When I saw the movie is supposed to be based on Halloween party, I was very surprised; I hadn't even connected the woman in the beginning of the trailer to Ariadne Oliver because that wasn't how I would expect her to act. I feel like, if they wanted to do a supernatural thriller featuring Poirot, the least they could have done is own up that it's basically an original story instead of calling it an adaptation. Of course, the movie could end up being quite different as it seems like the trailer was deliberately shot like a horror trailer. That being said, if there turn out to not be any ghosts in the mansion after all, people could somewhat call out this trailer for false advertising. Lastly, if they were so adamant on featuring a seance, why not pick an Agatha Christie story with a seance in it instead of Halloween party??
I have enjoyed a lot of Branagh's work in the past, but I think he has completely missed with the Christie adaptations. I don't think he handles the mystery genre well at all. And I'm a little surprised because I loved "Dead Again".
I had a similar reaction when I first saw the trailer a week ago... and had to go figure out what Agatha Christie Story they were doing as it so did not resemble anything I had read, I assumed that maybe it was made of whole cloth until I found out the source story.
This was pretty much my reaction to the trailer, I even read Halloween Party again to try and make sense of the changes but it's just baffling. I'm hoping the film will be entertaining on its own merits (I did enjoy Murder on the Orient Express) but right now it looks like all they kept is some character names. Might as well write an original screenplay at this point...
12:20 Or perhaps we see them, currently dead or missing, in flashbacks, and maybe later realize that how we thought they went dead or missing is not actually how it went? Regardless I likely won’t see it in theater - my life has a long list of movies I see trailers for and think “yeah looks a good time,” and when I actually have opportunity to visit a theater, it’s been and gone three weeks back.
I don't want to give too many spoilers in case people are waiting for this, but the characters in question are played by recognisable enough performers that they are definitely in the seance
I saw someone else review and I think that Kenneth Branagh did this one because it's not one of the popular stories. This way when he makes his changes, he won't have to hear all about it.
1:21 Me too … I took a picture of the poster I saw to send to a mate who also likes movies of this sort, just looked at it to confirm: no snake. But I was sure there was one.
It's possible I was mixing this poster up with the poster for a film called 'A Wounded Fawn' which is similar. I'm aware of the audio issues, sometimes my webcam misbehaves and there's not a lot I can do about it. I'm looking in to getting a new camera...
I agree with your assessments. I am a longtime Poirot fan - rewatch the entire Suchet series every couple of years - and Branagh's versions don't work for me at all. Shame as I have enjoyed much of his body of work. The hideous mustache. The gratuitous celeb casting. His dubious accent. Over produced with a glossy Hollywoodish shine. Unashamedly melodramatic. Yuck. I will take a pass on "Haunting.......". Not even curiosity could induce me to see it. But I will be interested in your take away.
I agree! I have loved most of KB's work- especially DEAD AGAIN and BELFAST- but I have hated his Christie adaptations. To the point where I think the Christie estate should file an injunction prohibiting him from ever going near another Poirot story! And for Lord's sake please keep him away from Miss Marple! He would look terrible in a dress.
I watched your video right after the trailer because i couldn't make sense of what I was seeing. I had to grab my copy of Halloween Party and read the back to make sure this was really the story the movie was based from. I don't even think I am not interested enough to even watch the movie but i will love to hear your thoughts on it!
Go on the half off ticket day, Tuesdays around here. That way you won't be disappointed if it's not up to snuff. I love Agatha Christie's novels too. This seems odd but it might be interesting.
OMG exactly! Came here after seeing the trailer. My mom and I are both HUGE Poirot fans because of the David Suchet TV series, and we were being driven crazy trying to find the story the trailer could possibly be based on, as we'd never seen anything similar before... Then we looked it up online and saw it was "based on Hallowe'en Party". Something we've seen time and time again. NOTHING like the trailer. And Michelle Yeoh's character is... the little 13-year old girl Joyce Reynolds??! Yeah, no. This is 90s video game movie levels of ridiculousness.
