What was the last film you watched?

[Angela Channing]

Captain America: Winter Soldier (2015)

As I already watched the sequel to this film, Captain America: Civil War, I had to watch this one trying to remember what happened in the first film while simultaneous trying to forget what happened in the third film. It didn't matter though as this was a great film in it's own right . It's everything you want a superhero film to be: strong story, great action and fight sequences, mystery and intrigue and likeable and interesting characters that you can connect with and want feel involved in what happens to them.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I had to watch this one trying to remember what happened in the first film while simultaneous trying to forget what happened in the third film.

You certainly set yourself quite a challenge by watching this so soon after Civil War.

It didn't matter though as this was a great film in it's own right . It's everything you want a superhero film to be: strong story, great action and fight sequences, mystery and intrigue and likeable and interesting characters that you can connect with and want feel involved in what happens to them.

As mentioned earlier, it's a very favourite MCU film of mine so I'm really glad you enjoyed it so much.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

I'd say this is a middling entry that doesn't live up to its potential. In many ways the story is too big and the excess of CGI takes away any remaining intimacy.

Michael Fassbender's Magneto is probably the best thing in this and I remain impressed with how much he sounds and moves like Ian McKellen's iteration with each passing film. Conversely, I care less and less for James McAvoy's Xavier. McAvoy's very good at crying and once again he does it rather a lot. Not only is it most out of character, but also the more I watch McAvoy's performance the more I find the over-emoting rather hammy.

Incidentally, there's a scene near the end where Magneto and Xavier's dialogue is lifted verbatim from the end of the first X-Men film which reinforced the older actors' superiority in terms of delivery. Fassbender and McAvoy delivered it far too quickly and with no real space for the words to land.

Apocalypse is a dull villain (I was never a fan of him in the comics either) and lacks any kind of connection with the characters that make this feel important. The psychic battle with Charles made it feel like they were doing an Amahl Farouk/Shadow King story but with a more marketable villain. I found myself wishing they'd gone with Farouk.

With the setting being 1983, there are even more young versions of characters than in previous films. Angel was even more wasted here than in The Last Stand. Scott and Jean haven't clicked with me yet. Scott is now at least played with the humility with which I associate the character but neither Tye Sheridan nor Sophie Turner look right. At all. Nightcrawler looked curiously androgynous, not helped by the Michael Jackson jacket and a bizarre asymmetrical wig resembling a girl band member... or Valene Ewing circa brain virus. Alexandra Shipp's Ororo was spot-on. I'd buy her as Storm and - better yet - I'd buy her as a young Halle Berry version of Storm.

Continuity is incredibly messy at this point. Days Of Future Past might have retconned some stuff, but there's no real clarity around this and so it ends up convoluted and confusing. Alex and Scott's sibling relationship being acknowledged has only compounded the mess around that situation. They look the same age, but Alex would have to be twenty years older for the timelines to match up (notwithstanding the fact that Alex should really be Scott's younger brother, although it's explicitly said otherwise here). Why do Jean and Scott not recognise Wolverine in the first X-Men film when they'd evidently already met him back in 1983? The same goes for Nightcrawler who meets most of the X-Men here and does the same all over again in X2. And how is Jubilee a young student at Xavier's school in 1983 while also being a student of around the same age in the early Twenty-First Century?

On top of this are the usual anachronisms, such as most of the young women having Kardashian vocal creak or "Hey" being used as a salutation.

Then there's the issue with the accents. Olivia Munn may look the part for Psylocke (or at least the ridiculous body-exchanged version of the Jim Lee era), but where's the British accent. Once again Moira has no trace of a Scottish accent. And Pietro Peter sounds purely American as well.

Speaking of Quicksilver, I neglected to mention him in the previous film. It's a little strange watching this having seen WandaVision where Evan Peters plays a recast (in canon) Quicksilver. He's not how I'd envisage Pietro Peter to be, but I do like what they've done with the character. At least he has a character, unlike Aaron Taylor-Johnson's duller than dull version of the character in Avengers: Age Of Ultron. And they've acknowledged he's Magneto's son. Now if only they'd acknowledge Wanda.

