NEW Murder on the Orient Express
glalonzo0408
Pennsylvania, United States
Thoughts?
glalonzo0408
Pennsylvania, United States
Comments
(Warning: this review contains spoilers)
Pros:
-The movie had a great opening with the boy looking to get the two eggs of the same size for Poirot. I also liked the mystery Poirot was asked to solve at the beginning of the movie. It was much more creative and a more serious crime than the silly case Poirot solved in the Suchet version.
-Kenneth Branagh was an excellent Poirot! Although David Suchet is still my favorite Poirot, Branagh captured both the comic side of Poirot and Poirot's big heart.
-Although the plot takes a few liberties, it is generally faithful to the book (more faithful than Suchet version, but less faithful than the Finney version)
-The cinematography was beautiful!
Cons:
-Aside from Poirot, Masterman, and Ratchett, the characters were butchered. Many were nothing like their counterpart in the novel. Mrs. Hubbard is still a comic role, but she is changed into a "husband hunter". Hector MacQueen is changed into an alcoholic and a thief. Mr. Bouc is reduced to a ne'er do well son. Count Andrenyi punches everybody in sight for no reason. Countess Andrenyi is reduced to a drug addict. Greta Ohlsson is renamed Pilar Estravados and her religious zeal is attributed to her failing to protect Daisy because she drank too much on the night Daisy was kidnapped. Cyrus Hardman, instead of posing as a salesman, poses as a racist professor.
-In addition to mutilating the characters' personalities, the movie does a poor job of making the viewer care about the suspects. Instead, the racism of Hardman and MacQueen, the viciousness of Count Andrenyi, and Arbuthnot's attempt to murder Poirot all made me dislike these characters, rather than sympathize with them. It was extremely hard to believe that Poirot would let the killers go free after Arbuthnot tried to kill him!
-Although Branagh did a fantastic job of portraying Poirot, sometimes the script had Poirot say and do things that were out of character. For example, having Poirot assert that he cannot lie was utterly absurd. How many times has Poirot lied in order to catch a criminal? That is something I could see Hastings saying, not Poirot (unless he said it ironically). Also, if they felt that they needed to stress Poirot's love life, couldn't they at least have kept the Countess Vera Rossakoff as Poirot's lover rather than some made up woman named Katherine?
-After Ratchett's death, the movie began to rush through the investigation. As a result, many of the clues were either eliminated or rushed through. Many of the details that explain why the characters behave as they do or that help Poirot to solve the mystery are eliminated.
Overall, this version of Murder on the Orient Express was much better than the Suchet version. However, the movie really messed up in terms of character development. The movie seems to set up Death on the Nile as a potential sequel. While I would not object to Branagh reprising his role as Poirot, I would strongly object to the characters in Death on the Nile being re-written the way the characters in Murder on the Orient Express are re-written. In my opinion, Death on the Nile has one of Christie's greatest casts of characters and it would be an outrage if they were transformed to the point that they no longer resembled their counterparts in the novel.
I give it 2 out of 5 stars. Still prefer the book THEN the 1974 version which is still the best adaptation of the book, despite some of its flaws
I felt the middle of the film was disjointed, spliced with ridiculous action-scenes and the interviews felt short and rushed. If only the beginning was cut, and middle scenes like the “Katherine” angle (which didn't go anywhere), Poirot’s inner struggle, and ridiculous action sequences (almost like a Robert Downey Jr. version of Sherlock Holmes) and more attention was placed on the interviews/interrogations themselves along with a longer film running time, I feel like the pay off clearly would have been more powerful. One complaint that I’ve heard was many viewers didn’t feel they were involved in the solving of the mystery; the clues weren’t all there and they felt cheated. You have to present all the clues and not rush through them or leave things unexplained and left out in the cold. To get to that big payoff, you have to keep the viewers involved and invested in the mystery. I found the ending powerful and it could be because I already know the conclusion (which I always found powerful) and on top of that the music in that scene moved me. With the middle crammed together with too many things, I can see how viewers lost interest and if they do, how can they feel the power of the ending? You lost them way before the mystery’s solution. More emphasis should have been on the clues and interviews themselves. That’s the key to a mystery. That’s the key to keep an audience interested whenever a mystery is adapted onscreen. And screenwriters and directors, you can still film interview/interrogation scenes in such a way for a 21st century audience that won’t bore or deter them if that’s something you’re worried about when filming a true whodunit. Because great visuals and cinematography just isn’t enough for a mystery.
-yes, there were some action scenes, however I am not going to fault the writers/director for this as we are in the day and age of action films. Poirot on the roof of the train was a bit ridiculous lol, otherwise I thought the action scenes were tolerable and occasionally funny.
-I have to agree that the middle seemed a bit disjointed and quick. Where the 74 version excels is how thoroughly each suspect is investigated. I forgot for example Willem Defoe was even in this movie until they decided to focus on him.
-Kenneth Branagh as Poirot, well I felt he grew into the role. The Poirot in the last 20 minutes was better then Poirot in the first 20.
-The strength of this movie is the last 20 minutes. It is dark, sad, serious, and I felt they built the tension up quite well. Michelle Pfeiffer was excellent. Much better than the ending of Suchet's version in my opinion.
-I loved the little tease at the end and am happy it is actually leading to a sequel.
3/5 stars for me.
In terms of ranking the versions;
-Finney
-Branagh
-Suchet
-Molina
Ok, saw Ken's film last night. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a lover of the Finney version, I think it is excellent. I approached this new version with a mixture of excitement and fear. In general I am a fan of Ken's work, but here, well, not so much. I got the point of the opening, to introduce the character, but once this got going I knew this was quite definitely 'Based on' Agatha Christie 's book. I liked Depp as Casseti, and Pfifer was excellent and the actor playing Arbothnot was also very good, but apart from those three, no one else (except Ken) was given enough to do. I liked the way they changed Arbuthnot to a black character, it made the tension in his romance more believable for todays audience who I think would struggle to think a divorce was something to hedge around, but a mixed race marriage in the 1930's, yes. But Kenneth Brannagh, as Poirot, was awful. Not his acting, but his interpretation. I suppose he was making the character more dynamic and hero-like, but come on, chasing someone around some scaffolding? That is well below M. Poirots dignity. As for toting a pistol and using his cane as an all purpose jemy/ weapon. No. Then, the way the detection was conducted. People seemed to randomly confess important facts and the little gray cells didn't really get into gear. The end scene in the tunnel (what was that, maybe he watched too many Werner Hertzog films) it appears the solution dawns on him as he rants. I suppose the best thing to say about it is, it was at least better than the ITV attempt. But I wonder what he'll do in Death on the Nile? Have Poirot swim the Hellespont the tommy gun down some international crime lord. Perhaps he might make a better job of The Big Four.
I think if he had simply changed the name of his detective (Scarot, or Charoit perhaps) I would have quite enjoyed it as I am aware it was the 'baggage' I brought to the film that spoiled my enjoyment and I am also aware that I have no monopoly on what Poirot should be. Thats why the books are always best. You cam bring your own interpretation without inflicting it on others.
However, where did the idea that Arbuthnot was divorced or married come from? It isn't mentioned in the book. The only reason they hide their romance in the book is because it is important for the murder that the conspirators seem to be strangers (aside from Rachet's employees and the Andreyev couple), therefore there won't be a suspicion of collusion. Poirot overhears them saying that as soon as "this" is over (presumably, they will be able to be together).