Not Agatha Christie's Poirot but something atrocious - zero stars

Rating: 1/10 (26 June 2018)

Poirot in this film is Romeo, James Bond, some sort of social activist all combined into one:) Everyone knows him and adores him! Physically, he looks nothing like Poirot described in the books. He is not egg-shaped, he has an atrocity of a colour-changing moustache which is not even stuck properly and he also sports some dead-cockroach like goatee. Grossed out yet?
The writer definitely had no clue of Poirot's character or his traits and his writing is not even good enough for a high school play.
So, Kenneth Branagh just went along with all this as long as he got to be in every scene and mouth long monologues(?) After all, he being the director, protagonist, producer etc. surely had some say in character development? I read a lot of reviews reviewing Kenneth Branagh instead of the film, and I don't blame them at all. It is really hard to tell if he deviated so much from the character to glorify himself or Poirot...Sure looks like Branagh wasting his talent by vying for some non-existent glory instead of playing the character for what it is. He totally sidelined all other characters - why cast Judi Dench when all you can give her is 2 lines? He just seemed pleased to have everyone gushing over Poirot at a glance and act like some superhuman figure! He also keeps laughing annoyingly while reading his book.
I definitely do not have an ear for accents, let alone Belgian ones, but even I could tell that this was an accent very badly done. I mean I took A-Level French and in one of the very first lessons, they teach you that 's' is never pronounced at the end of words like 'oeufs'. Did anyone pay any attention on set???
Also can't understand why they had to cheapen every single character, including Poirot?! All the actors, especially Tom Bateman (Bouc) mouth dialogues like they are reading lines off of a placard. Can't blame them - sample this cheesy dialogue from the character Bouc - "He (Poirot) never judges me for being a terrible person!" Okay whatever...but I am judging! There were so many such 'gems' that after a while, I just stopped listening to the dialogue and zoned out completely. Seasoned actors are made to perform scenes like this - Michelle Pfeiffer flirts cheesily with Johnny Depp and he sniffs her and then leaves with a disgusted look! Ewwww...And that three holy men thing at the beginning - I don't even...
'Murder on the Orient Express' is not a good mystery as such. Even while reading the book, I could guess the ending much much before the reveal and was bored with multiple chapters of Poirot's questioning. I think they keep remaking it as they can cast a wide variety of well-known actors and keep making money off of their starriness.
Since everyone is comparing this film to the 1974 version, here is my take on that. I am not a fan of Albert Finney's Poirot either (yes yes, Oscar nominated and all!). He had a grating voice that was like nails on a chalkboard. He yelled and yelled and then yelled some more in his thick, incomprehensible accent. However, he did not glamorize Poirot or try to change him into what he was not and the other characters had much more to do in that version. Only thing that works for Branagh over Finney is that he has a pleasant voice, so you can sleep through his monologues.
If you haven't already, do watch the David Suchet version. It is very very good and much shorter. Suchet also nailed Poirot perfectly.
PS: 1. The song that Michelle Pfeiffer sings at the end seems like it was written for Poirot's long lost love (the woman whose pic he keeps with him), so maybe he should have sung it and made some more mockery of the character:)
2. Now they are remaking 'Death On the Nile'...Why? Wasn't this one bad enough? Someone else should try making more interesting Poirot novels like 'Lord Edgware Dies' or 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd'.