm one of the few people who did NOT like "Lady Bird". It was like "Boyhood" for me; a critically acclaimed film that I just didn't get. Oh, it's nowhere near as bad, but it felt like a slice of life film for someone whose life just really wasn't that interesting. I was bored through most of it, and parts of it just bugged the heck out of me -- like what happened to the director of the first play? He left, was later seen talking to Lady Bird's mother... and... SO WHAT WAS HIS POINT? What happened to the gay guy who was her first boyfriend? These were all far more interesting people to me than the boring main character (and for the record I do LIKE Saoirse Ronan -- the acting is absolutely fine in the film). Like in "Boyhood", the main character was the least interesting person yet got the most screentime. At least, though, it seemed to have some kind of arc, even if it was just a boring one.
"Who's that excite about a train leaving?". All the kids from my town when I was like 5 or 6. We ran with the train until it was far away. Then, I moved to a capital to live in a building...
This was painful to watch. The Murder on the Orient Express with David Suchet was such a masterpiece. This is just a beautifully shot mess. That said, please sin The Prestige. I've been asking for almost 4 years now. (How's that for commitment?)
7:16 Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, my guy. Which would make since for this detective movie because Hufflepuffs are very good finders and Ravenclaws are known for their wit. Either way, where's the red?
7:16 can we put a sin on this video for him saying Gryffindor when the colour of the scarf would obviously be more Hufflepuff Edit: Nvm I’m taking that sin off for the Hamilton reference 9:12
One major alteration from the book was the 12 members of jury that let Cassetti go free vs 12 murderers on the train thing. I thought that was a clever part in the book. I don't know why they had to change it. Anyway it's always hard to adapt Agatha Christie's books because most of the time the detecting part happens in Poirot's head and seeing him think or review evidence is probably not as interesting as seeing characters interact with each other. This movie is like a theater version of the book but filmed as a movie. I would have liked to see something like The Girl with the Dragon tattoo, though. That movie was great at showing how the detectives come to a conclusion without much exposition.
@@trod146 What? Cinema Sins made the Harry Potter joke, and you get mad(annoyed at the very least) at him for "playing make believe". Also it's a movie based on a fiction book where twelve people collaborate on one murder, we are playing make believe. So piss off, you wanker.
The book states a lot of things which are clever. For a start the train is rarely booked at the time of year and yet - he observes - that it suddenly full and with diverse characters. He only gets a compartment by luck. They had even booked the empty one to thwart witnesses. Even before the murder he smells a rat. The murder is symbolic - they are the 12 jurors that need to deliver vengeance that a court hasn't. The scene of the murder is designed to thwart police investigation because they are in a foreign land (with lazy police?) and they set up an alternate explanation for the murder. Each giving each other a false alibi. The premise is ludicrous - but so is many movies.
The reference to the accident of the rugby team took me by surprise, even more so than the pronunciation of my own country but still a great job on that education or research or whatever you guys do. (for the creation of these videos i mean)
One thing that always bothers me about this adaptation: The train stops AFTER the murder took place. In the book, the train was stopped for a while before the murder, so Poirot rules out the suspect's escape because the deep snow would have shown footprints. Here Poirot reaches the same conclusion, but we see the train was running for more than long enough for the suspect to jump out and get well away.
"The wailing wall is by the Dome of the Rock, which is an islamic shrine." Sorry, it gets *way* more complex than that. It also used to be several jewish temples as well, it's also a holy place for them, thus also making it holy for Christians, and... yeah, that's the entire problem with categorizing places in Jerusalem; there are so many holy places, and they're all so old and have so much history that they're almost all holy to all 3 major religions living there together.
Micah Philson Nah the Dome of the Rock is an Islamic shrine. He was right. The Temple Mount is what you are talking about. The Dome of the Rock itself is an Islamic shrine.
Local_ Hotpotato I grew up with the old and loved them because they tried to be exact to the books. I knew it wouldn’t be the same from the beginning and it made me mad. I guess I had high expectations and was very 😔
I’ve only read the book and it freaking bothers me. The only way they could get FARTHER away from Christie’s original description would be by giving him a flipping beard. And the grey hair! His hair is supposed to be black! His hair color freaking plays a part in solving the mystery in his last book “Curtain”! Making his hair grey is so wrong and it makes me so freaking mad
One of the things I've just realised about David Suchet is that he can pull off an obviously ridiculous moustache. Kenneth Branagh...Not so much. It looks like a squirrel died under his nose.
Haha, he shelled the viewers with egg puns "Movie takes thirty-eight minutes to murder when I was promised Murder On the Orient, Express." I can't stop laughing
"If the train is fully booked, as stated earlier, how is Princess Dragomiroff getting extra options?"
Cause if the Princess of Imperial Russia wants your cabin, you give her your cabin and get off the damn train lol.
Aside from the murder conspiracy, normally yes. LOL. Modern folks just don't know much about how aristocracy is and was handled in Europe.
Judy Densch was traveling with companion/servants. She booked 3 cabins so there would be room for all of them. She then took her choice of which one she wanted.
She's not an Imperial Princess tho.
@@hilaryhongkong - Aristocracy exists even if a country has revolted. Many aristocrats fled the country. They were Russian aristocrats in exile.
