Poirot (TV Series) The Mystery of the Blue Train (2005) User Reviews

Better then reviews would have you believe.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 28 January 2019]

I must acknowledge that when you watch this, having read the book, you will definitely be struck by the amount of changes that were made, but in all fairness it wasn't one of The Great Dame's finest works, it paled into comparison against the other train set mystery.

The story adaptation is good I thought, the story is well paced, and it features some nice characters. The story is quite dark, with some tragic themes.

My main gripe is with some of the characters, I don't think I've ever said that before about a Poirot, Lindsay Duncan plays Lady Tamplin like Eddie's long lost sister from Absolutely Fabulous, Jaime Murray's Ruth Kettering is rather poor, and even Elliot Gould I found a little off. Thank goodness for Josette Simon, who I thought was fantastic, so Charismatic, she stood out.

The direction was fine, the location work terrific. It's good, just doesn't shine like the others in this series do. 7/10

Entertaining IF you get past the changes

[tml_pohlak_13 · 8/10 · 14 March 2008]

POIROT has been cherished by Agatha Christie fans for keeping close to the original novel 9 times out of 10. For some reason, 3 of the 4 episodes this season have changed the plot until it's unrecognizable. Will the faithful Poirot ever return? Not very likely-- unfortunately, the faithful Poirot seems to have ended when Agatha Christie's daughter died. Matthew Pritchard says his grandmother wouldn't have minded the changes-- he is 99% of the time wrong, but he may have been right this time. Agatha Christie said several times that THE MYSTERY OF THE BLUE TRAIN was her worst novel ever, and she hated it. I do not share her opinion. I liked the book how it was. No changes are required if it's an Agatha Christie-- her name on the book is a guarantee that it's perfect.

The changes made in the movie are innumerable. This is a complete rewrite of the book-- it's the NEMESIS of the Poirot season. Did the screenwriter read the book? However, if you put the changes behind you and try to sit back and enjoy the movie, you may end up liking it.

Thick, extremely enjoyable mystery

[gridoon2024 · 8/10 · 23 April 2008]

In the brief making-of feature included with the DVD of this episode, the screenwriter points out that Agatha Christie considered this one of her weakest novels, and that they had taken quite a few liberties in its adaptation. Purists will probably be angry at this, but it's my guess (never having read the book, mind you) that most of the changes must have been improvements. Because the final story presented on the screen is far from Christie's worst - in fact, it is closer to her best.

Although I liked "Sad Cypress" and "The Hollow" very much, it was mostly due to the direction and performances - the mysteries, though undeniably very clever (especially in their killing methods), felt somewhat thin. The "Mystery of the Blue Train" is the exact opposite of thin: it presents a complex web of interconnected plots and subplots, and a wide variety of characters / suspects, all of them colorfully brought to life by a first-rate cast (truly, there is not one weak performance in this film). You're not even sure who is going to get bumped off until he / she does! David Suchet gets the chance to do one of his showiest "Poirot gathering all the suspects, accusing everyone and taking his sweet time before revealing the truth" sequences at the end, and he's clearly enjoying himself after the low-key performance he has given up to that point in the film. There are also some "modern" elements introduced - more cursing than before, and even some (practically unnoticeable) CGI - but somehow everything works like a charm.

Poirot - 10th season and still going strong! (***)

Terrible

[cathy-jones · 25 February 2006]

Apparently the Mystery of the Blue Train was a book that Agatha Christie disliked but I have always enjoyed the book and thought it would translate well onto the big screen. However, this production is a dud. The story and many of the characters have been changed for no apparent reason, except to pad out the running time of the film. The changes erode many character motivations to the point that I wasn't the only person watching it and saying 'What is going on?'. Why is Lady Tamplin and family on the train? why does Ruth's father become a suspect and now equipped with a new girlfriend (who in the book was consorting with Derek!), as for the plot with the loony mother/ex-wife/new girlfriend - don't ask! I don't think that a film needs to be completely faithful to a book and often changes are needed to make a book work on the screen, but changes simply for change sake doesn't work. It also alienates audiences, who are often familiar with the book. For some reason the Poirot series is at its worst when moved from home territory. Death on the Nile was the weakest of the last series also and hopefully the other Poirot production in the current season are better than the Mystery of the Blue Train.

