Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
685 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
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?
241 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Difficult to Review
jojo-acapulco10 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.
215 out of 293 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
155 out of 216 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
231 out of 335 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
113 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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?
156 out of 232 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
241 out of 372 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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).
38 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
48 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
97 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
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.
320 out of 523 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A train wreck ruining a 1974 Classic
warreneckstein10 November 2017
If you have never seen the 1974 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, 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
131 out of 216 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A revival too far
barry-1807 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see Murder on the Orient Express last night and afterwards thought what was the point? Did Kenneth Branagh do it for self indulgence. In 1974 it was great to see Albert Finney, Laureen Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connerry etc playing the parts. There was a still a certain mystique about film stars, especially the ones from yesteryear. Now on the Graham Norton show we can see how vacuous so many of them are. Yes the scenery was spectacular. The costumes were great. But honestly, really honestly other than having several A Listers or B+ Listers who hardly open their mouths and a Hercules Poirot in Branagh not in the same class as Finney or David Suchet I would say that TV does these thrillers much much better these days. The opening scene in Jerusalem was like something out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. But Poirot is no Indiana Jones. The ending which tells us that we can prepare ourselves for a remake of Death on the Nile. No thank you, even if Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks are in it!
98 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Meh. Too much added political correctness which made a boring adaptation just that much more boring.
mshavzin13 November 2017
Im not sure if they were trying to make it modern, or what they were doing, but all they managed to do was put me to sleep. The re writing was just vile. It completely contradicts the reality of the 1930's. No one would have gone to a black doctor then, not even if he had been in the war, and had been sponsored by someone. It was all about current issues. The word "race" was said over 20 times until I lost count. I just got tired of them talking about segregation laws, and whatever else. Not that this isn't a worthwhile subject, but it simply does not belong in a Agatha Christie mystery at all. Then they went out of their way to go after sexism, making sure Penelope Cruz's character was "trained to fight" which is also absurd given the time period, and generally absurd given that she is tiny, and a reasonably healthy fifteen year old boy could probably win a fight with her. Agatha Chritie didn't write Buffy. The most likeble character was Ratchett himself, which is a big problem, and the opposite of what Christie wrote. I can't think of a worse adaptation of this work, and I have seen many. Just terrible.
43 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
You'll never guess who dunnit…
bob-the-movie-man6 November 2017
There's a big problem with Kenneth Branagh's 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that's the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the "who" of the "whodunnit" (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.

The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.

Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in "The Gangs of New York". The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!

Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40's. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos ("Mamma Mia" and who also collaborated with Branagh on "Thor) with lots of innovative "ceiling down" shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.

The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh's "Thor"). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).

All these technical elements combine to make the film's early stages look and feel truly epic.

And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench ("Victoria and Abdul"); Olivia Coleman ("The Lobster"); Johnny Depp ("Black Mass"); Daisy Ridley ("Star Wars: The Force Awakens"); Penélope Cruz ("Zoolander 2"); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi ("I, Claudius"); Willem Dafoe ("The Great Wall") and Michelle Pfeiffer ("mother!"). A real case again of an "oh, it's you" film again at the cinema – when's the last time we saw that?

It's also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year's excellent "Sing Street", getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.

With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film's opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green ("Blade Runner 2049"; "Logan"). At heart, it's a fairly static and "stagey" piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train's derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn't always looking on to yell "Cut"!

All this leads to the "revelation" of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic "thank heavens for that" rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn't know the twist).

However, these reservations aside, it's an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can't be too grumpy about it, given it's a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.

For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some 'tuning in' to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in "Death on the Nile" – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov's outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A- list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
124 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrible remake
debalan19 February 2018
I love this story and I was really looking forward to the remake. With all of today's technology and the real life location shots, I was expecting spectacular. What I got was a dud.

I was not expecting for them to change character names, drop characters, have other characters change their professions, add chases (can you really see Poirot chasing someone?), Poiroit making light of his OCD (really???), a derailment, a stabbing (not Rachett), a shooting, etc that never happened in the story. Also left out was some of the logic leading to the solution. They could have made a splendid movie with all the great scenery, CGI, etc., without changing the actual story. Poor Agatha, must be having fits.

In addition, even though they had splendid actors, only Daisy Ridley and Johnny Depp gave worthy performances. All of the rest were unconvincing, even Branagh.

Then the topper.. the last scene has a officer coming to get Poirot to ask him to go to Egypt to solve a murder on the Nile. What is the world??? Poirot is supposed to already be in Egypt when the first murder is committed.

Don't waste your time on Orient Express and based on the last scene I would pass on Death on the Nile too..
24 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Nice Change Of Pace And A Solid Throwback
Obi_Bamm_Karaoke9 November 2017
When was the last time Hollywood gave us a true old school style "whodunit" type of film? (Don't strain your brain here. You can take it as rhetorical.) These types of stories, where a detective is presented with a crime scene and figures it all out with just their intellect and powers of observation have always been a big part of my life. Trying to figure out the culprit before its eventual reveal was always challenging to me, and putting these stories on the big screen have kind of faded into the background. So, what do you do when you want to bring them back? Call Kenneth Branagh.

