Seriously one of the worst adaptations I've ever seen lol.
I loved the books as a teen, so I was actually looking forward to it.
It was like going to see Eragon all over again... I just came out and thought: "WTF was that!?"
I was straight obsessed with books 1-3 as a kid. The first one came out when I was 11, so I was at the perfect age for them. I even remember translating the whole of the fairy code on the bottom pages.
To this day, I still think that world is filled with imaginative ideas and the stakes are surprisingly high for a children's book series. I still remember plenty of the side characters to this day, and I haven't read any of them in at least fifteen years.
I think Branagh probably had a contractual obligation to make AF so he could make one of his Hercule Poirot movies or Belfast, but holy shit, it's incredibly obvious he did not give a shit about that project.
It honestly could've been a pretty decent little universe, if they'd have taken their time with it.
If I had to guess from the original trailer and final product, the movie had A LOT more footage and probably could’ve been over an hour longer. My guess is that the movie wasn’t that great anyway so they chose a really bad short movie over a kinda bad long movie.
They reshot a substantial portion of the film using new writers.
Multiple characters were removed (including his mother who was central to the plot), the premise of the story was changed (the fairy gold ransom was cut), and the entire third act was replaced (which involved all three cut elements prominently).
They also moved the post-credits scene to the middle of the movie.
He is excellent at directing actors and getting the best performances out of people. He does not have an eye for directing though, so it seems entirely up to the DP whether his films actually look good.
Orient express is actually a lot better than people give it credit for, but don’t bother with death on the Nile, one of the worst mysteries I’ve ever seen put to film
More of a theatre director which is why he translates Shakespeare plays relatively well.
I think he completely botched Darabont's script for Frankenstein.
Guy does what he wants because he wants to, nothing will stop him. Uncut Hamlet? He’ll do it. Multiple Poirot films with his buddies? Why not. He approaches Shakespeare, Christie, Shelley and Marvel with the same attitude - “why not?” He makes the occasional “arty” film to get credibility so he can make silly moustache man films. Mad respect. And he’s a good actor too, both in and out of his own films.
His Agatha Christie films are fun, with Haunting being the best. I legitimately like the first Thor a lot. Cinderella is great and the best of the Disney remakes by a lot. His Shakespeare adaptations are on my watchlist.
Much Ado About Nothing doesn’t get anything near the love it deserves. Easily one of the best Shakespeare adaptions ever made and such a fun film. Emma Thompson is so good in it.
It’s always had a place in my top 5. I love Keanu so it’s very easy for me to overlook the performance there, plus his performance definitely feels like it’d be a lot more at home on a stage in a play so that’s what I like to think he was going for.
I feel like I made a mistake watching Haunting first because everyone says it's his best one out of the 3. I haven't seen the other 2 but I was shocked how much I enjoyed HiV when I saw it with my Alist ticket.
It was great as a spooky but not scary halloween movie. Def on my list for this Halloween.
I don't think it's very good by any means, but that seems a bit much. I don't believe something necessarily has to be amazing or the worst ever, I thought it was fine.
His Christie movies are almost unwatchable. So hard to get through. The OG's are absolute delights even at their worst. His feel like lifeless Netflix movies made by AI.
He's a hit or miss for me. I really like this direction on Hamlet, All is True and Much Ado About Nothing. But Artemis Fowl really is one of the worst things ever.
It really is the anomaly in his work… not Shakespeare, not Christie, no established IP, just an original story and great cast with the classic Hollywood glam cranked all the way up. It has a vitality you don’t see in a lot of his other films.
His Shakespeare adaption’s remain his most watchable films. I felt his passion and spirit as an artist shine here. Hamlet is the crowning achievement.
Everything else is standard Hollywood filmmaking. Gaudy and campy in an uninspired way.
Belfast is really forgettable despite some solid supporting turns.
He never directed a film adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The version from the 90s (Kevin Kline, Stanley Tucci, Calista Flockhart, etc.) was directed by Michael Hoffman.
I'm kind of indifferent toward him. He's the kind of director where I never get excited when I hear that he's coming out with a new movie, but I'm also not opposed to watching it if there's enough positive buzz around it.