Poirot Rides Again

[sexy_pisces_gal · 10/10 · 19 January 2006]

David Suchet returns as Belgian supersluth Hercule Poirot in this new adaptation of the Agatha Christie novels. Whilst at a party Poirot discovers that Ruth, the honourable Mrs Derek Kettering is wearing a very infamous and priceless jewel, a Ruby called the heart of fire brought for her by her devoting father, Rufus Van Aldin, who confides to Poirot he wants his daughter to divorce her husband because he is not good enough for his little girl and later ties to bribe Kettering not to contest any divorce proceedings which Derek refuses infuriating Val Aldin. Meanwhile at dinner Poirots eager eyes notice a pretty young woman staring at a wine waiter with a confused expression. Sensing that the woman is in need of assistance he intervenes the woman introduces herself as Katherine Grey, a young maid who has just been left a small fortune by an old woman she took care. Poirot offers to steer her through the trials and tribulations of a first class dinner and the two are delighted to discover they are bound for the same destination, Nice via the Blue Train. Once aboard Poirot acquaintances himself with the fellow passengers, the nice as nice Lady Tamplin, her husband Corky, and daughter Lenox, Count De La Roch and Ruth Kettering and her husband. As the train moves around Paris, Marseilles, and finally docking at Nice, the body of Ruth Kettering is found, murdered in a brutal fashion, her face smashed in. her priceless Ruby is also gone Poirot and the French detective investigate her death and discover Ruth had been having an affair with the slippery Count De La Roch. But more clues begin unfurl as Poirot and Miss Grey settle in at the villa Marguerite, the lavish Riviera home of Lady Tamplin. And it is only when Miss Grey is also nearly murdered do the question begin to answer themselves in Poirots mind.

Thoroughly enjoyable, with great actors and characters

[henry-plantagenet-04 · 8/10 · 18 December 2016]

It feels cruel. After seeing "Sad Cypress" one of the most beloved Poirot mysteries and finding it somewhat disappointing, I now really enjoy one of the more disliked episodes in the series. While not fantastic, "Blue Train" has of the things I enjoy in a mystery, and a couple of things I wasn't expecting but really took a shine to. And yes, sadly, I will spend nearly the entire review comparing it to "Sad Cypress". The plot concerns the murder of an American heiress (Jaime Murray) who is murdered on a train in the South of France (unsurprisingly, she's played by a British actress). Ironically, with this one exception, the cast is excellent. Elliot Gould is often stuck playing the same jovial part (which he does very well), but here also gets saddled with some emotional scenes, after the death of his character's daughter, and completely sells them. Lindsay Duncan and Tom Harper are dorkily hilarious as one of the strangest and yet loving couples in the shows history. James D'Arcy broods handsomely and yet strangely like-ably (he was also great in "The Moving Finger") as Ruth's ex-husband. Georgina Rylance is a very likable sidekick to David Suchet's Poirot, Roger Lloyd Pack nails the choleric detective, and Alice Eve is simply a delight. I just really enjoyed the characters and actors in this scenario. The clues were interesting, and logistically it made sense. The only weak point I think were the murderers' and their motivations'. Both characters; the secretary (Nicholas Farrell) and the maid (Bronagh Gallagher); were side-lined throughout, and while I understood where they were, I can't believe that there are two people who steal and murder just for the fun of it, and the whole denouement with Farrell trying to kill Katherine (Rylance) did not feel right. That said the exposition of the murderer and confrontation with all the suspects was masterfully orchestrated (something Sad Cypress doesn't even have). Generally, what I like so much about this one are the suspects. In Sad Cypress, there barely are any, and they're all very dour and sad. Here, they actually have lives and interact. Sad Cypress left me feeling disconnected because all the characters did was bottle up their feelings. It was a master class in repression, but it wasn't very entertaining to watch. Here, we got to see people actually act. The actors acted in both versions, but here so did the characters. I definitely enjoyed this more, but seeing the other reviews here, I don't know if I should recommend it. (Also note the way the director uses cigarette smoke obsessively in many scenes.)

