Monday, 27 November 2017

Crooked house – a review

A private detective is called upon by a former flame to investigate the death of her grandfather. She suspects that one of her relatives living in the old man’s estate is in fact a murderer. Who did it and why? On the first visit to the ‘crooked house’ Charles Hayward discovers that each and every member of this strange family is more than capable of murder.

The crooked house has, until now, been the only Agatha Christie novel yet to be filmed. It is also one of the most wickedly dark (and Agatha Christie’s personal favourite) stories she ever wrote.

I for one can attest that it is my favourite amongst Christie’s more obscure novels.

It is perhaps a bit convenient that at the time of the big cinema release of another Agatha Christie adaptation (Murder on the orient express) that this smaller sized drama should come about. But I’m not complaining. Not if it is a drama that is so incredibly well make.

At least it’s not Hollywood bringing out two competing volcano or asteroids movies at the same time.

The rule of thumb when it comes to adapting a novel for the first time has to be: ‘get it exactly right’. Meandering and changes to the story can happen at a later (re)adaptation. For the first one the stakes are high to bring the pages to the screen as accurately as possible.
Knowing this (and wanting this) I simply cannot find a singular flaw (but one –I’ll leave it for the spoiler) in this movie.
Though I must admit that I knew the ‘Who’ in this whodunit  beforehand. So, perhaps, people going in blank might see the obviousness that I disregarded as my ‘insiders knowledge’.

The cast
The cast is comprised with character actors of the highest order. Gillian Anderson is –once again- having a ball playing a different kind of character.
Just take a look at her resume: The cold doctor in Hannibal, the weird bride in Great expectations and, of course, her ‘facts first’ agent Scully in the X-files. She must be living the actress’ dream of being capable (in roles offered) to take on variety. Her turn in Crooked house as the self-centred, faded actress, Magda is –like the bourbon the character pours herself at 10 in the morning: ‘just what the doctor ordered’.

The other pillar of an actress known to take on a variety of female parts is, of course, the grand Glenn Close.

Not always, she’s played a male-character twice as far as I remember.

She plays her ‘aunty’-part with the grace of ancient aristocracy. -Well, grace by the end of a double-barrelled shotgun at least.- Her white hair contrast beautifully with her twinkling eyes as her character is the very definition of the smartest person in the room.
I’ve seen the actress in period pieces before (e.g. Dangerous Liaisons) and, as she grows older, it seems almost as if the time forms around her characters instead of the other way around. Close’s ‘Auntie’ belongs in the estate of the crooked house. It’s her powerhouse performance that makes the story richer as you see her brooding in the background.

To end this segment with one of my favourite male actors: Julian Sands. After his double turn in the popcorn-pleasing Arachnophobia and Warlock he could never do no wrong by me (though he tried in The Phantom of the opera).

He even appeared in a favourite TV show of mine: Person of Interest. His character vowing to
return to haunt Finch and Reese again. Alas he never did.

Seeing him now as the self-destructing better half of Gillian Anderson’s character is a feast for the eyes. Even though his character is only allowed to play (for most of it) the money hungry former aristocrat he plays it with delicious glee.

But only highlighted three of the actors is cutting it short. All the actors in this movie are a delicious watch. From the little girl, her older brother, the extremely young grandmother all the way to Terence Stamp playing the Scotland Yard copper.


A direct spoiler – I thought it was (in the book at least) Stamp’s character who gave the main character the clue to solving the case: ‘The fact that killers wish to talk about their crime.’. This adaptation didn’t use it which makes the character Stamp is playing a tad ‘cardboard copper’. Nothing his natural charm can’t overcome but still. A bit of a missed opportunity.
The movie did keep the possible inbreeding-element as I will mention below. So the two main clues are still present in this adaptation.

The story and directing
Ticking in at almost two hours this movie takes its time for the audience to get to know the characters.
In fact, even though the movie delivers such a strange family of suspects at the basis of the story I found it rather refreshing that, after twenty minutes or so, I knew the various relationships. The movie takes its time for the audience to learn the family dynamic. Who is who and who wants what?
Which; of course leads to the one thing a crime mystery can’t do without: Everybody wants something!

Throughout this lengthy introduction there are also little sneers at the fading British aristocracies in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The fact that ‘Auntie’ hunts moles with a shotgun because the animals are haemophiliacs is a direct reference to the century long inbreeding that went on in the upper-class families.

Then there are the timebased elements that always serve so well for a red-herring or two: communism, mafia, sibling rivalry. It all coats this dark tale with a beguiling fog of secrecy.

But the running time isn’t very long in experience. In fact, the balance of the movie is just right between the main character/detective Charles (Max Irons) questioning suspects and the strange crooked things that go around in that silly old house.
My favourite scene by far is the dinner scene that could have been written by Winston Churchill. Never before have I witnessed such an uncomfortable family gathering wherein insulting one another is treated as an art form.