Many Russian aristocrats or members of the royal family (by blood or marriage, but of course not the immediate royal family that everyone knows got assassinated) who escaped continued to live in luxury and with power and authority. Other countries hosted them. The Dowager Empress is one example. Hell, descendants of the Romanov line still exist, hold power, and use their titles. The current "Empress" has a son who will succeed her and there is an entire website set up in an offical governmenty type of way. It's pretty easy to look up. My one professor, Dr. Russell Martin is on her staff and edits the annuals and such that get sent out her posted.
"Movie takes time to murder when I was promised Murder of the Orient, EXPRESS"
GOLD :D
Coraline Parmentier - Pianist for Peace yeah that's the best of all their lines
Coop Gaming agreed
Coraline Parmentier - Pianist for Peace %@1
I think you mean, 'Eggspress'
Coraline Parmentier - Pianist for Peace ✌🏽 now we
He kept sending the eggs back so that tge kid could eat them instead without it being an obvious handout
Also to stall the police chief while his office was being searched.
wow guys
Poirot always likes his eggs exactly the same size.
Sinning the fact that Poirot coincidentally stumbles upon a murder is kinda sinning the very premise of every Agatha Christie story ever lol. Poirot and Ms. Marple are basically murder magnets.
True. What about Jessica Fletcher....
Best keep away from her..;)
Which is also why you should run away if you ever run into Conan from Case Closed, every time he meets a new group of people a murder happens.
@@FastForwardPlans how about kindaichi hajime
Pretty sure Detective Conan contributes massively to Japan's murder/crime rates
Plus they almost always overhear crucial conversations between suspects well before any murder takes place. From the top of my head: This happens twice in Orient Express and at least once in Death on the Nile.
Sin 33: They left those clues on purpose to confuse whoever was in charge of the case. The clues would make certain characters look suspicious but they would make sure those characters had an alibi supported by another character, thus making the police not know who was guilty. There was only one clue that was left by accident (a piece of burnt paper) and what Poirot did was discover which of the many "clues" left at the scene was fake and which one was real. Dude.
PaolaP thank you
I agreee, @PaolaP. People, including CinemaSins never read the book. This is the second instance I have watched where @CinemaSins is makes an error for not having read the original source, which has reasonable logic as to why, the movie either shorthands original novel's exposition or deletes for time.
@@CalBruin Not reading the book is not making "an error." He sins them on the movie alone. You shouldn't have to read a book to make sense of the movie. Sorry, I normally don't leave comments, but you people leave these types of commemts on every book adaptation he sins.
@@georgewashington6347 , that would be fair but, the some of the sins are based upon the movie's direct translation of the book. In other words, they are sinning the movie for what was done in the book. NOT the movie's variation from the book BUT the direct quote from the book. Rather like chastising someone for their quoting another person's use of the F-word.
@@CalBruin actually, have you watched cinemasins' intro? i think he said he reads the books but one of the point of the channel was "the books don't matter"
"Everything Wrong With Murder On The Orient Express"? Well it's illegal for starters...
Wdym?
Care to explain please, mate?
@ In most societies, murder tends to be illegal. I assume the situation is relatively unchanged if the murder were to take place on the Orient Express.
@@Rougarou99 mate! I got it now. 'Murder' which is illegal. 🤣🤣PUny Brain of mine
What happens on the Orient Express stays on the Orient Express.
Some of these question are actually answered in the movie.
Poirot made the connection to Caseti because he discovered the mostly burned note, which was the one genuine clue, which game him the Armstrong name and allowed him to connect to the dots. If anyone but Poirot had found that note, it probably would have gone unidentified and its significance lost.
All of the finger pointing and deliberate clues left behind were to create confusion, pointing the investigation towards one suspect or another, who would then be exonerated by the testimony of another suspect (since they're all in on it). The idea was to try and create a situation where NONE of them could possibly be the killer, and it would be blamed on the "small man with the high pitched voice" that they invented. In the books Poirot even remarks on the matter himself when reacts to be confounded by saying to himself: "They can't ALL be in on it", which is when he realizes that, in fact, they ARE all in on it.
Their plan relied on the investigation never reaching that conclusion. And for most normal people, it probably wouldn't have.
“My name is Hercule Poroit. You killed my father, prepare to die.”
I’d pay to see that movie.
I would KILL to see that movie. Of course, he would catch me afterwards so nah, nevermind.
Mandy Patinkin as Poirot would be amazing.
You missed out the fact that Death on the Nile only works if Poirot is there at the start, before the murder happens, and yet he's only being told about it now, after the murder happens
Oh good. I thought I was remembering that wrong. Yeah, that scene doesn't work at all with the actual plot of Death on the Nile. Pretty big oversight. Akin to the last joke in the The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie which also made no sense and wouldn't fit the story of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
They'll retcon it.
My guess would be he goes to the Nile to solve that murder and coincidentally ANOTHER more INTERESTING murder happens just as he's solving the last one.
In the book that murder seemed spontanius and the only two with motiv Also has aliby sort of, but Also he sleeped through it all becuse he was sedated so it was not a spere of the moment. Him turning up now works by taking That out.
Than again how long dose it takes to travel from London to cairo 1934?
@@parkerdinhwilliams15 Yes, that's precisely the only way they have to retcon it.
You know it takes a lot of time and commitment to grow that kind of mustache
10,000 Subscribers Without Any Videos true, unless its prostetic. In that case it grows in seconds
Obviously Poirot had the time and by golly that is a mustache!