Choppy

[Iain-215 · 6/10 · 6 May 2008]

As several people have already pointed out, there are many changes from the book in this adaptation and not many of them are for the best. It's actually a while since I read the book so I'm not best placed to list all the changes but I do know that there were several more people on that train in the film and I'm fairly sure that the whole 'lunatic mother' story was an addition! On the other hand, the central plot (ie motive and method of murder) remain more or less unscathed. The whole thing looks beautiful and I, for one, was not especially put out at the direction or camera-work.

Of the performances, Lindsay Duncan and Tom Harper are just delightful as Lady Tamplin and her toy boy husband (how easy it would have been to make their relationship sick-making) and Josette Simon is suitably enigmatic as Mirelle. Jaime Murray looks fantastic but turns Ruth into something of a nitwit. Georgina Rylance is lovely but slightly in danger of becoming TOO sweetly innocent as Katherine. Some of the other big names are frankly a bit disappointing.

Not the best of the Poirot films but I did get some enjoyment from it all the same - Rosamund and Corky made me smile!

Poirot Encounters Murder on a Train

[blanche-2 · 8/10 · 22 May 2011]

Of course, this isn't the first time Poirot is on a train where someone is murdered. "The Mystery of the Blue Train" is from season 10 and stars David Suchet as Poirot, Elliot Gould, Lindsay Duncan, Bronagh Gallagher, and James D'Arcy.

In this episode, Poirot works to solve the murder of Ruth Kettering, the daughter of a wealthy industrialist. She is beaten literally beyond recognition. Added to this, in order to be closer to her lover, she changed rooms with Katherine Grey, a new heiress whom Poirot has befriended. Ruth owned the brilliant Heart of Fire ruby, which is now missing - but the safe wasn't broken into. When Grey visits her relatives, she is attacked, raising the question - did the killer have the right woman? There's gambling, adultery, broke relatives and resentment as Poirot investigates the suspects further. Lindsay Duncan as Gray's suddenly attentive cousin (she's broke) is fantastic. I had the pleasure of seeing her in person in "Private Lives," and she is a wonderful actress. Suchet as usual is the perfect Poirot. I also had the privilege of seeing him in person in "Amadeus." He truly is a chameleon. Georgina Rylance is also excellent as Katherine Gray, an insecure young woman who's just inherited a fortune and now socializes with a different class of people.

The rest of the acting, frankly, wasn't fabulous - you could spot the fake American accents right away and the characters seemed put on rather than the real thing. It might have been the dialogue, it might have been the directing - I tend to think it was the latter.

I don't remember this book, so I didn't mind whatever changes there were. I enjoyed the story.

Uneven and sometimes hard to follow but gorgeously filmed with a good script and performances

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 21 May 2010]

I thoroughly enjoyed the book, it was very gripping, very compelling and fun. Story wise, this adaptation of The Mystery of the Blue Train is disappointing, the plot changes are a great many and some parts were rather hard to follow. Plus I found some of the final solution on the contrived side, and the direction flawed. Flaws aside, the locations, scenery, photography, costumes and sets are gorgeous and picturesque and the train itself is imposing. The music has real flair to it as well, the script has its amusing and thoughtful moments and I thought the acting in general was fine. David Suchet of course is exceptional, and Elliot Gould is good as Rufus. James D'Arcy is very handsome and acts well, the character of Derek Kettering is rather unlikeable at first, but later you believe that he is innocent. Georgina Rylance is sweet and alluring as Katherine, Lindsay Duncan is delightful and Jaime Murray is attractive enough as Ruth. I was not a fan though of Nicholas Farrell's Knighton, the character I felt wasn't developed that well and Farrell couldn't seem to do anything with it. Overall, an uneven adaptation but in terms of production values and some good performances it is worth seeing. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox

give me an headache

[igorlongo · 10/10 · 2 July 2006]

Well, the screenplay is faithful, even if it's quite tough and aggressively modern, but the directing is absolutely horrid!The camera floats around and give me seasickness (or ,perhaps,trainsickness) even when the convulse characters are with the feet solidly on the land.Even Suchet is hysterical,and I miss longingly his usual aplomb.The actors have no time to act because the director cuts any dialog after the first two lines.And the Tamplins are more annoying that amusing, as they are intended to be.You end the movie with the impression to having been assaulted by some train thugs, who have stolen to you the pleasure of the deep insight of human psychology very present in the last four episodes.Alas, what a pity!Not a disaster, but not certainly the best Christie TV movie.And someone is criticizing the quiet little Marples....

