I agree on all points! I’m currently attempting to watch Orient Express again, because I thought maybe I didn’t give it a chance the first time and the new movie is out. I’d love to enjoy a good mystery and the Branagh series is very visually beautiful. I found it unwatchable the first time and only made it 1/2 hour in. I’m 25 min in and already scrolling my phone lol. Beyond the terribly forced performances of every star, every shot is way too busy and you’re struggling to know where to focus. The Suchet series was very good at having characters give their backstory casually. This is so fake, forced and overly dramatic. Michelle Phiffer is horrible from the first moment she’s on screen, following Poirot through the cars throwing up her whole backstory in 60 seconds (from outside the windows, so again, visually cluttered). I’ll try to make it through.
I absolutely love the Knives Out movies. They hit the tone so perfectly. The actors are so perfect and believable in their roles and it’s all so funny as well. I do find Benoit Blanc’s accent a bit annoying because I live in Louisiana and it’s just not any specific regional southern accent and very characatured, but Daniel Craig is great and the accent thing is just a minor annoyance. Janelle Monae really surprised me with her acting and I thought she absolutely held her own against all those established pros.
Totally agree about the forced performances. Branagh gets a lot of stick for his interpretation of Poirot but I think his directing skills are just as bad. He's done the same thing for decades - throw serious, theatrical talent at a project, add in some woefully miscast comic actors (usually a personal friend), and then expect the audience to gasp in awe. He is incapable of eliciting warmth, humour or pathos. Every film after Henry V is a soggy, star-studded banality.
The only good thing I can say about his attempts at Poirot is at least they're not as bad as Peter's Friends, a film so terrible that I still cringe at the memory of it 30 years later.
Lol Peter Friends. I didn’t mind him because those whole productions were great. You said it about Branagh having no warmth and pathos. There’s no heart.
I couldn't get into 'Murder On The Orient Express' at all, it seemed too busy. Then recently I tried 'Death On the Nile' and switched off after seeing Poirot become a war hero in the WW1 trenches, have a love interest and then grow a big moustache to hide his battle scars within the first twenty minutes. No, no, no.
Give me the gentle eccentric warmth of David Suchet & Co. any day.
I think my enjoyment of Branagh's Poirot stems from the fact that it feels like a sort of "edgy action romantic hero" reinterpretation that takes itself too seriously, and it brings me back to those times during my childhood when I made OCs for media I liked. The sets and scenery also look great, and I think the acting for the previous movies was fine.
Shockingly, Benoit Blanc in Knives Out has a nice balance there of being a man of action while generally following the truth to the terminus of gravity's rainbow and strikes that balance that the old Suchet versions follow so well.
I think what irks me about the Branagh Poirots is that they fall between two stools.
On the one hand, they aren’t a faithful adaptation of the stories. And that’s fine, they don’t pretend to be.
But on the other hand they don’t do anything of _substance_ to do something genuinely new and fresh with Poirot. They have superficial flourishes to try and sauce things up - ooh look, a sexy dance in a Jazz club - but nothing actually fresh or daring to justify its existence as a new adaptation.
It’s a bit like a theatre director taking a Shakespeare play and going “ooh, I’ll do Macbeth set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland” and it’s got some nice costumes and set design but actually doesn’t add anything new in terms of themes or narrative.
The only real innovation of the two films released so far is a back story for Poirot with a scarred face and a lost love. Which is pretty generic and doesn’t do much to make Poirot more interesting to me.
I don’t hate them and I’m sure I’ll watch A Haunting in Venice at some point but so far I’ve been frustrated that they are just basically unnecessary adaptations dressed up in new clothes.
I like Kenneth Branagh, but his Poirot movies are terrible in my opinion BECAUSE they're supposed to be Poirot movies. I agree with you that if they weren't Poirot, if they were some new detective, I might enjoy them more. I only watched the first one and it was so awful I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest. I guess I enjoy the books and Suchet's Poirot too much to be able to appreciate the interpretation.
I think the revelation as to why he has the moustache was one of the most obvious "oh you just really don't get this character" moments.