When will the reaction to the movie be coming, please? ...I had complaints, as I'm sure you will, too: I found my way to this video because I searched for other negative and/or bewildered reactions to this movie. I just watched the BBC/David Suchet version for comparison and now I am even more bewildered. 😐
OMG thank you for that, and the introduction song ❤ I don`t think it`s disrespectful, but I ask my self if people involved in the project even like Christie. It`s like she is never enough, and stuff that could be explored inside her books just don`t came to be. Orient Express was James Bond Poirot, but ok. The past background that were invented by Branagh I also don`t understand. And the changes in Death in the Nile are just... WHY?! But it seems people like it. I still could not bring myself to watch the new "adaptation". Thank God we`ll ever have Suchet`s versions. Thank you again! I was feeling so lonely 😂
I'll bet you must HATE the David Suchet versions of Agatha Christie's Poirot stories, then! His adaptations were all over the place, inventing characters, plots, and relationships that weren't in the Christie stories. He didn't even LOOK the part--Suchet was bald, had brown eyes, a tiny mustache, etc. Like you said, stuff that could be explored inside Christie's books just aren't in Suchet's adaptations, just like you accused the writers of this story of doing. Too bad Suchet's adaptations are only liked by people who haven't read the books or stories on which they are based! NO adaptation has been accurate and NO Poirot has been accurate, so Branagh's stories can join the inaccurate ranks of Suchet, Ustinov, and Finney.
@@kugelweg Oh, I strongly disagree! I'm team Suchet is the real Poirot lol and although they changed a lot, lots of things, for me, the essence is there. It is Agatha Christie. The atmosphere, the vibe. The sets. The art department. OMG the clothes!! For me they got the spirit of her work. And Suchet naild it. Genius. Genius. I remember to this day the first time I saw him as Poirot without nobody telling me it was Poirot, and how I murmured "Poirot!" From one frame. Just to remember makes me emotional. The core of the books are there. I'm very much ok with changes, I don't need everything to match the description. But make it drama without sense of humor, or terror, I think is to adapt in name only. Which is not what happens in the series. Do I even need to say there is a legion of fans like me that read the books and love Suchet? He is the real Poirot for thousands of us. But obviously its impossible to please everybody. I think his depiction of the character is to perfection. That's what makes me only meh with the new adaptations. I think they are awful, but in the end, I will always have Suchet to come back. And, man! I come back all the time. Like literally yesterday, and possibly tonight.
You will find out what Mr. Branagh is doing when you see the film. Aren’t coming attractions supposed to entice you? They also can intentionally fool you.
I'm not denying it looks a little fantastic, it just doesn't look like a Poirot adaptation. You can argue it's misleading, but it is a fact that there is a seance in the trailer and no seance in the book.
I'm no Sherlock Holmes but maybe in the ending there are no ghosts or related suspects. Maybe Poirot discovers a human as being the puppet master. Relax folks, it's only a trailer.
Just came back from seeing this, it was overall underwhelming, dont forget the obligatory feminist jab from Tiny Fey Btw I am a big fan of the Poirot TV series w David Suchet, cheers
I chuckle at the fact that you used the Suchet Poirot theme at the beginning of the trailer review, then complained that the trailer didn't seem like to story Agatha Christie wrote. Suchet's versions often didn't match the stories either--The Big Four, Labours of Hercules, Appointment with Death, The Double Clue, Evil under the Sun, The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim, etc. all were changed in the Suchet versions. Like you, I was confused by the obvious changes in locale and plot as apparent in the trailer, but the film itself makes a lot of sense, and is a better story than the one AC wrote when she was tired and suffering from dementia. If you want to make a balanced and fair video review, then I suggest not using the theme music from an Agatha Christie series that tended to be inaccurate in its depictions of characters and plots! Suchet's adaptations, and his performance, are as inaccurate as any others.
I'm currently working on the full-length reaction, and I will be using the Suchet theme. You cherry-pick several episodes, most of which needed to be radically altered for varying reasons and then say that Suchet's versions were ALL bad adaptations. That's just wrong. The Suchet version sticks pretty close to the plot of Halloween Party (the teenage boys disappear, there's a few less suspicious deaths to investigate, Spence isn't in it), A Haunting In Venice doesn't. What Branagh did to the story, and particularly what he did to Ariadne Oliver, is absolutely atrocious.
An unpopular opinion: I disliked Piorit in Christie's books. I always preferred Miss Marple. I disliked him in the films as well. However, I like the Kenneth Branagh's version of Poirot. He became an interesting character (for me) thanks to him. So I don't really care if the new film is based on the books or not and what changes were made. I just want it to be an interesting, well-written detective story with a touch of horror. But, of course, for a fan, this must be irritating.