I really do like the "Quicksilver Moment" that's happened in this and the previous X-Men film, where we see time slow down and watch Pietro do his thing - moving bullets round, changing people's positions, taking a sneaky taste of food - while everyone else is frozen. And all to the sound of a great era-appropriate song: Jim Croce's Time In A Bottle for Future Past; Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of This) for this film.

It makes speed powers interesting, fun and actually crucial to the team and story. A Quicksilver Moment really shouldn't be the best thing about an X-Men film, but since they've surprised me in the best possible way, I'll take them.

Incidentally, I noticed that Pietro Peter was wearing a Six Million Dollar Man top in his introductory Apocalypse scene, which nicely foreshadowed this slow-motion-to-show-speed scene. Not to mention it shows he has good taste.

I found myself laughing out loud at Mystique's pep-talk to the students at film's end because I just kept hearing Debbie Allen saying "You got big dreams. You want fame. Well fame costs..."​

 

[Seaviewer]

Superman (1948 movie serial)
I've been wanting to see this for a long time and finally got around to it.
The first thing of interest is that Kirk Alyn, although he has legendary status now, is not credited - instead the first name in the cast list is simply "Superman".
Second, Noel Neill as Lois. Growing up with the George Reeves series, I believed that Phyllis Coates was the original and Neill the replacement. I was quite surprised when I read that Neill had played the role first. Her version of Lois always seemed a lot softer that Coates's hard edged take. In this version, Neill is somewhere between the two. More willing to use trickery to beat Clark to the story but with a smile.
Third, the flying. Whenever Superman takes off he's transformed into a Fleischer-style cartoon. When he lands it's usually behind something like a car so that Alyn can emerge on foot from behind it. The effects in the Reeves series are not spectacular but this method definitely did not make me believe a man could fly.
Fourth, I'm not sure how common a female villain would have been at the time but the antagonist here is The Spider Lady - no relation to Spider-Man who I don't think emerge until a decade or two later. It's not clear why she's called The Spider Lady - her lair has a spider theme but she doesn't seem to have any special powers.
Lastly, a minor observation which I also noticed in the two Batman serials. At the end of each part, when the next part is promoed, patrons are advised that it will be showing in the same theatre the following week. The spelling of theatre the English way - not THEATER - surprises me. I wonder what the explanation is for that.

 

[Luke_Krebbs_Ewing]

Not sure if it counts or not but it is film length.

The twentieth anniversary Doctor Who story The Five Doctors.

Haven't watched it in years, it was lovely to see it again.

I have the special edition DVD and watched the special edition cut of it.

If I have time tonight I might watch the transmitted version.

 

[Angela Channing]

Mothering Sunday (2021)

As it's Mothering Sunday in a couple of days, I thought it would be a good time to watch this film from last year which shares the name. The films takes place on Mother's Day in the 1920s but that's about the only connection with the title and events could have taken place on any day of the year. The film is slow and pretty dull. Not a great deal happens apart from lots of full frontal nudity and the smoking of copious amounts of cigarettes. The film does look beautiful, it's well acted and it's great to see Glenda Jackson in a film again, even though her role is very small. It's a story of a secret love affair between upper class Josh O'Connor's character and a maid and that's about it, there is no real plot to speak of.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Logan (2017)

The only things I knew about this were that it's set in the future compared with other X-Films and it was extremely well-received.

The former turned out to be untrue. It's set only twelve years later than its release date, and it was already established in the first X-Men that they take place sometime in the future anyway. If there's a time jump it can only be a few years at the most.

As for my reception of the film. I didn't hate it, but I'd say my elevated expectations weren't met. At all.