10,000 Subscribers Without Any Videos idk. I mean, mine was grown without much thought. Just didn't shave. Easy to just do NOTHING
Yes, but it is the grooming dear Agon that is admirable. Any fool may grow facial hair, but it takes commitment to groom one of that caliber.
30k
"Why is Poirot famous?"
In the books, it's justified because Hastings writes books based on Poirot's adventures.
That's Dr Watson for Sherlock Holmes. Hastings never writes anything. He's only in 7 of the books. Ariadne Oliver is the writer, and she doesn't write about Poirot. Poirot is famous because of the newspapers and the high profile cases he has investigated and solved.
@@LFire12 Hastings wrote at least the ABC Murders.
Anna Marianne and the mysterious affair at styles, and the murder on the links and black coffee.
Poirot is famous because he was a renowned police inspector in Belgium and then became a world renowned private detective.
Cher Hastings also wrote a bunch of the short stories. There are probably a couple dozen cases he chronicled. Made a bit of a living at it, as I recall.
"That scarf obviously means he's been sorted into House Gryffindor" No, that's Hufflepuff, get your houses straight
As a Hufflepuff that ticked me off lol.
Somehow Lockhart is a magnet for trouble no matter where he goes.
5:05 For the record, the reason they all blamed each other was because they wanted to confuse the shit out of Poirot so he would keep suspecting that it was just one specific person and never be able to find out exactly who it was.
Exactly. Poirot must not know they were working together. So what better way to sell the lie than to pretend antagonism.
I'd assume it'd be more suspicious if no one pointed fingers at eachother
@@meerkat10 as in the book where they share some, Oh I do not like the guy I am rooming with for he is a foraigner, but I am giving him a solid as stone aliby and give a testament of his good character?
in the book they dis not
Sin 30: They're implicating each other in order to make solving the case more difficult. They can make accusations all day and it won't matter. Everyone has an alibi corroborated by another passenger.
djhutchison the fact that they had an alibi each and was supported by another pretty much told you that either several of them or every single one of them was the murderer. They tried too hard to make it difficult.
Andruşca A-N-K To be fair, that's totally a rookie mistake I could see a group of inexperienced killers making.
Harmon Lanager that is true, but here we are talking about a group of people who planned for this many, many years. Enough that they were prepared for almost any kind of situation. How could they have not realized that? Because at least one or two characters seemed the type to disagree with everything. Were they all that blinded with rage and guilt that they made a barely halfassed plan that could cost their lives?.. well, maybe, but the movie was trying to portray (?) them as intelligent or charming, etc, why go to this lenght to make them seem way more than they were? (Probably this has an obvious answer as well.)
Because the solution that all the people in the coach is obviously so common, and certainly the first thing that anyone would have thought up.
Tej Maziga Shah well, that is true, but I still find the effort put into the "mystery" disheartening.
"Like omelet that happen." 😆😂... I'm done!
That whole line and then that to finish the pun. CinemaSins PUN-ished us
Eggellent taste in puns this guy has. I'm eggited to hear this I just hope I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch you know but I have the feeling there will be more than just egg puns! This is going to be grate! I love puns!
New Sage i
Is that a 2chan/4chan rip-off?
That was the only egg pun I don't get.
The biggest problem I had with this version is they skip most of his interrogations of passengers; then he pulls deductions out of his ass in the big confrontation scene.
The scene where Poirot stands on the top of a train that has just been hit by an avalanche and is barely standing on a bridge next to an abyss while looking for evidence without even wearing a coat out in the cold, might just be the most unlike Poirot thing I've ever seen.
No-no-no! His brother's name is Achille Poirot! :)
So true. In the sequel he gets into a gunfight and a chase.
All I knew is that they were just stranded. There was no bridge nothing else. I did not get to see the Taurus Express trip either
I wish you mentioned the fact that Hercule took the place of another passenger right before they left, which leaves you with the question: Was that person supposed to be apart of the plan? Were the other passengers dumb enough to have one person who wasn't involved in the murder be on the train? and How lucky/unlikely is it that Hercule would have bumped that one person who wasn't involved (presumably)?
I was wondering that as well. From what I read that was supposed to be the fall guy.
They booked an extra ticket using a fake name. A.M. Harris
With the conductor in on the plan, he would have said that this person was actually aboard the train (ake he never was).
This was why McQueen was confused when the detective suddenly became his roommate. His original roommate was supposed to be A.M. Harris.
So then that way, when the murder took place, they could have blamed A.M. Harris, as he is not there anymore.
Police would then be searching for someone that never existed to begin with.
shinjig ahh....💡 thank you for your explanation. I also was wondering about that.
No, they booked that car under a false name. It was always supposed to be empty. At least in the book -- I can't recall if they mention this in the movie. There was no fall guy. The killers were obsessed with JUSTICE. That's why they needed to have exactly 12 people involved in the plot. 12 people is a jury. They would not have involved an innocent party.
It was booked under a false name in the movie as well. It was mentioned at the beginning when the detective usurped the spot on the train as A.M. Harris never "checked in".
A.M. Harris would have been the one that was missing when the train arrived at the station when the police would have been looking for the killer. Otherwise they would run the chance of any one of them or all of them being put in jail.
