Spoilers Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

[auntiehill]

I love me some Agatha Christie and have seen several adaptations of her works--the good, bad and mediocre-- but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Murder on the Orient Express. It's the perfect Whodunnit---a large group of people trapped on a train; one of them MUST be the murderer--or are they? Was it someone from the outside? How on Earth could you get away with it and not be seen by someone else? And, of course, as nearly everyone knows, this story covers all of this in probably one of the most contrived ways EVER---but I still love it.

I've seen a few adaptations of it over the years--the Albert Finney movie (excellent), the Alfred Molina tv-movie (which was god-awful) and the David Suchet version (which I ADORE, despite or perhaps because of additional material added to bookend the story). The Branagh version? I didn't like it, as much as I love the story and the actor; it felt rushed, even muddled. The suffering of the people involved was barely discussed; what would actually happen wasn't mentioned. I couldn't help but wonder if someone unfamiliar with the story would even understand what really happened at the end.

There's so little set-up that we really don't get to know the characters at all. You have a wonderful, talented cast, many of whom get only a few lines of dialogue. The wonderful Olivia Coleman gets only a few minutes of dialogue; Dame Judy Dench gets even less, William Defoe even less than that. Branagh's Poirot is fit, active, even daring as he dashes out into the snow ("Poirot" and "dashes" don't belong in the same sentence), dodges bullets and fights men half his age (gimme strength). All we know about him from this film is he's a detecting machine, terribly OCD (but only as a "charming" character trait) and is always right. We get to know nothing of him, why he does what he does or of his devotion to justice. There's a fairly ham-fisted attempt at getting into his thought process at the end but it's really under-whelming. The worst perhaps is that this "final test" takes place at "the big reveal" moment---which is NOT in the train car but rather in the tunnel, as all the main characters are marched out and set up at a makeshift table that for some reason recreates a "Last Supper" scene in the snow (*sigh*).

I really, REALLY wanted to like this, but I was rather disappointed. If you really want to see this, I would suggest waiting until it comes on Netflix or some such; save your money.

So.....any other mystery buffs out there? How do you think it rates with the other versions?

 

[sttngfan1701d]

I must be the only person who doesn't like the 1974 version with Albert Finney. Sure, it has an all-star cast, but it's a total cornball cheese-fest. Finney's Poirot is just....no. No. The pace is slower than glacial, and Princess Dragomiroff's makeup is clownish. Maybe it's because I saw it in ultra HD, but it was so obvious, and every mistake was visible. I truly dislike that movie, and along with "Marty", it may just be one of the worst movies ever to be nominated for an Oscar.

Personally, since I grew up with David Suchet's Poirot, I'm biased I guess. And while I do like his version (which most people don't like), I can see how it wouldn't appeal to everyone. For my part I think they NAILED the atmosphere in it, even on a TV budget. You can feel the cold, the claustrophobia of the train, the motives of the people just floating in the air. They did a really good job with it. But the best version of this story is probably the BBC Radio drama. I haven't seen the Alfred Molina film.

This movie is not bad....it just could've been better.

Let me get this out of the way first, though -- I haven't seen "Hamilton." I had no idea who Leslie Odom Jr. is before I saw this movie. But now that I know why he's a "hot property," I have to ask why the heck is he in this film? He is woefully miscast. He can't even do a decent British accent, so why is he there, playing a British guy? If you want to do a racial-romance subplot with Arbuthnot and Miss Debenham, then get an actor playing an African doctor. Or if you want to have him be from India with the race angle, then make him British Indian. Why cast this guy? He sucked. What a waste. So you've won a Tony because you're in "the" stage production of the year everyone loves?....great. Then take some acting lessons from Derek Jacobi.

In fairness, I felt the same way with Jessica Chastain as Miss Debenham in the 2010 Suchet version. I love Jessica Chastain and thought she did fit the Debenham role, but her accent wasn't there and perhaps they should've cast someone else. But then again....that was TV. This is a big movie.

Alright....with that out of the way....Branaugh did a GREAT Poirot. Whoa. I went in with low expectations and he surpassed them. The acid test is "Make me forget about David Suchet," and he did it. Too bad the film probably won't have a sequel (even though they teased Death on the Nile), because I'd like to see more of his interpretation. And knowing how much of a fan David Suchet is of other Poirots, I imagine he LOVED Branaugh's portrayal too.