See Nice and Die.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 7 June 2014]

It's a full feature and skips the usual broop-de-broop saxophone theme. It begins with a crisply performed trumpet lead on "I'll Never Be The Same," a pretty torch song with an arrangement more out of the forties than the thirties. Extremely euphonious. Later on there are bits of George Gershwin and a nice Strauss waltz. Hints of Django Reinhardt. What happened to contemporary music anyway? Why is it necessary for the world to listen to lyrics about some Gangsta who wants to rip our heads off and dump terrible things into our neck cavities? I have a closet full of wide neckties. Oh, where did it all go? (Sob.)

Elliot Gould is an American millionaire (now, he would be a billionaire) whose impressionable daughter has married into the British aristocracy. But it was a mistake. The young man is a drunken, manipulative, ne'er do well. He embarrasses his wife on the dance floor, spurns a major offer from Gould to get a divorce, and gambles like a fiend.

Some clever dialog: when Gould corners the husband and accuses him of infidelity, the handsome young man replies, "Sorry, but the old chap has been hors de combat ever since I started drinking scotch with breakfast." But Gould's daughter is unfaithful too, having played doctor with another man. When her lover hits on her and she demurs, he tries subtle persuasion. "I know you retain some withered stump of affection for your husband." Someone spends his time "marinating" in another's company. "Life -- grossly overrated, I find." Nothing of this amounts to a flight of poetry, but together that's pretty good writing.

Another character is Katherine Grey, an attractive young woman who has just come into a great deal of money and is introducing herself to the posh life, alone, at the fancy party with which the episode opens. She has glistening brown calf-like eyes. She's touchingly unsophisticated. Alone, self conscious, at her table, she watches the wine steward pour a bit of the bottle into a glass, waiting for her to taste it. She isn't at all familiar with the ritual and simply sits there, politely smiling up at the steward, until Poirot intervenes and saves her. She has the kind of wide and inviting smile that melts doubt. It reminded me of my single visit to Birdland in New York when I visited the men's room. It was like an alien planet. Some smiling black dude -- much older and better dressed than I -- brushed my shoulders with a tiny broom. I had no idea what was up. When he saw how befuddled I was he did what Poirot did. "Thirty-five cents," he said in a reassuring low voice.

A slew of the usual suspects take the Blue Train to Nice. There is a murder on the train, and the unraveling of the mystery take place in the vacation spot, which is not a bad place to unravel a mystery. When I was in Nice, I stayed in the Ritz-Carlton -- for about thirty seconds in the lobby.

There is no Hastngs, no Miss Lemon, and no Inspector Japp. Poirot explains all the details of the crime to the assembled suspects. The ending is out of Anna Karenina.

Not up to usual style

[SamPamBam · 8/10 · 25 November 2020]

Camera work here is so terribly distracting one must focus on the plot intensely to follow Poirot as he unravels this mystery. Casting the horrid likes of elliot gould make matters worse, as he hams it up unmercifully. Backlit scenes, blurry visuals, one wonders what in the Wide World of Mystery were they going for...

1930s party soundtrack

[grablelisa · 7/10 · 5 October 2022]

At 53 minutes on streaming, captions say Duke Ellington. It is Sing Sing Sing, Benny Goodman's famous recording from 1937. I kept feeling confused during this episode. But the train and the beautiful scenery in Nice make it memorable. I would have liked to know more about the history of the ruby. I tried to put myself in Katherine's shoes and I don't know if I would so easily fallen in with Poirot as a companion. I'm also surprised at the French police giving Poirot the lead in the investigation. There are a lot of good actors in this episode, so many I felt like it was being set up as Orient Express lite.

Good script, wretched direction

[Erewhon · 4/10 · 1 June 2006]

It's easy to tell this latter-day batch of Poirot adventures are not being made by the production company that turned out the hour-long episodes and the first group of feature-length TV movies with David Suchet. Not only are Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon gone (along with the fine actors who played them), but so is Poirot's Arte Moderne apartment building--and any reasonable sense of time and place. These were virtues; they are sorely missed.

