SUCHET WAS REACHER GILT??? The mark of an awesome actor: you don't see the actor. You only see the character. I love the Poirot series, and never, ever realized it was Suchet in GP until I saw this. Ditto for the other roles he's played -- good lord, the man's a perfect chameleon.
This is a role you can imagine a lesser actor going all "Ham and Cheese" on because he is a ruthless, flamboyant pirate... but Suchet plays him absolutely perfectly. Instead of ham and cheese, we get fine aged prosciutto and gouda.
It was brilliant to watch him play this role. It could have gone way over the top, but he stays so in check. He really was stunning. It is Good to be Bad, David. Hope you do it again!
no matter how terrifying the character was, i couldn't stop smiling whenever he appeared on screen and hoping at some point dear poirot would mention the little grey cells or show a kind smile or smth. lol.
O M G, I've never noticed this before, that Reacher Gilt was Hercule Poirot! How could have I missed that! I will have to watch the whole movie again :) I did not really liked the Reacher as a character, but I think he played him well. Still, he's my most favorite Poirot and it's such a pity he did not play him in the Murder on the Orient Express. I'd have loved that.
Phenomenal! The patch also made his other eye look more dramatic and revealing :-) I haven't thought that he could really be this frightening. Amazing performance.
David Suchet is a great actor. But I dislike the movie's take on Reacher Gilt. He's a pirate, a bedazzler, a commanding presence and the center of the party in the book, as charmingly cunning as Moist von Lipwig, but always subliminally threatening where Lipwig seems trustworthy and your true friend. In the film though, Gilt is sickly pale, seems more frail and noir/gothy than outshining, colorful, Falstaff-boisterous and lively virile full of spunk. More often than not, in the film he seems to prefer dark corners and the quiet study, to brood in it like a child having been told off, wanting to get away from people. Whereas in the book, it'd be the center of the stage, the quiet brooding befitting a true psychopath, and people wanting to get away from *him*. And that ridiculous clownish puppy bowtie together with that overlong hair and oversized cylinder on a small, round person. Less commanding than pitiful from the outset, really. So all in all, less Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York, or even Captain Barbarossa in Pirates of the Carribbean, and more Oswald Cobblepot in Batman Returns. How could that guy con half of streetwise Ankh-Morpork instead of becoming a laughing stock?
I agree. In the book he's a mix between vetinari (ruthless and calm) and lipwig (charlatan). He's tricking everyone, but always acts from the shadows. Never being in front, never acting up (well, until lipwig brings his bet). This one was a fraud and a ruthless one, but so ...Stupid and upfront about it. At the same time, they rewrote Adorable Dearheart and Lipwig, so perhaps this was just the best the writers could come up with? A feeble and emotional girl, and a wreck who had lost every bit of the control and self after an almost hanging. I'm going back to the book for umptheenth time. It's a joy to read even now, and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone!
SUCHET WAS REACHER GILT???
The mark of an awesome actor: you don't see the actor. You only see the character.
I love the Poirot series, and never, ever realized it was Suchet in GP until I saw this. Ditto for the other roles he's played -- good lord, the man's a perfect chameleon.
Same thing. Took me to come across this film to realize that. He´s great as Gilt.
This is a role you can imagine a lesser actor going all "Ham and Cheese" on because he is a ruthless, flamboyant pirate... but Suchet plays him absolutely perfectly. Instead of ham and cheese, we get fine aged prosciutto and gouda.
David is so charming and adorable and such a brilliant actor. It's hard to dislike even the villains he plays lol.
It was brilliant to watch him play this role. It could have gone way over the top, but he stays so in check. He really was stunning. It is Good to be Bad, David. Hope you do it again!
he's sexy when he's bad :)
He was brillitant in this.
no matter how terrifying the character was, i couldn't stop smiling whenever he appeared on screen and hoping at some point dear poirot would mention the little grey cells or show a kind smile or smth. lol.
O M G, I've never noticed this before, that Reacher Gilt was Hercule Poirot! How could have I missed that! I will have to watch the whole movie again :) I did not really liked the Reacher as a character, but I think he played him well. Still, he's my most favorite Poirot and it's such a pity he did not play him in the Murder on the Orient Express. I'd have loved that.
This guy is such an amazing actor! It is the best possible choice for this role!
Phenomenal! The patch also made his other eye look more dramatic and revealing :-)
I haven't thought that he could really be this frightening. Amazing performance.
Imagine just David Suchet in some similar role, but serious one in the Game of Thrones !
lol I had really been looking forward to see that parrot sitting on his shoulder in the movie, Sadly they left it out.
Man I didn’t realize it’s him!! So talented, such a chameleon.
Excellent casting
Terrible adaption guilt wasn't a cardboard villian and anger. He was cool even the end.
I loathed and hated the character so much , I almost forgot there was an actor behind the mask !
Hmm this would qualify him for playing Mitt Romney, But after you've played a part once do you really want to redo it?
David Suchet is a great actor. But I dislike the movie's take on Reacher Gilt. He's a pirate, a bedazzler, a commanding presence and the center of the party in the book, as charmingly cunning as Moist von Lipwig, but always subliminally threatening where Lipwig seems trustworthy and your true friend. In the film though, Gilt is sickly pale, seems more frail and noir/gothy than outshining, colorful, Falstaff-boisterous and lively virile full of spunk. More often than not, in the film he seems to prefer dark corners and the quiet study, to brood in it like a child having been told off, wanting to get away from people. Whereas in the book, it'd be the center of the stage, the quiet brooding befitting a true psychopath, and people wanting to get away from *him*. And that ridiculous clownish puppy bowtie together with that overlong hair and oversized cylinder on a small, round person. Less commanding than pitiful from the outset, really. So all in all, less Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York, or even Captain Barbarossa in Pirates of the Carribbean, and more Oswald Cobblepot in Batman Returns. How could that guy con half of streetwise Ankh-Morpork instead of becoming a laughing stock?
I agree. In the book he's a mix between vetinari (ruthless and calm) and lipwig (charlatan). He's tricking everyone, but always acts from the shadows. Never being in front, never acting up (well, until lipwig brings his bet).
This one was a fraud and a ruthless one, but so ...Stupid and upfront about it.
At the same time, they rewrote Adorable Dearheart and Lipwig, so perhaps this was just the best the writers could come up with? A feeble and emotional girl, and a wreck who had lost every bit of the control and self after an almost hanging.
I'm going back to the book for umptheenth time. It's a joy to read even now, and I would recommend it to anyone and everyone!