Customer Reviews

Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

I first saw this production of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" when it was aired on Network TV back in 2001, and was more than excited to see it. I am a fan of the novel, Albert Finny movie, and even of the BBC radio drama version (which is still the closest adaptation to the novel). And while the acting, direction and the over all look is fine... I had a problem with the modern spin that was taken on it. Especially where Poirot uses a laptop computer to find information that he needed on the background of the case. Which left the traditional "detecting" out of the window, and made me think that the modern Poirot is only as smart as his Google search engine will let him.

Modernized adaptation of Agatha Christie classic mystery? Excuse me, but what is the point?

Anyway, the famous story about the murder on the Orient Express is retold. A stubbed body is found in a train on which a world-renowned detective Poirot is traveling from Istanbul. The passengers are interrogated, but their contradicting statements only help confuse the investigation.

So far, the same, but remember, this time the story is told in modern setting. That means Poirot doesn't have to use his brain to obtain some of the important information. Blackmailing is done with a video tape, and luckily one of the car is equipped with a VCR. In case you think the new film lost the exotic touch, it can show you a belly dancer.

There are also some visible changes done to the Christie's whodunit, most of which are pointless. For example, the train is stopped by rockslide, not by avalanche, which means much less claustrophobic feeling. Hercule Poirot (Alfred Molina) has a girlfriend in Istanbul named Vera (Tasha de Vasconcelos) and she happens to a reformed thief.

And of course there is a murder. Sorry that I cannot reveal too much about it, but if you have seen the Sidney Lumet film or read the original book, this remake would only disappoint you. Alfred Molina is not bad the Belgian sleuth, but he is not Albert Finney who was in character.

Of course you don't always have to compare. Some people have not seen the 1974 version, and they will see the newer version without (perhaps unfair) comparison. However, even they might find the murder mystery here too slow and talky, and the solution is way too incredible. Actually, most of the Christie books end with incredible solutions, but there is one unique quality about the original story of the `Murder on the Orient Express' which is totally missing in the new version.

That is, as you know (and I am trying to write without spoilers), Agatha Christie's story is inspired by one of the biggest and most notorious real-life crimes committed in the history of America as the background of her story. The (unsolved, some say) mystery plays a significant role in the original book and Sidney Lumet film, but in the new film it is completely taken away, replaced by one fictional crime that is not intriguing at all. The altered setting makes the whole story less authentic and the motive of the killer or killers more unaccountable.

Remakes are often considered unnecessary, but some of them can hold on its ground against the originals. You may prefer the original Peter Lorre version, but the remade "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is generally more popular than the other. As far as `Murder on the Orient Express' is concerned, however, I don't see any reason this should be told again.

I'm not going to reiterate other reviewers' specific criticisms of this movie. However some general comments for your consideration...

Dame Agatha's books and characters seem at times to suffer mightily at the hands of filmmakers. For example, take George Pollock's four early '60s films starring Margaret Rutherford, whose Miss Marple bore little or no resemblance to the character in the books. Remakes have been even less kind to the Dame. The best (worst?) example of remake-itis is And Then There Were None. Rene Clair's 1945 B&W film is very good (two versions available, restored original or bargain priced), and true to Agatha Christie's play of the same name (which has a justifiably different ending from the novel). ATTWN was remade twice (in 1965 and 1974), and neither came up to the standard of the original.

That brings us to Murder on the Orient Express. Sidney Lumet's 1974 film of Agatha Christie's remarkable novel was a star-studded atmospheric period piece. This 2001 made-for-TV remake, brought into the Internet age, was an incredible waste of time and money. For the same price as this turkey (which didn't air until 2005, which ought to tell you something), you can get the stellar 1974 version on DVD for (at this writing) the same price! Spend your money wisely.

why does hollywood always think that instead of tring new things that they must remake old movies,even when they were good. this misfire starts of bad by tring to move the story into morden times, and that is where the whole thing sinks!!! not good at all.