"Mystery of the Blue Train" has a pretty good Poirot plot with some colorful supporting players and a few effective performances, but it is so badly directed--no, ATROCIOUSLY directed--as to be a headache-inducing pain to watch. There are no establishing shots of buildings, no wide shots of ballrooms and the like, and there are dozens upon dozens of off-center closeups. Furthermore, many of the closeups are hand-held, an extremely poor choice of technique for a story set in the 1930s. The director also resorts to the very tired effects of an extraordinarily unimaginative mind: virtually every set, including some exteriors, is drenched in thick, almost impenetrable smoke. This is usually "explained" by having one or more of the characters puffing away on cigarettes--so obtrusively (including many crushed out under foot) that you begin to assume that cigarette smoking has something important to do with the plot. Especially early in the film, the director grotesquely overuses shots in or of mirrors--again so frequently that it seems that it must have an important plot explanation. In the last half, set on the Riviera, there are fewer mirror shots, but now she chooses to have blurry objects in the foreground in many, many shots. At other times, we glimpse characters in the middle distance, almost hidden by objects in the near foreground. Finally, most of this stuff--hard to see, hard to follow--is reduced further in simple watchability by being edited like a rock video. I wouldn't blame anyone who, first coming to a Suchet Poirot story with this one, swearing off ever watching another.

But ultimately, Poirot and Agatha Christie win out. Even though the gathering-of-the-suspects scene is again jaggedly edited, full of thick, opaque smoke and hampered by an overuse of extreme closeups, the story wins out over the director--who I hope never, EVER again is invited to direct an Hercule Poirot mystery.

Huge disappointment

[ivant · 25 February 2006]

I am not a terribly big fan of Agatha Christie, but "Mystery of the Blue Train" is one of her novels that I did in fact like and was therefore thrilled to hear that they've made this TV adaptation as part of the "Poirot" series with David Suchet.

Unfortunately, it was not to be... it started on the wrong foot immediately with the way it was directed--was there no one around to rein the director in? Everything seems shot in darkness, through smoke, half-obscured, half-reflected in mirrors, etc. It's often difficult to even see the faces of actors because of this.

Of course, that would probably be bearable if the screenplay adaptation wasn't so bad. It takes amazing liberties with the novel (some of which have been already mentioned in other comments) that I couldn't believe. The storyline doesn't seem to make any sense any more, and the dynamic between some of the characters has been completely changed.

In conclusion, do not go anywhere near this movie if you've liked the novel at all.

A Poirot mystery aboard the luxurious Blue Train of France

[SimonJack · 9/10 · 18 June 2019]

One of Agatha Christie's favorite milieus in which to plot a mystery is the railway system of Europe. One can understand that from the role that trains play in everyday commerce and travel there even into the 21st century. The murder in this Hercule Poirot mystery takes place aboard the Blue Train (Le Train Bleu). The luxury overnight express train ran from Calais to the French Riviera. It began its run in 1886 and continued to operate until 2003. Its heyday was the 1920s and 1930s up until World War II.

"The Mystery of the Blue Train" begins at the Park Land Hotel in London, where the film introduces a number of hotel guests who will be traveling on the Blue Train the next day, after ferrying across the English Channel. Hercule Poirot is among them. While the murder and a theft take place on the train, Poirot's solution to the mystery happens while he stays with many of the company at the Villa Marguerite above Nice. The film includes some beautiful scenery of this exceptionally beautiful location.

The film has a number of interesting characters, and all the actors plays their roles superbly. The film has more than a couple of surprise twists and as usual, Dame Agatha manages to pull the wool over one's eyes of this whodunit.

Here are some favorite lines form the film. For more dialog, see the Quotes section under this IMDb Web page of the movie.

Hercule Poirot: Mademoiselle, all one ever needs are the good manners. The rest is just silliness and snobbery valued only by bores.

Hercule Poirot: Papa Poirot. He is at your disposal.

Ruth Kettering: I know. The name does tend to just crash into the room and roll around like a grenade.