The whole X-rated business dragged it down. The language felt like "swearing because we can" rather than anything else. Like Deadpool, every line in the first twenty minutes was peppered with "fucks" which seemed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And when Charles started dropping them, I knew they'd lost sight of character. Meanwhile, the violence was pretty standard: somewhere between a slasher and a tediously violent video game.

Don't get me started on Caliban's Westcountry accent. Stephen Merchant looked the part - and I really liked that there were even nods to the garb he wore in his original comic appearance - but the speech patterns were so off-model. The same can be said for Donald Pierce, who was equally unrecognisable and ultimately pretty dull and generic.

The film's most unforgivable moment was Logan dismissing X-Men comics as "fantasy for bedwetters". The arrogance of the writers was astounding.

That said, the film's concept and story were interesting enough. The performances were decent, it was nicely shot and was an acceptable way for the character to bow out. I just won't be in a rush to rewatch it again.​

 

[Angela Channing]

The Worst Person In The World (2021)

This is a great Norwegian film about a woman navigating the relationships in her life. It's a beautiful story and heart-breaking story of Julia searching for love, finding love and then destroying the love that she created. It highlights what you give up when you are in a relationship and whether you should live your own life or that of your partner or your partnership. It's and intelligent, funny and tragic tale that draws you in from the start to the finish.

 

[Angela Channing]

Spider-Man Into The Spider-Verse (2018)

The film is about a teenager called Miles Morales and how becomes Spider-man and saves the world with the help of other versions of Spider-man from other universes and it's amazing. It's an amination that not doesn't look as polished as a Disney Pixar film because it's not meant to be, it actually looks like an animated comic book. The colours, the movement, the pace, transitions, the sound and the inventiveness is stunning and feed into the the comic book vibe perfectly. Different animation styles are woven into the film such as anime to create the Peni Parker version of Spider-man and a Looney Tunes style cartoon to create the Peter Porker version of Spider-man. It's so creative and genuinely funny is places. The film is also exciting in a way that I didn't expect to find in a cartoon. I absolutely loved it.

 

[Angela Channing]

The Perfect Host (2010)

I'd not heard of this film before I watched it and I did wonder whether it was a made for TV film but a quick Google search showed it did have a cinema release. It's an unpredictable thriller in which an armed robber bluffs his way into a the house of the character played by David Hyde Pierce who is preparing for a dinner party. Over time we realise that everything is not as it seems and the David Hyde Pierce character is a bit of a psycho serial killer and that's not the only plot twist in this film. It's a entertaining film but not a classic.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The Perfect Host (2010)

Sounds familiar. Maybe Mel has reviewed it? (10 pages ago).


I have already watched it 20 or 30 times, but....last night it was snowing!!
I still think it's the most intriguing live action remake of the classic fairy tale (or any fairy tale for that matter).
There's some additional characterization but without the pomposity of Snow White And The Huntsman or the OTT feminist melodrama in Maleficent.
I believe it's classified as horror but I think it only shows how horrific the more classic versions of the fairy tales really are. Psychopaths, murder plots, cannibalism, gruesome deaths and other comeuppances...
Yes I think this movie is a little too wild for kids but any adult could watch this even if you're not into the horror genre.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

The Perfect Host (2010)

I'd not heard of this film before I watched it and I did wonder whether it was a made for TV film but a quick Google search showed it did have a cinema release. It's an unpredictable thriller in which an armed robber bluffs his way into a the house of the character played by David Hyde Pierce who is preparing for a dinner party. Over time we realise that everything is not as it seems and the David Hyde Pierce character is a bit of a psycho serial killer and that's not the only plot twist in this film. It's a entertaining film but not a classic.

Sounds familiar. Maybe Mel has reviewed it? (10 pages ago).

You’re quite right, Willie.

The Perfect Host (2010)

Oh my. This was like going down the rabbit hole.

