• Jordan Lund
    link
    English
    89 months ago

    I recognize that Christie isn’t exactly Shakespeare, but why adapt a book and change literally everything about it?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallowe’en_Party

    It’s not in Venice, the house is not haunted, there’s no seance… I guess some of the names are the same?

  • @Crackhappy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    69 months ago
    1. The jump scares were cheap and dumb, and very annoying.
    2. Branagh did a superb job of playing Poirot.
    3. Whyyyyyy so many dutch angles, fisheye lenses, and other cinematographical shenanigans? Ugh, annoying.

    I’d give this movie a 6/10. I really really wanted to like it, I love agatha christie adaptations but this one was not great.

    • @ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      Fair analysis. Feel like it needed to lean more into the horror side of things, although I can see that that might alienate some of the audience. Instead of all the camera angles and Poirot occasionally seeming doddery I’d have preferred if the audience experienced more of what he was seeing and hearing, make it feel more like there could be something supernatural going on.

  • @ieightpi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    39 months ago

    It was a great movie. I don’t usually jump scare, but for some reason the chandelier scene did it for me. My wife had a few jumps scares in later scenes.

    Overalls great flick. I hope Kenneth Branaugh does more adaptions.