Forgive me for watching the 10th version first, so this comment is very preconceived. There is no doubt that this version is basically presented in accordance with the original, but from the text in the original (only read one for the time being) I don’t know if Poriot is like the movie. It's so lively and humorous (the contrast image of the 10th version is a bit different), but the reasoning of this comedy style feels a bit dark and humorous (the 10th version I think is more um, how to say the atmosphere is heavier) To be honest, the second type of Poriot mentioned in the original work The reasoning is actually somewhat hypothetical. For example, he said he thought of Colonel Abbasnot as a friend of the Armstrongs. Hardman's guess that he can only think that he was in love with a French girl (if not please forgive me) The translation version is written like this) I have to say that people without imagination can't be top detectives
But that's how the original text says how to convince a person who has never seen the original or how to make a person who has seen the original feel vivid and intuitive. This is probably the key to the difference between the movie and the original.
In the version of the original book I read (Nova Publishing House), everyone's testimony is not more than two or three pages (basically all dialogues), and there are not many descriptions of expressions and movements (because the focus is on giving time and event clues) So it's hard to imagine everyone is guilty until you know the ending or look back
But the expressions and actions of different characters in the movie can fill the role or let the audience follow along to reason and suspect this person or that person (of course, it is easy to be deceived by the shooting perspective because only the director wants us to see it) ) but anyway it improves the sense of participation and is a lot more intuitive
The point I want to complain about the most is the ending (I don't know that grandma's previous books or later books also have this form)
Personally, I think there are two kinds of reasoning in the ending for the doctor and the chairman to choose this.... Although I can understand Poriot's... kindness? understand? Or just? But it gives me the feeling that in addition to sympathy and understanding for the tragedy of Armstrong, there are also choices made by capitalists (Bianchi) or irrelevant people (doctors) in order not to affect future business or to not drag themselves into the water (Mainly because the person in the last car looked relaxed, especially McQueen stood up like he was about to salute?) I can understand the ease of not having to go to jail for the description in the original book without making this choice, but this background is really hard not to remind me (Especially I described Bianchi's fear of trouble before) I don't know whether grandma wants to express satire or to promote people's loose understanding (I haven't read the writing background and I haven't seen the real events, purely personal understanding) Finally, I think it's a comparison The interesting point is that the explanation for who came up with this plan or the layout of the original book is Mrs. Hubbard's confession how everyone worked together to arrange this good show. The 74th edition focuses on highlighting that Mrs. Hubbard's contact with all parties brought together a car, but the 10th edition It is to highlight the role of Miss Mary as a bridge (I think the comparison of her attitude in the original work is still convincing) I personally prefer the division of labor and cooperation between everyone in the original work, otherwise there will be a mastermind. If you say this, it will not be an equal share of 12 people's crimes In order to become the mastermind and accomplice, it is not appropriate to choose the first inference to excuse in good faith.
He seems to have said a lot of nonsense
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