I must disagree with AuntieHill about his Poirot being "active." He's hardly an action hero, but he is shown as being physically active, and I didn't mind that. It makes sense....he used to be a policeman after all. So that's not so bad. The bad thing is, the film doesn't really mention that. The film only gives cursory background to him.

There's also very little time getting into the meat of the motives and investigation....or at least it felt that way. Minus credits, the film is 106 minutes long. It easily could've been 120 minutes or more, and I think it would've served both the story and the atmosphere better. Both the Suchet version and the BBC Radio play have a more engrossing investigation portion.

The movie looks great. It is sumptuously shot. It's too bad it probably won't make much money, because this is the sort of stuff I like seeing, where you can see the budget on the screen, used to recreate another era. It also feels that there's a director's cut just waiting to be released. I hope we get one.

 

[auntiehill]

^ I do, too. I would be interested to see if there's a director's cut.

Btw, Leslie Odem Jr. played an American doctor; there are even a few lines where other characters tell him how Europe is different from America. He just had an East Coast accent. Still, I get your point here. I'm seen him in other things---Supernatural, Law & Order, Person of Interest-- where he was really good. Here...I don't know what he was doing. He was really out of place.

 

[sttngfan1701d]

He did?! "He was my commahndur", "I had the honour..." If that was an East Coast accent (I'm guessing he was trying to do Transatlantic then), it came off bad. And If he served under Colonel Armstrong, who was British (with an American wife).... Yech, that's sloppy. Ah well.

I enjoyed Michelle Pfieffer's performance, and Daisy Ridley's.

 

[Random_Spock]

I'm a sucker for David Suchet's Poirot. Not even giving this new version a view. It just feels cheap (from what I saw preview wise).

@auntiehill I agree about it being rushed and muddled. I got that feeling just from watching the previews.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I love me some Agatha Christie and have seen several adaptations of her works--the good, bad and mediocre-- but I've always had a soft spot in my heart for Murder on the Orient Express. It's the perfect Whodunnit---a large group of people trapped on a train; one of them MUST be the murderer--or are they? Was it someone from the outside? How on Earth could you get away with it and not be seen by someone else? And, of course, as nearly everyone knows, this story covers all of this in probably one of the most contrived ways EVER---but I still love it.

I've seen a few adaptations of it over the years--the Albert Finney movie (excellent), the Alfred Molina tv-movie (which was god-awful) and the David Suchet version (which I ADORE, despite or perhaps because of additional material added to bookend the story). The Branagh version? I didn't like it, as much as I love the story and the actor; it felt rushed, even muddled. The suffering of the people involved was barely discussed; what would actually happen wasn't mentioned. I couldn't help but wonder if someone unfamiliar with the story would even understand what really happened at the end.

There's so little set-up that we really don't get to know the characters at all. You have a wonderful, talented cast, many of whom get only a few lines of dialogue. The wonderful Olivia Coleman gets only a few minutes of dialogue; Dame Judy Dench gets even less, William Defoe even less than that. Branagh's Poirot is fit, active, even daring as he dashes out into the snow ("Poirot" and "dashes" don't belong in the same sentence), dodges bullets and fights men half his age (gimme strength). All we know about him from this film is he's a detecting machine, terribly OCD (but only as a "charming" character trait) and is always right. We get to know nothing of him, why he does what he does or of his devotion to justice. There's a fairly ham-fisted attempt at getting into his thought process at the end but it's really under-whelming. The worst perhaps is that this "final test" takes place at "the big reveal" moment---which is NOT in the train car but rather in the tunnel, as all the main characters are marched out and set up at a makeshift table that for some reason recreates a "Last Supper" scene in the snow (*sigh*).

I really, REALLY wanted to like this, but I was rather disappointed. If you really want to see this, I would suggest waiting until it comes on Netflix or some such; save your money.

So.....any other mystery buffs out there? How do you think it rates with the other versions?

My feelings about this story and the Finney adaptation are the same as yours (I haven't seen the Molina version and I actually had some issues with the Suchet version), which was a large part why I was hesitant about this film. I was going to give it a go because of the cast, until the reviews started to come out (that and I didn't want to give Depp money if I could avoid it).