Otherwise, why bother booking another passenger? Just write the story so that there were no extra seats for A.M. Harris to fill. Give just enough rooms for the 12 killers and the victim.
He never existed. It was imperative that McQueen be alone.
Actually, the Orient Express is not just any train. It's like THE train.
King of King, Train of Trains?
Woah
@@christiankrarup6501 no
Timothy Rodowicz Don’t question my knowledge of trains. I’ll have you know, I trained for years in a degree in Trainology
Thomas?
Actually,a lot of people get excited about a train leaving XD
I got on a train once and throughout the whole ride everyone outside were waving at the people in the train
Because
Trains
Was this is 1936 LOL
That glorious mustache erases all sin
chandra roy agreed but it was still magnificent
Except in the books Poirot always dyed it jet black.
Vegeta: MOOSTACHE
Mikey L
Me too, this version is an abomination
*Aaron Burr missed*
soph he didn’t with hamilton😋
He aims the pistol at the sky (WAIT)
I snorted when he said that
If only...
I actually fangirled when he said that
"Who gets this excited about a train leaving?"
Jeremy clearly doesn't have children or he would have witnessed them exploding with excitement and waving so hard they give themselves a dislocated arm every time a train passes by!
He has at least one son.
Not even just it leaving; it wasn’t a train, but I remember waving at planes in the sky all the time as a kid
Omg yes!! When I was a kid i used to get really excited whenever a train passed
Not even just kids - a whole category of people enough to have a name: Rail Fans!
And this was 1920s. Trains were still new and the Orient Express was quite famous.
David Suchet plays Poirot brilliantly, and he's done about 40 2 hour episodes/movies. They're all good, especially with Hugh Fraser playing Arthur Hastings and Philip Jackson playing Chief Inspector Japp. I highly recommend it to any Agatha Christie fans such as myself :D
That's why i couldn't watch this movie .. there's one Poirot only and he is David Suchet
No he doesn’t play Poirot brilliantly. Poirot was humble, this Poirot loudly claims he’s the best detective in the world. This Poirot speaks complete nonsense at times like the rubbish about the eggs and the bread, book Poirot only spoke when he needed to. Also this Poirot lost his cool and for some reason got angry at times for very little reason, in the book he never got angry. Also, also it seemed he accidentally stumbled on the conclusion. This Poirot was terrible.
Finally someone that knows of this show ;-; none of my peers know of it and I’m guessing I only do cause my dad has always loved it ;-;
Tom Harding this poirot isn’t David suchet though?
@@Tom_Harding thank god im not the only one that think this portrayal of Poirot is a complete joke, and the whole movie is horribly to boot
7:16 Jeremy.
That's Hufflepuff.
How could you do this to us.
Vtel 'Zolam
Nah it would be Ravenclaw cuz it's blue
ęlectra heart There isn't a hint of blue in that scarf
It's definitely Hufflepuff, as their house colours are black and yellow.
It's the dress all over again...
Well there is a bit of red and it could be argued that the stripes are gold instead
dad of yellow. But you know...
2:10 Hahaha, he definitely felt bad after the Tomb Raider videos! The comments were... not always generous.
I think you have to at least be a little dickish to choose to make a living crapping on people's work.
Doesn't mean he's evil, but at least a bit of a dick. I'm kinda a dick too, since I only come here to point out logical flaws in their arguments and crap like that. Like the one I made below about monk.
Ellder Sage his job is reviewing atrocious movies
That's not what cinema sins is about. It's not about reviewing, that would entail a recommendation for/against it. Cinema sins is about showing us that ALL movies have sins, none of them are perfect, it can always improve.
Except very few of them are atrocious.
You're an absolute moron if you take CinemaSins seriously. They're COMEDY videos ffs.
Sin 35: Poirot is able to read part of the note left for Rachett. It said, "Remember Daisy Armstrong." Who else would the note be for if not Cassetti? It's a revenge killing, and they wanted him to know why he was going to die. Poirot knew Cassetti fled they U.S. with his fortune. He knew Rachett wasn't what he claimed to be. The note answered a lot of questions.
There are tons of sins he points out that were explained in the novel...
Yes, in the novel, not necessarily in the movie. CinemaSins doesn't care about the books, only the movies
And this movie adaptation is shit. Can't even explain itself properly.
Unfortunately that's the destiny of most novel based movies. Movies will never do justice to good novels simply because of the amount of detail the move has to skip in order to not be 5 hours long.
Yeah, but some of the changes they make just... make no sense! Or fully contradict what the book says. Like here, Miss Debenham is not supposed to be a redhead; yes, Helena said her governess was red-headed and called Freebody, which Poirot knows is a lie because she's going the complete opposite of what Debenham looks like.
...and then you have crap like the Harry Potter movies, which altered so much, you pretty much can't understand half of what's going on in the last one, unless you've read the book.
That's one of the worst things an adaptation can do: be incapable of standing on its own, without knowing the original source.
Poirot will always be an man with egg shaped head, kind of short, and an air of 'know it all' around him for me.
I met an actual Belgian who looked exactly like I would picture him: on the fat side, very pale, little moustache, black hair and a feminine voice.
and one great mustache!!! XD
And no gray hair.
Yes, and why would that be? Just because it's how he is in the source material? What an incredibly unreasonable assumption...
