I’d been anticipating this adaptation of a story I love, but I worried it would suffer from excessive directorial influence, especially given Kenneth Branagh's involvement as both director and Poirot, alongside Johnny Depp as Ratchett. When directors try to leave their mark on established material, the results often fall flat. Branagh seemed determined to impose his vision, altering Christie’s work in ways that felt unnecessary. The story should guide the film, not the other way around. The CGI also felt jarring and unconvincing. There's no inherent problem with a movie driven by dialogue, regardless of what studio executives might think. The casting was problematic; I give it a D grade. I initially assumed Depp would play Poirot and Branagh Ratchett, though either choice would have been questionable. Richard Widmark’s portrayal in the 1974 film captured the essence of Ratchett perfectly. Ed Harris or Charles Dance would have been better suited for the role—Dance's intensity could have conveyed a similar sense of menace. JK Simmons or even Sean Bean or Viggo Mortensen also came to mind. As for Poirot, it’s a notoriously difficult part to cast. David Suchet embodied the character perfectly, and Albert Finney’s portrayal, though exaggerated, was entertaining. Branagh's height is emphasized in an unflattering way; he should appear smaller, like a "funny-looking little Frenchman," as the character is described. The camera angles seem designed to make him look larger than he is. While I don’t expect every actor to have star power, Daniel Bruhl might have been a viable option. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent as Mrs. Hubbard—the best casting choice by far. Judi Dench and Jared Leto also delivered solid performances; however, Leto's screen time felt criminally short, especially considering Bergman received an Oscar for the same role. Josh Gad, on the other hand, seemed miscast. Martin Freeman or Robert Perkins would have been more appropriate choices. The character of Bouc was another issue—a 28-year-old is simply too young. He should be a contemporary of Poirot's, with an established rapport built over years of friendship. The storyline involving Daisy and Odom felt forced and unnecessary. Many of the supporting actors were unremarkable; the earlier Suchet adaptation had a more impressive ensemble cast. The film’s narrative choices were baffling: 1. Why does the opening sequence in Syria take up so much time? Was Branagh attempting to introduce Poirot to a modern audience, despite most viewers likely already being familiar with the character? A few minutes depicting the “egg incident” on the train would have sufficed. 2. The inclusion of a shootout felt completely out of place and unexplained. 3. Combining the Col and Doc characters was an odd decision. They should be distinct, either by excluding the doctor entirely or portraying him as a suspect himself. Adding sharpshooting skills and a romantic subplot only compounded the problem, particularly given the setting of 1935. 4. Poirot’s mustache looked ridiculous—more like Wyatt Earp's than the iconic image of Poirot. He should have had his hair dyed black and styled properly, as Suchet did. 5. The scene with passengers casually socializing outside in a snowdrift defied logic; they would have been freezing. The earlier adaptation accurately conveyed the discomfort and isolation of the situation. Passengers shouldn’t have been allowed to move between carriages. 6. The ending in the train tunnel was a misguided attempt at innovation—the climax should have remained confined to the dining car, where Poirot could deliver his monologue. 7. The prevalence of guns felt excessive; only one under Ratchett's pillow was necessary. The reasoning behind their presence also didn’t hold up – Bouc’s involvement meant they would have had to eliminate him as well. 8. The CGI was distracting and easily avoidable—simple video trains would have been sufficient. 9. The ability to clearly see the entire note Daisy left felt like an unnecessary convenience. Overall, I'd give it a 5/10, though a 4 might be more accurate. I hope Branagh stops with two films; at least *Death on the Nile* isn’t one of Christie’s stronger stories. Perhaps we should wait ten years and try again—it works for superheroes, so why not for a detective who relies on intellect rather than brute force? Maybe *Evil Under the Sun* would be a better choice.

Source on TMDB