Le crime de l'Orient-Express

This TV movie was clearly meant to be the pilot for a US version of David Suchet's classic UK Poirot show.

Hulking Alfred Molina joyously replaces Suchet here and that's where the hilarity begins. Poirot is physically a small man, and that's one of the key points of his character - a completely unassuming man with larger than life intellect. Molina is not bad as Poirot but looks nothing like him. Even Albert Finney, who played Poirot in the first and best adaptation of the Orient Express story in the 1974 theatrical film, and is also a pretty big man, had to pretend to be tinier than he is to sell himself as Poirot better.

Other things that make Poirot Poirot like his trademark mustache, love of Belgium and asexuality are also gone. Molina's mustache is more of a tribute to Poirot's than an actual eccentrically unique facial hair. He has a hot foreign girlfriend now (no joke), and ss for his amusing patriotic bravado (he's Belgian, not French, you see) you won't find it here, other than as a throwaway line spoken by another character.

However, despite all of this, Melina actually really is one of the rare good things about this adaptation. The TV cast of characters who play his suspects range, on the other hand, from forgettable to passable, but they aren't the worst thing about this movie either. No, the worst thing about this film is the attempt to modernize the story by setting it in present day IT savvy world, which (un)intentionally brings in so many plot and logic holes that you can build a tunnel out of them. This had to be done carefully and thoughtfully but it wasn't. It was done bluntly and carelessly. As a result there are so many ridiculous and (un)intentionally hilarious moments, and they aren't even all related to the fetishistic use of technology in the movie.

For instance, Poirot touches every piece of evidence with his bare hands because he's sure "that the killer didn't leave any fingerprints" on them. The police of any country would have immediately arrested him on the spot just for this. Maybe in 1934, when the book and almost all other adaptations of the story are set, they actually could have gotten away with this (although in most adaptations, Poirot actually uses a handkerchief to hold and inspect evidence, never his bare hands), but in 2001, with DNA evidence and fingerprints technology being a crucial part of any serious investigation, what Poirot does here is the dictionary definition of the term 'contaminating the crime scene'. Also, the murder plan as is doesn't really work in modern times either because of this, since any proper forensic investigation of the dead man's cabin would have easily uncovered inconsistencies in the killer's story.

Another silly thing about the movie is that it's not set in winter. It's actually set in what appears to be autumn and the train doesn't end up being snowed in, but a cave in causes the train to stop. The fact that they are not really stranded in the middle of nowhere, and that the passengers could easily simply leave the train, walk around the pile of rocks on the tracks and get on another train, possibly the one that brought the workers to clear the road, which could then take them to their destination, comes to no one's mind at any point.

Finally, the way they use technology in the movie may be the most blunt way of doing this in a mystery ever. You see, Poirot simply googles the passengers to try and uncover the culprit. It is as stupidly funny as it sounds. Also, some of the suspects are now a software engineer, a fitness instructor and the widow of a deposed and killed South American dictator!

And then there's the hilarious happy-go-lucky epilogue that completely ruins any dramatic effect that the mostly fateful ending may have had on the audience. Seriously, this epilogue feels like the script originally truly was suppose to be for a parody.

The odd thing about all this is that the movie does actually have some fan service and in-joke bits. For instance, the fitness instructor is a fan of Poirot's work and actually references some of his old cases from the books. So, whoever wrote this mess clearly did read Poirot's books.

In conclusion, watch the 1974 version for the full dramatic and emotional effect of this ingenious story (it's no false praise to say that this Agatha Christie tale is one of the most uniquely original crime mysteries ever written), and only then see this US TV version, especially if you're looking to have a good laugh (this is genuinely a so-bad-it's-good movie, and often (un)intentionally funnier than most comedies) or simply enjoy Molina as an actor (he really could have had a good Poirot run on TV, like the equally hulky Peter Ustinov before him in the 1980's, and it's truly sad that this inept adaptation had to be the pilot for this project and immediately and effectively kill off any chance for a further Molina Poirot series) or you simply wish to see every Murder on the Orient Express adaptation out there (the plot itself is mostly the same as the one in the book, so you should get at least something out of it then).

