ada the leading man is my tpye

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

paid in full Considering how old the tale is, this is a perfect example of the genius of Agatha Christie. But I will be very quick to add that with the casting can make or break such a gem. And this version is very well played. Poirot(Suchet) has now earned his reputation as a great actor and it allows the viewer to really enjoy the tale. So about the tale...without giving away too much, I will say that this movie is worth the watch...every bit of it. Enjoy.

clytamnestra We all know the solution to this specific Poirot mystery: 'they all did it'. So when working my way through this series i wasn't even sure it'd bother to watch this episode.But what a pleasant surprise: the writers also realized that the viewers know the basics so they just go through the motions in that regard (the kidnapped baby, the letter 'H', the false evidence, etc). Far easier than in any other Poirot-episode do we get to the truth: they all did it, and they aren't ashamed, in fact the killers are practically bragging about their clever ruse (which makes sense, i suppose, of course they are happy to let everyone know about their revenge).Where most episodes are a 'who done it' this episode is all about Poirot's moral choice: this is a man whose 'holy mission' is to expose the truth and let the law take it from there. That truth may come at a high cost, but he will not be guilt-tripped for exposing it: if 'a good man' lied and committed suicide than that's his fault/choice and not Poirot's.The intro with the stoned woman in Istanbul doesn't make much sense in other versions of this story, but here it all kinda comes together. Poirot respecting 'the law of the land' and keeping his opinion to himself (keep in mind he is _not_ English). His faith that he is an instrument of god. The struggle it is for him to turn a blind eye. An element i haven't seen mentioned in other reviews is the racist attitude of the killers (if there is anything 'typically English' to be found in this tale it's here, in the nonchalant prejudices). Of course every judge in the world would go light on them, would bent over backwards to let them get of with a slap on the wrist. But that's not what they are after, their fear is not as much facing a judge but facing a Yugoslavian judge. To them the entirety of eastern Europe is fly-over country, a backwards backwater with less justice than the corrupt Chicago judge who set the child-murdering mafia-guy free. That's a hard sell for a war-refugee: to say 'we do not acknowledge local legal sovereignty'.Poirot was thus far presented as 'the perfect detached gentleman': a nice guy, who is always emotionally-stable and whose emotions never appear to run very deep. Here we see a different view of him, a view that is probably shocking to those who equate 'intelligence' and 'intelectual rigor' with 'millitant atheism'.

mirkobozic It happened more than once that a death occurred while I was on a train, just in my case, it was a suicide on the tracks, not a murder. This 2010 adaptation of a Christie classic starring the brilliant David Suchet can be credited with the same good stuff we're used to by now- excellent production design, period-accurate interiors and costumes. What makes the movie interesting is the combination of a small enclosed space-train cars stuck in snow-with a group of colorful characters made of a Russian princess, an American governess, a former driver and a doctor, among others. During the night, one of the passengers is stabbed to death in spite of having had asked Poirot for protection, which he refused. Of course, Poirot starts an investigation and unfolds a surprising connection of all passengers with the murder case of a young American heiress. Being from former Yugoslavia, it is a bit flattering that Christie set the novel within the country. In many recent episodes, Poirot is portrayed with a devout, religious side to his character, which in my mind is too much in contrast with his logic-based approach to solving his cases. "Murder on the Orient Express" is a great example of that, because it obscures the line between poetic justice and morals. Eileen Atkins and Jessica Chastain deliver great performances as the wax-faced and stoic Princess Dragomiroff and Miss Davenham, the fragile teacher. The solution is the only one of that kind in the whole Poirot series, based on the disappointment into the judicial system and the individual right to exert justice when being let down by official institutions in charge of it. In the end, you're left wondering what you would have had done in Poirot's position, and this might be the only episode in the series to have such an effect on you. The gorgeous winter landscape only accentuate the cold-blooded manner of the murder, clashing breathtaking beauty with breathtaking cruelty. I'm not one to mind on-screen plot alterations as long as they're subtle and add to the effect of the movie, which was certainly the case here. Which is why I prefer to regard it as an individual work, not that common in the Christie crowd, it seems.

sebastian-pinder This is by far the best version of Agatha Christies Murder On the Orient Express. The character of Poirot is played seriously and not like a comedy character like the previous Albert Finney version. The criticism I read on here is unfounded. Poirot was born in Belgium and would of being a Roman Catholic. Catholics when faced with difficult decisions would take their religion into account, also Catholics living in the 1930s always carried a Rosery on the person at all times to enable hospital staff to recognise their religion in the event of an accident. Therefore the criticism is unfounded. This production maintains the high standards of previous Poirot episode's.