In his latest film, he brings to life one of the most famous detective novels in Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express". He plays the famous (and infamous, depending on who you are) Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, who is taking a bit of a vacation on his way to his next case on the famous Orient Express. Unfortunately, fate has its own plans for him as a murder most foul (I have always wanted to use that phrase in a review) happens during a snowstorm that derails the train. No one is seen by Poirot as innocent as he questions the passengers, follows the clues, and races against time to solve the case before the local authorities arrive and could accuse the wrong person of the murder.

OK, so let me run down the cast for you: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Daisy Ridley, Leslie Odom, Jr., Tom Bateman, Josh Gad, Penelope Cruz, Derek Jacobi, Olivia Coleman, Willem Defoe, and Dame Judi Dench. And yes, they are ALL in this thing, as well as Branagh, who also directed. Given all of that paired with the fact that this runs less than two hours, and I was intrigued on multiple levels. And trust me here: this film does not disappoint. Sure, there are some liberties taken from the source material, but none of them are so far out of the norm that will drive the fans of any previous iterations of this story. Branagh is truly enjoyable as the character who is a genius but has his own issues that actually enhance his powers of observation, and his direction is top-notch here. This is gorgeously shot, including a few shots where there is a nod to the old ways of effects, giving a tighter and more nostalgic feel to the modern telling of this tale.

The performances here are exactly what I expected from a cast of this caliber. With a story that has been around as long as "Murder on the Orient Express" has been (the book was written in 1934), there is a bit of a minefield when it comes to bringing it to life that could easily fall down the slope into parody or cariacature, but diverse screenwriter Michael Green, whose resume covers everything from "Green Lantern" to "Everwood" and even "Logan," is able to write dialogue that lets the actors really get into the skins of these characters to treat them with the proper respect and dignity. Yes, there ARE a few liberties taken with the characters themselves, but there was nothing done that gave me even a little bit of growling. Each character has its own arc and motivations that work into the larger picture in a way that is engaging with no wasted space at all.

There will be people that will find this film to be a bit outlandish, but I feel that those people are those that have not taken the time to really study the genre. Not every film has to dumb itself down to cater to the lowest common denominator, and I really enjoy it when a film tells me to engage my suspension of disbelief and simply entertain me. For great escapism and a reminder of a simpler time, "Murder on the Orient Express" achieves this goal for an audience that can truly appreciate its greatness.
156 out of 278 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disappointing dull wordy remake
fudgesinger3 November 2017
I was so looking forward to this remake.. Kenneth Branagh is so very talented. His live action Cinderella was delightful, But this remake looks beautiful but is so wordy and boring. For the first ten minutes we are shown how clever Poirot is and after a lot unnecessary padding eventually we get on to the train . With all its glory. Great photography. But there was virtually no character development; and the sound was so poor ( even At The Odeon Leicester Square) that I did not have a clue what was going on.(which is partially why there are no spoilers.)In fact it was so dull I nodded off and woke up when the murder had been committed . So I did not have a clue who was dead.( so no spoiler! An hour had passed and the rest of the film trundled along like a slow goods train, whilst Branagh did his stuff. I think he thought he was playing in Shakespeare's Henry the fifth. For at the denouement, he just went on and on and on with speech after speech, in that phoney French accent which was like a bad imitation of Maurice Chevalier. In fact had it been a musical, I was waiting for him to burst into song! Mercifully this travesty ended and we left. Incredibly disappointed.

The original1974 version and the Richard RODNEY Bennett score was such fun which captured the light Agatha Christie feel. This was like a very heavy plum pudding. Branagh alluded to Murder on thrnNile. Please NO Kenneth . Go back to Disney
87 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Agatha would be aghast
LloydBayer8 November 2017
Although the story remains fairly true to the 1934 novel of the same name by Agatha Christie, this third screen adaptation (following adaptations in 1974 and 2001) is a bit of a mess. And that's putting it mildly. Worse, and as ironical as it sounds, the film loses steam even before the titular locomotive pulls out of the first act. An all- star cast lead by director Kenneth Branagh himself isn't enough, even with the latter portraying Belgian master detective Hercule Poirot who turns out to be more moustache than man. Which is sad, given that literary crime fiction has Poirot second only to Arthur Conan Doyle's super sleuth on 221B Baker Street. But in this film, Christie's most famous character is reduced to a mumbling idiot who would rather set both feet in horse poop just to make a half-baked point about order and balance.