As an (un)intentional comedy and because of Molina, I give it a 6 (although, if judged realistically for what it's meant to be, it's closer to a 3 or a 4).

Having seen the theatrical film version of "Murder on the Orient Express" when it was first released back in the 1970's, and having thoroughly enjoyed it, I was very skeptical about a remake of it, especially knowing that this production was made for CBS-TV and being giving its first airing on commercial television, instead of being done on PBS's "Mystery".

My radar shot up the minute I heard John Leonard's favorable review of it on "CBS Sunday Morning". Leonard is an extremely articulate, pseudopoetic writer, and more often than not, a sardonic and harsh critic, and he does not endorse remakes of popular hits easily--except, perhaps, when they air on CBS, the network he just happens to work for.

My fears were fully justified. This film is the most crass retelling of an Agatha Christie novel I have ever seen. The story has been updated from 1934 to the present in order to give Hercule Poirot the oh-so-trendy oppotunity to work on the case by plugging into a laptop. The glamorous aspects of the original film, with its elegant, stylish, upper-class look, are totally gone.

So, instead of getting butlers and former army colonels as suspects, we get fitness experts and trainers who run around in T-shirts and sports coats, and who speak with Bronx accents. And Meredith Baxter, of all people, plays Mrs. Hubbard, the compulsive talker played so well in the original by the legendary Lauren Bacall. In fact, none of the performances here are memorable, especially when they have to compete against the likes of Ingrid Bergman, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Sean Connery, Richard Widmark (whose character is played here by Peter Strauss!), Martin Balsam, Jacqueline Bisset, Wendy Hiller, and Michael York. And Alfred Molina, while quite good as Hercule Poirot, still can't hold a candle to Albert Finney in the original, not to mention Peter Ustinov and David Suchet as later incarnations of the detective.

Worse yet, while some seemingly small details have been left the same, some vitally important ones have been changed, one of them being the number of passengers, an important element in the original. Some of Poirot's deductions, rather than being revealed as surprises toward the end, are explained about two-thirds of the way through.

But the vilest crime committed in this film, is the implication, at the end, that Poirot has been having, shall we say, a less-than-platonic relationship with a beautiful woman! (She appears out of nowhere in the final scene, smiling at him, and calling him "Hercule".) This, an utter desecration of the 'cold-fish" Poirot that we all know and love, is a betrayal as sacrilegeous as William Gillette having Sherlock Holmes fall in love in his 19th century stage play!

Avoid this, unless you are masohistic, have a relative in the cast, or think that TV remakes are always better than the original films.

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.

This is an awful adaptation.

It's so obvious that CBS just dragged this out again to maximize the popularity of Alfred Molina these days (Spiderman 2, Fiddler on the Roof).

The only aspect of this production that held my interest was the set design/art direction. The acting was totally "Movie of the Week", as was the script.

This really did not need to be udpated. Who was it updated for? Those that enjoyed the original will be disappointed.

It's just dreadful.

Avoid it.

Any new version of the classic Agatha Christie is almost certain to invite unfavourable comparisons with the 1974 cinema version in which Sidney Lumet directed a star studded cast in a lavish and expensive treatment of the book. This television movie is a less star studded affair and adds to its problems by setting the story in the present day ,complete with laptop computers and mobile phones ,thereby losing the period settings which are so essential a part of the writers continuing appeal. The plot remains the same -a passenger on board the famed train is killed and Hercule Poirot investigates and solves the mystery by the application of the "little gray cells" Alfred Molina does a fair job of Poirot and I would like to see him tackle the role in a better production ;while Leslie Caron and Peter Strauss are good in supporting roles. A pointless remake and I would advise going back to the 1974 picture if you want to see a movie of the book