I had no idea of the film's genre and little of the premise, and so the initial twist (there were many) really grabbed me. It's a cracking little film, difficult to define and worth watching with the least amount of information possible.​

I think Angela and I were in the best starting positions of knowing very little before watching.

View attachment 36984
I have already watched it 20 or 30 times, but....last night it was snowing!!
I still think it's the most intriguing live action remake of the classic fairy tale (or any fairy tale for that matter).
There's some additional characterization but without the pomposity of Snow White And The Huntsman or the OTT feminist melodrama in Maleficent.
I believe it's classified as horror but I think it only shows how horrific the more classic versions of the fairy tales really are. Psychopaths, murder plots, cannibalism, gruesome deaths and other comeuppances...
Yes I think this movie is a little too wild for kids but any adult could watch this even if you're not into the horror genre.

I’m very intrigued. I see it’s on Prime so I’ve added it to my Watchlist in the hope it becomes free as films do from time to time.

 

[Angela Channing]

Sounds familiar. Maybe Mel has reviewed it? (10 pages ago).

View attachment 36984
I have already watched it 20 or 30 times, but....last night it was snowing!!
I still think it's the most intriguing live action remake of the classic fairy tale (or any fairy tale for that matter).
There's some additional characterization but without the pomposity of Snow White And The Huntsman or the OTT feminist melodrama in Maleficent.
I believe it's classified as horror but I think it only shows how horrific the more classic versions of the fairy tales really are. Psychopaths, murder plots, cannibalism, gruesome deaths and other comeuppances...
Yes I think this movie is a little too wild for kids but any adult could watch this even if you're not into the horror genre.

I've not heard of this film before but it looks fascinating. I'm going to get a copy and watch it sometime soon.

I think Angela and I were in the best starting positions of knowing very little before watching.

I didn't realise you had reviewed this film before or I would have referenced your comments. Or maybe somewhere in the back of my mind the title had been lodged after reading your thoughts on it and subconsciously that's what attracted me to the film.

 

[Seaviewer]

Sounds familiar.

It's vaguely reminiscent of Desperate Hours.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

I didn't realise you had reviewed this film before or I would have referenced your comments.

Oh thanks. There are so many films in this thread I’d rarely look back to see if someone else has watched a film I’ve just seen, but there are also times when I specifically remember a film being mentioned, or it’s familiar enough to prompt me to look for mentions.

Or maybe somewhere in the back of my mind the title had been lodged after reading your thoughts on it and subconsciously that's what attracted me to the film.

Ha ha. I’m sure that happens to me quite a lot after reading a post about a film/song/TV series, etc. (consciously or subconsciously and often some time later) so you may well be right.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Dark Phoenix (2019)

It’s mind-boggling that Marvel and Sony would make a hash of a live-action translation of one of its most revered stories not once but twice. For that reason I kept an open mind going in, despite previously reading that it had been poorly received. I don’t pay much heed to the likes of Rotten Tomatoes anyway. And this film had to be an improvement over The Last Stand, after all.

Sadly, Dark Phoenix is very disappointing to most who know this story. Well, it disappointed me. It actually has more in common with The Last Stand than the source material* complete with an abundance of new nameless generic characters noisy battles with fake CGI deaths and a complete absence of key elements such as Mastermind, the Hellfire Club and the Starjammers.

I still have issues with the new “young” versions of the characters. The guy playing Cyclops looks all wrong and gave a weak performance. McAvoy was more tolerable here than in the last two or three films (his role seemed smaller, which I’m sure helped), but in 1992 shouldn’t he look like Patrick Stewart (thirty years on from First Class and very close to the first X-Men film. Shouldn’t they all look and act like the originals by now?) I’d never have expected Beast to be the best thing in an X-Film but here we are.

I still have no idea what the middle-aged albino woman with the Kardashian vocal creak was meant to bring as an additional antagonist, but it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Altogether a sad ending to a series that began so promisingly.

* Ironic, since this was intended to be an apology for that film from its writer. ​

 

[Biggie]

Along Came Polly.