Yeah, DAVID SUCHET
"Aaron Burr misses" I WAS WAITING FOR THAT REFERENCE SINCE LESLIE STARTED TO APPEAR IN SCREEN
Lee Scharfenberg YES
Pardon me, but was he Aaron Burr, sir?
That depends, who's asking?
Oh sure sir! I'm Alexander Hamilton, I'm at your service, sir! I have been, looking for you
I'm getting nervous
5:24 It was explained in the books and probably in the movie as well. They left all the clues, because they contradicted themselves (time of the murder, the owner of the pipecleaner, the handkerchief). It was supposed to make the solving of the crime impossible for Poirot as paradoxically the excess of clues was harder for him to solve than the lack of them.
I know the creators of Monk talk about how Sherlock Holmes was “the” major inspiration for the character of Adrian Monk, but even in the BBC/Suchet productions - where they don’t play up the obsessive-compulsive angle so much - it’s pretty clear that the Monk concept fits the Poirot mold more closely than it does Holmes. The persnicketiness of the main character is more in line with Poirot, and the way Monk and Stottlemeyer interacted was far closer to the cooperative Poirot-and-Japp dynamic than the competitive Holmes-and-Lestrade dynamic.
Very well noted re:Poirot has to be the actual basis for Monk.
Exactly! Poirot was the first obsessive fussy detective!
Poirot, Monk, House and many others are all inspired by Sherlock Holmes.
@@Peppermint_Winter Not to be that person, but Holmes came way before Poirot.
@@loganharris2166 Not to be obnoxious, but I'm gonna be obnoxious! Do you think it doesn't count if you point it out yourself? Just curious.
" Why is Olaf with a shirt running away here?" OMG I CAN'T BREATH
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Two mustaches fighting under the nose for dominance" is genius
"what happens when the engine stops?"
"we all freeze and die"
i understood that reference. Steve Rogers
Another sin is the setting, between vinkovci and brod is some of flattest land in croatia (part of yugoslavia) nowhere near Alps like mountains shown. Plus the black yugoslavian policeman at the end is also hillarious
Ivor Omerzo bravo. I didn’t want to mantion that, but you are right 😎
Ivor Omerzo If there's anything more annoying that the pompious attitude of Cinema Sins towards fiction, it's wannabees.
I have heard this comment before, but that is a sin to the book, not the movie, as the original Novel had the same exact issue, so can't blame the movie for that
True. I noticed the same thing. And it's a big one!
@@vrededromer8955 Have you read the novel? It did not have the exact same issue. In the novel the train is held up by a snowdrift. No mountains, no avalanche.
3:48 Would you look at that Gilderoy and Grindelwald talking to each other. I wonder if that would ever happen
Sure, in hell.
Hilarious!
’Arron Burr misses’ I love how he knows
Love it!
Those egg puns were Scrambled together. But you did go Over-easy
Stop with the yolks!
They’re not eggcellent!
It’s very eggervating!
Just add some more on fried-ay.
catluvr2 save it for the hollandaise.
The Good Doctor
I found them a bit soft boiled
David Suchet will always be the best Poirot.
Nightone exactly. And episode Murder on the Orient Express was very powerful. This picture here is weak copy.
@@bejbimama6689 the original Albert Finney is the best
He was absolutely fantastic and I watched every of his episodes at least twice lol
That is true
No ew
8:33 When the book was originally published, it was not entitled “Murder on the Orient Express” but “Murder in the Calais Coach.” The Istanbul-Calais Passenger Coach was where the murder took place, and because all the passenger coaches were locked during the night and were under guard by the coach attendant (in this case, Pierre Michel), it was deemed by Poirot as impossible that the murder could’ve been committed by anyone outside of that coach. You could say that the piano player and most of the train staff have alibis.
“Murder in the Calais Coach” was only the original U.S. title; the title was “Murder on the Orient Express” when it was first published in the U.K.
In addition, one running theme through all of Agatha Christie’s novels is that the lower classes, the employees, the help, are almost never the murderers. In fact, in most of her novels they rarely get even a mention, as if they don’t exist.
@@christophermaybury4918 Murder in the Calais Coach was the original title of the serialised first publication in a magazine, before it became the novel.
@@JohnOConnell It was published as a novel, titled “Murder on the Orient Express”, in the U.K. before it was published in any form in the U.S.
@@christophermaybury4918 True, but before it was published even as a novel, it was serialised in a magazine as I previously stated.
"What happens when the engine stops? We all freeze and die!"
Zaxor Von Skyler ah you watched the video too?
??? Bro I like that part, it's called having an opinion!
Someone from Snowpiercer?
Sin snowpiercer
Ice cell6, he already did!
That scarf looks much more Hufflepuff though...
You forgot two sins that could’ve easily been avoided by looking at a map. There are no mountains or even hills nowhere near Vinkovci, for 150km. That area is known for its flatness. And the other thing is that when the train arrived in Slavonski Brod (which is a city, not just a station) the officers were not Yugoslavs and trust me, there were little to no African immigrants in Yugoslavia in that time.
They did not show Taurus Express trip as far as I know
Thank you for pointing these facts out.
That also stood out to me. The whole reason that Poirot gave in and took the case was because Bouc told him that if he didn't the Yugoslavian police would charge and hang Arbuthnot or Marquez for the murder due to their skin color/ethnicity. Why would such a prejudiced organization hire the very people they were prejudiced against?
