Is it actually not that good?

is it actually not that good?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/59ZKizOR0wg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

If you want Christiekino then watch the BBC version of And Then There Were None. And the 1974 version of Orient is still good.

but i also want kenneth kino :(

Never read the book, even though funnily enough I love detective stuff. Agatha Christie just never got me interested.

Movie-wise I'd say it's just very, very badly paced. Most people will either say they absolutely hated the setup and ending and loved the middle or vice versa. I personally loved the setting and hated the middle and end. Regardless, they don't do that great with introducing the mystery, time-wise at the very least and the ending drags on a lot.

please stop using these rotten tomato scores as gospel.
is 58% a bad score for a film? if someone said 'some loved it, others didn't'; does that give the opinion its bad?

I enjoyed it

It was fine, but a little dry

You mean ten little niggers?

i wouldn't say i hated any of it, but the big setpieces in jerusalem and the istanbul station were the most memorable parts for sure

lookin forward to death on the nile either way though, it's a nice change of pace for a modern wide release film

I didn't like how they constantly add exposition to the story. You as a viewer can't think about the crime by yourself because protagonist knows more than you do. I haven't read the book, so I don't know is it just the way story goes.

the epitome of the term "meh"

you could tell from the trailer the only selling point of this flick was to cram as much popular and "in" actors as possible.

Poirot was our viewpoint character, so we only know as much as he does when he decides to share it. It's a limitation of the medium, but one they could have worked better around.

I still enjoyed the movie, visually it was brilliant. And Michelle Pfiffer still has it!

I think this guy is pretty on point with his review

youtu.be/59ZKizOR0wg

Its perfectly okay

Branagh is good and it had a kind of classic feel to it

I haven't read the book but is the ending different? They said they were changing that

Only part that let me down

>Poirot was our viewpoint character
No, he wasn't. He knows more then we do.

...and we only know as much as he does when he decides to share it. We can't read his mind and a Philip Marlowe-esque internal monologue wouldn't suit him. Flashy exposition dumps were the best they could do.

>...and we only know as much as he does when he decides to share it
No, we only know as much as he told us. Problem is, he put more and more of exposition right as the case goes. Why can I be involved in mystery solving if second later he will bring up the fact which I physically couldn't know about?

>How can I be involved

How do you propose to be presented with said information without being told?

>doesn't arrest the criminals or bring the truth to light
nice 'justice' lmao

Agreed, and Branagh was a lot of fun (that laugh was so charming) Great Netflix watch eventually. Will watch Death on the Nile

It could be told, but before the main case even started, so we get the whole exposition and could try to solve the mystery by ourselves as case goes.

The ending is different and almost every adaptation of the book has a different ending anyway. An old mystery story has to change the mystery to keep people spoiling it I guess

Just read the book.
They all did it with the knife.