Product Details

• Actors: David Suchet, Jessica Chastain, Barbara Hershey, Marie-Josée Croze, Samuel West
• Directors: Philip Martin
• Writers: Agatha Christie, Stewart Harcourt
• Producers: Karen Thrussell
• Format: NTSC, Widescreen, Color
• Language: English (Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo)
• Region: Region A/1 (Read more about DVD/Blu-ray formats.)
• Aspect Ratio: 1.78:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: NR (Not Rated)
• Studio: ACORN MEDIA
• DVD Release Date: October 26, 2010
• Run Time: 100 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.3 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (37 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B003L80FLC
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #90,204 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• Learn more about "Agatha Christie's Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express [Blu-ray]" on IMDb

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com

A number of fine actors--Albert Finney, Peter Ustinov, Ian Holm, Alfred Molina, Tony Randall--have portrayed detective Hercule Poirot, mystery author Agatha Christie's most popular creation. There have also been several filmed versions of Murder on the Orient Express, perhaps Christie's best-known tale, and although this 2010 made-for-TV adaptation, with David Suchet in the lead role, isn't the best of the lot (that distinction goes by general consensus to the 1974 feature film, with Finney), it's likely the most controversial. That's primarily because director Philip Martin and screenwriter Stewart Harcourt have been less than completely faithful to the source material. Scenes that Christie never wrote have been added (starting right off the top with a nasty bit of business in which Poirot observes a Turkish woman being stoned for allegedly committing adultery); other bits have been somewhat rearranged, while a few characters' motivations and dispositions have changed as well, and while these are alterations that casual viewers won't notice, they are the source of dismay among those who want to see what they've read translated literally to the screen. Meanwhile, in keeping with the dark, rather violent tone, Suchet plays Poirot (a role he has portrayed more than 60 times over the last 20-plus years) as a cold, condescending, self-righteous sleuth who refers to himself in the third person and spends much of his time lurking around corners, spying and eavesdropping as he collects the information that results in a typically brilliant solution to the case--which, as Christie veterans will know, concerns the murder of one Samuel Ratchett, a heinous criminal masquerading as an obnoxious American businessman as he travels with a host of rich and royal swells on the elegant train en route from Istanbul to points west. Overall, the movie's production values are decent (especially for television), the Blu-ray transfer is excellent, and the bonus features are fine, particularly a travelogue about the real Orient Express (hosted by Suchet). But that may not be enough for Christie purists. --Sam Graham

Product Description

Poirot searches for a killer on a snowbound train

While traveling from Istanbul to London aboard the luxurious Orient Express, Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) encounters a ruthless businessman who offers him a large sum to expose the person threatening his life. Poirot declines, not caring for the man or his money. But when he is stabbed to death, the detective is determined to find the killer. With the help of an amateur sleuth (Samuel West, Van Helsing), Poirot begins to piece together the chain of events leading up to the murder.

GUEST STARS INCLUDE Eileen Atkins (Cold Mountain), Toby Jones (Frost/Nixon, Infamous), Hugh Bonneville (Iris), and Barbara Hershey (Hannah and Her Sisters)

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

28 of 32 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Not bad. Definitely not great. Has some terrible additions September 2, 2010

By Michael Fowler

Format:Blu-ray

**Contains Spoilers**

Very first scene ... irrelevant to the rest of the film.
Stoning the adulteress in Istanbul ... a strange addition that is very un-Christie. She would never have written that.
M. Bouc's accent and general demeanour ... very annoying.
Making the doctor a conspirator ... a poor addition; his attempts to distract Poirot are dumb.

This movie does not get a chance to develop the CHARACTERS, many of whom are skimmed over with the barest of participation in the film. For example, Count & Countess Andrenyi, barely in the film at all. Countess Andrenyi is Sonia Armstrong's sister, which in the context of the story is major, and yet she's barely in the film. Characterisation was a big part of Agatha Christie novels, and it just doesn't happen much here. Other than Poirot of course, the most prominent characterisations in the film are the conductor Michel, Priness Dragimiroff, and Miss Debenham.

The mindset of the movie makers appears to be "Let's retain some bits of the 1974 classic version of this movie but also let's add some zing to it by adding dark/new elements of our own."

This is by no means a bad movie. But when doing a remake of a classic, it is reasonable and fair that it be marked a little more stringently. To be sure, this is nowhere near the brilliance of Sidney Lumet's 1974 masterpiece. But having said that, it is still a good film, even if it does have me asking several times "Why on earth did they do THAT?" Occasionally there are things said that are portrayed in a more plausible context than the 1974 version of the film, but these are rare.

I don't mind the addition of having Poirot morally wrestle with his decision to let the guilty go free, as Poirot vigourously disapproved of murder, so that is very plausible. However, adding the religious element distracts from the heart of the story. In short, it's just not necessary. And it seems out of context. When it happens, it's very unexpected, but not in a good way. You kind of think "Huh???!" It feels out of whack with the rest of the film.

The scene where Ratchett tries to get Poirot to take on a job for him is very poorly done, very weak indeed. Just slapping cash on the bar with very little dialogue; that may be the weakest scene in the film. Overall it feels like this film is TRYING TOO HARD, and so a whole lot of changes have been made to try and be hip, cool, edgey, dark, whatever. For those who are interested, here are some examples of new additions in this movie ...