“Omelette that happen” 🔥🔥🔥
I watch cinemasins because im too poor to afford movie tickets
I watch cinemasins because so few movies these days are worth the ticket price.
Lodatz emoji movie was a great movie mind you
English Much It's sad how no-one cared about it's snub at the Oscars
This movie is in redbox
I watch cinemasins because I couldn't be bothered watching full movies but I still want to see what they are about.
Seems there is another case to solve!
Let's get -Sherlock Gnomes-
_I MEAN SHERLOCK HOLMES_
To help.
Jeesus I read it as sherlock gnomes and when I reread it, It really did read that... what has my life become when this is the funniest thing happened to me today
You mean Hercule Poirot, right?
Why not Gnomeo?
I feel like I just saw you at a JackSepticeye video.
Why are u everywhere?
I honestly enjoyed this movie.
Same
Where can i watch it pls
Frizzey Gaming Now? You can do what many people do:download it. Or you can do what I do:buy the DVD.
Frizzey Gaming bmovies.to, ymovies, 123movies, gostream.ag, gostream.is, or google the name of the movie and type putloker next to it, or use kodi or popcorn time
Poirot asking them to shoot him honestly stressed me out
9:36 "Who's the detective now, smirky Herc-y?" XD
CinemaSins: Aaron Burr misses
Hamilfans: *start freaking out and bouncing around*
Rowena Ravenclaw me lol
I literally searched the comment section for a comment about this XD
Static Rainbow literally same
Rowena Ravenclaw mee
SAAMMEE
Ah my friends
"Aaron Burr misses."
I actually really liked this film, they did good by the original films/book, but.. Cinemasins gotta do what Cinemasins gotta do..
I also like that both Branagh and Jacobi were in Hamlet together hehe
Agree, after a shitshow that was justice league, this movie made me happy
Actually the Writer and director of the movie didn’t even read the book so he could have his own take on the story
indeed, they even give sins for unanswered questions that they themselves answer in later sins such as why didn't one person just murder him (they all wanted a shot and it was conspiracy), how did they all fit in one tiny cabin at the same time (followed by clip of them queuing in the corridor to take turns), why did they do it on a train how did they expect to get away with it (by planting the evidence to point to disgruntled Mafia business associate and to make it look like the murderer was an intruder on the train that had already fled) and why were they all in the same coach on a fully booked train (they had booked out the entire carriage for conspiracy members but Hercule was moved there at the last moment taking the room reserved for company directors)
I also really liked it, but it seemed that they unnecessarily changed certain details from the book for the heck of it. I get the stuff like the dramatic chase and shooting cause, y’know Movies. But what was wrong with the Chauffeur being Italian? Why did we have to start in Jerusalem rather than Aleppo? Additionally, the original line in French was “Ce n’est rien. Je me suis trompé”. Why did this need to be shortened?! Also, in the film, I’m pretty sure that Daisy Armstrong’s name doesn’t feature on the burnt scrap, but in the book the only reason Poirot makes the connection is because it says “... remember little Daisy Armstrong...”. Perhaps it was a mistake reading the book directly before seeing the film...!😂
9:14
I applauded you for putting a Hamilton reference into my favourite movie
I love it
AARON BURR MISSES
I saw that joke coming from last year, still love it
I didn't get that joke is it something to do with the actor
Nvm it's from Hamilton
BITCH i SCREAMED
*screm*
I was waiting for someone to cmment this
"Aaron Burr missed." IF ONLY-
*small sniffle*
Honestly high five
Not a big fan of the Federalists myself. Burr did us all a favor.
“I should have known. I should have known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me. The world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me...”
@@Kirbo14 *applauds*
"Aaron Burr misses" who's throwing away their shoot now huh
Valulisa HAHAHAHHH LOL
When it comes to Poirot, to me nobody plays the character better than David Suchet, especially in Murder on the Orient Express
Ahh, the movie I wanted to see but never did, so I’ll just watch cinemasins and piece together the plot from there
kitty kat
Dude, same.
kitty kat, same! Why watch it if you can get a summed up version of all the stupid things!
_ Tylireous _ same
I hate people like you. Intentionally watching spoilers of mostly the bad parts and thinking it somehow is a good representation of the movie.
it’s boring you didn’t miss anything
I really like the camera work in this movie. 5:20 Is a shot that normally would be taken by the standard aim and shoot approach. But in this we get a nice top down view letting us see the entire room even more meaning they had to put even extra work into making sure nothing is out of place.
"There's not even a rugby team from Uruguay around for if he gets hungry"
I see what you did there, Jeremy
"There's not even a rugby team from Uruguay around for if he gets hungry" you did not just say that.
7:16 i cant tell if youre joking or dont know the colors of the houses of hogwarts but this was so hilarious i almost spit my tea
Laura Carrera Tycipal shitty fan boiiiiiiii comment is Tycipal and shitty
萊爾富
Thank you for your kind words that provided us with such godlike constructive criticisms.
Laura Carrera “almost spit my tea” might be the most British line I’ve read XD
Reda Gadanfar WOW👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Neeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrdddddddddddd
Burr threw away his shot
He just had to wait for it.
Cid Crisis I'm crying in the club rn
He was in the room where it happened
Allonsy! "Doctor Who said what now" 😂
I watch your videos for 3 reasons:
1) make fun of movies I hate.