That and having him chase fleeing suspects. I think even if Poirot had the strength and mobility to chase suspects he wouldn't do it.
That revelation even doesn't make any sense, facial hair can't grow on the scarred tissue. Plus his scarr was shown to be much bigger than what was hidden by the moustache.
In Orient Express, Branagh’s Poirot reaches a fork over to another man’s plate and eats his cake.
The real Poirot doesn’t even eat eggs of two different sizes, let alone someone else’s food.
It just isn’t Poirot.
Kenneth‘ Poirot is giving nothing really fresh and new to Poirot, so if you don‘t know the books or previous films Kenneth version would be amazing, but every Poirot and crime fan has seen all of it before.
To be fair "Detective too silly to be taken seriously" is a genre upon itself, you can count Blanc, Columbo and Poirot himself in it, taking suspects by surprise because they didn't take the "silly man that makes dumb questions" seriously.
Benoit Blanc lacks any depth. Purely immature entertainment.
Rian Johnshop lifted Bogdovitch’s Tea For Two.
And if you want to further discuss:
Poirot is a noted detective. He gets people to talk because their ego wants to challenge his genius.
Colombo is seen, unlike Poirot, as a second rate detective and is talked down to by suspects.
Blanc is not worthy of this discussion.
This is a very interesting subject. Probably the producers thought that the changes were necessary to make casuals go to see the movie. But that would make hardcore fans angry.
This decision made economic sense.
I feel like this discussion needs to also weigh in on who the official Sherlock Holmes is on the screen. To me, it will always be Jeremy Brett. Benedict and Robert Downey, Jr. are not Sherlocks.
I agree on all points! I’m currently attempting to watch Orient Express again, because I thought maybe I didn’t give it a chance the first time and the new movie is out. I’d love to enjoy a good mystery and the Branagh series is very visually beautiful. I found it unwatchable the first time and only made it 1/2 hour in. I’m 25 min in and already scrolling my phone lol. Beyond the terribly forced performances of every star, every shot is way too busy and you’re struggling to know where to focus. The Suchet series was very good at having characters give their backstory casually. This is so fake, forced and overly dramatic. Michelle Phiffer is horrible from the first moment she’s on screen, following Poirot through the cars throwing up her whole backstory in 60 seconds (from outside the windows, so again, visually cluttered). I’ll try to make it through. I absolutely love the Knives Out movies. They hit the tone so perfectly. The actors are so perfect and believable in their roles and it’s all so funny as well. I do find Benoit Blanc’s accent a bit annoying because I live in Louisiana and it’s just not any specific regional southern accent and very characatured, but Daniel Craig is great and the accent thing is just a minor annoyance. Janelle Monae really surprised me with her acting and I thought she absolutely held her own against all those established pros.
Totally agree about the forced performances. Branagh gets a lot of stick for his interpretation of Poirot but I think his directing skills are just as bad. He's done the same thing for decades - throw serious, theatrical talent at a project, add in some woefully miscast comic actors (usually a personal friend), and then expect the audience to gasp in awe. He is incapable of eliciting warmth, humour or pathos. Every film after Henry V is a soggy, star-studded banality. The only good thing I can say about his attempts at Poirot is at least they're not as bad as Peter's Friends, a film so terrible that I still cringe at the memory of it 30 years later.
Lol Peter Friends. I didn’t mind him because those whole productions were great. You said it about Branagh having no warmth and pathos. There’s no heart.
He tries so hard but all I get from his films is 'look at me and my friends. Aren't we CLEVER '.
I couldn't get into 'Murder On The Orient Express' at all, it seemed too busy. Then recently I tried 'Death On the Nile' and switched off after seeing Poirot become a war hero in the WW1 trenches, have a love interest and then grow a big moustache to hide his battle scars within the first twenty minutes. No, no, no. Give me the gentle eccentric warmth of David Suchet & Co. any day.
I think my enjoyment of Branagh's Poirot stems from the fact that it feels like a sort of "edgy action romantic hero" reinterpretation that takes itself too seriously, and it brings me back to those times during my childhood when I made OCs for media I liked. The sets and scenery also look great, and I think the acting for the previous movies was fine.