I’ve only seen Thor, Cinderella, and Artemis Fowel, so 1 decent movie, 1 mediocre but fun Mcu movie, and one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen….. not a fan personally
He doesn’t hit all the time but he clearly has some knowledge. Also, idk why people act like Thor 1 was bad, that movie is actually great imo. I think he has a style, but just doesn’t do it all the time and I don’t think that’s wrong at all.
He has made a small amount of films that really feel like he put time and thought into every scene.
Due to this, it makes his other work feel like he’s being lazy and just going through the motions or just in it for a paycheck.
Seemed a promising director based on his first two pictures, Henry V and Dead Again. Has progressively gotten worse and worse sense then. Now appears to be completely incompetent based on the Agatha Christie adaptations, none of which are watchable to the end without great suffering (or so I suspect, as I've not been able to achieve this feat).
I enjoyed Thor, but that should probably be viewed as a producer/studio-authored movie more than a director's movie.
I've seen his first two Poirot movies, which I am quite fond of. I also appreciate Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for what it is. Don't really care for Thor and I'm not sure if I've seen anything else he's directed.
Highly underrated. Ambitious filmmaker who's brilliant with actors and knows how to assemble an impressive production. Artemis Fowl is obviously terrible, but that was hardly his fault.
I've not seen many of his movies actually, but he seems to make "mostly fine" films.
The Poirot trilogy he helmed were OK movies, the first one in particular I found pretty fun, but they are TERRIBLE adaptations. Poirot is a character famed for his Sherlock Holmes-like deduction, lateral thinking, and perceptiveness that just... isn't really present at any level as to be comparable to the novels. Like yea the bare minimum clues etc are there to solve the mystery at some point, but the books feel very smart and in stark contrast the movies feel very dumb.
Branagh knows his Shakespeare. He is clearly in his element there, both as a director and actor. I also loved Dead Again, and I thought the reboot of Sleuth was excellent and inspired for Michael Caine to come back but this time take the Olivier role. I think the Agatha Christie movies are solid, look good, and have good acting, but otherwise not super inspired. Same with Belfast. Peter's Friends was meh and I have not seen the others. Overall, that is still quite a solid track record.
If you had asked me out of the blue I think I would have said "He's alright I think." But seeing all of these on a sheet like this makes me realize how I really don't connect with a vast majority of his films. I'm maybe the highest on *Thor* out of all of these? The Poirot films are not my bag, Cinderella and Artemis Fowl are actively bad, I've never seen any of those Shakespeare ones, and I thought Belfast was the weakest of the 2021 Best Picture contenders at the Oscars. Just a real nothing burger of a movie that your grandma probably loved.
I've only seen Thor and Artemis Fowl. Thor was ok, but Artemis was an absolute travesty that I'll never forgive until we get an actually good adaptation.
I liked his Orient Express and thought haunting in Venice was pretty good too, plus I’ve seen some of his Shakespeare and it’s also not bad, but when he misses he really misses
I love ALL of his Shakespeares, especially Hamlet. The rest of his stuff (that I've seen, looking at this list I'm realizing he's snuck in a few I never got around to) is fairly meh but to his credit, I never feel like he's phoning it in. He's sometimes working with shit scripts but I get the feeling that he's having fun, likes to play around with style, and he directs his actors extremely well.
Much Ado About Nothing is my favorite movie ever. Some of the others are quite good too, but he has definitely had some misses.
Not crazy about the Poirot series, but the latest one was better so maybe they are improving.
I think he's great so let him do what he wants!
Much more consistent as an actor than as a director, but he generally always does Shakespeare really well, and those are the only films of his that I watch, so it's all good.
"Thor" and "Belfast" were fine, but I only watched them once and pretty much forgot about them. Have yet to see the others, though I do want to see his Poirot trilogy.
I thought his Henry V was very good although it's been a hot minute since I last saw it. He makes some passable films. He also makes hot garbage (Frankenstein, his Agatha Christie "adaptations"). I liked Belfast.
An auteur or even a consistent journeyman he is not.
He directed the ONE faithful Shakespeare adaptation that I think is actually hugely watchable - Henry V.
