I am a fanatic when it comes to Agatha Christie, and I hope one day to take a trip on the magnificent Orient Express. I was thrilled when I found out the train would feature prominently in this film! It wasn't just that sequence though - I was on the edge of my seat from the start, and only the expected expository dialogue was clunky. They are completely different movies, but I'll bring up and compare with Kenneth Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express (this film is definitely not Agatha's!) Branagh toned down the train's opulence so as to not overshadow the cast. Not so in the world of Mission Impossible - the train is so beautiful! The Orient Express is trashed (in a way) in both films and I know which one I prefer! A few things intrigued me - the engine is a steam one, which is no longer the case in real life. The current incarnation of the train has a new and different logo, but it is nowhere to be seen. Instead we have the art deco WL logo of the 1930s, and I loved seeing it on screen. In short, there was a bonus for me, but besides that it's a great thrill ride everyone will enjoy!
Reviews
9 Reviews
Firebird
(I) (2021)
Low-budget film with high-budget production values
16 June 2022
I saw this film almost on a whim. Only one cinema in Melbourne was showing it, and only one screening per day, and not even every day. I was thoroughly surprised by what I saw, as everything about the film is beautifully done. What's more, it has a lot of things even big-budget films rarely have. The three leads are so perfectly cast, and the chemistry between them is so rare. Not for one moment are their performances less than convincing. I sat enthralled for nearly two hours, and was touched by the sincerity of it all. There is no doubt in mind the director and screenwriters honoured Sergei and portrayed his and Roman's story with justice. This film will be one of my favourites for years to come. Please see it. You won't regret it. This is an independent film that deserves a mainstream audience.
Death on the Nile
(2022)
Misguided meddling with the source text
9 February 2022
I went in with full knowledge of the changes to characters and had accepted them. The film looks very beautiful. I really don't know what else to say in the way of compliments. I enjoyed the first half, but once the murdering started it all went downhill quickly. The blame must be laid at the feet of the screenwriter. His dialogue is terrible and I cannot understand why when he could have used more of the dialogue from the novel. Then he's fiddled with the plot, and the changes he's made left me scratching my head as it was more than fine to begin with. I'll admit I'm biased as it's my favourite book. I understand film and books are different mediums and so things cannot be replicated exactly. But this is well beyond that. Why was the big, wavering letter J not on the wall?! Please, Michael Green must not be allowed anywhere near an Agatha Christie property again!
Fabulous Australian cinematic experience, continuing the fabulous tv series!
24 February 2020
I've now seen the film three times and each time I love it just a little bit more! Everything we love about the series is here, including the all-important chemistry between Phryne and Jack, and the built-up will-they-or-won't-they? which we love so much!
The story is on a much grander scale, and finds Phryne in Indiana Jones territory. I wasn't sure about this, but it works incredibly well. All the wit we've come to expect is there, and the audiences I saw the film with laughed out loud many times. There is so much love for Phryne!
No wonder, when she is played by Essie Davis. I have seen her in a few other things and her talent astounds me. Terrific to see Daniel Lapaine and Rupert Penry-Jones as aristocratic brothers who are somehow involved in the Palestinian conspiracy. I loved too the cameos from Dot and Hugh and Aunt Prudence! And let's not forget Nathan Page's Jack, who manages to hold his own with Phryne and her strong will!
I can not recommend this film enough. It does exactly what it is supposed to - entertain. And who cannot help but love its heroine, who always bats for the underdog, championing rights, fighting injustices, and always with such style and glamour? Brava, Phryne!
Now I hope it is a huge success so we can have MORE!
The story is on a much grander scale, and finds Phryne in Indiana Jones territory. I wasn't sure about this, but it works incredibly well. All the wit we've come to expect is there, and the audiences I saw the film with laughed out loud many times. There is so much love for Phryne!
No wonder, when she is played by Essie Davis. I have seen her in a few other things and her talent astounds me. Terrific to see Daniel Lapaine and Rupert Penry-Jones as aristocratic brothers who are somehow involved in the Palestinian conspiracy. I loved too the cameos from Dot and Hugh and Aunt Prudence! And let's not forget Nathan Page's Jack, who manages to hold his own with Phryne and her strong will!
I can not recommend this film enough. It does exactly what it is supposed to - entertain. And who cannot help but love its heroine, who always bats for the underdog, championing rights, fighting injustices, and always with such style and glamour? Brava, Phryne!
Now I hope it is a huge success so we can have MORE!
Ladies in Black
(2018)
Terrific nostalgic film!
20 September 2018
I saw this film at a preview with the director, Bruce Beresford, introducing the film. I didn't know quite what to expect but I was thoroughly entertained for two hours. It harks back to a time before I was born in which Australia was a very different place. The time is 1959 and refugees have come Downunder to make new lives for themselves. The changing times are reflected by a group of department store workers - the titular Ladies in Black. The script is amusing and I laughed out loud several times. Residents of Sydney and Melbourne will especially find amusement - the rivalry is not new! Special mention must go to Julia Ormond's Slovenic refugee Magda who works in Model Gowns - she has all the best lines! But everyone is so good I feel bad singling out the lovely Ms Ormond! I must say it's terrific to see a film with no swearing or violence!
