Reviews

I have just watched this new version of the 1957 classic and I must say that I was impressed with its quality. The set, ambience and the attention to little details; all of them very thorough. The acting is superb, gripping, intense and makes you believe each of the characters portrayed. Scenes are dramatic and poignant without being overdone but with just the right amount of spices to make you truly enjoy and appreciate.

A very honest and well nicely woven tribute to Mrs. Christie's play and to the classic cinematographic version and doing so all the while by keeping its own distinct identity. Very refreshing in this day and age where everything is based on computer graphics and action/violent scenes.

Two thumbs up for Mr Julian Jarrold! Job well done!

With everything I had heard and previews I had seen of this movie beforehand, I was expecting something that was truly worth my time. But in the first thirty minutes, I knew this was to be a huge disappointment. As some reviewers explained before, the acting is soo cheesy and cocky that it takes away all the interest. Except from okay performances from Willem Dafoe and Dolph Lundgren (yes sadly...if Dolph is among the good performers of this movie, try to imagine the rest!) and a so-so presence from Jason Momoa the rest of the acting is really, really lame. Lines are delivered with a visibly forced attitude, body language is not congruent and exaggerated poses and looks that last too long made me want to stop watching. Even Nicole Kidman is not up to the task here or is playing way below her conventional high standards which made her such a famous and sought after actress. Amber Heard probably gives one of the worst perfomances I've seen on screen after Kristen Stewart in Twilight and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II is for sure not helping either.

This being said, the movie is visually amazing even if many computerized graphics are way too obvious . But since when can a movie be qualified as excellent or get such high ratings simply based on this? If the visual cannot be supported with strong and believable acting, it is simply like a beautiful postcard with nothing written on it, so it becomes meaningless. And that is what this movie is for me.

I have just rewatched this movie tonight. It had been many many years since the last time.

How truly extraordinary to see such exquisite acting performances! Sir Michael Caine at his best and Sir Laurence Olivier in one of his greatest roles! Two actors trying to outwit the other at his own "game", making you litterally drink every word, (everything is in the dialogues, and what brilliant dialogues they are!). Two gigantesque figures of the British movies industry letting you sit on the edge of your seat, and keeping you guessing until the very end (don't try...you will not be able to. ) for over two hours. How good to see what acting is really all about and so refreshing ...

One thing, though, about calling this movie a mystery drama... I would rather call it a sarcastic comedy because I laughed wholeheartedly so many times either at the begining, the midldle or even towards the end (which is, actually, pretty dramatic.)

Thumbs and all fingers and hands up ! A must-see in a lifetime for anyone who says to enjoy cinematic entertainment!

Here is another take on the story of Joe Hunt (Joseph Gamsky) by Hollywood screenwriter airheads who think they can do whatever they fancy about a story and turn it into something completely different with no regards to the truth. I even wonder if the writers took time to read Sue Horton's book (The Billionaire Boys Club) and who worked for years to get all the right details to render the story as close to reality as it was possible.. Did they even see the first version of the movie made in 1987 which is based faithfully on that book? (The movie starred Judd Nelson who played Joe Hunt in a most magnificient way ) (Strange thing actually that Mr. Nelson accepted a part in this parody of the story).This movie shows Joe Hunt as an unsure young man, one who does not have a strong personality and therefore who can barely influence anyone, much less in investing huge sums of money. The movie shows Joe Gamsky as a victim and Dean Karny being "the brain" behind everything when actually it was the other way around.

I agree that all the facts (or just about) are in the movie but everything is so twisted around that I had the feeling I was watching an entirely different story. Bottom line is the movie is a huge deception which is too bad because the young actors in it are talented .

But if you want to be entertained or at least have an idea of how things went down, I strongly suggest that you watch the 1987 version (longer, better and so much more accurate!)

I have just finished watching this movie after viewing the entire Sherlock Holmes series with Jeremy Brett. Of course, it was not the first time I watched this parody but then again, after viewing and savoring the remarkable performance of Mr. Brett, it makes this movie even funnier than usual for it puts emphasis on the delirious dialogue and the amazing acting and comical talent of Mr. Caine, extremely well supported by a wonderful cast. How astonishingly funny the man can be, even without saying a single word. This is a superb production with lots of attention given to details and respectful mockery of Sir Doyle's characters. Even Lestrade's portrait by Jeffrey Jones is hilarious. Definitely worth watching.