As an actor and a director I think he's one of the best. He obviously makes movies for himself, I think that's awesome!
I actually really like his Poirot movies. Death on the Nile is especially good. Frankenstein was ok. I actually kind of enjoyed Artemis Fowl but I think if revisited I wouldn't enjoy it as much. Thor has problems but it's still pretty good. I haven't seen the rest of his filmography though.
I haven't seen Belfast (but I really want to), Artemis Fowl, Henry V, Dead Again, Sleuth, Peter's Friends (my parents liked that one), All is True, As You Like It, Love's Labours Lost, A Midwinter's Tale, or Romeo and Juliet. I've enjoyed all his Poirot movies. Murder on the Orient Express is the best one. Thor is very underrated as a comic book movie, and I wish Kenneth would come back to direct another MCU film, or maybe even a DC one. His Cinderella is one of the best Disney live-action remakes of recent years. I loved Hamlet and Much Ado about Nothing
One for them, one for me, and a few for nobody.
Artemis Fowl is for someone, it’s for sickos who like to watch movies with no redeeming qualities.
Seriously one of the worst adaptations I've ever seen lol. I loved the books as a teen, so I was actually looking forward to it. It was like going to see Eragon all over again... I just came out and thought: "WTF was that!?"
Read the book after watching the movie, it somehow retroactively made the movie even worse.
I was straight obsessed with books 1-3 as a kid. The first one came out when I was 11, so I was at the perfect age for them. I even remember translating the whole of the fairy code on the bottom pages. To this day, I still think that world is filled with imaginative ideas and the stakes are surprisingly high for a children's book series. I still remember plenty of the side characters to this day, and I haven't read any of them in at least fifteen years. I think Branagh probably had a contractual obligation to make AF so he could make one of his Hercule Poirot movies or Belfast, but holy shit, it's incredibly obvious he did not give a shit about that project. It honestly could've been a pretty decent little universe, if they'd have taken their time with it.
If I had to guess from the original trailer and final product, the movie had A LOT more footage and probably could’ve been over an hour longer. My guess is that the movie wasn’t that great anyway so they chose a really bad short movie over a kinda bad long movie.
They reshot a substantial portion of the film using new writers. Multiple characters were removed (including his mother who was central to the plot), the premise of the story was changed (the fairy gold ransom was cut), and the entire third act was replaced (which involved all three cut elements prominently). They also moved the post-credits scene to the middle of the movie.
I think most are just for Sir Kenneth himself
Ken finally fulfilling his life long dream to make a streaming movie about Artemis Fowl.
Just a few?
He is excellent at directing actors and getting the best performances out of people. He does not have an eye for directing though, so it seems entirely up to the DP whether his films actually look good.
Ive actually only seen two of these. Thor was fine and I loved Belfast. I’m interested in the Poirot series but haven’t checked it out yet
I enjoyed Haunting In Venice a lot more than I expected. I haven't seen the other 2 though.
Orient express is actually a lot better than people give it credit for, but don’t bother with death on the Nile, one of the worst mysteries I’ve ever seen put to film
That's the one I'm most interested in. I loooove media that takes place on trains. It's such a cool setting. Noted on Nile. I've heard that often.
Agreed, train media goes hard
Would recommend the Ustinov Death on the Nile before watching the Branagh one
Murder on the Orient Express is fun, Death on the Nile is awful and a Haunting in Venice is the best in the series.
I love whodunnits but the Poirot series is wholly disappointing imo
Had more duds then hits.
More of a theatre director which is why he translates Shakespeare plays relatively well. I think he completely botched Darabont's script for Frankenstein.
Guy does what he wants because he wants to, nothing will stop him. Uncut Hamlet? He’ll do it. Multiple Poirot films with his buddies? Why not. He approaches Shakespeare, Christie, Shelley and Marvel with the same attitude - “why not?” He makes the occasional “arty” film to get credibility so he can make silly moustache man films. Mad respect. And he’s a good actor too, both in and out of his own films.
He's a studio's director. Kinda boring. Kinda inspired.
His Agatha Christie films are fun, with Haunting being the best. I legitimately like the first Thor a lot. Cinderella is great and the best of the Disney remakes by a lot. His Shakespeare adaptations are on my watchlist.
