Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

. . . I can only hope someone somewhere possesses both the power and the will to derail the 2017 adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express perpetrated by Kenneth Branagh for no good or even comprehensible reason . . .

Dear god, why, WHY would they remake that movie?

Melki wrote: "Dear god, why, WHY would they remake that movie?"

Because Kenneth Branagh = hubris. And some 19-year-old studio exec thought it would be cool. ::eyeroll:

it just seems so... unnecessary. I do wonder if he's doing it more for the paycheck than out of hubris though. although of course it's Branagh, so hubris will be a part of the equation no matter what!

I will still watch it though. too irresistible not to.

I did completely love his mega-adaptation of Hamlet (well, minus his sex scenes with Ophelia, ugh). the rest of what I've seen has either left me cold or actively annoyed me.

also, great review!

I remember being very confused (and not a little bored) by Elephants Can Remember. now I understand why, because Christie's clarity is usually one of her hallmarks.

mark wrote: "it just seems so... unnecessary. I do wonder if he's doing it more for the paycheck than out of hubris though. although of course it's Branagh, so hubris will be a part of the equation no matter what!

I will still watch it though. too irresistible not to.

I did completely love his mega-adaptation of Hamlet (well, minus his sex scenes with Ophelia, ugh). the rest of what I've seen has either left me cold or actively annoyed me."

The sex scenes with Ophelia were, to be blunt, revealing...old perv.

I won't spend my tiny budget on the film but when it comes to some streaming service I'll give it a few hours. Mostly, I admit, to gain permission from myself to rip it up one side and tear it down the other.

Now watch, it'll be brilliant and there I'll be with my teeth in my mouth. The goddesses love fucking with any kind of certainty.

mark wrote: "also, great review!

I remember being very confused (and not a little bored) by Elephants Can Remember. now I understand why, because Christie's clarity is usually one of her hallmarks."

Thank you! It's a favorite of mine and, if you haven't seen the TV adaptation, Netflix that bad boy right on up.

Kenneth Branagh's Poirot mustache offends me.

Miriam wrote: "Kenneth Branagh's Poirot mustache offends me."

Haven't seen it...am offended anyway.

It is ridiculous and huge, not at all as described in the books.

Miriam wrote: "It is ridiculous and huge..."

Like his ego.

Yes, but making his mustache ALSO huge is too obvious!

I thought Suchet did a great job making the character sympathetic while staying true to Christie.

Albert Finney was wonderfully weird in the first adaptation. Ustinov is my favorite, but then I have yet to see any of the Suchet episodes.

Suchet's Poirot is one of the best performances in any role ever. The early ones are a bit too comic, but he comes to completely inhabit the role - it's hard to imagine anyone else ever being Poirot again. [although, pace Miriam, I've heard people happy that Brannagh's moustache will be more like the books...]

The film version wasn't that great, and the Suchet version is much too short, and derailed by an introduced subplot about Catholicism. So a remake makes sense. Besides, it's one of those All The Actors films that are always going to be remade ever generation or two, like Oceans 11. [though, having said that, I would mind them remaking, say, Twelve Angry Men, which is crying out for a remake for the same reasons (last full length one was 20 years ago now).]

Regarding Brannagh: Thor was actually pretty good, for what it was! It is interesting, though, that as a director his most acclaimed films are the first ones he made. Not sure how he went from "Henry V" and "Peter's Friends" to "Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit"...

As an actor, though... anyone who hasn't seen Conspiracy needs to do so. You wouldn't have thought that a near-verbatum dramatisation of the committee meeting to get everyone on the same page about the Final Solution would really be watchable, but it's gripping, largely thanks to the quality of the actors, and particular Brannagh as Reinhard Heydrich. It's an astonishingly, and horribly realistically, sociopathic performance of stone-cold, weirdly charismatic, evil. [backed up by people like Stanley Tucci (Adolf Eichmann), Colin Firth (Dr Stuckart), and Ian MacNiece (Dr Klopfer)]

I forgot about Thor! I'd add that to the short list of Brannagh films I've enjoyed.

Conspiracy sounds completely fascinating but also really, really grueling to watch. I feel like I'd almost prefer to read a synopsis of it.

Miriam wrote: "I thought Suchet did a great job making the character sympathetic while staying true to Christie."

That is what I like about the adaptations. The inevitable compromises of going from page to screen are handled in such a way as to retain the attitude Christie took towards her creation.

mark wrote: "Albert Finney was wonderfully weird in the first adaptation. Ustinov is my favorite, but then I have yet to see any of the Suchet episodes."

Acorn TV has the earliest series, 1-8 I believe, exclusively (Amazon Prime has an Acorn channel if you're one of their hostages as I am). 9-13 are on Netflix, and honestly are the superior adaptations though all too frequently of the inferior works (eg Elephants Can Remember). The later adaptations are 90min, not 50min.

One thing many purists object to in the series adaptations is the decision made early on to place all the stories in the 1930s. Poirot novels take place into the modern day (well, MY modern anyway since for all of me 2017 is science fiction land). For my money that was a good decision as it lent the tales a desirable aesthetic cohesiveness.