2) laugh at movies I love.
3) your wit.
This video is all about reasons 2 and 3. I still love this movie.
I really liked this movie. The only thing that really bothered me is that there are so many scenes outside the train. If they would have been in the train the whole time it would have been more interesting in my own opinion.
That's how it was in the original movie. They added in the outside the train stuff & the small action scenes 'cos they were afraid of it being boring.
Mijuki In the book, I am pretty sure they never leave the train. It's an awesome book, by the way
Why would you watch this if you didn't want spoilers
Gonna watch the original then, ty :)
Mijuki I.I
2:14 omg did he make two sin videos on lara croft and say her name wrong the whole time
Yes. Yes he did.
i haven't even watched the videos and im already triggered
Yep & it grated throughout though still funny
Who doesn't pronounce Lara like Laura though?
Brynn Hill no one does lol. Not in the games or movies...at least that I've heard
That Uruguay Rugby joke though...
COOOLLLLDDDD
I was looking for this comment.
ICE COLD
CinemaSins: “Aaron Burr misses.”
Me: ITS THE 10 DUEL COMMANDMENTS!!!!
I loooove this channel, even when sometimes it ruins movies that I enjoyed... like this one.
Interesting fact about sin number 31, in the book Poirot deduces that they only pointed fingers at each other when that other’s alibi could immediately be verified, so that their relationship was concealed. Also, in the book, alibis were given only by people who initially claimed to dislike each other.
Gryffindor? GRYFFINDOR?
Skyeboat
Smh it should be Hufflepuff not Gryffindor.
Oh good, someone said it. I initially though Ravenclaw, because of the dark blue of the scarf though..
Actually, if anything it's _clearly_ a hybrid of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, or rather *Ravenpuff* 😉 💙💛
Huffleclaw or Ravenpuff.
Little Tee Thank you for saying it!
everything wrong with lady bird / call me by your name / i tonya
They probably will do them... once they're out on DVD and Blu-ray. CS don't do films until they're on home media.
Caitlin Rix which is why they suggested them. All 3 have been on DVD for nearly a month by now.
Let's have them sin all the best picture nominees for 2018 (winner included)
I feel like I'm one of the few people who did NOT like "Lady Bird". It was like "Boyhood" for me; a critically acclaimed film that I just didn't get. Oh, it's nowhere near as bad, but it felt like a slice of life film for someone whose life just really wasn't that interesting. I was bored through most of it, and parts of it just bugged the heck out of me -- like what happened to the director of the first play? He left, was later seen talking to Lady Bird's mother... and... SO WHAT WAS HIS POINT? What happened to the gay guy who was her first boyfriend? These were all far more interesting people to me than the boring main character (and for the record I do LIKE Saoirse Ronan -- the acting is absolutely fine in the film). Like in "Boyhood", the main character was the least interesting person yet got the most screentime. At least, though, it seemed to have some kind of arc, even if it was just a boring one.
firefly4f4 Same but with Call Me By Your Name. It was creepy to me, the relationship between the two. It forces representation so hard it hurts lmao
"Who's that excite about a train leaving?". All the kids from my town when I was like 5 or 6. We ran with the train until it was far away. Then, I moved to a capital to live in a building...
All the sins this movie had should've been taken away if the real twist was that Derek Jacobi was actually The Master the whole time.
"Aaron Burr Misses" I knew I wasn't alone.
Same!!
Eyyyy
A-yo-yo-yo yo yo!
This was painful to watch. The Murder on the Orient Express with David Suchet was such a masterpiece. This is just a beautifully shot mess. That said, please sin The Prestige. I've been asking for almost 4 years now. (How's that for commitment?)
Why was it painful to watch? When I saw it in the cinema, I really enjoyed it.
A lot of things that don't make sense here are explained in the 1970's version, as well as the book.
9:14 You mean Aaron Burr SIR.
(Edit) OMG sooooo many likes! Thank u
Caleb Collier Who's asking?
Raeann R Oh Sure, Sir
Carlos Dávila I’m Alexander Hamilton! I’m at your Service, Sir. I have been looking for you!
Poni Mele I'm getting nervous
Poni Mele I'm getting nervous
When I miss it in the cinema, I catch up on the film here 😂
Issy Rose Or to see if it is a movie that should rent/red box.
7:16 Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, my guy. Which would make since for this detective movie because Hufflepuffs are very good finders and Ravenclaws are known for their wit. Either way, where's the red?
Hanbei Hood my thoughts exactly om
I would say Ravenclaw, not enough yellow for Hufflepuff. I was totally thinking the same thing though....how the hell is that red and gold lol
Do: Everything Wrong With Clue. The one with Tim Curry!!!
7:16 can we put a sin on this video for him saying Gryffindor when the colour of the scarf would obviously be more Hufflepuff
Edit: Nvm I’m taking that sin off for the Hamilton reference 9:12
Ninja Jellyfish YES
HELL YES!!!
OMG YES!
So True!
ha ik i was thinking he should really learn his house colours.
The Great Moustache Detective
Ah I thought it was only me who caught that reference!
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!
You guys are AWESOMETACULER!!! Keep up the AWESOMETACULER work!!!