Excellent beginning to end. Jennifer Aniston delivered the goods, and a hat tip to Debra Messing.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

“Does what it says on the tin” is probably the best way to describe this one.

If anything it’s a little better than my not-so-great expectations. It has all the hallmarks of a big-screen Agatha Christie adaption with many big names and familiar faces: Johnny Depp; Michelle Pfeiffer; Willem Dafoe. And of course Dame Judi and Olivia Colman who, I understand, have to appear in every British co-produced drama by law.

It looks very impressive visually, with stunning location work, gorgeous costumes and slick direction, though the latter was occasionally distractingly showy. Sometimes the directional showmanship worked (such as a wonderful shot of Dafoe through bevelled glass giving multiple images of his performance at once) but frequently it didn’t (there was that peculiar and unflattering aerial corridor shot just as the body was about to be discovered. And the introduction of Pfeiffer’s character - walking from carriage to carriage inside the train, but shot from outside with her passing multiple windows - was so nauseating I was forced to look away).

Delivery and accents are usually my biggest bugbears and I girded my loins as I pressed “play”. I’d expected the British accents to be contemporary RP, and indeed most were. Biggest vocal offenders were the cast’s young women (who also gave the poorest performances overall). The pretty dark haired governess with sparkly brown eyes did the young intern/Holly Willoughby modern RP thing of speaking well while t-dropping, which is a combination that simply didn’t exist in the early and mid 20th Century. Meanwhile, the blonde drug addicted one spoke with actual vocal fry, which sounded ridiculous (fortunately she wasn’t in it much). Despite the inauthenticity, it actually wasn’t too distracting, in part because - despite being a period piece - the production values place it firmly in the early 21st Century.

There were a few of the usual contemporary tweaks, amalgam characters and added/changed character backgrounds, though far fewer than expected which was pleasing. I’d say they had no impact on my enjoyment for better or worse.

Two other obstacles for the film were the overly familiar story and the impact made by earlier adaptations.

The former is simply a fact. At this point there can’t be many who don’t already know who did the killing in one of the best-known murder-mysteries of all time. This did affect the power of the ending. There was nothing in the way it was presented here to mitigate that and I felt performances and direction in the reveal and murder flashback were quite lacklustre, meaning the denouement was the inevitable damp squib.

On the latter, most of the film comes out quite favourably. As mentioned, it looks great and feels big-budget. Time will tell whether it becomes a classic in the same way as earlier adaptions.

Regarding Poirot himself, I feel David Suchet will remain the definitive Poirot for me, and yet the Albert Finney version of this particular story feels the most iconic and rewatchable, so he is also strongly associated with this story for me. Kenneth Branagh’s version turned out watchable enough. At the beginning I feared I was going to hate his portrayal when he threw in some curious and unnecessary vocal tics somewhere between a hack and a whinny (they reminded me of the comical noises Brian Murphy sometimes did to punctuate his lines as George Roper) but fortunately these seemed to be largely dropped as the film progressed. Overall I enjoyed his performance and while I prefer Poirot as a plain eccentric rather than someone evidently suffering from an obsessive-compulsive disorder as presented here I did appreciate him going in a different direction. The look of the character, too, felt new and pleasingly different, though I couldn’t help feeling he looked a bit young and rather too good looking to convince as this character.

Despite my nitpicking, I’d say this is an enjoyable film that one can tune into and enjoy a bit of glamorous escapism. It would make a great Sunday matinee, if anyone is looking for something to watch this afternoon.​

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Death On The Nile (2022)

​

Watching almost back-to-back with Murder On The Orient Express the continuity is a little confusing. At the end of the earlier film Poirot was summoned to Egypt to solve a murder, teasing the sequel. But the story begins again here. Oh well.

Like the previous film, it’s a glossy-but-safe affair.

