Le Crime de l'Orient-Express

Agatha Christie needs a bit more mystery and depth in a film particularly when the story is so well known. Branaghs's Poirot is more eccentric than brilliant, in fact most of the characters are over played and a bit silly.

In the end you don't really warm to anyone or want more, it's very predictable and flat.

Difficult Kenneth Branagh makes, produces, and stars in good movies, and this version of Murder on the Orient Express features impressive sets, beautiful scenery, and lovely period clothes. An impressive case features Penélope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Kennth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. I think those who are not familiar with Agatha Christie, Poirot, or the story may very well like this movie.

I, on the other hand, was massively disappointed, especially by Branagh as a sort of English upper-class colonel with a stick-on cavalry moustache and by the needless addition of an introductory scene at the Wailing Wall. But I am prejudiced. I read the 1934 novel decades ago and again more recently. I liked the 1974 star-studded version with Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, and Michael York—despite the fact that Albert Finney was a very poor version of Christie's Hercule Poirot.

In my opinion, the 2010 television version of the story starred David Suchet as the definitive Poirot, and the ending was far and away the best of all the versions with which I am familiar. So I think Christie fans may want to skip this edition of the classic.

This movie was clearly made for a modern audience with no familiarity with Agatha Christie's work. Branagh's portrayal of the legendary Belgian detective Hercule Poirot bares only a passing resemblance to the source material with an inconsistent accent, the wrong mustache, and only some of his iconic quirks and mannerisms. That being said, it is a decent mystery that follows the plot of the story pretty well and it would probably be enjoyable to people seeing the story for the first time and having no preconceived notions of what Poirot should be.

A strong supporting cast featuring Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, Johnny Depp, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, and many other familiar faces performs well. However, no one stands out in the way Ingrid Bergman did in the 1974 adaptation or Jessica Chastain in the 2010 version.

There were also several semi-action moments that were incredibly out of character for Poirot, yet provided no actual excitement to justify the sudden stylistic change. The ending hints at Death on the Nile being the next mystery for this detective masquerading as Poirot to tackle, but Poirot should not be summoned to solve a murder, he simply stumbles upon them whenever he goes on vacation.

'Murder on the Orient Express' as a book is, speaking as a big Agatha Christie fan, one of her best with a compelling and twisty story, many characters that are also nicely developed and one of her most ingenious endings (along with 'And Then There Were None', 'Death on the Nile', 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd' and 'Witness for the Prosecution').

Of the four filmed adaptations of 'Murder on the Orient Express' the only outstanding one is the 1974 Sidney Lumet film, which is one of the best cinematic Agatha Christie adaptations to me. The others are the David Suchet version, which is often considered one of the worst of the series but from personal opinion while very flawed it's better than given credit for, and the 2001 Alfred Molina version which is a mess. This latest version has a good deal going for it but feels like an adaptation too far. Actually saw it a couple of days ago, but was not sure what my thoughts on it were.

Let's start with 'Murder on the Orient Express's' good things. It is a very beautiful film visually, very elegantly shot, lots of stunning scenery, sumptuous costumes that are evocative of the period and a train that has the grandeur and claustrophobic confinement that is necessary. The make-up is also wonderfully elaborate. The story does have some intriguing moments and it is a very clever one in the first place. Poirot is an interesting as he should be. Kenneth Branagh does a very nice job with the visual style, the script is thought-provoking and Poirot's crime-solving is delightful. The relative faithfulness to the source material is commendable too.

He also stars as Poirot and generally is surprisingly good, he is very commanding, suitably steely and captures his crime-solving skills beautifully. He could however have brought out more of Poirot's lighter and more eccentric side, like the obsessiveness, there isn't enough of that here. The cast is star studded and generally the acting is very good. Standouts include Judi Dench, Michelle Pfeiffer, a surprisingly well-cast and suitably conflicted Josh Gad and Daisy Ridley, Derek Jacobi and Willem Dafoe also make much of not very much.

Conversely, there are other elements that don't work. The mystery itself is intriguing as a story but doesn't have enough tension or energy. With so many characters and so much focus on Poirot, the exploration of the supporting characters is limited, meaning many of the characters are really sketchy in development. Branagh excels in the visual side of the direction but it comes at the expense at providing enough depth to the mystery.

The film has a slow and awkwardly staged beginning and the ingenious denouement feels under-cooked and contrived for an ending so justifiably famous and brilliant. Just to make it clear, the problem is not the denouement itself, it's the execution of it that's the problem. While the cast are on very good form mostly, an exception is Johnny Depp. Really didn't get the sense that Rachett was a nasty piece of work, like in the book and especially Toby Jones' interpretation in the Suchet adaptation when talking of the previous versions, and that the performance was too much of a pale caricature of Depp's lesser roles. Have really liked a lot of what Patrick Doyle has done, but this is not one of his better music scores. It's not awful, but it is blandly uninspired and its slightly syrupy feel doesn't fit. Oh, and Branagh's moustache is like a character of its own and am really not sure as to whether that is a compliment or not.

In summary, some good things that stops it from completely derailing but the lack of steam makes it a bland endeavour, this wonderful story and Christie deserve better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

At first when I saw the trailer, I was so excited and thought "Finally, a remake of Agatha Christie's masterpiece!". But after I watched the movie that night, I can't hide I was so disappointed.

The movie is so different from the book! And many of the scenes are exaggerated, and some important parts from the books are not included in the movie. Some characters lost or exchanged names. No "dr. Constantine", Greta Ohlsson changed into Pilar Estravados, Antonio replaced by some Italian name I can't remember. Some of the characters' personality are also too much for me. Count Andreyi is a... count. It's impossible he is so temperamental in the movie (while in the book Count Andreyi are more respected and well-behaved).

Disappointing, for a Christie's adaptation.