![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I saw Murder on the Orient Express tonight because of course I did. I have a thing for rail travel and am always amused by the fact that the original story is RPF Fix It Fic. Post I did about it being fic, has spoilers.
And now my thoughts on the new film, even though I am likely the only one I know who has seen it.
I don't get the plot or the theme changes. I am not a purist about adaptations, I just want the changes to have payoffs. One fundamental change is that they DIDN'T all do it. One person is clearly the one at fault. The reason for 12 stab wounds was to make the case unprosecutable even if they got caught. Figuring out which of the 12 stabs was the lethal one would be impossible. On a moral level, they all shared the guilt. Why change that? They ... screwed up both twists.
Twist 1: A modern casual reader would think 'they all did it!' was the twist. It wasn't The story was serialized. The audience was likely meant to have a good hunch that at least it was multiple killers.
Twist 2: The REAL twist was that rule-bound Poirot protected them. That was the shocker. They took out the reminders of him being a stickler for rules, like the original prologue. Readers would also have been very familiar with the character, unlike the average modern movie goer.
Why should the audience care about the people getting off? The film spent time one Poirot looking dramatic and having action scenes rather than exploring the characters of the killers. As I wrote in my post about Murder on the Orient Express being fanfic, there is an audience identification character for every walk of life. One is meant to hook readers who care about manly bonds among men, one is for social justice, one is for sisterly love, etc.
Also, sitting in travel clothes high in a mountain pass in the open air? Holy fuck I got cold just watching this damn film. Especially the one scene on the bridge, sitting in a car with the sides open. Have these people never been in mountains in winter? I don't often worry much about realism, but that was so distracting to me. Their presentation of era rail travel was also off. I didn't expect it to be right, but it would have been neat of it was anything resembling correct. The Godiva product placement was a bit over the top.
The plot was ... eh, who cares? Branagh as Poirot giggling at Dickens and being a little shit was amazing. His friendship with the train director was cute.
The film isn't bad, it's just meh. It actually starts pretty strong with the banter and giggly Poirot and then meanders off into a mess. I think that is why I am disappointed, it really has some great moments early on.
And now my thoughts on the new film, even though I am likely the only one I know who has seen it.
I don't get the plot or the theme changes. I am not a purist about adaptations, I just want the changes to have payoffs. One fundamental change is that they DIDN'T all do it. One person is clearly the one at fault. The reason for 12 stab wounds was to make the case unprosecutable even if they got caught. Figuring out which of the 12 stabs was the lethal one would be impossible. On a moral level, they all shared the guilt. Why change that? They ... screwed up both twists.
Twist 1: A modern casual reader would think 'they all did it!' was the twist. It wasn't The story was serialized. The audience was likely meant to have a good hunch that at least it was multiple killers.
Twist 2: The REAL twist was that rule-bound Poirot protected them. That was the shocker. They took out the reminders of him being a stickler for rules, like the original prologue. Readers would also have been very familiar with the character, unlike the average modern movie goer.
Why should the audience care about the people getting off? The film spent time one Poirot looking dramatic and having action scenes rather than exploring the characters of the killers. As I wrote in my post about Murder on the Orient Express being fanfic, there is an audience identification character for every walk of life. One is meant to hook readers who care about manly bonds among men, one is for social justice, one is for sisterly love, etc.
Also, sitting in travel clothes high in a mountain pass in the open air? Holy fuck I got cold just watching this damn film. Especially the one scene on the bridge, sitting in a car with the sides open. Have these people never been in mountains in winter? I don't often worry much about realism, but that was so distracting to me. Their presentation of era rail travel was also off. I didn't expect it to be right, but it would have been neat of it was anything resembling correct. The Godiva product placement was a bit over the top.
The plot was ... eh, who cares? Branagh as Poirot giggling at Dickens and being a little shit was amazing. His friendship with the train director was cute.
The film isn't bad, it's just meh. It actually starts pretty strong with the banter and giggly Poirot and then meanders off into a mess. I think that is why I am disappointed, it really has some great moments early on.
no subject
Date: 2017-11-11 11:24 am (UTC)From:That one scene from the trailer
Date: 2017-11-12 11:06 am (UTC)From:YEAH THAT'S A NO. I mean the point was no one COULD get off the train, making the story of someone jumping off before the bridge and avalanche difficult to investigate.
I saw the original.
I was really hoping Branagh was looking to jump start his career by reigniting the Poirot series. No, it looks like he just wanted to be grandiose.
The Godiva product placement was actually not over the top. Godiva was founded in Belgium in 1926. Meaning I'm sure somewhere in the books, it's a favorite of Poirot's, who is Belgian. And fat. The books and radio show were very insistent on this. He loved to eat. Has our fatphobia gone so far that it's taboo to showcase a chubby hero unless the story is about them overcoming the fat?
Damn I'm going to rewatch the original.
Re: That one scene from the trailer
Date: 2017-11-12 08:04 pm (UTC)From:Action!Poirot was yeah, not great.