Seems like this has never happened before
Which movie to criticize late at night
Also never seemed to be so disappointed with a movie with some anger
When "The Mummy" came out, I just said "Universal's cards are really bad"
And this "Murder on the Orient Express" is really the greater the hope, the greater the disappointment.
For the homework of this movie, I specially bought the original book. Although I'm not a fan of sales fiction, I still hope I'm not ignorant when I go to see this movie (like when I played the first Kingsman to watch Kingsman 2: The Golden Circle, and for Silver Wing Runner 2049 was the same as the 82 version of Blade Runner that afternoon)
Same this time
but not the same
Because although the plot and logic of "Kingsman 2" is relatively lacking, the special effects make up everything; not to mention "Blade Runner 2049", it did not disappoint me at all.
And this "Murder on the Orient Express" is different.
Let's start from the beginning slowly.
(The following contains spoilers, please be careful)
First, start with the case in Jerusalem.
At first, I didn't know why (because the original book didn't), but since it's an adaptation, it's impossible to get on the ship at the beginning, and then get on the express train directly, just like the book. It needs a foreshadowing. Well, I accept it and think it's a good job.
But one detail is whether Poirot measures the height of the eggs consistently. I don't remember this in the Poirot Detectives I've seen, Poirot doesn't seem to be obsessive, so I doubt it for now, but I still have faith in the movie.
Another point, Poirot solved the case by simply deducing the beneficiary and the shoes and ordering an office search and solving the case. Personally, I think it needs to be considered. It's a bit too simple after all. But since it's just an introduction, a foreshadowing, I don't care about it.
Next, is the occurrence of the case and some foreplay. The filming is very good, the links are gradually deepened, and there is nothing to criticize. The only fly in the ointment is the integration of the roles of Colonel Abbasnot and Doctor Constantine. But since it is an adaptation, accept it.
Then came the testimonies of the passengers. The director used a back-and-forth approach to present the confession. Well, since it is an adaptation, and in order to make the film less boring, I accept it and admit that it is a relatively good practice. But can you show your testimony in full? What does it mean to only show a few! There is also the indiscriminate entry of the train maintenance team, which means several things! Wouldn't outsiders call the police? ! Then the closed system is broken! You know, the classic Murder on the Orient Express is that it is a closed system, the criminals are among the people, and the appearance of the maintenance team perfectly breaks this.
After that, it was Poirot who smelled alcohol on the conductor's clothes that he found and tracked down McQueen. The original party said what the hell is this? ! And what was McQueen's account-burning and chasing scene after that? ! The mystery of this case is unquestionable, and this adaptation shatters that perfectly. And I don't think the murderer on the Express train had that low IQ. And chase scenes, can't you have action scenes in every movie? ! Poirot's strength is not in this, his real talent lies in those "little gray cells". Poirot is not Sherlock Holmes!
In the end, Poirot speculates wildly in front of the suspect and makes a wrong conclusion, as well as another action scene. God, what is it! In this way, there is no mystery and surprise at the end of the ending revealed! And to repeat, Poirot is not Sherlock Holmes, and action scenes don't fit all movies! And the murder of General Abbasnot is really ruining the three views!
At the end of the film, there is nothing to say about the plot. It is nothing more than Poirot letting them go and arbitrarily raising the theme, saying that the scale of justice is not always balanced.
Finally sum up the rant.
1. The illogicality of handling the case. Poirot's investigation has always focused on logic, and the original book of Murder on the Orient Express is also to find the truth through the logical loopholes in the confessions of passengers. And this movie can be said to be illogical throughout, and Poirot's conclusions come from nowhere.
Second, the sequence of confessions and reasoning is confusing. In the film, Poirot just asked the confessions of a few people and started reasoning and looking for luggage. Is the director mentally retarded when the audience is? ! The key to solving a case is to at least listen to the confession first!
Third, the indiscriminate entry of action scenes. Again, action isn't for every movie. This movie reminds me of Robert Downey Jr.'s second Sherlock Holmes. The biggest downfall of that movie is that there are too many action scenes that make it dazzling. Sherlock Holmes, who is good at sticks, is still like this, not to mention Poirot, who is only good at mental exercise? ! The addition of action scenes can only reduce points. The classic of the Murder on the Orient Express lies in the search and refutation of logical loopholes, there is no action scene and there should be no!
Fourth, the deliberate sublimation of the ending theme. The director wants to elevate the film's b-frame, and forcing Poirot to shout "broken soul" and "scales of justice" isn't always balanced. As everyone knows, this is really embarrassing! Not every movie is good for chicken soup.
Well, thank you for watching me say so much.
The last sentence. If you haven't read the original book, then go see this movie and you might think it's good. But if you've seen the original, you'll be deeply disgusted by it. At least I am.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