@@cayreet5992 He is close enough for me, an interesting interpretation I would say, and the one that made me read the books which, in itself, makes it a successful one. I've read all the books by now and also watched the series, and, sadly, praised and revered by so many David Suchet is not really Poirot either (not to mention all the idiotic ways the scriptwriters changed the plot of the books in the series out of stupidity or to make him more "relatable" ugh.). Even in the books, Poirot in the earlier books is not the same as Poirot in the later ones (personally, I prefer the later version). So, I guess, it is all a matter of personal preferences, which everyone is entitled to (shocking, I know).
you sound like all those ppl who hated on The Woman King, before actually seeing the movie itself. Hating on a movie before u actually see it is not the way lol
I'm not hating, just making the point that I know the source material and this looks like a bad adaptation. If Branagh wanted to do a seance movie he didn't need to make it a Poirot movie.
Sometimes you don't need to see the whole film to know if something's going to be awful (The Woman King is case in point). Kennet Branagh's versions of the Christie classics featuring Poirot have been pretty awful and disappointing, especially "Death on the Nile." After having seen Branagh's versions, I don't care to see his latest upcoming....I like Sir Kenneth - He used to make brilliant films. His version of Wallander was also good, I thought. He needs to just leave Hercules Poirot to David Suchet and go make something else, imo!
When I saw the movie is supposed to be based on Halloween party, I was very surprised; I hadn't even connected the woman in the beginning of the trailer to Ariadne Oliver because that wasn't how I would expect her to act. I feel like, if they wanted to do a supernatural thriller featuring Poirot, the least they could have done is own up that it's basically an original story instead of calling it an adaptation. Of course, the movie could end up being quite different as it seems like the trailer was deliberately shot like a horror trailer. That being said, if there turn out to not be any ghosts in the mansion after all, people could somewhat call out this trailer for false advertising. Lastly, if they were so adamant on featuring a seance, why not pick an Agatha Christie story with a seance in it instead of Halloween party??
Blah Blah Blah, I do know why they didn't pick a Agatha story. It's because you didn't write this story.
Maat Hotep
Exactly!! Why not pick a story with a seance to begin with?!
I have enjoyed a lot of Branagh's work in the past, but I think he has completely missed with the Christie adaptations. I don't think he handles the mystery genre well at all. And I'm a little surprised because I loved "Dead Again".
I had a similar reaction when I first saw the trailer a week ago... and had to go figure out what Agatha Christie Story they were doing as it so did not resemble anything I had read, I assumed that maybe it was made of whole cloth until I found out the source story.
This was pretty much my reaction to the trailer, I even read Halloween Party again to try and make sense of the changes but it's just baffling. I'm hoping the film will be entertaining on its own merits (I did enjoy Murder on the Orient Express) but right now it looks like all they kept is some character names. Might as well write an original screenplay at this point...
So curious to hear your thoughts when the movie comes out!
12:20
Or perhaps we see them, currently dead or missing, in flashbacks, and maybe later realize that how we thought they went dead or missing is not actually how it went?
Regardless I likely won’t see it in theater - my life has a long list of movies I see trailers for and think “yeah looks a good time,” and when I actually have opportunity to visit a theater, it’s been and gone three weeks back.
I don't want to give too many spoilers in case people are waiting for this, but the characters in question are played by recognisable enough performers that they are definitely in the seance
I saw someone else review and I think that Kenneth Branagh did this one because it's not one of the popular stories. This way when he makes his changes, he won't have to hear all about it.
1:21
Me too … I took a picture of the poster I saw to send to a mate who also likes movies of this sort, just looked at it to confirm: no snake.
But I was sure there was one.
It's possible I was mixing this poster up with the poster for a film called 'A Wounded Fawn' which is similar.
I'm aware of the audio issues, sometimes my webcam misbehaves and there's not a lot I can do about it. I'm looking in to getting a new camera...
I agree with your assessments. I am a longtime Poirot fan - rewatch the entire Suchet series every couple of years - and Branagh's versions don't work for me at all. Shame as I have enjoyed much of his body of work. The hideous mustache. The gratuitous celeb casting. His dubious accent. Over produced with a glossy Hollywoodish shine. Unashamedly melodramatic. Yuck. I will take a pass on "Haunting.......". Not even curiosity could induce me to see it. But I will be interested in your take away.