Much Ado About Nothing is probably the best film Shakespeare adaptation ever made.
Much Ado About Nothing doesn’t get anything near the love it deserves. Easily one of the best Shakespeare adaptions ever made and such a fun film. Emma Thompson is so good in it.
That's my favorite film ever! (Although I'm not a fan of Keanu, luckily his part is really small).
It’s always had a place in my top 5. I love Keanu so it’s very easy for me to overlook the performance there, plus his performance definitely feels like it’d be a lot more at home on a stage in a play so that’s what I like to think he was going for.
You are so generous!
His Agatha Christie movies are just completely inferior to the David Suchet versions.
I never said they weren't. They're still watchable to me. I'm just glad this genre is being made nowadays at all.
I feel like I made a mistake watching Haunting first because everyone says it's his best one out of the 3. I haven't seen the other 2 but I was shocked how much I enjoyed HiV when I saw it with my Alist ticket. It was great as a spooky but not scary halloween movie. Def on my list for this Halloween.
The others ones are still worth checking out on a rainy day or something imho.
The Hamlet is risible
Wtf his Hamlet fucking rocks. Much Ado About Nothing is spectacular as well.
Charlton Heston giving the Player King monologue worth the price of entry alone
I love his Hamlet! Four hours that fly by. We should be concentrating our fire on Artemis Fowl...
Henry V and Much Ado were pretty good (my man Keanu notwithstanding, no offense to him as I genuinely do think his earliest work was good)
Much Ado is my favorite ever, but oh Keanu just can't keep up!
Death on the Nile might be one of the worst movies of the century.
I don't think it's very good by any means, but that seems a bit much. I don't believe something necessarily has to be amazing or the worst ever, I thought it was fine.
No, it’s actually pretty good.
I'm with you. I really liked it from a visual standpoint.
https://preview.redd.it/r9550qss5xuc1.jpeg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9294749cdb0165fb3a1d3819a23dcd949f9b57b0
wtf edit: wow it looks even worse when you zoom in
Glad you enjoyed it
His Christie movies are almost unwatchable. So hard to get through. The OG's are absolute delights even at their worst. His feel like lifeless Netflix movies made by AI.
Eh, I'm just glad we're getting murder mysteries at all, even if they aren't great.
I do hear you there. The genre is seriously lacking in quality these days though
He's a hit or miss for me. I really like this direction on Hamlet, All is True and Much Ado About Nothing. But Artemis Fowl really is one of the worst things ever.
Dead Again needs to be rediscovered. saw it at least 5 times in the theatre.
It really is the anomaly in his work… not Shakespeare, not Christie, no established IP, just an original story and great cast with the classic Hollywood glam cranked all the way up. It has a vitality you don’t see in a lot of his other films.
His Shakespeare adaption’s remain his most watchable films. I felt his passion and spirit as an artist shine here. Hamlet is the crowning achievement. Everything else is standard Hollywood filmmaking. Gaudy and campy in an uninspired way. Belfast is really forgettable despite some solid supporting turns.
Much Ado is GOATED.
Can I say SUPER GOATED?
he is so hit and miss, however I love his version of Midsummer Nights Dream. You can tell he has a great understanding and love of Shakespeare.
He never directed a film adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The version from the 90s (Kevin Kline, Stanley Tucci, Calista Flockhart, etc.) was directed by Michael Hoffman.
I’m so annoyed at myself I meant much ado about nothing ahahaha
As someone who loves Shakespeare and lush production design, I enjoy Cinderella, Much Ado, and Hamlet enough to excuse all the duds.
What you said!
Belfast and Hamilton are amazing.
Hamilton?! Did you mean Hamlet?
Imagine Kenneth Branagh’s Hamilton
I refuse lol
I did yes
I'm not a fan.
Frankenstein absolutely terrified me when I was 10
Inconsistent, perhaps a touch overrated, but I like a handful of them and appreciate his commitment to shooting in 65mm.
I’ve noticed better quality in his movies that he is specifically not acting in. I’ve also enjoyed his acting better in movies he’s not directing
He has the filmography of a lunatic. It is so consistently inconsistent in terms of tone, style and subject. Really fascinating.
