Aerith-G-Strife

For all the beautifully shot B/W sceneries, all the carefully selected music pieces that match every scene, the constantly smoke filled rooms, the triumphant bows, etc etc, this movie managed to be only a skin deep portrait of the title character. Maybe in real life he was actually like this, constantly moving, talking, working, couldn't face one moment of silence. I don't know and don't really care - the movie did not make me care. Instead, I cared about the wife deeply. Her quiet desperation was louder than the ten thousand words the husband spoke in this movie.

I noticed that Carey Mulligan got the first billing, so maybe deep down they knew this movie should be about her instead? In that case, the scene to end the movie would be the one in the restaurant where she said, I thought I could survive on what he could give (something to that effect). Alas, we end in the standard male gaze of a more youthful her looking at him like he was the entire world.

This review has nothing to do with the main theme of this movie. I never read the book, never watched the original film, and I don't ever watch political dramas unless the cast warrants a look, and this cast does. Jude Law is the reason that I watched it twice (first time was a long ago). On second viewing, I have decided that Jack is the protagonist and this is a story about unrequited love and the ruins such love would bring.

The hints are everywhere: the excessively melancholic voice over / narration/ monologue/ whatever; the cringe worthy "inspirational" music when Willie gives those (add adjectives here) speeches - the camera angles show who's watching; the "preservation" of Anne's perfect / intact beauty; and of course, the "wink" scene.

Jack is always the last person to realize all the significant plot points because love makes him blind. That's usually what you get when you had such a sheltered upbringing and then got seduced by someone completely opposite of you - at least in books and movies.

So this is a cautionary tale.

There is a famous Chinese saying that I'd like to borrow to summarize the added back story and the ending: drawing a snake and then adding feet. However, if Branagh is hinting that he's done with his interpretation of Poirot in the final scene, then I'm completely fine with it. I do like this incarnation of Salome and I think if any female can truly enrapture Poirot, it would be her.

I guess this isn't an actual movie review but a general grievance against Branagh's take on my beloved detective. I grew up reading Poirot (in a non English language). I always considered him to be not a real person. He is a fantasy, a superhero, and a plot device. His exaggerated self importance is comical and endearing, but not to mask some sort of personal trauma. He uses his little grey cells to think, to bring "justice", not to succumb to unnecessary emotions that might compromise his ability to prevent death.

Back to the movie. It is prettier than previous versions (thanks to CGI and good budget). The Egyptian landscape is grand. However, the nuances of character quirks and subtle clues are all non existent. I guess those are better suited for books anyway.

The story becomes simpler in this version and certainly does not need more than two hours to tell. As a result, To drag it on, we see Piorot almost throwing a fit. Mon dieu, I would never ever have imagined a Poirot like this. (By the way, I recently re-read The Muder Of Roger Ackroyd, and was once again delighted by it. Fingers crossed that Kenneth will leave it alone!)