Lady Rosaline Tamplin: We're revoltingly happy here.

Lady Tamplin: Now, Katherine, monsieur, there are only two rules at the Villa Marguerite. You shall be comfortable and you shall not be hungry.

Derek Kettering: Got a fag, Poirot?

Mirelle Milesi: Life! Grossly overrated, I find.

Lady Tamplin: Why can't someone die and leave me half a million quid? I'd spend it properly. And all the right tradesmen would be rewarded and fulfilled and it would all be lively. Lenox: Darling, mummy, you're always thinking of other people.

Not as famous as that other Poirot train mystery, but still a very good whodunnit

[grantss · 8/10 · 27 March 2018]

Mrs. Ruth Kettering, wealthy heiress, is murdered on the Blue Train, travelling from Calais to Nice. Hercule Poirot happened to be on the train and is soon investigating the murder.

Not quite as famous as another Poirot train mystery, Murder On The Orient Express, this is no less intriguing. The list of suspects is long and the murderer not obvious. A good whodunnit.

In keeping with the tradition of spotting current stars in early career, this episode includes Alice Eve in its cast.

Poirot - shot like a dogme film

[crocusforever · 7/10 · 5 January 2006]

Those accustomed to the first few series of 'Agatha Christie's Poirot' or even the feature-length recent installments are in for something a bit different here. To begin with, the reliance on hand-held camera technique and lots of cuts is a little irritating but (seeing as we're inclined to persevere with whodunnits if only to discover whodunnit) you become used to it once the plot unravels and the acting improves after a ball scene at the beginning. Then, the hand-held camera and the cuts are a treat complimenting a storyline that'll keep you guessing right up until the final scene (as is the norm with Christie).

Casting the British Jaime Murray as an American woman doesn't do any favours to the production so it's just as well (spoiler here) she's killed off quite early to set 'The Mystery of the Blue Train' in motion. As usual, David Suchet's portrayal of Poirot justifies his status as 'the best Poirot', not that there have been many contenders. We've been welcoming this little fella and his grey cells into our living rooms for fifteen years now.

I've given it a seven.

American accents by Brits: HORRIBLE

[prine012478-1 · 9/10 · 7 November 2021]

Every American accent by the British absolutely suck in this series. Same accent every time.

Annunciations are overdone and deliberate while attempting casual.

Love Poirot.

remake of their own show ?

[tizzer9 · 7/10 · 6 November 2009]

The cast for this adaptation is very good, elliot gould in particular and the story is also well written, however when I watched this having been off work for a while with an injury and having watched all the repeated poirots that are constantly on I couldn't help recognising the story and even the names of the characters, so much to that end that I knew who the killer was half way through the show. This seems to me to be a longer more lavish remake of an episode called the Plymouth express from 1991 - the killer has the same name, the story is the same, only the location is different really, instead of being a cross country English train with rich English girl murdered, its transported to the Med and an American is the victim. I don't know why this was done apart from the fact they must be running out of ideas or stories.

I'd much rather see Suchet doing Murder on the Orient Express as its the one Ustinov never did and also I'd like to see his take on Dead Mans folly which Ustinov did.

one of the better late episodes

[mgl-92037 · 7/10 · 4 March 2022]

Poirot gets quite bad in the last few seasons. After the Flood is just dreadful, and even worse is the episode with Sean Pertwee. Five Little Pigs is also horrible --- despite a few good performances. I believe Blue Train succeeds better than some other episodes because the story has such a simple structure the director couldn't ruin things. The story is simple but the characters are great, and the performances excellent. Elliott Gould does a fine job playing a repellent, ruthless businessman who deeply cares about his daughter. Miss Grey was also nicely played.

All of the later episodes have excellent production values, which unfortunately gave directors the opportunity to overindulge. Blue Train escapes that fate and is rather enjoyable.

Way below par

[pninson · 4/10 · 16 June 2008]

This is one of the weakest episodes in the long-running Poirot series. I read the novel a few months ago and this film makes an absolute hash of the plot. Most of the films rearrange things and leave out subsidiary characters, and I accept these changes as necessary due to time constraints and the need for dramatic cinematic action.