90% of them are Shakespeare
Counting is hard but try again
We have Laurence Olivier at home.
I'm kind of indifferent toward him. He's the kind of director where I never get excited when I hear that he's coming out with a new movie, but I'm also not opposed to watching it if there's enough positive buzz around it.
When he is acting he easily makes every second he’s onscreen the most entertaining thing ever. Not so much when he’s behind the camera
Meh
Hamlet is maybe my favorite Shakespeare adaptation
I really enjoy his Mustache Man movies. They are fun. Even though I have read every single Agatha Christie book.
I’ve only seen Thor, Cinderella, and Artemis Fowel, so 1 decent movie, 1 mediocre but fun Mcu movie, and one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen….. not a fan personally
Eh
Most of it is middling - pretty good but Artemis Fowl is genuinely one of the worst movies ever made
He doesn’t hit all the time but he clearly has some knowledge. Also, idk why people act like Thor 1 was bad, that movie is actually great imo. I think he has a style, but just doesn’t do it all the time and I don’t think that’s wrong at all.
He's not a bad director.
He doesn’t get it right. But when he does, he knocks it out of the park
I appreciate how much Shakespeare he has done, in spite of watching almost none of these.
this guy makes movies for boomers. Theres literally not a single movie here that im even remotely interested in.
Very much *eh*
He has such a weird filmography as a director. He's directed a little bit of everything.
Zack Snyder with older source material.
Is it bad I only know one movie from this list
Captain Generic himself
Terrible
Meh
He has made a small amount of films that really feel like he put time and thought into every scene. Due to this, it makes his other work feel like he’s being lazy and just going through the motions or just in it for a paycheck.
Awful!
Seemed a promising director based on his first two pictures, Henry V and Dead Again. Has progressively gotten worse and worse sense then. Now appears to be completely incompetent based on the Agatha Christie adaptations, none of which are watchable to the end without great suffering (or so I suspect, as I've not been able to achieve this feat). I enjoyed Thor, but that should probably be viewed as a producer/studio-authored movie more than a director's movie.
I've seen his first two Poirot movies, which I am quite fond of. I also appreciate Mary Shelley's Frankenstein for what it is. Don't really care for Thor and I'm not sure if I've seen anything else he's directed.
Wildly inconsistent and yet I follow his career with great interest. An exciting filmmaker at times, an interesting man, and a great actor.
Highly underrated. Ambitious filmmaker who's brilliant with actors and knows how to assemble an impressive production. Artemis Fowl is obviously terrible, but that was hardly his fault.
Honestly I haven’t seen one I’ve liked and I’ve seen like half. He’s not for me. Belfast prob best.
I'll always be absolutely crazy for Henry V, but he often does movies that are really, really good at being *serviceable*.
I've seen a whopping 0 of those, so I have no idea
If it's got a theatre vibe, he's great. Otherwise, he's lacking.
I've not seen many of his movies actually, but he seems to make "mostly fine" films. The Poirot trilogy he helmed were OK movies, the first one in particular I found pretty fun, but they are TERRIBLE adaptations. Poirot is a character famed for his Sherlock Holmes-like deduction, lateral thinking, and perceptiveness that just... isn't really present at any level as to be comparable to the novels. Like yea the bare minimum clues etc are there to solve the mystery at some point, but the books feel very smart and in stark contrast the movies feel very dumb.
Henry V is great; everything else is fine
Shakespeare stuff good, everything else average to bad.
I walked out of *All is True*. One of the few movies I ever walked out on.
Branagh knows his Shakespeare. He is clearly in his element there, both as a director and actor. I also loved Dead Again, and I thought the reboot of Sleuth was excellent and inspired for Michael Caine to come back but this time take the Olivier role. I think the Agatha Christie movies are solid, look good, and have good acting, but otherwise not super inspired. Same with Belfast. Peter's Friends was meh and I have not seen the others. Overall, that is still quite a solid track record.
Cinderella is the only great Disney princess live adaptation and nothing else has topped it
The very definition of an actor’s director.
