They remind me of an Armando Ianucci sketch where he attacks a lemon and screams at it, "why aren't you an orange?!?!". The point of this film is not that it's some sort of considered take on Agatha Christie's Poirot, what it is, is a furiously surreal object, a staggeringly funny piece of art.
Just seems that the only people who watch this film are Christie nuts, entirely the wrong audience!
so you think that a movie based on an Agatha Christie book should not be watched by her fans.
i think you have to face the fact that this movie was just plain awful. its not a staggeringly funny piece of art and shouldnt be seen that way. if the director intended that sort of movie then he should have not made one based on an AC book.
the imdb rating of 5.4 is, in my opinion, very very generous. I gave it a one star rating and that was only because i noticed Windsor Davies in it.
That pretty much is what I'm suggesting yes. I can't fake laughter you know, it did make me laugh, you missing the laughs is not the film's fault.
sharein my opinion the one group of people who are most likely to watch a film with Hercule Poirot in are Agatha Christie fans.
so for the writers/director to make this piece of rubbish is offensive.
for them to make an AC film and change the murderer is offensive and to turn Poirot into a stupid character
you can see now why AC was always very reluctant to have films made of her books. they always took such liberties with the books
I agree the tragedy of the film is that pretty much only Agatha Christie fans are ever going to watch it.
I wouldn't by any means say that Christie was against making him look stupid, he was a very prissy individual.
i agree
he was prissy. AC wanted to kill him off many times and much earlier than she actually did.
this movie tho made him cartoonish. running away from hastings all the time and mis pronouncing names
Not only staggeringly funny, but a staggeringly brilliant idiosyncratic acting-fest by Tony Randall and an overall visual feast, the vibrant realism of the cityscapes and the radical camera angles (the clown falling down=vertigo angle, camera facing out from behind bowling pins=great wide shot of bowling alley interiour architecture, the wild fast-paced dolly chase climbing the construction-structure over the river) and unique shots (the shot through the bowling alley scoreboard, the dinner table through the fishtank, the brief nightime car ride with Parisianesque city lights brightly flickering in backdrop; lights = bright idea: after visiting the shrink and reading the card Poirot gets the idea to visit to CC/Carmichael Clarke, the car he's in is crowned in the background with flickering flamesand the creative gags and comedic moments (so many, all of Poirot's idiosyncratic moments, the mirror-face sequence, Poirot's ambidextrous bowling, the wife's snoring, Poirot eluding Hastings, Poirot on horse chasing ABC, the restaurant vanishing acts, Miss Marple and Poirot crossing paths, all with perfect timing) and the flawless execution of scene-to-scene transitions and the vibrant Parisian music, carnival accordion, vibraphones, strolling clarinents and racing flutes, the whole visual and aural experience kept making me think I was watching a nouvelle vague, the feeling was so strong I did a quick Wiki search on the director and learned he was a major influence on the French Nouvelle Vague movement.Randall's performance is one of the best male performances ever.I don't care if the film butchered the book because I don't consider Agatha Christie much of anything.
shareThe bowling is in tune with the books funnily, there's a part where Poirot is pretending he can't play golf and then hits the ball right to the flag. I just like how much energy he's got in the movie. Very interesting to hear that Tashlin was an influence on the Nouvelle Vague.
shareThe scene with Poirot playing golf in Murder in the Mews isn't in the original short story, just the television adaptation.
I'm considering getting this film because I discovered Margaret Rutherford was in it as Miss Marple. Could someone tell me is the film worth seeing and more importantly how big is Rutherford's guest part? Thanks
shareIt's a cameo, lasting about 20 seconds. Marple, accompanied by Mr. Stringer, has a rather hilariously baffled look at Poirot, and then walks away. The movie is OK if you take it as a spoof.
shareThanks
shareAs I recall Rutherford,accompanied by the husband she fed by giving him small parts in her films,ambles past and says something like 'Pathetic,Mr Stringer',which just about sums up most of her Miss Marple films and this one,which I don't think set out to be a surreal masterpiece any more than the 60s 'Casino Royale',just a very bad and self-conscious spoof re-working.
shareNone of the 'Miss Marple' pictures were much good but you watch them again and again for Margaret Rutherford's take on the Agatha Christie character. In this one,Tony Randall's 'Poirot' is an overdone caricature that didn't call on the U.S. actor's comic skills: as Poirot,he's a fish out of water.
share