- The mob-rule stoning of the woman in Istanbul.
- The doctor being among the guilty party.
- The doctor being merely an obstetrician instead of a fully-fledged doctor equipped for such a case.
- Miss Debenham being the brains behind the crime instead of Mrs Hubbard.
- Princess Dragimiroff offering herself as sacrifice instead of Mrs Hubbard.
- Mrs Hubbard being very low-key instead of a nagging loudmouth.
- Poirot not accorded much respect (Bouc says mockingly "He's a Belgian" while laughing at him, among other examples).
- The investigation being intruded on instead of Poirot always in command (especially by the doctor).
- The religious element.
- Foscarelli being the boyfriend of the housemaid.
- The "international feel" isn't very present. It lacks the international grandeur this story is known for.
- Ratchett being remorseful.
- Mr Hardman is missing.
- And other scenes and lines of dialogue that come across fairly weak.

The music in the film is too often in the urgent-scary-drama-at-fever-pitch mode. It lacks light and shade, lacks lighter moments. I think that the darker moments in the film would work better if the whole film wasn't so constantly in dark mode.

The film finishes much stronger than it starts. From the time the passengers gather in the dining car and start discussing the case with Poirot, then it gathers momentum. So that's perhaps the last quarter of the film.

By the way, there's a few outdoor train scenes which are very obviously done with CGI. This is not a major turn off, but it does take away from the old-world warmth that a film like this needs.

With a brilliant 1934 novel and a brilliant 1974 original film to be measured against, this movie does okay, but not great. When David Suchet was previously asked which story he would most like to film, he answered "Murder on the Orient Express". His answer suggests that he was aware of the challenge of doing a remake of what was at the time the most successful British film of all time. So after 21 years of making this Poirot series, you can understand why they waited so long to attempt this one.

I do like this film a little more each time I watch it, and as stated earlier, when the film gets more emotive towards the end, I think that's where it gets stronger. Having said that, in the denouement of the original 1974 film where the mystery is revealed, Albert Finney's long monologue is a tour de force performance that brilliantly captures the essence of the denouement in the book. And in this current film, to have the solution delivered via a more casual conversation when they have gathered merely to keep warm does feel a little lacking.

We need to remember that Agatha Christie herself, who was usually very critical of film adaptations of her novels, loved the Sidney Lumet 1974 version of this story. She called Albert Finney's performance "wonderful" and her one small criticism of the film was that his moustache was too small. The reason we need to remember that is that it gives us a measure of what she envisaged for the story.

This is a good film that was always going to be a challenge and does fail in quite a few ways. I like it, but filmmakers trying to make their mark or be cool should perhaps pay a little more respect to the biggest selling novelist of all time, and spend more time condensing Agatha Christie's story, and less time coming up with new ideas of their own.

37 of 47 people found the following review helpful

2.0 out of 5 stars Non, non, non! July 20, 2010

By Enslowe

Format:Blu-ray

Quelle dommage! At long last, David Suchet, the best onscreen Poirot of all time, gets a chance with the famous "Murder On the Orient Express" but.. what is this? The screenplay writer and the director have decided that this cracking mystery ought to be treated like the darkest, heaviest thing ever written. Sigh. Oh dear oh dear. (Something similar was done to the great Jeremy Brett in his later years Sherlock Holmes films.) Thus we have Poirot, made up to look much older and with dark circles under his eyes, ranting and raving even more than Albert Finney and praying like a medieval pilgrim and suffering torturedly over moral dilemmas in the eyes of God (none of which is really in the book.) Um... hmm. Interesting attempt at doing something different, I guess, but then again we don't really need something different in this case. Darn, it coulda been a layup... all they had to do was be true to the book and the character like they usually do, and Suchet's version would have been the best. Instead, they went wildly off track and we get this dim mess which starts with a soldier blowing his brains out in Poirot's face and ends with the great sleuth sobbing on a railway platform in the cold gray light of dawn. What a bummer, and needlessly so. I suppose all murder mysteries have a grim premise, but that certainly isn't what makes them fun; it's the detection and the suspects and the clues and, well, the likeable detective. Not here. (True, the chilling atmosphere of the train stuck in the snow is certainly well done. Perhaps overdone.) Maybe if they had pared this one down to an hour they wouldn't have felt compelled to pad it with all this sniveling in the final act. Fortunately, they seem to have singled this particular mystery out for such treatement, and other recent films with Suchet in them do not suffer from quite this heavy handed a gloom.

18 of 24 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars Pure arrogance December 27, 2010

By amantedofado

Format:Blu-ray

As a writer, I lament the plain arrogance shown by producers, directors and screenwriters in adapting classic texts. They should by all means make changes in order to enhance the dramatic qualities of their films, but to tamper so much and to so little dramatic effect with such a well-known story is only to demonstrate their own hubris. To compound this travesty, they have managed to betray the spirit of over twenty years of magnificent Poirot adaptations with David Suchet. A major characteristic of Poirot is his bonhomie, and it is that which gives the edge to his relentless pursuits of the guilty and the judgements he passes on them. Here, there is no contrast whatsoever: Poirot is in a foul mood from start to finish, he is morbidly religious, he shows no compassion for his fellow man. That is not Poirot, that is a producer/director or screenwriter showing how edgy and clever he is. If Christie had wanted to write a dark, brooding, depressed Poirot, she would have written one. As it is, she didn't and her adapters have no right to deform her character so grotesquely.