"Murder on the Orient Express" is not as good as "Murder on the Orient Express", although there are many similarities between the two. Where Poirot arrives there will be murders, which reminds one of Conan, and it is equally fitting that Maori put the star terrier on Poirot. In fact, the plot design is best like "Sherlock Holmes", not to make the detective himself a witness to the case, but to let the detective participate in the case after the incident. If you were a member of the ship, when Poirot investigated you and suspected you, you could say, "What right do you have to suspect someone else? You are also involved in the case and may be the murderer, and you are the most Those who are capable of committing a perfect crime should refrain from handling the case, this is common sense!"
We can only put common sense aside and let Poirot get involved. The passengers around the victim all had hatred against her, so they were all suspected. Before the incident, the film basically explained everyone's holiday with her. In order to make the audience unable to guess who the murderer is, the screenwriter and the original author piled up a large number of suspects, which dazzled us by the number. As a result, like "Train" and "Nile River", each new character will be introduced when they appear. Word. It takes half a movie to figure out the relationship between these characters. That's not the best approach for a detective novel or movie that's supposed to be fast-paced. In fact, another design can be used, leaving everyone's background blank, and through the investigation layer by layer, to discover the relationship between each person and the victim. The number of suspects does not have to increase endlessly. "Train" uses collective crime to make a large number of suspects to justify themselves and become a bright spot, while in "Nile", the number of suspects crossing the river makes us at a loss, the only one. The advantage is that the real murderer can kill a few more and indirectly lead to the narrowing of the scope of the suspect.
The criminal process is full of loopholes. When Jackie "injured" Simon, the gunshots only attracted Jim. Then, Jim and Rosalie went to care for Jackie and left Simon there, which was obviously counterintuitive. Shouldn't the doctor be called right away to see his serious injury? When the criminal killed the victim, he did not use the shawl to silence the sound. Isn't he afraid that the sound of the gun would attract people's attention? The speed of the film is extremely slow, and every time Poirot investigates a suspect, he shows the imaginary crime scene of this person: Jackie "wounds" Simon's deck perspective is reproduced countless times; Lynette's door is opened. Countless times; the victim's head was blown off countless times. It seems that directors and screenwriters can only constantly stimulate the drowsy audience by "headshots" and "throat cuts". In the end, Poirot's way of making the suspect confess his guilt was not satisfactory. He thought that the detective had some reliable evidence, or used some kind of "trap" to make the suspect's confession contradict itself and the truth came out. The film (or the original), on the other hand, uses an "impression test" to provide evidence for its own hypothesis. The introduction of technology ends the last link of reasoning, making the criminal irrefutable and disappointing the audience.
View more about Death on the Nile reviews