The cast of faces is familiar but rather more distracting here. Most distracting are the British comedians. French & Saunders are here, as is Russell Brand. Any one of them would have been fine and they do all perform well enough. But all three...?

Jen does the stock American accent she’s used since the Eighties and steals every scene in which she appears with her brilliant little looks. Dawn is simply Dawn. She doesn’t attempt any accent (thank goodness). French & Saunders are nearly always together so one just thinks of French & Saunders. Lovely as it is to see a favourite comedy pairing (I was a huge fan back in my schooldays) still together and still giving such great chemistry, it did affect my investment. It’s telling that perhaps the best moment for either was one in which they were separated: Dawn being interrogated by Poirot. I suddenly noticed that Dawn’s features are a little similar to Barbara Bel Geddes (her blinking in disbelief drew my attention to it). As the scene went on, I found myself thinking she was giving a pretty decent performance. But I never stopped seeing Dawn French.

I didn’t recognise Russell Brand until nearly the end. He certainly sounded different, though he still sounded rather more contemporary than a man of his position and time probably would. Despite the era, as played by the always-stylish Brand he ended up looking rather more like a 21st Century hipster than one might expect, and that was what I noticed in the character before I even realised who was playing him.

In terms of 21st Century inflections, Emma Mackey was the film’s biggest culprit. There’s no mistaking that she is anything but a Millennial. There was a lot of the contemporary RP/South-East UK mixed vowel thing going on (where the vowel sound of “you” has more of an “e” sound; or the “o” in “know” has more than a touch of an “i” sound).

Looking at the cast list I’ve just noticed that Armie Hammer was one of the leads, and now all I can think about is last year’s fabulously-titled thread from @Alexis

Is Nobody Going To Talk About Armie Hammer Being A Blood Thirsting Vampire Cannibal Rape Fantasist? No?

This was all too much for me to wake up to this morning! Imagine, without even as much as a cup of coffee or piece of toast to start the day. And just after I had finally given in and watched Call Me By Your Name and realised that Armie's character in that was really Jeff Colby and what he was...

www.tellytalk.net

Another presence to have previously made headlines for their off-screen conduct was Letitia Wright. She was fine, but the scene in which her character “called out” Poirot for his idiosyncrasies felt particularly skewed through a Twenty First Century prism as played here.

Kenneth Branagh’s Poirot was fine, though this is a more emotional and tortured Poirot than previously seen, with a more in-depth backstory that, as shot, felt almost like a superhero origin. For me, less is more with Poirot and our knowledge thereof and since Branagh is Producer and Director as well as leading actor, the bigger, more “powerful” emotional moments for the character can’t help coming across as an indulgence rather than an authentic interpretation of the character. During a moment near the end where Poirot paused, mid-monologue as he unsuccessfully fought back tears in extreme close-up I found myself feeling irritated and moved at the same time.

The character’s obsessive-compulsive behaviours continued here and I noticed this extended to Branagh’s direction. Many scenes -particularly those featuring Poirot had a sense of order and symmetry, with characters and backgrounds very centred and even. At first I appreciated this psychological touch but, once noticed, it became distracting because it was done so darned much. While an occasional shot of symmetry gets the point across, after a certain point it felt too scientific and lacking in creativity and imagination. Almost anyone who takes even holiday photos knows after that first set that having every shot centred isn’t the best way to do things because it gets tediously samey. I found myself placing an imaginary grid over these numerous symmetrical shots and noticing when the shot was slightly off. And I don’t want to watch this kind of film with a technical eye. It was yet another unnecessary distraction from Agatha Christie’s wonderful story.

 

[Angela Channing]

Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

“Does what it says on the tin” is probably the best way to describe this one.

If anything it’s a little better than my not-so-great expectations. It has all the hallmarks of a big-screen Agatha Christie adaption with many big names and familiar faces: Johnny Depp; Michelle Pfeiffer; Willem Dafoe. And of course Dame Judi and Olivia Colman who, I understand, have to appear in every British co-produced drama by law.