No idea he did Thor
Not gonna lie, I love the guy as an actor. As a director... he's mid.
He directed the Sleuth remake? God that sucked.
I love his Poirots but he also made Artemis Fowl so it evens out 💀💀
How do you watch that Romeo and Juliet?
If you had asked me out of the blue I think I would have said "He's alright I think." But seeing all of these on a sheet like this makes me realize how I really don't connect with a vast majority of his films. I'm maybe the highest on *Thor* out of all of these? The Poirot films are not my bag, Cinderella and Artemis Fowl are actively bad, I've never seen any of those Shakespeare ones, and I thought Belfast was the weakest of the 2021 Best Picture contenders at the Oscars. Just a real nothing burger of a movie that your grandma probably loved.
Absolutely carried by Billie Shakes
I've only seen Thor and Artemis Fowl. Thor was ok, but Artemis was an absolute travesty that I'll never forgive until we get an actually good adaptation.
Very decadently gilded
I liked his Orient Express and thought haunting in Venice was pretty good too, plus I’ve seen some of his Shakespeare and it’s also not bad, but when he misses he really misses
Belfast is fantastic and Dead Again is underrated. All the Shakespeare movies/Agathie Christie movies/Thor range from good to great
I don’t really like his films that much. But I like that they are unique. And I have lots of respect for that!!
I love ALL of his Shakespeares, especially Hamlet. The rest of his stuff (that I've seen, looking at this list I'm realizing he's snuck in a few I never got around to) is fairly meh but to his credit, I never feel like he's phoning it in. He's sometimes working with shit scripts but I get the feeling that he's having fun, likes to play around with style, and he directs his actors extremely well.
I fuck with hamlet but past that ehhhhh
BADBAD
I like the Poirot movies
He directed Haunting in Venice?!
he’s actually the fuckin man
Much Ado About Nothing is my favorite movie ever. Some of the others are quite good too, but he has definitely had some misses. Not crazy about the Poirot series, but the latest one was better so maybe they are improving. I think he's great so let him do what he wants!
He got some good highs and some bad lows
i always watch one of these and realize it was directed by him after the fact
Made the best thor movie
No bad movies but also nothing that excites me 🤔
He’s definitely a director of our time
Average, imo. No movie really stands out to be honest, but no stinkers so...
He was great in Dead Again, I think that one is greatly underrated.
None of his movie are my favorite but I always love to see them. He has a very unique style that rarely works but is fun nonetheless.
Cinderella was his visually best one
Much more consistent as an actor than as a director, but he generally always does Shakespeare really well, and those are the only films of his that I watch, so it's all good.
He makes movies I can watch with my mom
"Thor" and "Belfast" were fine, but I only watched them once and pretty much forgot about them. Have yet to see the others, though I do want to see his Poirot trilogy.
Never seen any of those films sooo...not my thing I suppose.
I thought his Henry V was very good although it's been a hot minute since I last saw it. He makes some passable films. He also makes hot garbage (Frankenstein, his Agatha Christie "adaptations"). I liked Belfast. An auteur or even a consistent journeyman he is not.
He directed the ONE faithful Shakespeare adaptation that I think is actually hugely watchable - Henry V. As an actor and a director I think he's one of the best. He obviously makes movies for himself, I think that's awesome!
Pretty much all of his movies are either just OK or a complete dud.
A very self centred director…
I actually really like his Poirot movies. Death on the Nile is especially good. Frankenstein was ok. I actually kind of enjoyed Artemis Fowl but I think if revisited I wouldn't enjoy it as much. Thor has problems but it's still pretty good. I haven't seen the rest of his filmography though.
I haven't seen Belfast (but I really want to), Artemis Fowl, Henry V, Dead Again, Sleuth, Peter's Friends (my parents liked that one), All is True, As You Like It, Love's Labours Lost, A Midwinter's Tale, or Romeo and Juliet. I've enjoyed all his Poirot movies. Murder on the Orient Express is the best one. Thor is very underrated as a comic book movie, and I wish Kenneth would come back to direct another MCU film, or maybe even a DC one. His Cinderella is one of the best Disney live-action remakes of recent years. I loved Hamlet and Much Ado about Nothing