IMO it sucked compared to this and the book.
-
maggieameanderings — 10 years ago(March 16, 2016 11:35 PM)
I thought it was 100 times better than this movie. And I thought it was a pretty good adaptation of the book, capturing the claustrophobic feeling very well. I could see where they changed somethings to heighten the drama, but that's typical in going from page to screen.
The casting wasn't what I had in mind. But it never is. Christie doesn't do long descriptions of her characters, but she gives enough details to form an image, yet the producers didn't follow even that limited description. But I'm used to that with Christie adaptations. -
Jimmy-128 — 9 years ago(July 25, 2016 06:55 PM)
I thought it was 100 times better than this movie.
Agreed. The BBC version is far and away the best of the English-language ones, and not just because of the original ending. My only nitpick is Blore's crime; I can't see Mister Owen viewing that as worse than Armstrong's or the Rogers'. -
CaptainLombard33 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 10:58 AM)
My only nitpick is Blore's crime; I can't see Mister Owen viewing that as worse than Armstrong's or the Rogers'.
Really? Blore literally stomped a man to death. Gay or not, that's a HORRIBLE crime. Compared to Armstrong's botched operation and Rogers' suffocation of the employer, it's not only the most brutal, but the most unnecessary. Armstrong didn't plan to murder his patient, he just ignored the fact he was too drunk to perform his procedure and killed her. Rogers' murder of the employer was nasty, but there was at least a motive of financial gain.
There was nothing of that in Blore's crime. He just didn't like the guy and stomped him to death because of it. There's no reference to him even gaining a promotion or money out of it. It's definitely more horrible than Armstrong's and Rogers' crimes. -
Eric-62-2 — 6 years ago(January 16, 2020 07:22 AM)
The problem is it's a crime that's totally out of context for the period and comes off as a deliberate attempt to shoehorn something modern into the story, and every time I see this happen in a new version of a Christie story that still tries to have it both ways by keeping the action in the period all I can do is roll my eyes. The awful "Murder On The Orient Express" remake was guilty of that too by making Colonel Arbuthnot an improbable black doctor solely so we could get some digs at American society of the period.
And let's look at General MacArthur. In this version he shoots Richmond in cold blood in the back?? How does that still rate him among the ones who get let off early?
I'm amused at how all this rhapsody over the ending is making some people overlook some of the other changes made to the story that are far more detrimental than the changed ending was in previous versions.