Although the Mystery of Murder's "Knife Outside" is getting all the buzz these days, recent Hercule Poar films (directed by and starring Kenneth Branag) deserve Loveubov. They may not win the Academy Award any time soon, but all three are fun watches. You can say that the defense wants to play this funny French detective, and whoever is in charge of the type of specific clothing and design is clearly having fun with it.

Perhaps the most impressive is that the defense added a greater depth to the more than the books, even though I realize that it may sound to say. The book in the books is generally maintained in the length of the hand from the narrative, while the approach of the defense holds us in the head. Sometimes Branag's attempts to humanize the more do not work - see that A funny story of retrospective origin for his mustache In "Nile's Death" - but it is a thrilling approach as a whole.

Christie allegedly did not want the lighter so much. According to one screenwriter who worked with her"There was clearly working for this person she created, which really wounded her. He was a small and kind of egoistic - these things that make the more a great character that he is." But while Christie never wanted the lighter, the defense does it clearly, and it helps these films to shine even when the script is missing.

So, here's my ranking of the films Poirot we've got so far, ranked the worst to the best. Note that even the worst movie on this list is still a fun clock.

From the strange line of the Gal Gadd, delivery to the giant elephant in the room that was the presence of Army Hammer in the cast, "Nile's Death" is the film that everyone wants to have fun on the Internet. And honestly, They need: The characters are shallow cuts, the mystery is predictable, and the resolution of it ends with an awkward blow than with something exciting or provoked.

Perhaps the highest is the way this film descends the comment (already quite tame) a class of source material. The book has an angry young Communist character who is very suspected of being a murderer, but in the end is justified. The film changes this character to a champagne socialist, and then leaves the commentary on the class together when she reveals that the socialist character is secret to Loveben in her nurse. I don't mind big changes in the source material in these films (see my choice 1), but this is the one that actively made the story less interesting.

The biggest problem with "Nile's death" is that the central mystery is weak. All this relies on a twist on the mystery format for killing that could have been new and surprising in 1937, but has since been made to death in countless other stories of mysteries. The only thing that makes the mystery difficult is the assumption that the film hopes to do, but most modern modern viewers will not stick to that assumption.

Would have thought this would be my favorite in the series, as there are Nothing better than a good train for train And the "Orient of Orient Express" was definitely one of Christie's best novels. But this is a film that really struggles to give its Starwar, throwing its appropriate time in the spotlight. This is a story with over a dozen suspects, they all play a significant role in the main mystery, but the 2-hour film life does not have the opportunity to miss the book properly.

The result is a film where the final discovery feels like a little cheat, even if he throws the more interesting moral dilemma in the whole series. It may have seemed to be a smart choice for a defense to adapt the most prominent and unforgettable book in Christie's "Poor" series, but the more I watch this movie, the more I feel like he had to save this one later. The defense of the defense in the last few scenes would be better if a lighter, windy movie first appeared.

It feels like this is a film captured by the brilliant original material; The next two films would feel free to make large adaptive blooms without care in the world, while this film struggled to squeeze in as much as possible. The result was a promising start to this new movie series, but not a great movie on its own.

Not only do I think "persecution in Venice" is the best movie of the three, but I think it is jumps and boundaries over the other two. It was beautiful with a constant nasty atmosphere, and the new role of Tina Jay as a respectively glued crime author Ariadn Oliver was a welcome accessory to the series. It is the only movie of the three where the mystery feels fully developed, with all suspects having time to shine.

What makes Venice "haunting" is the more impressive is that it adapts what is easily the worst book of the series ever. The book is an adaptation of the Halowen Party, a work of Christie's late career, which felt a fast, uninspired and unusual means. Maybe it's because how unpopular this book that screenwriters felt confident enough Make really big changes. "Haunted in Venice" is Border line unrecognizable from source materialAnd that's the best thing about it. There is a sense of creative freedom behind this project that the previous two films did not have, with none of the usual adaptive strains.

After two sloppy-but-entertainment opening entries, "haunting Venice" is the film "Defect Poor", where the cast and crew suddenly locked it. We still do not know in which book the next movie will be adjusted, but I hope the series will continue the approach of this film to select books that no one is also affectionate. The defense should choose Christie's weaker novels, using them as loose plans to go just the nuts as he did here.