Miscellaneous Rumbles

Murder On The Orient Express


Appreciated your little review, M. Proteus. You touched on some fine points that made sense to me.

Critics haven't liked this one; there's a reason I don't get my opinions from critics.

But as to your point above -- that you don't put much stock in critics -- well, that is absurd. Simple reason why: movies cost us money to see, movies cost us time to see. I do not want to waste my money nor my time, therefore film critics serve a great purpose.

If a film that I was interested in seeing gets 1 star, terrible reviews across the board, then I will not waste my money and time seeing it. On the flip-side, I had zero interest in seeing those LORD OF THE RINGS fantasy crap movies, but the reviews across the board were beyond favorable so I saw them. Glad I did.

Critics serve a purpose. They don't tell us if we will like or dislike a film, rather they tell us whether we should take our time to see a film or not.

Believe me, I have been burned too many times. The film below got zero stars in every single review. I went to see it anyway. As the film progressed...I sat in the theater shaking in anger. I wanted to do physical harm. Worst film I ever saw. I should have heeded the critics, on this one, no?


You should've heeded the ridiculous promo poster. I think that pretty well says it all.


Of course critics provide a useful service. I enjoy reading film criticism (I also read the backs of cereal boxes), especially by critics I've come to trust.

I often see movies I would have overlooked or would not have been inclined to see, based on positive reviews from critics whom past experience has proven are frequently in alignment with my tastes.

But even the consensus among "good" critics is sometimes at variance with my tastes. So if it's a movie I think I'd be inclined to like (based on content, director/producer/actors, past history with genre), I've learned to happily ignore lukewarm or weak reviews and see a film anyway. I'm usually glad.

I think I may view movies less as a professional critic than as a generally accepting movie fan. I'm good at willing suspension of disbelief, I can overlook flaws, and have a fairly full tank of goodwill a movie has to try pretty hard to drain off. (It happens.) I can see that a professional forced to watch a constant and unceasing stream of highly hyped movies, the development and production details of which he's been saturated with, would have a very different perspective, a more fastidious palate, and a testier attitude.

I didn't say I don't put any stock in critics; I said I don't get my opinions from them.


"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use it."


You should've heeded the ridiculous promo poster. I think that pretty well says it all.

– Toxophilite

Very funny.

However, this is a rather pretentious and silly Stallone movie poster (Stallone with an earing?), but it was a pretty darn good Stallone film:


King Kong has been remade twice and both couldn't match the original.

The Maltese Falcon (Humphrey Bogart) was at least the third remake of the Hammet story. If you've seen the earlier versions you'll know why.

If I ever meet George Lucas I'm going to ask him for $20 to pay me back for those awful Star Wars movies of the '90's. The only reason I didn't walk out of the two I saw was that I was with my young nephew. I asked him what he liked about them and he said he liked seeing Yoda again. That was the only good thing but not worth the money.


Your thoughts echo mine that remakes are infrequently better than the originals. Another good example I thought of was The Getaway ('72) with Steve McQueen and Ali McGraw and other great stars insipidly remade in '94 with Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. Baldwin wasn't qualified to carry McQueen's books.


There are some remakes that are far better than the original:

"The Thing"

"Invasion Of The Body Snatchers"

Spielberg's "War Of The Worlds"

the Daniel Craig "Casino Royale"

"Sorcerer" that great film about the trucks carrying nitro-glycerine

Chuck Heston's "Ben-Hur" was a remake and that thing won 11 Oscars!


Daniel Craig looks like Putin!

– Toxophilite

No, not Putin.

This is Daniel Craig. Don't you think he looks exactly like Steve McQueen?


That's not Daniel Craig. If it looks like any English man at all it looks more like the guy from Homeland.

But he looks more like Steve McQueen, and for very good reason...


I saw the film this weekend....just OK. I went with people who didn't know the story and both of them were unmoved. The magic and the complexity and the tragedy of Christie's novel and the 1974 film were not effectively captured by this new film. That 1974 film will still dazzle and intrigue and amaze anybody who sees it. This new version provides nothing but a nice two hours at the movies.

I will say that I did think Branagh as Poirot was very good. If he does another Poirot adventure I would see it.


I saw it this weekend too and thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought Branagh was superb, and I enjoyed the other castings as well --- Daisy Ridley, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, et al each brought something new to the characters. The cinematography, especially the scenes of Istanbul and the Carpathian mountains, was grand and a delight to watch. It FELT like 1934!


Saw it. Liked it. Comparisons are unnecessary, as each movie under this title is separate and distinct from each other.


Went to see this with my family Saturday night only to be turned away because they cancelled the prime time showing so they could show Justice League in two viewing rooms. Whatever, going tomorrow. 5 dollar night!!!

5 dollar night

Whoa, that movie cost me $42.00! Bought three tix at $14 apiece. 42 dollars just for three to see the film. Five bucks...you'll definitely enjoy the show.


Just one of the perks of living in the middle of nowhere Spiritwalker.

Register Sign in to join the conversation