I enjoyed this tv movie Murder On The Orient Express when it was broadcast in 2001...the cast was superb playing passengers who were questioned by Alfred Molina's character Hercule Poirot...Meredith Baxter is a great actress who's role was enjoyable to watch. Peter Strauss is a wonderful actor...have been a fan of his from his television miniseries "Rich Man, Poor Man"...and Leslie Caron was superb in this movie. I will be getting this DVD when its released. I enjoyed the movie with Albert Finney and this tv movie...I'm a huge Agatha Christie films fan.

I am not thrilled by this movie to be honest. I didn't realize that it was adopted to 2005 (it actually *plays* in 2005). It is done well enough I guess. Not overly great, but not bad either.

I think a lot of the charm of the novel comes from the time it is set in, and to me, moving this into the 21st century ruins that. If you are looking for an Agatha Christie feeling, look elsewhere.

This made-for-tv version was based more on the superlative movie (With Albert Finney leading an exceptionally fine cast!) directed by Sidney Lumet. This version is a complete waste of time and money. Save your money and get the 1974 movie. You'll be glad you did! Better yet, buy a copy of the movie version for yourself and a friend who has never seen it. Your friend will love you for it!!!!!
If I must give it a single star its only because Amazon made me do it. I'd rather give it -5 stars. IT'S THAT BAD!!!!!

The back of the DVD case claims that "Agatha Christie's ultimate whodunit speeds into the twentieth century," and that's a pretty good indication of this production's incompetence. Yes, for the record, they probably meant "twenty-first" century, since Christie's book was written in the twentieth century. Actually, bringing this mystery into the twenty-first century is part of the problem - does anyone really need to see Hercule Poirot performing internet searches? Much of the novel's atmosphere came from the fact that everyone was trapped, snowbound, in the train, and Poirot had no way to solve the murder except to reflect. In this movie, Poirot has access to search engines and online video, which means that he's about as isolated as I am now, writing this review.

Due to time constraints, a lot of characters have been cut from this movie entirely. Generally I don't mind that sort of thing, but MotOE is the one novel that really can't accommodate that kind of editing. Maybe the writers would have had room for more suspects if they hadn't wasted time on a completely pointless love interest for Poirot? And in the "pointless changes" category, I don't really care if the producers decided to change a Russian princess into an Eva Peron-style dictator's wife. Actually, I do care, because it's dumb, but I understand that there aren't a lot of Russian aristocrats in the twenty-first century. Still, having changed the character, the writers then leave in a clue about the South American dictator using the Cyrillic alphabet? They gutted half the book's plot and couldn't take out the one thing that should have been removed?

It's impossible not to watch this movie and not compare it to the 1974 Sidney Lumet version. The 1974 version is better in just about every way, from sets to music to, most especially, actors. Meredith Baxter, you are no Lauren Bacall. To be fair, though, I actually preferred Alfred Molina as Poirot to Albert Finney 1974 version. No, Molina isn't really well cast, but he's inoffensive, and that's more than I can say for Finney's portrayal of Poirot as screaming, rude, and bizarrely hunch-backed. Still, it's pretty sad when the best thing I can say about this movie is that the lead actor is inoffensive. Stick to the 1974 version, at least until David Suchet does this story right.

It is Alfred Molina's great misfortune that, in portraying Hercule Poirot, he has been preceded by Peter Ustinov, Albert Finney, and David Suchet. Had this not been true, we might have been tempted to give his performance a higher rating than it is now possible to do.

The original novel by Agatha Christie (same title) is one of the greatest whodunits ever penned. For unknown reasons, Ustinov never did it. My guess is that, although his Poirot films were made after the timely death of the pernicious and much-despised Code, the prospect of a murderer getting away with the crime was still too daunting for Hollywood. Suchet has yet to make Orient, but then it was only last year ('07) that he finally did "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" (with, we hope, Ariadne Oliver). Suchet's voice is used for Poirot in the 2006 Orient Express video game.

