When the movie isn't that good but it's about as good as it can be based on the source material

>When the movie isn't that good but it's about as good as it can be based on the source material
Is this the definition of the good try award?

Cloud Atlas

Warcraft is another example.

Poirot is a v interesting and likable character if they had done it right they could of spawned a franchise but even from the costume design I can tell they fucked him up

>the 70s version is a classic
>current year version is a shitty ego movie for the director/star with bad CGI half baked ideas and current year style race mixing propaganda

Yeah brother it's the sauce material.

Isn't Poirot supposed to be a big burly guy, or is my imagination colored by the old Masterpiece Theater versions of his adventures?

I would've liked to see it done as a finale for David Suchet rather than his tv version.

>current year style race mixing propaganda
It's a shame you were right for nearly half of this reply

he is right about the whole thing, cuck

>thinks the big bad movie is going to kill all white people
>calls me the cuck
don't you have some pedophile senator to defend

There's supposedly not much description of what he looked like or behaved like. David Suchet based his performance on small descriptions of how he moved across rooms as it was the closest to a description he had to work with.

Now you're just unironically spouting hyperbole.

>unironically
But it was ironic, dipshit

I'm mocking you

race-mixing is dramatically overrepresented in Hollywood. This is fact

And?

Best poirot

your denial of it being propaganda to encourage this is charming, but stupid. Reddit might be more to your liking

Oh. Well, like I said, I enjoy the old depictions of the character.

Allo ther Puaro

>propaganda
Is literally any "controversial" opinion appearing in fiction "propaganda" to you, or just ones you dislike?

Also, been here 10 years, much longer than you frogs, and I'll be here long after you're gone

So your position has dissolved to such an extent you don't even have a point?

>100+ year old upper class european train
>DUDE DIVERSITY xD

Everybody point and laugh at the american.

well it was directed by a faggot Anglo

>a work of fiction has fictional elements in it
>it's more believable that 12 people were loyal enough to some fucking rich guy to elaborately murder someone in a near-perfect crime that required meticulous planning and coincidence to pull off than a single black guy manages to climb up in the world
You know the reason why everyone on the train is more or less comfortable around a black person, right? It's because they're intelligent

>"I'm a bigger loser than you because I've been here longer"
Dipshit what are you even arguing anymore?

The movie is set in the 30s or some shit and they've followed the current trend and shoehorned in a black character just so they can have him in a relationship with a white woman to show how admirable it is for women to burn coal...in a fucking whodunit murder mystery.

>comfortable around a black person, right? It's because they're intelligent
that's the opposite of intelligence

Jesus Christ this has got to be bait.

>black people didn't exist in the 30's

I'm sure you're smarter than everyone else, that's why you post on Sup Forums, right?

>not a Sup Forumstard so it must be bait
kek

I wonder if you guys have even seen the movie, since it goes to great lengths to explain why the Dr. is even literally there as a black person

the ONLY poirot as far as I'm concerned

Your next argument is going to be how the 150 year old female English writer was secretly craving the BBC all along? I have some shocking news for you friendo: Africans in America were inferior and in Europe they were colonized until 1960.

>branagh blackwashed the character so that daisy can get BLACKED in the film

why are brits such cucks?

>Not Suchet/10

Who gives a shit what the original author intended? By virtue of it being an adaptation, you have liberties to ignore that. You can disagree with the actual changes compared to the source material all you want, but "le the author didn't intend that xDDD" is a real stupid argument.

No one can defend that ballet Count and his over the top fighting scenes, like wtf

I knew we were in for a rough ride as soon as he did that kick. To be honest I thought it was going to be revealed that he was an actor or some shit shooting a movie, but no, it was just him being an acrobatic martial artist

The Count and Countessa were weakest parts of a weak film

>adaptation of x but with free discard and draw people may object to
vs
>original story based on x you have every right to do as you wish

You should just say so if you're in for the brand recognition or free dramadvertisement.

This is the worst of her stories based on the conclusion alone. The only thing that people return to saying they loved is the fucking train setting.

>>a work of fiction has fictional elements in it

A classic story has diversity shoved into it for no fucking reason other than societal programming.

Kids are growing up seriously believing that Europe was full of black KANGZ all in an effort to make the people coming here feel like they own it, and the people who have roots here feel like they never had them.

If that's not fucked up, then why was colonialism even wrong?

remember when Johnny Depp was in good movies?

7/10 bait, will take again

Donnie Brasco is the only good gangster movie

You just reminded me the doc about the romans

Needless to say, the 10 minute long unsimulated interracial sex scene felt kinda out of place and ruined the tempo of the entire flick. But I guess that's what the audience wants ...

This movie confirmed my theory that no matter what Daisy Ridley will be cast in, she will be this immovable object that is of vast intelligence and can never be defeated in an argument or fight.

Saying that, this depiction of Poirot was off by about every margin possible.

>Symmetrical and OCD aspect

Hercule's just a gentleman that is a stickler for facts and is excruciatingly vain, and what the FUCK was that moustache mask he had in this movie.

British person here.

Basically they are trying to retell/rewrite our history to make it look like blacks/others have always been there.

Britain was 99.9% even in the early 20th century but they don't want people to know that. Easier to create the narrative that Britain was ALWAYS some multiethnic society same as the US.

No. Because it's not as good as the original or the source material.

That's kinda pathetic given the modern technology and budget.

Literal quotas.

Also there is a huge push on at the moment to hilariously shove blacks into British history (unironically see historians ranting on twitter that Britain has "always" been black, without a hint of irony). This is doubly bizarre since, although they are a huge problem, blacks aren't struggling with integration in Britain - it's Muslims, mostly Pakistani Muslims, that are are the issue. It might actually be that people are more comfortable with seeing blacks in British media because irl they don't worry them like the Paki population does.

how did agatha christie become so popular? it is complete tripe

The angriest I got was that stupid image of the boat being overfilled with random people and people stating that "This is a ship filled with British refugees during WWII"

Anyone with half a brain would know that shit never happened

>That first teaser was really solid despite Imagine Dragons blasting at 110% volume

>During the actual movie, when the crime is being acted out it's just a rushed mess

The Suchet version did have that whole clash-of-faith because it was part of the TV show arc, but it was still the better paced one

It wasn't even as good as the 70's one, which had it's own pacing issues. I thought they were going t find some novel twist on how it would be shot or something...just some reason for it to exist. But it was just another adaptation. Wasn't even bad. Just...there.

>tfw people demand proof

>"well, you know, fine. We're ALL immigrants though"