For example, Armstrong's actor mother still has a noble and glamorous image in the film. There is not much difference between before and after the dress up.
The manservant played by Mr. Downton doesn't look like a manservant at all, okay? I won't say that he is tall. He looks like a man in his gestures, and his expression is wrong. Who would think he was a manservant when he saw him? I don't know if it was because of this that a new real identity was fabricated - another comrade of Colonel Armstrong. But it's still unreasonable to ask him to act as a servant. In the novel, the footman was angry at the kidnapper's victim's master at first, and then returned to his bunk to secretly get angry, but said nothing, acting very "British". Both worked for the deceased with the secretary, but they looked down on each other and had no personal friendship, which weakened the suspicion of the two committing the crime together. The valet's identity is well concealed, until Poirot exposes the relationship between the passengers. In the novel, the footman said that the master had the habit of taking sleeping pills before going to bed, and the secretary said the half-sentence "but, for sure" when he heard the paper, which was the direct reason for Poirot's suspicion of them, which is not in the movie.
The worst adaptation would be a salesman and a doctor in one. First, if the doctor is their own person, then in the absence of outsiders to try the case, the doctor can make up the details of the death time and other details at will, and the murder is easier to cover up. On the contrary, when the doctor here initially examined the deceased, the number of knives was too many, but instead gave him a suspicion, but the suspicion was too easy and too loopy. Second, there are fewer changes in the role of the salesman in the novel, less suspense and drama, less interference, and easier to solve the case.
Of the thirteen suspects in the novel, only two seem to have the least relationship with the troop, one is the fake detective merged in the movie mentioned above, and the other is Michelle the conductor. Poirot's high-level friends in the train company have vouched for him several times. He has worked for many years, is very dedicated, decent and honest, and has nothing to do with others. Michelle's performance is also very in line with the boss's guarantee. She is afraid of being misunderstood and lost her job, and she is nervous and afraid. It was precisely because he was found not to be suspicious at first that the condition of "killing in the secret room" was established, otherwise it could have been people from other carriages who colluded with the conductor to sneak in and escape. It was also because he repeatedly emphasized that he was not suspected, had no motive, etc., and finally revealed his relationship with the Armstrong family and his criminal motives, which made the contrast seem huge and reasonable. When Poirot first asked Michelle about the situation in the new version of the movie, the boss of the train company took the initiative to explain the misfortune of Michelle's family and that he was temporarily transferred to this carriage, which increased his suspicion and increased his and Armstrong's The possibility of a connection to speed up the cracking of the case.
After the train was forced to stop due to snow, the scene of everyone gathering and complaining anxiously was gone. In the original book, the other people's seemingly anxious expressions are consistent with their fake identities, which is in stark contrast to Marie's calmness, and compared to the anxiety she had been in the same car with the Colonel and Poirot before, there was clearly a problem. The film explained the reason why she concealed the relationship between the two through the mouth of the colonel, added the plot of Mary being seriously injured when Daisy was kidnapped, and increased the suspicion of her relationship with the Armstrong family. The typical British character and the Duchess describes the female teacher as subconsciously following a completely different design than Mary. Because the novel connects Mary, the colonel, and the Duchess, who was not listed as a suspect because of her physical weakness, and strengthens the connection between seemingly unrelated carriage passengers.
In the novel, seemingly unrelated, people from different countries and different classes cooperate with each other in the first half of the story, offering a perfect alibi, making people confused and confused. The arrangement is old and spicy, with tacit understanding, the plot is important and exciting. Until the movie was greatly weakened, it was just a mention, ah, that alibi for whoever did it.
The kidnappers are not as nasty and hateful as in the novel, except for the original plot of killing children because of tearing tickets, and the actor's strange brain gate. When asking for Poirot's help, he said that he wanted to repent and make atonement. Before he was killed, a prayer scene was arranged. Although it may be deliberately compared with Poirot's prayer, it was also so that Poirot could quickly think of the case behind the case after seeing the note. case, but the practice of whitewashing the vicious killer makes it even more unreasonable to let the passengers in the carriage in the end. Superfluous.
What puzzles me the most is the time issue: the time of death estimated by the doctor in the novel, the time when several passengers claimed to see something, the time when Poirot was awakened twice, the time of the deceased's pocket watch and the time when the train was forced to stop. a key element. This is greatly simplified, but there is no problem. The key is that the doctor estimated the time of death at 12:00-1:00, the pocket watch time was 12:40, and the train stopped at 2:00. The murderer could completely kill and escape from the window and be covered by snow. Leave traces of escape. I have repeatedly confirmed this piece, and I feel that the new version has not dealt with the details, but it generally follows the process of the original, so it has inexplicably added a lot of suspicion.
It is also a pity that many people in the original book were somewhat emotionally broken when their contact with the Armstrong family was revealed. It was more real and cordial, and everyone in the movie was too calm.
Such suspicions also include a love affair between a salesman and a French maid. In the novel, when two people look at the snow outside the window, there is a discussion about the charm of domestic women and foreign women. Speaking of the emotional part, the salesman shed tears and argued that it was Xue Huang, which made Poirot later suspect that he was the lover of the French maid who had been wrongly killed. The movie version speculates that the Italian driver and the French maid are a couple without any basis, which is very far-fetched.
Good change: Added the tricks of the actors when getting on the bus. It seems very simple and ordinary, just say hello and say a few words, but those who have read the original book and read the adaptation here will definitely understand the information exchange behind the greeting.
Poirot's friends are far more present than those in his other films. First of all, the two don't seem to know each other as well as in general stories, but the enthusiastic high-level executives insisted on giving him favors. After that, he took the initiative to lead him in the restaurant to call him to pay attention to the passengers, and then invited him to solve the case, not wanting the murder to affect the business, and finally the case became clear and pleaded for the suspects. Although the plot and scenes are not much different from similar friends in the original book and other novels, it is probably because the actors are exerting their strength.
After the real identity of the deceased was revealed, the secretary took the initiative to reveal that he was the son of the public prosecutor in the case in front of the high-level officials and other passengers. This is an added plot in the new version, but it is more reasonable than the original. One is that the motive for murder is relatively strong, and the other is that it conforms to the original work's clever practice of creating alibi for a few unsuspected man-made suspects.
The female cook pretending to be a maid showed her in-depth knowledge of the dishes when ordering, and when Poirot cheated her, she was accidentally caught out, and then realized that she was wrong and immediately defended it. Poirot suspected that she was the cook who took the initiative to cheat her. Reasonable and complex, more worthy of scrutiny. The "White Ribbon" actress did well.
The film weakens the conflict of time in the novel, the handkerchief embroidered with the letter H, the left-handed right-handed and the woman in red pajamas, and the problem of the pipe, the little man with black face, and the lock of the handbag is deleted. Adding to the theft of the deceased's money, the mafia chase plot attempts to divert the detective's attention to the people outside the carriage.
In addition to the above, the biggest feature of this edition is to highlight the contradictions between law, religion and justice and morality. The added scrutiny of officers at the beginning of the film makes it seem like you've seen the wrong movie. Then there are the local women who were treated with rocks because of adultery, and then the discussion with the female teachers and missionaries at the end showed the attitude of the film party, and after a period of struggle and thinking, they finally decided to let these people go. In general, Poirot in this film is unusually tired and heavy, and it fits the plot and the tone of the story.
I thought it was pretty good after reading it, but I didn't expect to write it, and when I compared it with the original, I felt that there were a lot of problems in the adaptation. In fact, under the circumstance of a normal budget, it is a good story to perform in 90 minutes.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
