MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Helloturia I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

mike-ryan455 Too updated for my tastes. I really liked the version with Albert Finney from 1974. Who can argue with Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins and Richard Widmark? I also think their dropping four of the participants in this modernized version really reduced it and their use of the Internet rather cheapens it. Searching by Google tells rather than slowly reveals. It made detective work far too easy.Don't think me a purist. I thoroughly enjoyed the David Suchet version. Actually I thought it was one of the better "Poirot" scripts. I look forward to the Branagh version in 2017.I will give this version five stars. It wasn't bad but the script took far too many liberties with Poirot's character and with the story. I've seen decent modern age Poirot before, like the Thirteen For Dinner from 1985. They knew what to update and what to leave alone.

bkoganbing Alfred Molina stars as the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot who even in a modern age of computers still prefers his little gray cells even though one of the suspects in this modernized 21st century remake of Murder On The Orient Express is a dot com millionaire. The little gray cells still work pretty well and as we know Molina comes up with two solutions for the murder.Which is of Peter Strauss a rather crass and wealthy American who is getting death threats and he wants to know the source. When Molina turns him down later that night on the train Strauss is stabbed several times in his sleep. The officials on the Orient Express ask Molina to take charge of the investigation while a landslide blocks their path.For anyone who has seen the big screen version which contained an all star cast I won't go into details. But that version is set at a time when traveling on the Orient Express was a matter of class and elegance and you got performances of the cast reflecting that. Agatha Christie stories be they Miss Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot, or Tommy&Tuppence should always stay in the period they are written in. They lose so much when they are not.Standing out among the passengers are Meredith Baxter as a minor American TV actress and Leslie Caron as the widow of a South American dictator.Compared to the big screen version this one is good root beer as opposed to elegant champagne.

Rick Blaine This is a made for TV movie. Made for TV movies rarely match up to made for cinema movies. But yes, see it - if you've seen the Lumet original that is. It's better than nothing and the story is of course great.About the story: actually it's better if you see the Lumet version first (and even read the book) because it's an amazing story and because you'll find the screenwriters for this version have done the unforgivable again.The acting's OK, the direction is basically OK too (although there are some scenes that just die) but above and beyond anything else it's the screenplay which sends this one to the skip.Why do these people take a winning formula and think they can make a classic like this better? The original had poetry. There was symmetry and symbolism which gave the audience warmth. This insensitive screenwriter seems to not have understood the small masterpiece he was commissioned to update.For that matter, why remake it at all? Dare we speculate? Someone's nephew wanted a chance at screen writing? Someone with clout in a studio decided to back this one?It's not all negative. There are good moments too. And unlike others here, we thought Molina was good.But you don't go corrupting a winning formula. See it - but only after you've seen the Lumet original (and preferably read the book). Only then will any enjoyment be guaranteed.

T Y The 1974 movie of this book was a mixed bag. Obligations to the all-star cast caused most of the problems, as the writers and editors jockeyed to give everyone an equitable amount of screen time, an actorly moment and some close-ups. This prevented it from being a very deep film, and Sidney Lumet is really only a workmanlike filmmaker. But still, despite those limitations, there is much pleasure in the earlier version; the wordless flashback prologue of a kidnapping is beautifully done. Rare for a murder mystery, the unfolding of the solution provides a startling, satisfying emotional payload.For this retelling, a decision was made to update the material to the contemporary era. The topical references that acknowledge the world has changed since the thirties really achieve naught, except perhaps alleviating some writers fear that the material is passé... There's too many of these self-conscious references (to air travel, the internet, VCRs, taking the Express out of mothballs, Ross Perot) and they become annoying. Other changes are there simply because filmmakers thought it would make it more conventional (Hercule Poirot has a ridiculous romantic interest, "Vera"). The biggest bummer is the substitution of a utilitarian diesel engine for the original stylish steam locomotive. Thud.Ultimately these revisions add nothing to the movie and seem to have taken the focus off producing a tight, compelling, methodical script. The highlight of the previous movie was the cross-cutting between the temporal time-frame and the crime. This movie lifts that technique, but doesn't really come up with any contribution of it's own. The color palette, the research and the envisioning of the crime were all more vivid in the earlier version. Alfred Molina is pretty bad in this. It just isn't interesting.