I watched "Murder on the Orient Express" with full anticipation, but after reading it, I said I could only give it a negative score.
Poirot, the uncle of idealism, was actually photographed as Sherlock Holmes where materialist evidence is paramount? !
Black question mark? ?
Look at the beginning of the original book, how Poirot is described by others:
A small man with an exaggerated mustache. The head is like an egg. Funny. Don't take this guy seriously.
In the play, Poirot unfortunately becomes Sherlock Holmes in seconds.
The mustache turns into a huge mustache.
The wretched uncle turned into a gentleman in a trench coat.
Just talking and not practicing lazy cancer patients turned into a man with a tenth-level style of martial arts.
The director thought he was filming "Sherlock"? I went to the wrong place...
The director was not satisfied with this, and insisted on playing Poirot, making him look like a late-stage obsessive-compulsive disorder. He was just an egg for breakfast, causing the little boy to run back and forth, and he refused to accept it. Stepping on shit, in order to balance it, I have to step on it with the other foot. Then a Sherlock Holmes-style reasoning came abruptly in the square, with a perfect score, but no Poirot. This opening fully explains what is superfluous and what is pretending to fail.
But that's not the scariest. The most terrifying thing is that from Poirot's mouth, the stupid words "this world is either black or white, there is no gray area" appeared.
As a famous detective, Poirot has seen countless big and strange cases, and his values are so shallow, it is completely unreasonable. He also specially arranged a sentiment at the end of "So we have to allow gray areas", for fear that the audience would not be able to see that he has grown and sublimated through this case. This inferior design arrangement is completely inconsistent with the current universal values. What age is it, and you don't even bother to play Shenxia?
The end is also a negative teaching material that is overly pretentious. Obviously it was a lynching trial of 12 people, and the 12 disciples from "The Last Supper" were rigidly applied. Besides the number 12, where is the correlation?
In the play, Poirot was so weak that he identified the wrong murderer several times, and was so confused that he prayed to the head of the girl in the pendant... In the original book, Poirot was clearly witty, and was not led by 12 people: he From the very beginning, they were skeptical of the clues they left at the crime scene, not believing their fictional "escaped prisoner" narrative, and always guessing that two or more people worked together to commit the crime.
Poirot is not Sherlock Holmes, he does not follow professional procedures. He relies on psychology.
In the case of unconventional case-solving without the police providing information to verify the authenticity, he used logical reasoning and psychological games to uncover the fog, step by step to prove that all the suspects were lying, and through one-on-one deceit and questioning, each broke through the suspect's psychology. Line of defense, proving your guesses.
He found, for example, that Miss Debenham had been agitated by a train accident that had been delayed a little while taking a train at Stamble, for fear of not being able to catch the transfer on the Orient Express. And now that the Orient Express has also had an accident, she is calm and confident. He took this discovery to question Miss Debenham, and caught that she, who claimed to have "never been to America", knew how to speak long distance. He used an analogy to say that it was like putting a mink in the hole to catch the rabbit and let the rabbit run away. Through repeated questioning, he observed a strong change in Miss Debenham's mood, which confirmed his guess.
Another example is when he found the uniform in the maid's trunk, he set a trap and said to the maid, "I believe you didn't hide the uniform, just like I believe you are a good cook. Look, you are a good cook, right?" The maid smiled involuntarily and said, "That's right, my mistresses all say that..." She immediately deceived the fact that the maid was a cook.
Sherlock Holmes relied on scientific evidence, while Poirot relied mainly on criminal psychology, apart from a little scientific help. How can such a famous detective who is familiar with psychology think that the world is black and white?
At the end of the book, Poirot gathers everyone in the dining car and offers two conclusions for Mr. Booker and the doctor to decide which is correct.
To put it lightly, the crimes of 12 people are covered in this snow.
This is the bearing and ability that a famous detective should have!
The self-directed and self-acted director does not dig out the charm of Poirot's character, but only knows to copy the Sherlock Holmes character design without limit, and make the picture retro, exquisite and suspenseful. This is really a waste of this excellent material, and this cast is blinded. line-up.
"The Orient Express" has been turned over, and "The Nile" will not be good either. How can it be such a miserable word?
If you reread the novel knowing the ending, you will find that Grandma has already given a lot of clues at the beginning——
At Stamble, Miss Debenham muttered that she had to catch the Orient Express.
First-class sleeper tickets on the train are sold out, 'too unusual'.
Even suspected tour group chartered.
The people who gather here are very interesting, of all shapes and sizes, from different classes and countries.
The only people who can afford to gather such a group of people are in the United States.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