Well maybe Festen – but let’s keep this article light shall we.

More so the directing underlines the lines spoken. Gilles Paquet-Brenner applies very little tomfoolery with the camera (apart from a nicely dark ballet-scene near the end).
I noticed some nice strange angles the camera uses at times and a rather distorting lens once or twice – but that’s icing on the cake comprised of a solid script and stellar performances. The directing lets the words do most of the work. In this movie the words (in comparison to Paquet-Brenner’s previous movie Dark places) work marvellously.

The one little flaw (maybe)
Which brings me to the one true flaw I could think of.  Which is not even a flaw, to be honest. At least it’s a spoiler to the movie so be wary.


The one flaw that I currently think of is a debatable one: the movie ends with a rather sudden anti-climactic ending. The viewer is denied any experience of the other characters after they learned the truth.
I’m on two minds about this one. One the one hand I would like to see the dramatic effect on the various character. Whilst, on the other, I can accept the choice. In fact, we (the audience) don’t need any further exploration. Our instincts and mental narrative will fill in what happens next.
So this is nicely debatable as an anti-climactic sudden ending needs to be.

Conclusion
If you wish to see Agatha Christie’s darkest novel done right look no further than Crooked house. This is the prime example of a perfect adaptation. Maybe some people won’t like the story – that’s Christie’s fault not the moviemakers. Crooked house singlehandedly restored my fate in book-adaptations for the next year. I really enjoyed it a lot!

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) – a review

Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is travelling to London by the luxurious train: the orient express. Then one night one the of the passengers is murdered right under his very nose well groomed moustache. Who is the culprit? Who of the twelve passengers on board had means, motive and opportunity? It’s up to the Belgian sleuth to figure out. 
From all of Agatha Christie’s books ‘Murder on the orient express’ has been turned into a movie quite a lot of times.

Only losing to ‘And then there were none’ – which was made six times so far.

There is the famous 1974-version with Albert Finney. The TV-version with the amazing David Suchet in his career defining role. And the little known (but rather interesting actually) modernized version that has Alfred Molina as the Belgian sleuth.

There’s also a (haven’t seen it yet) Japanese version and a (terrible) videogame so there’s that.

So for Kenneth Branagh’s version things had to be a bit different this time around lest he’d be accused of ‘rehashing’.  Well…in the safe hands of the Shakespearean theatre buff Branagh there are a lot of things that go right in this particular outing. But, alas, to me this version of Murder on the orient express also falls prey to the preferences of the director that don’t always work for me. Let’s start with the positive: the moustache.

The moustache – style.
Kenneth Branagh has always been a rather stylish director. From décor; like his strange timeless setting of Hamlet (1996) or his highly modern version of Sleuth (2007). To strange camera-movements that managed to give Thor (2011) one up on the standard Marvel-fare to that point. This is a man who loves to have fun with a setting and a camera. This ‘20s murder mystery is no exception.

There are long sweeping shots- with never a ‘celeb’ out of sight - at the start of the movie that introduces all the characters. One shot in peculiar has a movie-buff like me giggling: “There’s Dafoe, there’s Dench, there’s Cruz…” The camera picks up on them in the background without focussing on them which sells the idea of an ensemble movie.

Another great example of a shot is the fact that the camera (in the first two investigative scenes) never enters the compartment of the murder victim. The camera hovers above. During the discovery of the body outside of the compartment. At the investigation of the body well above so the audience can’t make out any details.

And then of course there are the final ‘last supper shot’ and  the ‘point-of-view-shot’ from the trailer which thankfully made it into the movie.

So if you know the story by heart then this version of ‘Murder…’ has more than enough cinematic tricks up its sleeve to keep you interested. And that’s even before you get introduced to the powerhouse actors Brannagh has managed to acquire.

The small shoes – Acting
Branagh as Poirot first. Branagh’s Poirot is actually rather pleasing. True, he fails miserably at the ‘egg-shaped head’ of the Belgium detective. But the wonderful moustache and the twinkle in his eyes make up all the better for it. I did however wonder about –at the movie progressed- the ‘activeness’ this rendition of the famous sleuth showcases.
Poirot isn’t a fighting man. In fact, early in the movie you see Poirot bending down to feel the wind blowing underneath a door. Even that’s not Poirot. That’s not the man who walks on painfully small shoes because they look better on him.
So Branagh’s Poirot is a mixed bag for me. He looks and acts the character when he’s speaking to a suspect. But whenever he’s investigating or (dear me) fighting he’s as far removed as Margaret Rutherford was as Miss Marple.