Shot on 65mm film, aerial vistas of a train trudging through the Alps sure looks pretty. The production design also boasts of lavish set pieces, plush backdrops, and costumes tailored to that era. But really, all we want is an old fashioned murder mystery. Perhaps an amazing display of deductive reasoning before arriving at a twist ending? Surely, that isn't too much to ask. Add the mouthwatering cast in a plot that thickens into one of the most ingenious yet baffling cases penned by Christie and we have a first class whodunit in this day and age of cinema. But as it turns out, this was indeed asking for too much. Like the bloodied victim, something dies very early in the film. And that's before the story starts juggling the remaining 12 suspects into the 12 agonizing labours of Hercules. Or was it Hercule? Either way, Agatha would be aghast.
82 out of 141 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A nice surprise
DancingLiv3 November 2017
I was a bit skeptical about this movie, but I must say I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, it's not perfect, and sometimes Branagh overdo it a little, but whoever likes the genre will be captured by the fantastic atmosphere and will not be bored, because Branagh has been able to put some pepper on the story. His Poirot convinced me and the old glories like Judy Dench, Willelm Defoe and Johnny Depp do their job and do it well, but in my opinion the most interesting notes come from the young people: I personally loved Josh Gad and Daisy Ridley, but the real surprise was Sergei Polunin: I mean, for those who saw him performing as dancer, it's not a real surprise, but it's really hard to believe it was his first time in a movie! He has given to his character this melancholy, turbulent and passionate aura, halfway between a Shakespearean prince and James Dean. His expressions, his little gestures, the way he looked at his wife, he made me feel like a teenager who cannot wait to buy his poster and stick it over her bed! And let me say, that guy definitely knows how to "handle" a woman as well as he can deliver a kick! As usual, more the critics hate a film, more it worth to be seen.
127 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Visually stunning, fairly decent film.
Sleepin_Dragon18 November 2017
I must admit as an Agatha Christie obsessed fan, my initial thoughts were of pure joy, it's been a while since Agatha Christie was on the big screen, appealing to new fans, and how magnificent that such a stellar cast was assembled. Then I thought, of all the titles, why go for such an obvious choice, which has been done several times.

Firstly, the film is undeniably beautiful, the costumes, sets, filming etc, the film will undoubtedly win an Oscar for the visuals. You can see big money was put into the look of the film.

My major irritation throughout, was his moustache, just absurdly over the top, when Depp and Pfeiffer should have been dominating scenes, all I could look at was that moustache. That apart Branagh was excellent, I never thought he'd carry it off, but he did.

I am intrigued as to whether this is a one off film, or if there'll be the odd appearance on the big screen. Only time will tell.

All in all, it was good, I wanted and hoped to absolutely love it, unfortunately I didn't, but no way is it as bad as some say, too much quality for that.

7/10 (hoped for a perfect 10!)
54 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Totally Disappointing, Despite the Great Cast and Art Direction
claudio_carvalho27 February 2018
"Murder on the Orient Express" is a totally disappointing film, despite the great cast and art direction. The classic Agatha Christie´s novel and his detective Hercule Poiro never works in a boring screenplay with non-likable characters. Fans of Agatha Christie will certainly hate this forgettable version. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Assassinato no Expresso do Oriente" ("Murder on the Orient Express")
35 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Where else would you want to kill somébody?
diane-349 November 2017
Diane and I viewed this beauty of a film this afternoon, and we both thoroughly enjoyed a magical cinema event: I use these words because the movie takes you out of your own reality and places you in another world that is not macabre or dangerous but filled with beautiful people, costumes and settings.

Perhaps the reader can tell that I love being removed from the mundanity of our ordinary existence. This beautifully constructed film filled with marvellous actors who are dressed in gorgeous timely costumes and set to work in spectacular train compartments and asked to use a perfect script will leave many cinema-goers anticipating more.

If I were much younger, I would not hunger for the movies from the Directors Period in the 70s and 80s when they were allowed to make Great Movies rather than only the money-men. In any event, see this film for its sublime attractions painted by Kenneth Branagh.
130 out of 255 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Some people seem to hate remakes even if they're good
rebeccapirringer10 November 2017
I really enjoyed this movie even though I adore the original. I went in with mixed feelings and the fear that this would be a typical horrible Hollywood remake, well it wasn't. Especially with a star cast like this it would have been easy to just let the writing and directing slide by so my fear was not that irrational. Branagh absolutely shone in his role as Poirot just like the rest of the cast did in their roles. Sure they added to the background stories of the characters but why shouldn't they? And are people seriously complaining that they added a black doctor? Seriously people. I was afraid they would americanize it but they didn't. This movie is not worse than the original. It is not without the Christie Charme. This is the best movie I've seen this year. I enjoyed it immensely and will absolutely watch it again.
44 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worst than expected. Un unpleasant surprise
srtaussie18 February 2018
I may be biased with the old film and honestly cannot recall the book, by the book. The main Irish man to do the roll of Hercules Poirot is totally out of character. The whole story is changed, sometimes confusing and some of the scenes have been done with great green screens, instead. I am glad did not go to cinema and got the film by other means. Ultra disappointed. This happens lots with re makes these days.
35 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed