I am not sure why Hollywood keeps remaking and remaking (hello Lion King) films. Well, I suppose it has to do with taking cash from simple folks and a lack of ideas but how about a minor nod to integrity and art, folks? Get some of the latter and stop making and remaking please.
Murder On The Orient Express is as needed in a new film as yet another trashy tattoo on a footballer or another Miley Cyrus affair, er marriage...
Specifically the acting is bad.. the girl from Star Wars should just throw in the towel and the director has forgone colors in favor of grey all over.
SIgh.
877 Reviews
Hello. We Are Out Of Ideas said Hollywood
chinese-landlord-for-japan21 March 2020
Another remake.
Why didn't Agatha Christie write the same book six times?
Badly written, mechanically acted and some of the worst cinematography I have seen all year. A boring adaptation of an older novel that every generation is already familiar with
The Only Mystery Here Is Why They Remade This Story
azcftg14 December 2019
There is no reason for this film. It was quite dull with a strange blue tint throughout. Could it be the result of a digital shot?
I lied. There is another mystery. Who thinks financing these boring stories with silly actors and worse actresses is a good idea?
There is another version of this movie out there. I remember watching it as a child. I am sure that is a better bet.
I lied. There is another mystery. Who thinks financing these boring stories with silly actors and worse actresses is a good idea?
There is another version of this movie out there. I remember watching it as a child. I am sure that is a better bet.
Shock! Horror!!! Gasp!!!!!
rahuldyllon7 May 2019
Who knew?? Not every (any) film needs to be remade and remade and remade. Don't make a film if you have no ideas. That is how it works!
This film was terrible. It was dull in script and visuals and also made the boring and vapid morals seem even more tired.
What I also suggest is that the eye for an eye stance is immoral and wrong. One crime does not deserve another. It is understood that Poirot brings the set of criminals to justice, but let's not assume that revenge is justified.
What I also suggest is that the eye for an eye stance is immoral and wrong. One crime does not deserve another. It is understood that Poirot brings the set of criminals to justice, but let's not assume that revenge is justified.
Agatha Christie made boring!
anthemlove6 December 2019
How can they make Agatha Christie boring and drab and monochromatic??
Wow.
They should have spent more time with shots of Palestine and Turkey to make this film more interesting. It is so boring and dull.
May I suggest throwing in the towel perpetual remakers?
Wow.
They should have spent more time with shots of Palestine and Turkey to make this film more interesting. It is so boring and dull.
May I suggest throwing in the towel perpetual remakers?
Very Dull Cinematography
jakobialvi14 October 2019
Difficult to Review
WylieJJordan10 November 2017
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.
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.
Everyone Has Egg On Their Faces
romerocaisyn15 September 2019
The director for attempting yet another unwanted remake and for hiring the masculine-haired Star Wars dreck so-called actress.
The actors and actresses for showing they have no other offers and for showing up on this set.
The tale of a trip that begins in Palestine and grinds to a halt is a metaphor for the film itself.
Let's Hope The 2022 Remake Is Better
jibreelzailen10 September 2019
Hollywood's remake and sequel cycle is accelerating (moral and creative bankruptcy) so there will be another one of these in 2022 with a sequel called Murder On The Far Orient Express coming in 2024 (surely).
With that said, as expected this film sucked. It is a remake (sigh), has the chick from kiddy Star Wars (Daisy something - sigh) and Cruz used to be pretty but she is ugly now (or here).
In other words no reason to watch
With that said, as expected this film sucked. It is a remake (sigh), has the chick from kiddy Star Wars (Daisy something - sigh) and Cruz used to be pretty but she is ugly now (or here).
In other words no reason to watch
From The Vast Agatha Christie Collection
duffjerroldorg10 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Why remake Murder On The Orient Express when there are so many titles from Agatha Christie's bibliography that have never been made. Specially this one, directed in 1974 by Sidney Lumet - a genius at having many great actors within a confined space, think 12 Angry Men - with a cast that was to die for. The 2017 Kenneth Brannagh couldn't survive the comparison and it doesn't. I missed the elegance and the wit. Albert Finney got an Oscar nomination for his Hercules Poirot here Kenneth Brannagh's mustache will get all the attention as well as Johnny Depp's incomprehensible performance. Then, of course, the score. The original Richard Rodney Bennett became a classic. So, I ask you, was this necessary?
How Agatha Christie was brutally ruined
m-arsic070810 February 2018
This movie is actually a piece of art. It takes a really true artist to ruin Agatha Christie at her best and a Dench-lead cast and come up with a boring Branagh soliloquy. What he has made out of Poirot, it's just unbelievable. I don't remember him being described as a walrus in any of the books where he also has converstations with all involved so that readers/audience can participate somehow. In this movie it's just Branagh, he knows it all, he sees it all and he understands it all. Out of thin air. Such wonderful actors were gathered for this monstrosity and it felt as is they were there only a set for Branagh. And oh yes, when talking about scenery - which ignorant fool came up with alps between Vinkovci and Brod??????? The thing is, there is nothing going on in this film, no suspension building up, no substance. It is just a pale vessel for Kenneth Branagh to try shining.
Watch 1974 Lumet version. And from what i hear, it's going to be a sequel, Death on the Nile. Watch 1978 John Guillermin version. Branagh should.
My review does not contain spoilers, there's not enough substance to spoil anything.
A Poirot for the clinicaly dumb
man149 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Ever since I heard that Kenneth Brannagh was going to direct, produce and star in this movie that I dreaded this would happen, and it did - Brannagh is so self centered that he made the whole film about himself, turning the rest of the cast into mere decorations. He managed to turn this Christie's masterpiece into a self agrandising piece of crap. Let's just say that it makes the 2002 version with Alfred Molina look like a masterpiece in comparison - and that's saying a lot, because it was simply one of the worst films I'd ever seen.
I don't know who the hell Brannagh is supposed to be playing, but it sure as hell isn't Poirot - not the one Agatha Christie wrote about. Anyone who has read her books about the egg shapped belgian sleuth - and I have, all of them, more than once - knows that he's nothing like the buffon Brannagh plays in the movie: Poirot walking on top of the train!?? Going beneath the train!?? Poirot willingly plunging his shoe into a pile of excrements just so both his shoes get equally dirty, all in the name of simetry!?? For the love of all that is holy! Poirot would have an apoplexy if only one of his shoes got accidently dirty with sh@t, can you imagine him doing it on purpose!? And what about that freaking mustache? It's so damn big it becomes distracting. Poirot's mustache is supposed to be big, yes, but not gigantic! And what's with the fly in his chin? Poirot doesn't have one, what was Brannagh thinking? Oh yeah, I forgot, he wasn't. And don't let me get started on the annoyingly fake french accent he uses throughout all the freaking movie - he even mispronounces repeatedly the plural for egg (oeufs), and Poirot is supposed to be a french speaking belgian!
Also, on this film Poirot doesn't have conversations with people, as he does in the novel, he simply delivers endless monologues, conjuring facts out of thin air (or out of his ass, is more likely), things he couldn't possibly have known. He looks more like a witch than a detective. And he's everywhere, in every freaking scene. Ego much, Brannagh?
Brannagh's direction is so pedestrian it hurts. All those freaking camera angles - shooting the damn train from every possible position, shooting the action literaly from above, - were so ridiculous and pretensious, it's beyond words. It's the worst kind of in your face grandstanding directing you could get.
The screenplay is beyond bad - it completely butchers one of Christie's masterpieces by adding sex and violence that wasn't there, dumbing down her expert character development and plot, and adding artificial diversity just to please the hollywwod pc bullshit brigade. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of diversity, but in movies that take place in na era where diversity exists, like today or the future. But in a story that takes place in 1934, in the most luxurious train in the world? Really? Can you really see a black doctor travelling in first class on the Orient Express in 1934? As much as I hate it, the answer can only be one to anyone familiar with the world's history: hell no! Nevertheless, that's what you have: an amalgamation of two characters into one black british doctor in love with a white middle class english girl, all for the sake of hitting the audience over the head with not so subtle references to the terrible evils of racism. If only Hollywood would get it in their thick heads that audiences only want to be told a good story, not to be preached at every time they go to watch a movie...
In conclusion, this is Poirot for the clinicaly dumb. You want to see the real Poirot, as he should be played? Watch the ITV series "Agatha Christie's Poirot" with David Suchet - he IS Poirot, period. Want to watch the best version of this story? Watch the 1974 version, directed by Sidney Lumet and learn how to correctly adapt Agatha Christie. But better yet, buy the freaking novel and read it - you still know what reading an actual book is like, don't you? Either way, do yourself a favor and stay away from this piece of garbage (I'm giving it three stars for the sets and costumes, for Judi Dench and for Johnny Deep, that's it).
A Thoughtless Remake
borromeot25 February 2018
Sidney Lumet directed this Agatha Christie classic back in 1974. Albert Finney played Poirot and he was delicious and got an Oscar nomination for it. The rest of the cast was a cohesive group of heavyweights from Ingrid Bergman to Vanessa Redgrave, from Sean Connery to John Gielgud it also had a period reconstruction in scrumptious detail, wit, elegance and an infectious score. None of it is present in this new incarnation. None of it. No, the new version reeks of thoughtlessness and CGI. The actors seem to have been invited, not to play characters, but to watch Kenneth Brannagh act.
It's JJ Abrams' Squeeze
ijm-1308824 April 2020
For Losers Who Demand Nothing New
Jimmy-macintosh28 March 2020
I am so sorry that for the first time in my life, I walked out of a movie. This was so disappointing. As a young father, every moment I spend outside of my house without my child has to be justified, and after about an hour of this remake, I could not suppress my conscience anymore, and walked out to drive home and spend more time with my child. This piece of garbage had no character development, horrible hue, basically ruined poirot's and turned him into a hobo. I am so frustrated right now. They've ruined Murder On The Orient Express.
To the director: at least next time put a thin girl with a deep cleavage or short skirt or something!!! in your movies so I do not despise myself for wasting time and paying $15.
To the director: at least next time put a thin girl with a deep cleavage or short skirt or something!!! in your movies so I do not despise myself for wasting time and paying $15.
Branagh's Ego Trip
Vodmoskva11 March 2018
As director and leading actor, Branagh has turned this movie into one of the most excessive, narcissistic films ever made. With so many great actors and actresses, one is left wondering why they would waste their time to be in this production. The director gives none of them a chance to shine. Branagh's mustache is the star of the show and, unfortunately, the only part of the movie I'm likely to remember. With so much star power, I made the mistake of not reading reviews first. If I had, I probably would have avoided this terrible ego trip. Most viewers would do well to skip this one.
Unfortunately Mediocre.
youngluke-1318911 November 2017
When I first saw the cast line-up for this film, I thought it was going to be a masterpiece. Kenneth Branagh, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp etc. The list goes on. But, it goes to show that a brilliant cast cannot make-up for mediocre.
I'm being careful to avoid spoilers here! The film starts with a relatively entertaining light-hearted action sequence which brings Poirot to the forefront of the story-line. But, it quickly goes downhill from here. We are then introduced to the rest of the cast and we quickly learn they all have their own stories.
After this though, the film becomes incredibly dull and slow. This remake is completely unnecessary and tedious
I have only given it 5 stars because I have significant respect for Agatha Christie's Poirot and it is only the base story-line which rescues it. Boring acting and predictable plot-twists.
Most definitely mediocre.
I'm being careful to avoid spoilers here! The film starts with a relatively entertaining light-hearted action sequence which brings Poirot to the forefront of the story-line. But, it quickly goes downhill from here. We are then introduced to the rest of the cast and we quickly learn they all have their own stories.
After this though, the film becomes incredibly dull and slow. This remake is completely unnecessary and tedious
I have only given it 5 stars because I have significant respect for Agatha Christie's Poirot and it is only the base story-line which rescues it. Boring acting and predictable plot-twists.
Most definitely mediocre.
This Version Is A Train Wreck
ecastrodesign6 November 2017
If you have any affection for Sidney Lumet's 1974's stellar version of "Murder On the Orient Express", do not bother watching this new version, you will be very disappointed. Even the poster reflects an uninteresting tone, the font used is modern and lacks any sense of style.
Kenneth Branagh is a great director and actor that has given us some memorable films, unfortunately "Murder On the Orient Express" isn't one of them.
At last night's screening of "Murder On the Orient Express" I had to use the restroom after about 40 minutes. As I reentered the theater the person entering with me asked me "Do you think this movie will ever get started?" I said "I don't know; I guess we'll have to see." It caught fire way to late, in about the last 20 minutes.
Indeed, the movie had a painfully slow start, with a completely overproduced prologue that seemed quite unnecessary. The introduction of the characters is messy and it becomes rather confusing as to who they are. The cast is full of great actors, but so few are able to "shine" in this production.
Kenneth Branagh is an interesting Hercule Poirot, he seems to be trying way too hard, and for me somehow he never "owned it." The extremely grotesque mustache seemed to get in the way
Michelle Pfeiffer, as Mrs. Hubbard is lackluster and quite flat, until the last 20 minutes where she does get a chance to shine, but by then it's too late, but it's not her fault.
Derek Jacobi, one of our greatest actors is so misdirected in this version that he delivers an insipid performance. Penelope Cruz walks through a part that gained Ingrid Bergman an Oscar in the original, again not their fault.
Interestingly enough, it is Johnny Depp who gives the best performance. He embodies his character with the right amount of vile corruptness, and sleaziness that brings life to the screen. He also has the most interesting costumes in the movie.
Judi Dench is elegant and funny but her companion played by Olivia Coleman, who usually turns in stellar performances is totally uninteresting here, again not her fault.
The production is indeed rich and elegant in its production design, and cinematography. The costumes however are fine, but lack a certain panache and glamour we have grown to admire in past Agatha Christie films, such as those designed by Tony Walton, and Anthony Powell. Alexandra Byrne is an extraordinary designer, but somehow it feels like the concept was to be subtle and "real". She needed to be bold and adventurous like her work on the "Elizabeth" films with Cate Blanchette.
The musical score vacillates from very generic, to frantic and never finds the right tone, never providing a sense of mystery and suspense. Only when true vintage songs are incorporated does the atmosphere come alive.
Kenneth Branagh is such a gifted filmmaker, it is sad to see this film fall short. He is in almost every frame, perhaps he would have crafted a better film if he was not in it. As the conductor of this train, he did not provide an elegant journey with wit and great character development for one of Agatha Christie's finest stories.
Kenneth Branagh is a great director and actor that has given us some memorable films, unfortunately "Murder On the Orient Express" isn't one of them.
At last night's screening of "Murder On the Orient Express" I had to use the restroom after about 40 minutes. As I reentered the theater the person entering with me asked me "Do you think this movie will ever get started?" I said "I don't know; I guess we'll have to see." It caught fire way to late, in about the last 20 minutes.
Indeed, the movie had a painfully slow start, with a completely overproduced prologue that seemed quite unnecessary. The introduction of the characters is messy and it becomes rather confusing as to who they are. The cast is full of great actors, but so few are able to "shine" in this production.
Kenneth Branagh is an interesting Hercule Poirot, he seems to be trying way too hard, and for me somehow he never "owned it." The extremely grotesque mustache seemed to get in the way
Michelle Pfeiffer, as Mrs. Hubbard is lackluster and quite flat, until the last 20 minutes where she does get a chance to shine, but by then it's too late, but it's not her fault.
Derek Jacobi, one of our greatest actors is so misdirected in this version that he delivers an insipid performance. Penelope Cruz walks through a part that gained Ingrid Bergman an Oscar in the original, again not their fault.
Interestingly enough, it is Johnny Depp who gives the best performance. He embodies his character with the right amount of vile corruptness, and sleaziness that brings life to the screen. He also has the most interesting costumes in the movie.
Judi Dench is elegant and funny but her companion played by Olivia Coleman, who usually turns in stellar performances is totally uninteresting here, again not her fault.
The production is indeed rich and elegant in its production design, and cinematography. The costumes however are fine, but lack a certain panache and glamour we have grown to admire in past Agatha Christie films, such as those designed by Tony Walton, and Anthony Powell. Alexandra Byrne is an extraordinary designer, but somehow it feels like the concept was to be subtle and "real". She needed to be bold and adventurous like her work on the "Elizabeth" films with Cate Blanchette.
The musical score vacillates from very generic, to frantic and never finds the right tone, never providing a sense of mystery and suspense. Only when true vintage songs are incorporated does the atmosphere come alive.
Kenneth Branagh is such a gifted filmmaker, it is sad to see this film fall short. He is in almost every frame, perhaps he would have crafted a better film if he was not in it. As the conductor of this train, he did not provide an elegant journey with wit and great character development for one of Agatha Christie's finest stories.
Never Liked Keira Knightley
Jeorj-Euler19 June 2020
It's cold and boring, as no story should be.
Yes, of course they take remake and call it a coup of scenes Poirot is rather static and drowsy. And, that 't stops this being a good movie.
Way worse than the 70s adaptation or the BBC series, is it even worse than David Suchet, that i'm sure. Some gibberish here.
If you like Keira Knightley (what's wrong with you?) watch it. She is like Julia Stiles here and dating a rapper :)
Yes, of course they take remake and call it a coup of scenes Poirot is rather static and drowsy. And, that 't stops this being a good movie.
Way worse than the 70s adaptation or the BBC series, is it even worse than David Suchet, that i'm sure. Some gibberish here.
If you like Keira Knightley (what's wrong with you?) watch it. She is like Julia Stiles here and dating a rapper :)
Why did they bother?
tm-sheehan8 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Why did Kenneth Branagh want to make a third version of this classic Agatha Christie story knowing remakes of classic films rarely are successful?
The previous two versions the film in 1974 with Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot and the 2010 television version with David Suchet are both superb.
If you haven't seen either you probably may enjoy this as I don't criticise the acting or production . It's an interesting cast I enjoyed Michelle Pfeiffer in the role of Caroline Hubbard so classily played in the original by Lauren Bacall and Branagh gives a credible performance as Poirot.
What I missed was the elegance of the original the original score by Richard Rodney Bennett is one of my all time favourite film scores ,used so evocatively in the original film it gave the Orient Express an identity motif forever etched in film history.
The music score in this attempt is bland and the song at the end credits so saccharine sweet and forgettable I've forgotten it already.
If you make a remake film that's so well known you can't help comparing the original cast and in 1974 we had Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall , Dame Wendy Huller , Richard Widmark, Sean Connery, John Gielgud , Rachel Roberts and Vanessa Redgrave to name a few , yet not one of the new cast including Dame Judy Dench eclipses any of the performances of the original film . The costumes and sets are very good in this version but again in 1974 even without blue screens and cgi effects the elegance and luxury of the original is not improved with this version. So to me the good performances and production of this movie were wasted on this expensive film and the tweaking of the story line was totally unnecessary and in one instance concerning the Caroline Hubbard role ridiculous.
Without giving anything away or spoiling it for audiences who haven't seen the original, apart from recommending the 1974 version to this one I was horrified at the hint at the end of the movie that Kenneth Branagh may remake "Death on the Nile"I sincerely hope not. What next will we a have Kenneth Branagh remake of Gone With The Wind starting himself as Rhett Butler and Anne Hathaway as Scarlett?
The previous two versions the film in 1974 with Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot and the 2010 television version with David Suchet are both superb.
If you haven't seen either you probably may enjoy this as I don't criticise the acting or production . It's an interesting cast I enjoyed Michelle Pfeiffer in the role of Caroline Hubbard so classily played in the original by Lauren Bacall and Branagh gives a credible performance as Poirot.
What I missed was the elegance of the original the original score by Richard Rodney Bennett is one of my all time favourite film scores ,used so evocatively in the original film it gave the Orient Express an identity motif forever etched in film history.
The music score in this attempt is bland and the song at the end credits so saccharine sweet and forgettable I've forgotten it already.
If you make a remake film that's so well known you can't help comparing the original cast and in 1974 we had Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall , Dame Wendy Huller , Richard Widmark, Sean Connery, John Gielgud , Rachel Roberts and Vanessa Redgrave to name a few , yet not one of the new cast including Dame Judy Dench eclipses any of the performances of the original film . The costumes and sets are very good in this version but again in 1974 even without blue screens and cgi effects the elegance and luxury of the original is not improved with this version. So to me the good performances and production of this movie were wasted on this expensive film and the tweaking of the story line was totally unnecessary and in one instance concerning the Caroline Hubbard role ridiculous.
Without giving anything away or spoiling it for audiences who haven't seen the original, apart from recommending the 1974 version to this one I was horrified at the hint at the end of the movie that Kenneth Branagh may remake "Death on the Nile"I sincerely hope not. What next will we a have Kenneth Branagh remake of Gone With The Wind starting himself as Rhett Butler and Anne Hathaway as Scarlett?
Unnecessary remake.
postmortem-books5 November 2017
I am loathe to put the boot in to any film but the barrage of publicity for this, plastered all over the BBC news and chat shows - Graham Norton and Andrew Marr interviewing the phalanx of "stars" in a suitable subservient way - has pushed this reviewer over the edge. It is a film that didn't need a remake since the original was perfectly acted and nuanced. Perhaps that is half the problem - I know the "solution" and therefore the denouement is no surprise- but there is something more deeply flawed with this movie. Firstly - that moustache. Ridiculous and in the end it becomes something that you stare at and wonder just why something so outrageously stupid would NOT get in the way of what words the actor is actually saying. You stop listening and just try and see where it is stuck on. Branagh stomps around the various scenes like Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia (even down to walking along the top of the snow-covered carriage as if he was king of the castle) and then addresses the suspects in a scene that is reminiscent of The Last Supper painting. Everywhere he goes everyone knows him. Absolutely everyone. The opening scenes in Jerusalem are unnecessary and only serve to raise Branagh/Poirot into God like status where the population of the city are happy to take his word and trample a suspect policeman to death. No jury, no trial, lynch mob rules. All of which seems to bother the guardian of justice not one jot.
Cut to the train - at last. We hear that the train is full and that Poirot will have to share a cabin for at least one night. As we discover that there are just 12 passengers on the whole train I wondered what happened to all the other empty berths on the other carriages. Let's just pass over that one. We are now introduced to the various characters. I don't know how much these stars got paid for this movie but boy, apart from Michelle Pfeiffer, they don't have too many words to say. The main action is sitting around looking suspiciously at each other. Depp is mostly unintelligible evidenced by his recent performance on the Graham Norton show where he found it difficult to string two words together. It is only Branagh who has the dialogue - and he works it as hard as he can into some kind of Shakespearean dialogue. Judi Dench plays the part Wendy Hiller took in the 1974 film. I know Dench is supposed to be the public's "favourite" but Hiller's sneering haughtiness will remain one of the highlights of the earlier film long after this one is forgotten.
In the novel and the 1974 film the train gets stuck in a drift. Here it is struck by an avalanche and teeters on a wooden viaduct. Ain't CGI wonderful? The engine is derailed but never fear he comes a gang of ten workers who will dig away the snow and pull a 100 ton engine back on to the tracks - with their bare hands. Marvellous.
And the music score? Possibly the most disappointing part of the whole film when one considers the classic Richard Rodney Bennett score for the 1974 film. Patrick Doyle's offering is just insipid and uninspired. The closing credits roll with some vapid pop song burbling away in the background.
Well, if you've never seen the 1974 film and you don't know the ending you may enjoy this but perhaps you should locate that earlier film and wait for this to end up on the £3 shelf at Tesco. It would appear, to judge by the final quip by Poirot in the film that Branagh is planning to redo Death on the Nile. God help us.
Cut to the train - at last. We hear that the train is full and that Poirot will have to share a cabin for at least one night. As we discover that there are just 12 passengers on the whole train I wondered what happened to all the other empty berths on the other carriages. Let's just pass over that one. We are now introduced to the various characters. I don't know how much these stars got paid for this movie but boy, apart from Michelle Pfeiffer, they don't have too many words to say. The main action is sitting around looking suspiciously at each other. Depp is mostly unintelligible evidenced by his recent performance on the Graham Norton show where he found it difficult to string two words together. It is only Branagh who has the dialogue - and he works it as hard as he can into some kind of Shakespearean dialogue. Judi Dench plays the part Wendy Hiller took in the 1974 film. I know Dench is supposed to be the public's "favourite" but Hiller's sneering haughtiness will remain one of the highlights of the earlier film long after this one is forgotten.
In the novel and the 1974 film the train gets stuck in a drift. Here it is struck by an avalanche and teeters on a wooden viaduct. Ain't CGI wonderful? The engine is derailed but never fear he comes a gang of ten workers who will dig away the snow and pull a 100 ton engine back on to the tracks - with their bare hands. Marvellous.
And the music score? Possibly the most disappointing part of the whole film when one considers the classic Richard Rodney Bennett score for the 1974 film. Patrick Doyle's offering is just insipid and uninspired. The closing credits roll with some vapid pop song burbling away in the background.
Well, if you've never seen the 1974 film and you don't know the ending you may enjoy this but perhaps you should locate that earlier film and wait for this to end up on the £3 shelf at Tesco. It would appear, to judge by the final quip by Poirot in the film that Branagh is planning to redo Death on the Nile. God help us.
This Is A Must Ignore
jeorg-euler-new-profile21 June 2020
Nothing to see here. Everyone already knows the story and the outcome.
Strangely the screen was so blue and dull the whole time. I am not sure if they tried to project an olden feeling. No pretty women showing skin. Everyone is almost dressed in Little House On The Prairie style.
No quality.
Garbage - review with spoilers
Barbara-412 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to see Murder on the Orient Express, check out the 1974 version starring Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot. It is a wonderful movie, very close to the book. And guess what.... spoilers...
In this movie...Hercule Poirot does not get attacked by *any* of the suspects, still less shot by one of them who also confesses to the murder.
Apparently Brannagh thought modern day audiences couldn't sit through a murder mystery without 3 fist fights - and a shooting.
Then of course there's the political correctness. It's set in the right time period, the 1930s, but the doctor who has nothing to do with the crime has been morphed with Arbuthnot, one of the killers - and is now black.
I suppose that's okay, if it's true that one black man per medical class is allowed in, in 1930s England...but it's just dumb - and the fact that he actually shoots Poirot - when no matter who he may be, there's no evidence against him or the white woman he's in love with - is just stupid.
Then there's the most egregious bit - the opening where an Iman, a Rabbi and a Priest are accused of stealing a valuable relic at the Wailing Wall where thousands of people of different ethnicities are waiting. And of course it isn't one of these three religious people - no, it's the head of the British police who steals it in order to foment discontent and cement British rule, apparently. Stupid stupid stupid.
Then there's the fact that Poirot has been turned into Mr. Monk. He steps into a pile of dung with one foot. Poirot is a neat freak, and a clean freak, not a 'balance' freak. There is no way in hell he'd step into the dung with his *other* foot, to balance everything out. Just stupid.
The actors do excellent jobs with what they're given. Unfortunately what they're given is awful. I give 5 stars for the performances, and that's it.
In this movie...Hercule Poirot does not get attacked by *any* of the suspects, still less shot by one of them who also confesses to the murder.
Apparently Brannagh thought modern day audiences couldn't sit through a murder mystery without 3 fist fights - and a shooting.
Then of course there's the political correctness. It's set in the right time period, the 1930s, but the doctor who has nothing to do with the crime has been morphed with Arbuthnot, one of the killers - and is now black.
I suppose that's okay, if it's true that one black man per medical class is allowed in, in 1930s England...but it's just dumb - and the fact that he actually shoots Poirot - when no matter who he may be, there's no evidence against him or the white woman he's in love with - is just stupid.
Then there's the most egregious bit - the opening where an Iman, a Rabbi and a Priest are accused of stealing a valuable relic at the Wailing Wall where thousands of people of different ethnicities are waiting. And of course it isn't one of these three religious people - no, it's the head of the British police who steals it in order to foment discontent and cement British rule, apparently. Stupid stupid stupid.
Then there's the fact that Poirot has been turned into Mr. Monk. He steps into a pile of dung with one foot. Poirot is a neat freak, and a clean freak, not a 'balance' freak. There is no way in hell he'd step into the dung with his *other* foot, to balance everything out. Just stupid.
The actors do excellent jobs with what they're given. Unfortunately what they're given is awful. I give 5 stars for the performances, and that's it.
A train wreck ruining a 1974 Classic
warreneckstein10 November 2017
If you have never seen the 1974 original..you may want to see this, may that is. If you HAVE seen the 1974 original, which I refer to as a CLASSIC, stay as far away as you can from any theater showing this waste of time. The original version, directed by the awesome Sidney Lumet and starring the brilliant Albert Finney (an Oscar nominee) as Poirot, was a masterful piece with great writing, directing and a cast that couldn't be beat!! And this new version, Directed by ego-magic Branagh, and starring a so-so cast, with some stellar actors, all being decimated by this production is downright tragic. From the opening piece, set in Istanbul which has nothing to do with anything, with regard to the plot, till it's exceptionally tedious laughable end, taking place in a tunnel in a snow covered mountain, you just won't believe your eyes.
The 74 original showed the opening part of the mystery story, which foretold all, but here that investment comes way in the middle of the things, where it has no place, and after so much disinterest has already occurred. Branagh hams it up, takes all the scenes, gives no space for anyone else to breathe, let along give any type of performance, then appears to be almost clairvoyant, as he seems to figure everything out through thin air. Basically because he never has any legitimate conversation with any of the major characters to determine what happened and why. Oh yes, he's the mystic seer. Maybe stolen from a 1960 Twilight Zone episode. No, more he is ego-centric and arrogant Branagh who can't stand being out of the limelight. You're in the limelight now, Kenny....you screwed up a major production and were all laughing at you, not with you. Arrogance reigns
The use of totally unnecessary CGI is annoying and silly, the action scenes are dull, tedious, pointless, adding nothing to the plot. The plot, for what it is is convoluted. Never really explained. In the original we were given clues, had ideas, questions, we could follow along. Not here. It's as if they made this thinking EVERYONE knows all the answers, and so they skip numerous (and I mean numerous) plot points..but again, the mystic seer, with the most stupid looking and idiotic mustache in history, knows all. Watching this flick, you'll wish Poirot got knifed, instead of Mr Ratchett.
Plot devices that all fail, where do I start, the opening wasted scene, Poirot measuring the size of his hard boiled eggs.(oh, please) A avalanche comes down and stops the train, but oh yes, only derailed the front engine, not the rest of the train, which it certainly would have done. People firing guns at each other, but why? Racial issues being brought up about skin colors and nationalities. And this is entertainment? What were these people thinking?
To my knowledge Branagh is a Shakespeare lover, let me quote this.."How much did revile this film,let me count the ways". I could go on, but I shall not.
The 1974 version ran 127 minutes, this one runs 114 minutes and feel terminally longer. I squirmed and squirmed waiting for it to end. The music score, non-existent. Star turns, none to be found, excitement in the plot, 0. That about sums it up.
I simply say this, with $$$ as tight as they are, we should only be subjected ourselves to worthy films, especially when they are overblown remarks. The 1974 original is avail on DVD and in the UK and foreign markets even in a nice blu-ray version. My suggestion, spend your money on that and do not support this type of overblown ego-driven dribble.
Bye, bye Branagh, you made no friends with this tripe. You do not work much and it's understandable to see why. I read a UK review earlier that bashed this flick out of the World...good for them, they know junk when they see it. And now, so do I.
For me, I'll stick with the original anyway. As a matter of fact, I'll go and watch it now and wash this toilet water taste from my mouth, and this film from my memory
The 74 original showed the opening part of the mystery story, which foretold all, but here that investment comes way in the middle of the things, where it has no place, and after so much disinterest has already occurred. Branagh hams it up, takes all the scenes, gives no space for anyone else to breathe, let along give any type of performance, then appears to be almost clairvoyant, as he seems to figure everything out through thin air. Basically because he never has any legitimate conversation with any of the major characters to determine what happened and why. Oh yes, he's the mystic seer. Maybe stolen from a 1960 Twilight Zone episode. No, more he is ego-centric and arrogant Branagh who can't stand being out of the limelight. You're in the limelight now, Kenny....you screwed up a major production and were all laughing at you, not with you. Arrogance reigns
The use of totally unnecessary CGI is annoying and silly, the action scenes are dull, tedious, pointless, adding nothing to the plot. The plot, for what it is is convoluted. Never really explained. In the original we were given clues, had ideas, questions, we could follow along. Not here. It's as if they made this thinking EVERYONE knows all the answers, and so they skip numerous (and I mean numerous) plot points..but again, the mystic seer, with the most stupid looking and idiotic mustache in history, knows all. Watching this flick, you'll wish Poirot got knifed, instead of Mr Ratchett.
Plot devices that all fail, where do I start, the opening wasted scene, Poirot measuring the size of his hard boiled eggs.(oh, please) A avalanche comes down and stops the train, but oh yes, only derailed the front engine, not the rest of the train, which it certainly would have done. People firing guns at each other, but why? Racial issues being brought up about skin colors and nationalities. And this is entertainment? What were these people thinking?
To my knowledge Branagh is a Shakespeare lover, let me quote this.."How much did revile this film,let me count the ways". I could go on, but I shall not.
The 1974 version ran 127 minutes, this one runs 114 minutes and feel terminally longer. I squirmed and squirmed waiting for it to end. The music score, non-existent. Star turns, none to be found, excitement in the plot, 0. That about sums it up.
I simply say this, with $$$ as tight as they are, we should only be subjected ourselves to worthy films, especially when they are overblown remarks. The 1974 original is avail on DVD and in the UK and foreign markets even in a nice blu-ray version. My suggestion, spend your money on that and do not support this type of overblown ego-driven dribble.
Bye, bye Branagh, you made no friends with this tripe. You do not work much and it's understandable to see why. I read a UK review earlier that bashed this flick out of the World...good for them, they know junk when they see it. And now, so do I.
For me, I'll stick with the original anyway. As a matter of fact, I'll go and watch it now and wash this toilet water taste from my mouth, and this film from my memory
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