They're worth a watch.

Wastrel wrote: "[although, pace Miriam, I've heard people happy that Brannagh's moustache will be more like the books...]"

Poirot's fussy little mustache is how the books describe it...not sure how that error crept in...

Wastrel wrote: "The film version wasn't that great, and the Suchet version is much too short, and derailed by an introduced subplot about Catholicism."

Actually a good addition in light on events in Curtain.

Wastrel wrote: As an actor, though... anyone who hasn't seen Conspiracy needs to do so. You wouldn't have thought that a near-verbatum dramatisation of the committee meeting to get everyone on the same page about the Final Solution would really be watchable, but it's gripping, largely thanks to the quality of the actors, and particular Brannagh as Reinhard Heydrich. It's an astonishingly, and horribly realistically, sociopathic performance of stone-cold, weirdly charismatic, evil. [backed up by people like Stanley Tucci (Adolf Eichmann), Colin Firth (Dr Stuckart), and Ian MacNiece (Dr Klopfer)]

Harrowing. It's on Prime, for anyone up to the emotional challenge of watching reasoned, equable discussion of genocide. Left me disoriented for days afterward.

Richard wrote: "One thing many purists object to in the series adaptations is the decision made early on to place all the stories in the 1930s. Poirot novels take place into the modern day (well, MY modern anyway since for all of me 2017 is science fiction land). For my money that was a good decision as it lent the tales a desirable aesthetic cohesiveness."

I expect it also saved on the budget. I'm happy with the investment in a good, solid set of period clothes, cars, etc rather than multiple eras portrayed less authentically.

And yes, 2017 is total Pigs in Spaaaaaace territory. [<--not a hint about how NASA should trick the Boar in the Chief onto a rocket for the moon, although I wouldn't object if they did...]

Ha!

Richard wrote: "9-13 are on Netflix..."

just added it to my queue!

mark wrote: "Richard wrote: "9-13 are on Netflix..."

just added it to my queue!"

I'll be very interested to hear what you think of them.

mark wrote: "I forgot about Thor! I'd add that to the short list of Brannagh films I've enjoyed.

Conspiracy sounds completely fascinating but also really, really grueling to watch. I feel like I'd almost prefe..."

I actually think it's easier to watch than it would be to read - and really, there's not much to read. They don't really get into the details all that much - it's actually a very mundane meeting of middle-management. It would be dull on the page, and also not that meaningful, since we already know what happened.

What the film does, though, is humanise the process, giving both ideological nuance and personal character to the people who (at least in theory) decided to commit the holocaust. So some are ardent genocidalists, some seem like shell-shocked soldiers, some are soulless bureaucrats, some are personally ambitious... others don't really want to be there at all. There are all sorts of divisions between them that you might not expect, and we get to see how even those who do the unthinkable often feel bound by their own codes of morality - there's a passionate argument, for instance, about the importance of the rule of law in the question of mass execution vs mass sterilisation. We also get to see the internal dynamics of the Reich, and its changes, with legalists like Stuckart running up against SS men like Heydrich, and the bureaucrats running up against the charismatics. [There's a great line, for instance, when one character keeps introducing himself as being Director of the Office of the Four Year Plan, until he tries that on Klopfer: "And I represent Martin Bormann... of the Thousand Year Plan!"]

It's kind of like an evil 12 Angry Men. The horror isn't from the details of the final solution - the horror is from the juxtaposition of the final solution with the humanity, the banality, the jokes (even Nazis planning the Final Solution made jokes about how evil lawyers were...), the attention paid to the details of the fine china, the discussions about Schubert. ["Ah, Schubert," sighs Heydrich wistfully, talking of one of the late quartets. "The adagio will tear your heart out!"]

---------


On Poirot: I think that by the Netflix seasons they'd largely fallen into a trap of increasingly autoparodic soft-focus quirkiness. This does, however, get reversed right at the end for the last season or two, but by then they'd run out of the good stories.
But yes, the religious element they give to Orient Express works well in that episode and does help transition to Curtain, which I thought worked really well. Suchet was incredible. Unfortunately, with such limited running time, and OE having such a huge cast of characters to get through, it meant there wasn't much time for the main case of the week...

Okay, sold! (mainly by the 12 Angry Men comparison.) I will have to search it out.

You forgot to review the book.

Thank you for this review. I had a similar experience with Dorothy Sayer's books Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon--but I didn't see the more profound aspects of the books until the second reading--I assume I was distracted by the mystery. Curtain sounds like a book that should be read twice. Thank you,

Sheryl wrote: "Thank you for this review. I had a similar experience with Dorothy Sayer's books Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon--but I didn't see the more profound aspects of the books until the second reading--I assume I was distracted by the mystery. Curtain sounds like a book that should be read twice. Thank you"

It is a book that richly repays a second reading. It's amazing to me that I was able, in my youth, simply to take it in and think so little of its position and its import. A second read fixed that. Dame Agatha wrote it at the height of her powers and each character was so sharply etched it was almost painful.