Please do:
1) Pitch Perfect 3
2) Shrek 3 and 4
3) The Princess Bride
4) The Huntsmen Winters War
5) The Circle
6) Narnia 2 and 3
7) Pan
8) Oceans 11,12,13
9) Air Force 1
10) Madagascar 2 and 3
One major alteration from the book was the 12 members of jury that let Cassetti go free vs 12 murderers on the train thing. I thought that was a clever part in the book. I don't know why they had to change it. Anyway it's always hard to adapt Agatha Christie's books because most of the time the detecting part happens in Poirot's head and seeing him think or review evidence is probably not as interesting as seeing characters interact with each other. This movie is like a theater version of the book but filmed as a movie. I would have liked to see something like The Girl with the Dragon tattoo, though. That movie was great at showing how the detectives come to a conclusion without much exposition.
THE MONK REFERENCE
The sports Fanatic IKR it made me so happy!
Oh CinemaSins - 2:15. Haha! Now if only you could learn your Hogwarts house colours...
Hufflepuff up in here
@@SickoXXII no.. We're not playing make believe here. Go to a harry potter video
@@trod146 What? Cinema Sins made the Harry Potter joke, and you get mad(annoyed at the very least) at him for "playing make believe". Also it's a movie based on a fiction book where twelve people collaborate on one murder, we are playing make believe. So piss off, you wanker.
yeah man, Yellow is Hufflepuff, red is gryffindor.
I read the book so this movie review would not do spoilers.
The book is much better.
Generally speaking, any book-based movie will fail to meet the viewer's expectations.
Books> movie
Not even the book is better. The Old movie is also better than this one.
The 1974 movie was so much better than this one. Even Agatha Christie herself liked it.
The book states a lot of things which are clever. For a start the train is rarely booked at the time of year and yet - he observes - that it suddenly full and with diverse characters. He only gets a compartment by luck. They had even booked the empty one to thwart witnesses. Even before the murder he smells a rat. The murder is symbolic - they are the 12 jurors that need to deliver vengeance that a court hasn't. The scene of the murder is designed to thwart police investigation because they are in a foreign land (with lazy police?) and they set up an alternate explanation for the murder. Each giving each other a false alibi. The premise is ludicrous - but so is many movies.
The reference to the accident of the rugby team took me by surprise, even more so than the pronunciation of my own country but still a great job on that education or research or whatever you guys do. (for the creation of these videos i mean)
Good mustache *sin removed*
But Mark Saad Hitler's mustache gets no sins off
The biggest issue with this film is that its not David Suchet playing Poirot
The Uruguay sports team cannibal reference.... holy crap that came out of nowhere XD
#toosoon?
One thing that always bothers me about this adaptation: The train stops AFTER the murder took place. In the book, the train was stopped for a while before the murder, so Poirot rules out the suspect's escape because the deep snow would have shown footprints. Here Poirot reaches the same conclusion, but we see the train was running for more than long enough for the suspect to jump out and get well away.
2:53 I bet she’s the kind of insufferable cow that books four cabins just so she can make that scene about choosing the best one.
"The wailing wall is by the Dome of the Rock, which is an islamic shrine."
Sorry, it gets *way* more complex than that. It also used to be several jewish temples as well, it's also a holy place for them, thus also making it holy for Christians, and... yeah, that's the entire problem with categorizing places in Jerusalem; there are so many holy places, and they're all so old and have so much history that they're almost all holy to all 3 major religions living there together.
Micah Philson but, it's defenitly not by the holy sepulchre. That's the opposite direction of the temple mount.
Oh, no… No, no, no, no, no, no…
YOU FOOL- what've you done!? Now the whole thread's about to go up in flame war!
Neeeeérrrddd!
Micah Philson Nah the Dome of the Rock is an Islamic shrine. He was right. The Temple Mount is what you are talking about. The Dome of the Rock itself is an Islamic shrine.
That's cause all three religions started in the same place all worshipping the same god then they split apart
I enjoyed this film
Disney65Fan Watch the version from the 1970's. It's much better and more faithful to the book.
Read Agatha's book.
You obviously haven’t read the book
I was waiting for a Hamilton reference and you did me proud cinemasins
Pride is not the word I'm looking for, there is so much more inside me now....Sorry.
My father wasn’t around man
That's Hufflepuff god dammit, I'm sinning this. Ding
Ravenclaw, m8
Anyone else who grew up with the old ones had issues with the megastache while at the theater?
Local_ Hotpotato I grew up with the old and loved them because they tried to be exact to the books. I knew it wouldn’t be the same from the beginning and it made me mad. I guess I had high expectations and was very 😔
I’ve only read the book and it freaking bothers me. The only way they could get FARTHER away from Christie’s original description would be by giving him a flipping beard.
And the grey hair! His hair is supposed to be black! His hair color freaking plays a part in solving the mystery in his last book “Curtain”! Making his hair grey is so wrong and it makes me so freaking mad
I read the books and his mustache irked me
I've seen the original movie, the David Suchet show version, and played the game. This is by far the worst version of Hercule Poirot of them all.
One of the things I've just realised about David Suchet is that he can pull off an obviously ridiculous moustache. Kenneth Branagh...Not so much.
It looks like a squirrel died under his nose.
I was super disappointed by this portrayal of Poirot but I'll admit it had some cool cinematography.
Haha, he shelled the viewers with egg puns
"Movie takes thirty-eight minutes to murder when I was promised Murder On the Orient, Express."
I can't stop laughing