Reading your review makes me feel better about not bothering, although I'm also disappointed. The film has such a stellar cast, but it's shame to know that some, if not many, were largely wasted. And the big reveal scene sounds awful. So over-the-dramatic that's antithetical to Christie's writing.

...even daring as he dashes out into the snow ("Poirot" and "dashes" don't belong in the same sentence)...

To be fair, Finney's Poirot does that, too, but every time I see that scene, I cringe. Actually, as much as I love the Lumet film, Finney's performance is my least favorite. I just wish there was some way to transpose Suchet's performance into the film.

 

[Christopher]

Peter Ustinov's Poirot was the one I was most familiar with growing up. He played the role in three period-piece feature films and three modern-day TV movies between 1978-88, ending just before David Suchet took over the role. I never got into the Suchet Poirots, I guess because he was so different from Ustinov -- although I gather that Suchet's version was probably more authentic. I'm a little surprised to see that Ustinov never did an Orient Express, which I guess is why nobody brought him up here.

He did?! "He was my commahndur", "I had the honour..." If that was an East Coast accent (I'm guessing he was trying to do Transatlantic then), it came off bad.

In that era, it was trendy for Americans to adopt a sort of faux semi-English "Mid-Atlantic" accent as a "proper" form of diction. A lot of Hollywood actors from that era have that accent -- Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, etc. It was basically an exaggerated, affected version of the upper-class New England accent. Here's a neat article about its origins and history:

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-a-fake-british-accent-took-old-hollywood-by-storm

 

[sttngfan1701d]

I know that. Mid-Atlantic and Transatlantic accent are the same thing by different names.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

British actors are much better at doing American accents than the reverse.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I love the Poirot books, but I hadn't seen any screen adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express until this film. I really liked it, not quite loved it. What I liked most was the visuals, it was a really stunning location and there were some interesting shots. For example, when they had that scene where we had a bird's eye view of the train hallway, then moved into one of the rooms. I also enjoyed Branagh as Poirot, although no one will ever live up to Suchet.

Regarding the plot, I felt it moved rather quickly. They were revealing clue after clue and I was having a hard time keeping up with all of them, and I've read the book. It must have been confusing for someone who hasn't read it. What's funny is that after the film, I mentioned this fast pacing and my parents looked at me like I was nuts. They thought it was a very slow movie and they even fell asleep for parts of it. My grandma and my sister, on the other hand, enjoyed it.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I dozed off several times. Enjoyed it for the most part, but I've read the book so I knew the ending. Watched it mostly for the company of my friends and the actors, but as is mentioned most of them get little screentime -- DaFoe was my biggest disappointment.

 

[Starbreaker]

Well directed and well acted movie, but I think the script it pretty awful. I would definitely watch a sequel though. I think there's room for improvement.

 

[crookeddy]

The movie is about to cross $200 million worldwide, so it's certainly profitable. I wonder if its enough to warrant a franchise...

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I saw this movie last week and had a great time. It's hokey, tongue-in-cheek, self-aware. I thought it was a lot of fun. Loved the cast and performances. Music was great. Cinematography and costume design were great. Had no real complaints. A relaxing way to spend a Friday night.

Granted, I'd never read the book or seen any prior adaptations. This was my intro to this story.

 

[crookeddy]

The movie crossed $80 million domestic and $126 foreign, with no signs of stopping in the near term. A franchise is now certainly possible.

 

[maneth]

I enjoyed it, although for me no actor can ever top Suchet's performance as Poirot. I know the story so well that for me the changes to the characters were a bit distracting. In the book and other versions Arbuthnot is an Anglo-Indian colonel and the doctor is Greek, but I guess they thought that bringing in another investigator from another carriage, the coach from Athens which wasn't included in the movie, would be too confusing for viewers with no prior knowledge of the story. In the book at least, the missionary was Swedish, can't remember her nationality in the Suchet version.
While Suchet's Poirot certainly wouldn't be so physically active as Branagh's, in some of the Christie short stories he's more active than in others, climbing a man-high fence in at least one of them.
I thought the mention of a murder on the Nile at the end was stupid. Without access to a time machine, there's no way Poirot could get to Egypt in time to be on the boat as the murder happens. Death on the Nile is one of the classics Poirots for me, together with Murder on the Orient Express and Why Didn't They Ask Evans?

 

[auntiehill]

I enjoyed it, although for me no actor can ever top Suchet's performance as Poirot.

Couldn't agree more!