So finally, in 2001 a TV version of Orient is made with Alfred Molina in the key role. Alas. Molina is a talented actor. His portrayal of Poirot, while not definitive nor even close, is passable - even pretty good in some ways. However, once we compare him with his predecessors (not to mention the literary original), the problems show up like fat, pendulous, juicy pimples (the kind we all loved to pop back in the day). We all know, for instance, that Poirot was fastidious to the point of school-marmish fussiness. Molina's Poirot is neat and that's about it. Molina's accent is a sort of generalized European, not the pointedly confrontational French that Poirot affected. Molina does use the catch-phrase "little grey cells", but he rattles them out because they're in the script, not because (as is the case) Poirot is obsessive about them. Indeed, Poirot's fundamentally obsessive character is de-emphasized to the point of vanishing. Molin'a Poirot seldom speaks of himself in the third person; Poirot does so rather a lot. His mustache is some short hair under his nose; Poirot's is a fashion statement and accessory that defines his dandified appearance. Molina doesn't wear gloves. Nor spats, but then the date of the mystery has been moved up to about the date the film was made. Anyone who by now believes I haven't made my case doesn't know Hercule.

While Suchet is the best Poirot overall, Ustinov bears away the palm for best actor. He inhabits the role so effectively that we become unconscious of his imposing height and bulk. Finney, who appears in the 1974 Orient, lacks for little in the Poirotishness of his portrayal. This is a competition that Molina simply can't win.

The plot of the 2001 film is, incidentally, pretty much the same as that of the novel and the 1974 film. Poirot is traveling from Istanbul on the famous Orient Express. He shares the first class car with a diverse set of individuals. One of them, a highly unpleasant person (Ratchett) is stabbed to death in the dead of night. There are plenty of clues ... in fact, as Finney's Poirot observes and Molina's does not, there are too many of them. The train is stalled in its journey (snow slide in 1974, rock slide in 2001) and the railway's CEO commissions Poirot to find the killer. Through patient questioning and separating false clues from real ones, Poirot does so ... twice. If you don't actually know the plot already, your cultural deprivation is truly unfortunate.

The problem with the 2001 production, however, runs deeper than merely the star. It's virtually the whole cast and what the update in time has done to their roles. The update from 1935 to c.2001 was apparently made because the producers figured that education has been so inadequate recently that viewers would never figure out what a White Russian (Princess Dragomirov) is, nor understand references to the Lindburgh kidnapping, nor fail to be puzzled by people going to Iraq for actual constructive purposes (archaeology), nor ... well, you get the gist.

The result is that we have characters who are updated but far less interesting. As for the participating actors: recall that in 1974 we get Martin Balsam, Richard Widmark, Wendy Hiller, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud, ... well, again you get the gist. Want a cast list of the 2001 film? Well, there's Leslie Caron, and Who? ...and Whom? ...and What? ...and Which? ...and ...and ...and ... well, and a group of actors, most of whom are still working. They appear primarily in small roles in TV series episodes and in fairly little-known films. The upshot is that we get OK performances of a fairly uninspired script, and that's about it. The exception is from the one fine actor in the group, Leslie Caron. That's the upside. The downside is that her performance is deeply informed by that of Wendy Hiller as Princess Dragomirov. In this film the character becomes Señora Alvarado, the widow of a fairly nasty Latin American dictator. The problem here is that the character has way more social standing than would someone coming from such a sleazy background. She is in fact treated as the royalty Dragomirov was. That is, the character doesn't really compute ... in order to keep character relationships as they were before the rewrite, Alvarado had to be accorded deference even Eva Peron didn't get in exile. Still, Caron manages to convince us of her bona fides. As I said, she's good.

The cold, hard fact is that there are quite a few things on TV that are better than this remake. That's something we can't say about the 1974 original. The Poirot of the remake, Alfred Molina, is a pretty good actor - but for whatever reason he has seriously misconceived the part he plays and as Poirot he winds up in 4th place in a field of 4. The picture, alas, winds up in about 9th place in a field of 2.

Of course it is not as good as the original Sydney Lumets version but enjoyable.. Sad to say but Alfred Molina's accent was shocking. It was also filmed on the American version of the Orient Express. I've been on the continental train and it is really like Lumet's version. The decor is all wrong in this version. Agatha C in the 21st century loosos its charm.really don't know why they bothered making the film.