Abysmal.
3 July 2009
The cast are quite good, given what they have to work with. The script is utter nonsense from start to finish. Read the book instead.
What are the producers trying to do? How is it they produce something amazing like A Pocketful Of Rye, which is utterly faithful to the book, and then rubbish like this? Don't they have a plan? Are they producers of films based on Agatha Christie's books because they love the books? Clearly not. So I have no idea what they are in it for! And why does Dame Agatha's grandson Mathew Prichard allow it?
The original telefilm from the 80s had a few problems, mainly length...but at any rate at least it is faithful!
I do not talk about Miss Marple being in a non-Miss Marple story. That doesn't bother me in the least. But please don't meddle with the plot!
What are the producers trying to do? How is it they produce something amazing like A Pocketful Of Rye, which is utterly faithful to the book, and then rubbish like this? Don't they have a plan? Are they producers of films based on Agatha Christie's books because they love the books? Clearly not. So I have no idea what they are in it for! And why does Dame Agatha's grandson Mathew Prichard allow it?
The original telefilm from the 80s had a few problems, mainly length...but at any rate at least it is faithful!
I do not talk about Miss Marple being in a non-Miss Marple story. That doesn't bother me in the least. But please don't meddle with the plot!
Misses the point completely
13 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'd really love to hear a "Mission Statement" from the producers of this latest batch of Poirot episodes (and the Marples for that matter). I would have given them the benefit of the doubt if Taken At The Flood had been done right, but the changes made make the films utterly pointless. I was disappointed too by Cards On The Table as it started so well, and the character of Mrs Oliver was portrayed so faithfully.
But back to Taken At The Flood. **SPOILER** The ending, showing how David Hunter blew up the house with dynamite was completely against the whole idea of the book, and the title taken from the quotation from Julius Caesar. It is about taking a chance when it comes. In the book, David's sister Rosaleen is killed when their house is bombed in the Blitz, dashing all his hopes to live off the Cloade money. But a maid survives and he convinces her to pretend to be Rosaleen. It is something requiring very swift action to counteract his rotten bad luck.
But in the film he is shown to be plotting to blow up the house to kill his sister and have the maid step into his shoes, so it has nothing to do acting swiftly when the opportunity comes, to counteract bad luck - it is all his actions.
I think this misses the point of the book, and the point of the title and the quotation it comes from. Not to mention the fact that death by dynamite in an Agatha Christie is quite ludicrous! I'd love to hear the producers' reasoning for making this change, as well as the dozens I could mention for the current four films, most of which are pointless as far as I can see - but I'm amenable to hear the producers defend them!
But back to Taken At The Flood. **SPOILER** The ending, showing how David Hunter blew up the house with dynamite was completely against the whole idea of the book, and the title taken from the quotation from Julius Caesar. It is about taking a chance when it comes. In the book, David's sister Rosaleen is killed when their house is bombed in the Blitz, dashing all his hopes to live off the Cloade money. But a maid survives and he convinces her to pretend to be Rosaleen. It is something requiring very swift action to counteract his rotten bad luck.
But in the film he is shown to be plotting to blow up the house to kill his sister and have the maid step into his shoes, so it has nothing to do acting swiftly when the opportunity comes, to counteract bad luck - it is all his actions.
I think this misses the point of the book, and the point of the title and the quotation it comes from. Not to mention the fact that death by dynamite in an Agatha Christie is quite ludicrous! I'd love to hear the producers' reasoning for making this change, as well as the dozens I could mention for the current four films, most of which are pointless as far as I can see - but I'm amenable to hear the producers defend them!
Heart-breaking tragedy
27 April 2004
This film is incredibly good. The cast is uniformly good. The direction is clever and thoughtful. The music is beautiful. The script has all the essentials of the plot and remarkably faithful to the book. I would be quite willing to say it's the best Christie adaptation so far. It's so good in fact that it could have been made for the silver screen. I even forgive the fact that it isn't set on a rocky battlement as it is in the book - the documentary on the DVD explains why - budgetary constraints - and the water garden does just as well. All the heart-breaking tragedy from the book - and it is a tragedy, even for the culprit - is there. It bodes well for the next lot of Poirot films, and so too for the upcoming Miss Marples. I thank the producers for having the courage, which has paid off handsomely. Well done.
A Handful of Dust
(1988)
Oh my god - did they even see the same film as me?!
6 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
My personal opinion is that the acting in this film is brilliant and Evelyn Waugh would have been proud! It's true that the humour in the book has been toned down but everything else is there. And as for the acting - just witness Kristin Scott Thomas' amazing performance running the gammut of emotions all at once when she realises it isn't her lover but her son who has died. First there is fear, then relief, then guilt at her relief. Also James Wilby portraying a father dealing with grief yet trying to maintain the British stiff-upper lip. This is what real acting is about. Brilliant stuff. Now all we need is a decent DVD release. The German British import is a travesty with poor sound, the wrong aspect ratio, and a battered source print. Very sad.
Tell Your Friends