To be fair it was Sidney Lumet in 1974 that started the gratuitous celeb casting 😉 (BTW I say Finney was an under-rated Poirot)
I agree! I have loved most of KB's work- especially DEAD AGAIN and BELFAST- but I have hated his Christie adaptations. To the point where I think the Christie estate should file an injunction prohibiting him from ever going near another Poirot story! And for Lord's sake please keep him away from Miss Marple! He would look terrible in a dress.
@@joanoverfield1174😂😂😂
I watched your video right after the trailer because i couldn't make sense of what I was seeing. I had to grab my copy of Halloween Party and read the back to make sure this was really the story the movie was based from. I don't even think I am not interested enough to even watch the movie but i will love to hear your thoughts on it!
Go on the half off ticket day, Tuesdays around here. That way you won't be disappointed if it's not up to snuff. I love Agatha Christie's novels too. This seems odd but it might be interesting.
I like this video a lot. And I think Tina Fey will be as Awful as was Gal Gadot saying "enough Champgne to fill the Nile." Why is Branaugh doing this?
I liked Halloween Party. Its strange that they used it and did the super natural bit with it.
Yay to David Suchet as Poirot, 👍🏻
Yay to this review and 👍🏻
Nay to Kenneth Branagh as Poirot 👎🏻
OMG exactly! Came here after seeing the trailer. My mom and I are both HUGE Poirot fans because of the David Suchet TV series, and we were being driven crazy trying to find the story the trailer could possibly be based on, as we'd never seen anything similar before... Then we looked it up online and saw it was "based on Hallowe'en Party". Something we've seen time and time again. NOTHING like the trailer. And Michelle Yeoh's character is... the little 13-year old girl Joyce Reynolds??! Yeah, no. This is 90s video game movie levels of ridiculousness.
When will the reaction to the movie be coming, please?
...I had complaints, as I'm sure you will, too: I found my way to this video because I searched for other negative and/or bewildered reactions to this movie. I just watched the BBC/David Suchet version for comparison and now I am even more bewildered. 😐
I have to wait for it to be available on home media. Most likely it will be early December. I'm itching to do it too...
If the movie is well written, acted, & directed then I suspect any lover of suspense will enjoy it.
But the trailer makes it look like a supernatural tale. I don't think we're in the realm of 'suspense' anymore.
@@yaynayormeh probably a mix of both, depends on having the "right" mix. Like a new recipe.
The film IS fun to watch. There are some references to Hallowe'en Party (which is a lousy book), but Branagh elevated it to something far better.
@@kugelwegI thought you were concerned about being true to the novels 🤔
OMG thank you for that, and the introduction song ❤ I don`t think it`s disrespectful, but I ask my self if people involved in the project even like Christie. It`s like she is never enough, and stuff that could be explored inside her books just don`t came to be. Orient Express was James Bond Poirot, but ok. The past background that were invented by Branagh I also don`t understand. And the changes in Death in the Nile are just... WHY?! But it seems people like it. I still could not bring myself to watch the new "adaptation". Thank God we`ll ever have Suchet`s versions. Thank you again! I was feeling so lonely 😂
I'll bet you must HATE the David Suchet versions of Agatha Christie's Poirot stories, then! His adaptations were all over the place, inventing characters, plots, and relationships that weren't in the Christie stories. He didn't even LOOK the part--Suchet was bald, had brown eyes, a tiny mustache, etc.
Like you said, stuff that could be explored inside Christie's books just aren't in Suchet's adaptations, just like you accused the writers of this story of doing. Too bad Suchet's adaptations are only liked by people who haven't read the books or stories on which they are based!
NO adaptation has been accurate and NO Poirot has been accurate, so Branagh's stories can join the inaccurate ranks of Suchet, Ustinov, and Finney.
@@kugelweg Oh, I strongly disagree! I'm team Suchet is the real Poirot lol and although they changed a lot, lots of things, for me, the essence is there. It is Agatha Christie. The atmosphere, the vibe. The sets. The art department. OMG the clothes!! For me they got the spirit of her work. And Suchet naild it. Genius. Genius. I remember to this day the first time I saw him as Poirot without nobody telling me it was Poirot, and how I murmured "Poirot!" From one frame. Just to remember makes me emotional. The core of the books are there. I'm very much ok with changes, I don't need everything to match the description. But make it drama without sense of humor, or terror, I think is to adapt in name only. Which is not what happens in the series. Do I even need to say there is a legion of fans like me that read the books and love Suchet? He is the real Poirot for thousands of us. But obviously its impossible to please everybody. I think his depiction of the character is to perfection. That's what makes me only meh with the new adaptations. I think they are awful, but in the end, I will always have Suchet to come back. And, man! I come back all the time. Like literally yesterday, and possibly tonight.
