BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Prismark10 In the Agatha Christie books, Poirot starts off as a middle aged detective trying to makes his way as a private investigator and ends up being famous and wealthy, also living to a very old age.The Poirot television series has remained stuck in the 1930s but I could not help noticing how old David Suchet looks here compared to the first series which started back in 1989.Not only is the actor looking older, he seems to have had a personality change. Gone is the quirky humour and sidekicks such as Hastings and Inspector Japp. This Poirot is embittered and angry as well as developing deep religious convictions.Despite the feature length running time and a relatively all star cast, this has a young Jessica Chastain in it. I also noted that the detailed sets and art direction that the earlier series had is absent here. Yes the Orient Express is recreated, there is overseas location feeling but it lacks art deco sumptuousness.Murder in the Orient Express has been adapted before, the most famous being the Albert Finney version directed by Sidney Lumet.Poirot after an assignment in Palestine boards the Orient Express after encountering his friend who owns the line and is asked to investigate the murder of a dubious American business tycoon aboard. The other passengers who are from far and wide seemed to be all connected to each other in some way and had a grudge against the victim.A disappointing film given that there is a famous all star movie version about. In some ways it felt rushed as the characters did not feel sketched out.

bensonmum2 I'm not going to bother with a plot summary. Most anyone who cares already knows by heart the plot to what is arguably Agatha Christie's most famous work. I also need to add that I'm a HUGE fan of the 1974 Murder on the Orient Express. I first saw it in the theater when I was 11 years-old and loved it. It remains one of my favorite films of all time. Regardless of how good this new version is, in my mind, it never had a chance of measuring up to the 1974 film. With all the disclaimers out of the way, I'll begin by saying that I have mixed feelings when it comes to this version of Murder on the Orient Express. That's part of the reason it's taken me so long to write this – I can't decide exactly how I feel about it. I've always said that David Suchet is the best Poirot ever to appear on-screen. But his portrayal here is a Poirot we've not seen before. He's hard and cold and that twinkle in his eye is gone. He's completely humorless. And while I don't care for this Poirot, it fits nicely withing this version of the story. In fact the scene at the end as Poirot walks away with tears in his eyes is gut-wrenching. You can feel his pain. He's gone against everything he believes and has let a murder go unpunished. One of the few things that has always bothered me about the 1974 film is how easily Poirot gives into the idea of an outside murderer when he knows that it's not the case. This version more than adequately deals with this.But that's one of the few things I prefer about the 2010 version. First, I don't care at all for the screenplay. Agatha Christie was always about the mystery. Characters and character development always played second fiddle to the murder. Here, the murder and mystery and secondary to just about everything else. Second, the cast in this version is good, but they can't compare with the cast from 1974. The only change I would make to the original movie is Albert Finney as Poirot. Suchet would have played the part much, much better. Third, this movie is too dark. Not just in tone, but in an actual lighting sense. I know that it was necessary to tell the story of the loss of power on the train, but it really gets annoying. Finally, I think the writers/director of this version attempt make a statement on moral equivalency that I simply do not agree with. The stoning of a woman accused of adultery by a mob is equated to the murder of a known child-killer by twelve well-reasoned individuals. I refuse to accept this and I am actually offended by the notion. In my mind, the two events are in no way morally equivalent. It's utter nonsense.There are other areas of the movie I could cite as examples of why the newer version is not as good as the older, but you get the idea. Like I said at the start, I was never going to like this one as much as the 1974 film. Given all that, I see my 4/10 as a generous rating.

grantss Hercule Poirot travels from Istanbul to Calais on the Orient Express. He is the guest of the owner of the train company, Xavier Bouc. On the train is a ruthless, obnoxious American businessman, Samuel Ratchett, plus a variety of other characters. The train is halted in Croatia after a snow drift blocks the line. Later that same night, Mr Ratchett is murdered in his sleep, stabbed multiple times. Stranded in the middle of nowhere, Poirot sets out to find out who murdered Mr Ratchett.Probably the most famous Poirot mystery, largely thanks to the excellent 1974 big screen adaptation of the novel. That starred Albert Finney as Poirot and had a glittering cast: Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Michael York, Jacqueline Bisset, Martin Balsam, Anthony Perkins, Richard Widmark. Because of that movie, or for absolute art-vs-art reasons, this TV version feels a bit lacklustre. Still a good, interesting movie, but feels a bit lacking compared to the feature film. The film had a better build-up, giving you more information. The TV movie feels a bit rushed and perfunctory in its build-up.The feature film had a great climax, done in inimitable Poirot style. This has a conclusion that is a bit flat - the unmasking of the guilty party/parties feels more like a fireside chat than a great revelation. Then we have Poirot getting all preachy and idealistic, and then a rather ambiguous final scene. If you didn't know the plot, either from the book or the feature film, you wouldn't really know what happened in the end.On a side note, in the tradition of the series, some big names in the cast. This time its Jessica Chastain, Barbara Hershey, David Morrissey and Toby Jones.

cab-63591 In the U.S. there are two types of people — those who are played by the establishment media's morality tales of Political Correctness, and those who are not. I am of the latter, and that is why this episode of Poirot at long last has ruined the entire series for me, because the writers sleazed such a pathetic morality tale into an Agatha Christie classic, where such a tale does not exist — nor anything like it in her entire body of work.The vignette about the stoning of the Istanbul adulteress was entirely made up — "exo tou dramatos." It was to set up Poirot's contrived statement later (about the then-used English death penalty) that was so ignorant and lacking reason it would prove he could never be able use reason well enough to detect his way out of a wet paper bag. Christie made Poirot's entire raison d'etre to send murderers to the gallows. Then these lame TV writers come along and morally equate the basis of their own gravy train to ad hoc street stonings of adulterous women.