It looks very impressive visually, with stunning location work, gorgeous costumes and slick direction, though the latter was occasionally distractingly showy. Sometimes the directional showmanship worked (such as a wonderful shot of Dafoe through bevelled glass giving multiple images of his performance at once) but frequently it didn’t (there was that peculiar and unflattering aerial corridor shot just as the body was about to be discovered. And the introduction of Pfeiffer’s character - walking from carriage to carriage inside the train, but shot from outside with her passing multiple windows - was so nauseating I was forced to look away).

Delivery and accents are usually my biggest bugbears and I girded my loins as I pressed “play”. I’d expected the British accents to be contemporary RP, and indeed most were. Biggest vocal offenders were the cast’s young women (who also gave the poorest performances overall). The pretty dark haired governess with sparkly brown eyes did the young intern/Holly Willoughby modern RP thing of speaking well while t-dropping, which is a combination that simply didn’t exist in the early and mid 20th Century. Meanwhile, the blonde drug addicted one spoke with actual vocal fry, which sounded ridiculous (fortunately she wasn’t in it much). Despite the inauthenticity, it actually wasn’t too distracting, in part because - despite being a period piece - the production values place it firmly in the early 21st Century.

There were a few of the usual contemporary tweaks, amalgam characters and added/changed character backgrounds, though far fewer than expected which was pleasing. I’d say they had no impact on my enjoyment for better or worse.

Two other obstacles for the film were the overly familiar story and the impact made by earlier adaptations.

The former is simply a fact. At this point there can’t be many who don’t already know who did the killing in one of the best-known murder-mysteries of all time. This did affect the power of the ending. There was nothing in the way it was presented here to mitigate that and I felt performances and direction in the reveal and murder flashback were quite lacklustre, meaning the denouement was the inevitable damp squib.

On the latter, most of the film comes out quite favourably. As mentioned, it looks great and feels big-budget. Time will tell whether it becomes a classic in the same way as earlier adaptions.

Regarding Poirot himself, I feel David Suchet will remain the definitive Poirot for me, and yet the Albert Finley version of this particular story feels the most iconic and rewatchable, so he is also strongly associated with this story for me. Kenneth Branagh’s version turned out watchable enough. At the beginning I feared I was going to hate his portrayal when he threw in some curious and unnecessary vocal tics somewhere between a hack and a whinny (they reminded me of the comical noises Brian Murphy sometimes did to punctuate his lines as George Roper) but fortunately these seemed to be largely dropped as the film progressed. Overall I enjoyed his performance and while I prefer Poirot as a plain eccentric rather than someone evidently suffering from an obsessive-compulsive disorder as presented here I did appreciate him going in a different direction. The look of the character, too, felt new and pleasingly different, though I couldn’t help feeling he looked a bit young and rather too good looking to convince as this character.

Despite my nitpicking, I’d say this is an enjoyable film that one can tune into and enjoy a bit of glamorous escapism. It would make a great Sunday matinee, if anyone is looking for something to watch this afternoon.​

I watched this last year but I didn't enjoy it as much as you did.

I agree it's visually stunning although at time I felt the CGI was a bit too overused to the point where it was so distracting while watching I was identify which bits I thought were CGI and which bits were real.

I recently saw Belfast and was very complimentary about Kenneth Branagh's direction but in this film it seemed like he was trying too hard, going for more complex set ups and camera angles when something more straightforward would have been more effective. I was unsure about his interpretation of Poirot too. The moustache was almost as cartoonish than the CGI he used in the film and I felt his accent was overdone and dare I say at times I felt he was also overacting. The itself film lacked the tension and intrigue of the Albert Finney version and I didn't think it did justice to the story, in fact it made it feel a bit old fashioned.

Coincidentally, I'm planning to watch Death On The Nile tonight because I think it's a great story and I'm curious to see if Mr Branagh can do a better job with it.