@@nathaliacalmonYay 😀
You will find out what Mr. Branagh is doing when you see the film. Aren’t coming attractions supposed to entice you? They also can intentionally fool you.
I'm not denying it looks a little fantastic, it just doesn't look like a Poirot adaptation. You can argue it's misleading, but it is a fact that there is a seance in the trailer and no seance in the book.
Agree
I'm no Sherlock Holmes but maybe in the ending there are no ghosts or related suspects. Maybe Poirot discovers a human as being the puppet master. Relax folks, it's only a trailer.
Just came back from seeing this, it was overall underwhelming, dont forget the obligatory feminist jab from Tiny Fey
Btw I am a big fan of the Poirot TV series w David Suchet, cheers
This film looks fantastic- you’re all crazy.
Why not wait until you have seen the film before making your mind up?
Haven't made my mind up, just making observations about what looks like a bad adaptation.
I chuckle at the fact that you used the Suchet Poirot theme at the beginning of the trailer review, then complained that the trailer didn't seem like to story Agatha Christie wrote. Suchet's versions often didn't match the stories either--The Big Four, Labours of Hercules, Appointment with Death, The Double Clue, Evil under the Sun, The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim, etc. all were changed in the Suchet versions.
Like you, I was confused by the obvious changes in locale and plot as apparent in the trailer, but the film itself makes a lot of sense, and is a better story than the one AC wrote when she was tired and suffering from dementia.
If you want to make a balanced and fair video review, then I suggest not using the theme music from an Agatha Christie series that tended to be inaccurate in its depictions of characters and plots! Suchet's adaptations, and his performance, are as inaccurate as any others.
I'm currently working on the full-length reaction, and I will be using the Suchet theme.
You cherry-pick several episodes, most of which needed to be radically altered for varying reasons and then say that Suchet's versions were ALL bad adaptations. That's just wrong.
The Suchet version sticks pretty close to the plot of Halloween Party (the teenage boys disappear, there's a few less suspicious deaths to investigate, Spence isn't in it), A Haunting In Venice doesn't.
What Branagh did to the story, and particularly what he did to Ariadne Oliver, is absolutely atrocious.
@@yaynayormehAgreed 💯
And yet you prefer an adaptation that’s got nothing to do with AC original novel 🤦🏼♀️
Starting 9:15 - 9:40 the video and audio de-synchronize.
I liked it
An unpopular opinion: I disliked Piorit in Christie's books. I always preferred Miss Marple. I disliked him in the films as well. However, I like the Kenneth Branagh's version of Poirot. He became an interesting character (for me) thanks to him. So I don't really care if the new film is based on the books or not and what changes were made. I just want it to be an interesting, well-written detective story with a touch of horror. But, of course, for a fan, this must be irritating.
In other words: you like Poirot because he's not Poirot in the Branagh movies.
@@cayreet5992 He is close enough for me, an interesting interpretation I would say, and the one that made me read the books which, in itself, makes it a successful one. I've read all the books by now and also watched the series, and, sadly, praised and revered by so many David Suchet is not really Poirot either (not to mention all the idiotic ways the scriptwriters changed the plot of the books in the series out of stupidity or to make him more "relatable" ugh.). Even in the books, Poirot in the earlier books is not the same as Poirot in the later ones (personally, I prefer the later version). So, I guess, it is all a matter of personal preferences, which everyone is entitled to (shocking, I know).
you sound like all those ppl who hated on The Woman King, before actually seeing the movie itself. Hating on a movie before u actually see it is not the way lol
I'm not hating, just making the point that I know the source material and this looks like a bad adaptation. If Branagh wanted to do a seance movie he didn't need to make it a Poirot movie.
Sometimes you don't need to see the whole film to know if something's going to be awful (The Woman King is case in point). Kennet Branagh's versions of the Christie classics featuring Poirot have been pretty awful and disappointing, especially "Death on the Nile." After having seen Branagh's versions, I don't care to see his latest upcoming....I like Sir Kenneth - He used to make brilliant films. His version of Wallander was also good, I thought. He needs to just leave Hercules Poirot to David Suchet and go make something else, imo!
@@klientprobyAgreed 👍🏻