Usually they don't affect the core of the story, but in this installment the script writers have essentially substituted a plot of their own. Unfortunately, it's not as good as Agatha Christie's. A prolific writer, Christie nonetheless had good instincts for avoiding repetitiousness. She knew she was to some extent a formula writer but was able to push the boundaries of that formula as far as it could go.

This story, with its muddle of added and changed characters, is pure formula. It hits all the familiar notes, but there's nothing fresh or original about the story. You've seen it all before. Suchet of course is spot on as always, but the series is showing its age here.

The editing is strange as well, with numerous rapid fadeouts that appear to be for TV commercial breaks; but there are too many of them. It's like watching an old movie on TV when they chop bits off so they can rush to commercial. It's disconcerting to see this on a feature-length DVD.

This is a by-the-numbers production that's way below par for this series. I'd recommend this for hard-core fans only.

The least of the Poirot series

[cabanaobr · 3/10 · 27 December 2007]

I am sympathetic to the darker, new Poirot; but I retain my hostility towards unnecessarily bizarre and arbitrary plot developments. The motives of the characters are totally inscrutable and the evidence, as it unfolds for the viewer, does nothing to advance the solution, which remains abrupt, arbitrary, and absurdly implausible. The end does nothing to pull the story together so that it reaches any kind of satisfactory conclusion; and Poirot seems like an insane diviner rather than a brilliant analyst of facts.

That said, the actors' performances continue to bring the characters to life, which is amazing, given the absurd positions their screenwriters put them in. The three points I award this installment are for their sake.

"If you seek corroboration, interrogate my pillow."

[bensonmum2 · 4/10 · 31 March 2008]

When the daughter of a wealthy American industrialist is murdered aboard the Blue Train from Calais to Nice, Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) is pressed into service to assist the local police in finding a killer. With plenty of suspects, an attack on another passenger, and a missing world famous ruby, Poirot has his hands full.

As a little background, it has been ages since I last read Agatha Christie's book on which this movie is based. Therefore, I am in no position to comment on its faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the source material. Instead, all I can do is comment on the story presented in the movie. Watching The Mystery of the Blue Train is like watching a tale of two movies. The first, involving the film's plot, the acting, the look, etc., is quite enjoyable. The plot unfolds nicely and the film's resolution makes sense. And I always enjoy watching Poirot gather the suspects together for a final reveal. The acting was actually a step above what I've come to expect from the Poirot series. The sets and costumes are very nicely done. I was particularly impressed with the French villa.

But as I indicated, this is a tale of two movies. What I've thus far described would have made for one of the better entries in the Poirot series. Unfortunately, the direction is PATHETIC. I don't know who decided to try to make a Hercule Poirot mystery look like an episode of NYPD Blue, but they should be drummed out of the entertainment industry immediately. There are so many hand-held camera shots that I thought I might get seasick. Why not shoot this traditional, grand story in a more traditional style? The editing doesn't help matters any. It's all MTV-style quick cuts that do not lend themselves well to what should have been a slow-burn, drawing room style mystery. It's unfortunate that the direction and editing have made The Mystery of the Blue Train almost unwatchable.

Awful adaptation, nothing to do with the book

[hermione47 · 1/10 · 12 January 2006]

For some reason I can't quite figure out, I've always preferred this book to the admittedly superior "Murder on The Orient Express", maybe it's because it is lighter in tone and with a central love story that is quite moving and unglamorous. Derek Kettering falls for Katharine Grey, a woman of charm and moderate beauty, even though past her prime. The book consists of several interweaving stories all centered around a famous gem once owned by the Tsar's family. Exotic dancers, international thieves, American millionaires, the French Riviera, a reluctant English rose heiress, the book has it all. It's lurid, it's gripping, it's great fun! The film instead is just a muddle. The scriptwriters decided to change a few things about the relationship between the main characters,which were of paramount importance for the story's structure. Derek is now "in love with his wife", Mireille is a black (!!!) dancer with an illicit affair with Mr Van Aldin (!!!!) and Lady Tamplin turns up on the train (!!!!!). Why, oh why? At the end, I couldn't give a damn for any one of the characters... Incredibly bad acting, weird accents, too many plots ending nowhere... Don't bother, unless you are a dye hard fan.