As a matter of observation, both on this episode and "Murder on the Orient Express," the majority of the audience likes the film with a robust 7.2 rating, while most reviewers think it is horrible.
The problem that's presented here seems to come down to two things:
1) The work is not at all faithful to the novel. 2) Poirot is too religious. (Oh my heavens, Poirot prays in one scene and gives away a rosary to a grieving woman. Oh, the humanity. How can we have that in our secular society? And how can he even think if he prays?)
However, coming to the movie without reading the book. I thought it was a well-done story with Poirot's portrayal being intelligent and compassionate.
The one thing I thought was inappropriate and the same thing was true in "Murder on the Orient Express" is the sadistic murder committed by our "sympathetic murderers." However, I felt less sympathetic towards them for how they did the murder, but not entirely unsympathetic. Like with, "Murder on the Orient Express" the person being given the cruel death had committed crimes against children. There's something somewhat cathartic about it as those who commit real crimes against children are given a slap on the wrist for crimes as horrific as those committed in both stories.
However, it is risky business to insert a social conscience into a story where it does not exist organically, and will always incur the wrath of literary purists.
I'd suggest that Suchet and Company consider replicating the thought process of the Basil Rathbone films of the 1940s. While frequently attacked as inferior, the films remained enjoyable to the general audience. They would borrow elements from one or more of Holmes stories, add some original elements, and give the audience quite a thrill. The reason? They decided they needed a patriotic 1940s Sherlock Holmes to address problems that Holmes never did in his own stories.
No one entered the theater expecting to see a recreation of one of the original stories by Conan Doyle. With all the changes made, it would be like Universal releasing the movie, "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon" but instead releasing it as, "The Dancing Men" as an element from that story was borrowed. Going with stories that borrow elements from Christie novels rather than borrowing titles but making drastic changes might head off some criticism and confusion. But with the religious element, I doubt it.
The problem that's presented here seems to come down to two things:
1) The work is not at all faithful to the novel. 2) Poirot is too religious. (Oh my heavens, Poirot prays in one scene and gives away a rosary to a grieving woman. Oh, the humanity. How can we have that in our secular society? And how can he even think if he prays?)
However, coming to the movie without reading the book. I thought it was a well-done story with Poirot's portrayal being intelligent and compassionate.
The one thing I thought was inappropriate and the same thing was true in "Murder on the Orient Express" is the sadistic murder committed by our "sympathetic murderers." However, I felt less sympathetic towards them for how they did the murder, but not entirely unsympathetic. Like with, "Murder on the Orient Express" the person being given the cruel death had committed crimes against children. There's something somewhat cathartic about it as those who commit real crimes against children are given a slap on the wrist for crimes as horrific as those committed in both stories.
However, it is risky business to insert a social conscience into a story where it does not exist organically, and will always incur the wrath of literary purists.
I'd suggest that Suchet and Company consider replicating the thought process of the Basil Rathbone films of the 1940s. While frequently attacked as inferior, the films remained enjoyable to the general audience. They would borrow elements from one or more of Holmes stories, add some original elements, and give the audience quite a thrill. The reason? They decided they needed a patriotic 1940s Sherlock Holmes to address problems that Holmes never did in his own stories.
No one entered the theater expecting to see a recreation of one of the original stories by Conan Doyle. With all the changes made, it would be like Universal releasing the movie, "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon" but instead releasing it as, "The Dancing Men" as an element from that story was borrowed. Going with stories that borrow elements from Christie novels rather than borrowing titles but making drastic changes might head off some criticism and confusion. But with the religious element, I doubt it.