Now in a play that has twelve suspects to be interviewed you can only give so much screen time to each. In short: you are going to get people with minor parts. Derek Jacobi, for instance, only has a three minute scene to leave his mark. But, that’s all an actor of his stature needs. He sits down, plays his part beautifully and leaves.
Each and every actor is perfectly devoted to his/her part: Ridley, Jacobi, Cruz, Dafoe, Depp at his vilest (always great). With, of course, Michelle Pfeiffer standing out as the modern day Lauren Bacall.

With Cruz who has the greatest shoes to fill: Ingrid Bergman's Oscar winning performance.

Personally I wish to tip my hat to Josh Gad. I always enjoy the actor. His role in 21 was nerdy and fun and he never really stopped playing that character-but with a twist. Each time he gives you exactly what you expect but takes it a small step further.

He certainly was the best thing in Beauty and the beast (That and the snowball flooring Belle – sorry I’m a sucker for slapstick comedy).

The accent: music
The music by Patrick Doyle, then, is great in this outing. But I do miss the train element that worked so well in the score of the 1974-version or other ‘train movies’ like The first great train robbery.
The score contains three main tracks (ha!) from Mediterranean, to bombastic to dramatic small. It is never overtaking like a John Williams score can be. Rather it makes its presence known at those little moments of silence whenever the movie demands it.

The (titanium?) cane: What I disliked.
However, there are a few things that I disliked in this version.
For starters casting Leslie Odom Jr. as the doctor. This is a period piece so, due to this casting-choice, racism is going to be part of the story. The problem, however, is that it doesn’t have to be. If the movie decided on a Caucasian actor for the part (the Sean Connery part in the 1974-version) it wouldn’t have to sidetrack by answering questions how a Afro-American man got a degree in Medicine.

This is a two-part critique I always have with Branaghs later movies: he makes it too difficult on himself by including additional elements or he focuses too much on subtext. Let’s start with the latter.

Not Dead again mind you. That movie is practically perfect in every way (LINK)!

Subtext.
His version of Sleuth, for instance, shifted focus on the underlining homosexual tension between the two main characters. True, this tension is right there in the original play but it’s not the most important thing –which is two men trying to outsmart each other.
In ‘Murder…’ the same happens with the final choice Poirot gives the suspects. Yes, the deeply religious Poirot does –deep down inside- want honest justice for crimes committed. He wants to be judge and executioner. But he never gives in until the very end of his life. So by highlighting the subtext Branagh’s movie makes Poirot far more vengeful already than the path he is travelling at.

Additional elements.
Murder…’ has two big action sequences the movie could have done without. True, they aren’t very annoying if not for the fact that the ‘walking penguin’ which is Poirot suddenly becomes a bit of an action star.
But what ‘annoyed’ (for want of a better word) me more were the two additional ‘attack’-scenes included (the knife and the gun). Those aren’t in the book and rather overcomplicate an already complicated plot.
So that’s my issue with this rendition of ‘Murder…’ There are things added that didn’t need to be added. Instead this movie could have been even better with more time spent on the suspects. I would’ve loved an additional three minutes of Jacobi or Cruz.

Madame et monsieur
2017’s re-adaptation of Murder on the Orient express works and fails evenly. The characters are well acted and the style of directing is a feast for the eyes. However, the plot muddles with unnecessary additions and a focus on subtext.
Personally I would have preferred the exact same script of the 1974-version with Branagh’s style of directing and (maybe) cast. Now I only got half of the perfect Agatha Christie retelling.
But, then again, after two great versions of the ‘train murder’ it was a hard act to follow. Perhaps Brannagh will find more solid ground on a boating trip down the Nile.

Strange movie deaths quiz 3.

Shall we play a game? 

One of the perks of watching a lot of movies is that you see screenwriters getting more and more creative as time goes on. Writers always try to come up with something that hasn’t been attempted/done before. And nowhere has this been more apparent than in the morbid niche of movie storytelling that is: the death scene.

I must have seen thousands of people meet their maker on the silver screen during my short life on this earth. Explosions, gunshots, you name it. But there are far more creative ways to kill a human –as movies tell us.

So here I wish to have a little (morbid) quiz. I state ten causes of death and in the spoiler tag below it is the movie it came from. See how many you get.

Theme: chest pains.
This time ‘round I wanted to focus on where certain objects hit. My choice: to the chest. So here are ten unfortunates who took something to the chest that didn’t agree with them.

1. Death by stalactite to the chest.

Cliffhanger.

2. Death by a scissor sculpture (to the chest).

Dead again.

3. Death by an atomic bomb (to the chest).

Broken arrow.

4. Death by a VX rocket (to the chest).

The rock.

5. Death by an airplane engine (to the chest).

Donnie Darko.

6. Death by pool cue (to the chest).

From dusk till dawn.

7. Death by a giant bear-trap (to the chest).

Ravenous.

8. Death by satellite dish (to the chest).

Goldeneye.

9. Death by barb wire (to the chest).

Final destination 2.

10. Death by arms being bitten off by a (gnarly)…chest.

The thing.