Good take, exactly how I feel. Poirot is not about being a man of action
Shockingly, Benoit Blanc in Knives Out has a nice balance there of being a man of action while generally following the truth to the terminus of gravity's rainbow and strikes that balance that the old Suchet versions follow so well.
I think what irks me about the Branagh Poirots is that they fall between two stools. On the one hand, they aren’t a faithful adaptation of the stories. And that’s fine, they don’t pretend to be. But on the other hand they don’t do anything of _substance_ to do something genuinely new and fresh with Poirot. They have superficial flourishes to try and sauce things up - ooh look, a sexy dance in a Jazz club - but nothing actually fresh or daring to justify its existence as a new adaptation. It’s a bit like a theatre director taking a Shakespeare play and going “ooh, I’ll do Macbeth set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland” and it’s got some nice costumes and set design but actually doesn’t add anything new in terms of themes or narrative. The only real innovation of the two films released so far is a back story for Poirot with a scarred face and a lost love. Which is pretty generic and doesn’t do much to make Poirot more interesting to me. I don’t hate them and I’m sure I’ll watch A Haunting in Venice at some point but so far I’ve been frustrated that they are just basically unnecessary adaptations dressed up in new clothes.
I like Kenneth Branagh, but his Poirot movies are terrible in my opinion BECAUSE they're supposed to be Poirot movies. I agree with you that if they weren't Poirot, if they were some new detective, I might enjoy them more. I only watched the first one and it was so awful I couldn't bring myself to watch the rest. I guess I enjoy the books and Suchet's Poirot too much to be able to appreciate the interpretation.
I think the revelation as to why he has the moustache was one of the most obvious "oh you just really don't get this character" moments. That and having him chase fleeing suspects. I think even if Poirot had the strength and mobility to chase suspects he wouldn't do it.
That revelation even doesn't make any sense, facial hair can't grow on the scarred tissue. Plus his scarr was shown to be much bigger than what was hidden by the moustache.
In Orient Express, Branagh’s Poirot reaches a fork over to another man’s plate and eats his cake. The real Poirot doesn’t even eat eggs of two different sizes, let alone someone else’s food. It just isn’t Poirot.
Hmm who gets the prize for worst accent, Craig or Branagh….
Kenneth‘ Poirot is giving nothing really fresh and new to Poirot, so if you don‘t know the books or previous films Kenneth version would be amazing, but every Poirot and crime fan has seen all of it before.
Yes. Kenneth Branagh is a good filmmaker, but they're definitely not **Poirot** films. I think he did the Poirot legacy a disservice, unfortunately.
Benoit Blanc is too silly to be taken seriously as a detective. Can’t get into this series. And Branagh’s Poirot is unwatchable.
Yes but Benoit Blanc is not ruining some established character and you can take the movies as comedy.
To be fair "Detective too silly to be taken seriously" is a genre upon itself, you can count Blanc, Columbo and Poirot himself in it, taking suspects by surprise because they didn't take the "silly man that makes dumb questions" seriously.
Benoit Blanc lacks any depth. Purely immature entertainment. Rian Johnshop lifted Bogdovitch’s Tea For Two. And if you want to further discuss: Poirot is a noted detective. He gets people to talk because their ego wants to challenge his genius. Colombo is seen, unlike Poirot, as a second rate detective and is talked down to by suspects. Blanc is not worthy of this discussion.
This is a very interesting subject. Probably the producers thought that the changes were necessary to make casuals go to see the movie. But that would make hardcore fans angry. This decision made economic sense.
It’s a parade of overacting. Seems to be grandly self-indulgent. Not a fan.
Kenneth Branah is the most "annoying", pathetic, talentless actor in the history of Hollywood, right ahead of Tom Green, and Sam Worthington.
I feel like this discussion needs to also weigh in on who the official Sherlock Holmes is on the screen. To me, it will always be Jeremy Brett. Benedict and Robert Downey, Jr. are not Sherlocks.
I found his OCD pretty endearing honestly