buzzerbill
abr 2000 se unió
Te damos la bienvenida a nuevo perfil
Seguimos trabajando en la actualización de algunas funciones del perfil. Para ver los distintivos, los desgloses de calificaciones y las encuestas para este perfil, visita versión anterior.
Calificaciones1 k
Clasificación de buzzerbill
Reseñas46
Clasificación de buzzerbill
This is not a film.
There is no discernable plot.
The characters are cyphers.
There is no discernable exposition.
What you have for about 90 minutes or so is a string of admittedly well executed and gruesome practical effects, lots of time walking around and screaming, some mildly creepy atmosphere (the white-robed cultists are visually striking, but where the devil is the cult?) and screaming and yelling. Did I mention that? You have already seen this in other, and better, films.
You could conceivably have made a short film of 30 minutes or so out of the material with a combination of some logic, taste, and discretion, less gore and more atmosphere. Alas, there is not logic, taste, or discretion here.
There is no discernable plot.
The characters are cyphers.
There is no discernable exposition.
What you have for about 90 minutes or so is a string of admittedly well executed and gruesome practical effects, lots of time walking around and screaming, some mildly creepy atmosphere (the white-robed cultists are visually striking, but where the devil is the cult?) and screaming and yelling. Did I mention that? You have already seen this in other, and better, films.
You could conceivably have made a short film of 30 minutes or so out of the material with a combination of some logic, taste, and discretion, less gore and more atmosphere. Alas, there is not logic, taste, or discretion here.
I admire most of Kenneth Branagh's work. His Poirot films are however, charitably, a disaster. Now, there have been a few bad Christie adaptations. Tony Randall's The Alphabet Murders is certainly one of the very worst.
None of Branagh's Christie adaptations are good. A Haunting In Venice was at least watchable. Not good, and certainly leagues away from the Christie original, but at least watchable. His Death On The Nile, however, makes Randall's film look like Hitchcock at his best.
Where does one start? There are been several screen and TV Poirots. For me, two stand out--Peter Ustinov (my personal favorite) and David Suchet. Both of them embody different aspects of the character; both of them are enjoyable. Both did versions of Death On The Nile which adhered fairly closely to Christie's original and were enjoyable to watch, with good supporting casts.
I don't know from whence Branagh's bizarre concept of Poirot comes. Certainly not from Christie. Michael Green, the screenwriter, perhaps deserves even more odium than does Sir Kenneth. Mr. Green is responsible for 4 of the worst screenplays I have seen--the three Branagh Poirots, and Blade Runner:2049, which also ranks as one of the very worst films in every way I have ever had the misfortune to sit through.
Whatever be the primary source, who is in their right mind thought it was a good idea of rewrite a story which is one of Christie's best? This is not an adaptation; one might say "suggested by". But even that fails to convey just how this corrupts Christie's original.
Just don't watch. Life is too short.
None of Branagh's Christie adaptations are good. A Haunting In Venice was at least watchable. Not good, and certainly leagues away from the Christie original, but at least watchable. His Death On The Nile, however, makes Randall's film look like Hitchcock at his best.
Where does one start? There are been several screen and TV Poirots. For me, two stand out--Peter Ustinov (my personal favorite) and David Suchet. Both of them embody different aspects of the character; both of them are enjoyable. Both did versions of Death On The Nile which adhered fairly closely to Christie's original and were enjoyable to watch, with good supporting casts.
I don't know from whence Branagh's bizarre concept of Poirot comes. Certainly not from Christie. Michael Green, the screenwriter, perhaps deserves even more odium than does Sir Kenneth. Mr. Green is responsible for 4 of the worst screenplays I have seen--the three Branagh Poirots, and Blade Runner:2049, which also ranks as one of the very worst films in every way I have ever had the misfortune to sit through.
Whatever be the primary source, who is in their right mind thought it was a good idea of rewrite a story which is one of Christie's best? This is not an adaptation; one might say "suggested by". But even that fails to convey just how this corrupts Christie's original.
Just don't watch. Life is too short.
