Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

[starri]

On 6/8/2017 at 10:31 AM, tennisgurl said:

Like, the freaking movie starts with a woman being stoned to death for adultery (if I remember right) and its supposed to be a parallel to the main story?

It starts with an officer in the British Army that Poirot has been investigating committing suicide right in front of him.  The officer had been lying about the accidental death of his mistress, and even though he was innocent, he shot himself in the head to avoid shaming his family.  That goes to the woman being stoned, and both things lead Poirot to make the decision he makes, because the only thing doing the opposite will accomplish is to continue to hurt people.

Edited June 11, 2017 by starri
Obscuring some plot details

[Katsullivan]

As everyone and their mother are making movie "universes" these days, any chance that this is supposed to kick-off some Christie Universe or the like?

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

As everyone and their mother are making movie "universes" these days, any chance that this is supposed to kick-off some Christie Universe or the like?

That'll pull in the millennials.

[starri]

You joke, but there was talk about a Miss Marple movie starring goddamn Jennifer Garner a few years ago.

[GaT]

1 hour ago, starri said:

You joke, but there was talk about a Miss Marple movie starring goddamn Jennifer Garner a few years ago.

As Miss Marple??????? REALLY??????? 

[starri]

I wish I was kidding.

Some cooler head at the Christie estate realized that this was a massively bad idea, but the siren song of money has been a powerful one.  I'll give the BBC this much:  since they won the rights from ITV, they've at least tried to immediately avoid all-Poirot/all-Marple all the time.

[Katsullivan]

On 6/15/2017 at 9:14 PM, starri said:

You joke, but there was talk about a Miss Marple movie starring goddamn Jennifer Garner a few years ago.

They should cast her as Tuppence and run with that. It's a pity that Hollywood never quite exploited the potential of Tommy-and-Tuppence. They were a pair of young, hot, sexy investigators who starred in a lot of short stories that could easily have been expanded upon. 

[starri]

When the BBC got the rights to Christie's entire library, the first thing they did was a Tommy and Tuppence (with David Wailliams and Jessice Raine, so pretty decent cast) series of two stories.  It apparently was kind of slight, and I'm not sure it ever made it across the pond.  I mean, credit to them for not immediately jumping into more Marple and Poirot, I just wish they'd done it better.  Didn't really care for their And Then There Were None either.

[AzureOwl]

On 12/5/2017 at 8:55 PM, MisterGlass said:

My question is whether this movie is engaging to the average movie goer now.  The 1974 version is an excellent movie, but the pace is so much more measured than modern films.  All the versions of Poirot that I've seen tend to be on the stately side.  If they can make it engaging, then I think the story is worth telling again.

Though if someone tries to remake The Maltese Falcon I'm out.

You are aware that the famous 1941 Bogart version is itself a remake, aren't you? As a matter of fact it was the third adaptation of the book.

Edited July 5, 2017 by AzureOwl
Formatting

[MisterGlass]

On 7/5/2017 at 7:36 PM, AzureOwl said:

You are aware that the famous 1941 Bogart version is itself a remake, aren't you? As a matter of fact it was the third adaptation of the book.

I had forgotten there was an earlier version (1931).  I've seen a couple snippets of it.  I've heard of but have not seen the 1936 'comedic' version.  I think the 1941 version is a good representation of the novel, and a great movie.  I think the odds of improving on it in another adaptation are very slim.

[BetterButter]

[VCRTracking]

The trailer really should have revealed upfront that Johnny Depp's character was going to be the one murdered and that would've gotten more people to see it. (Not a spoiler if I don't reveal who did it)

(I was already tired of him even before the domestic abuse stuff)

Edited September 21, 2017 by VCRTracking

[AimingforYoko]

2 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

The trailer really should have revealed upfront that Johnny Depp's character was going to be the one murdered and that would've gotten more people to see it. (Not a spoiler if I don't reveal who did it)

(I was already tired of him even before the domestic abuse stuff)

This isn't out yet, is it? 

[GaT]

23 minutes ago, AimingforYoko said:

This isn't out yet, is it? 

The trailer says November 10th

[starri]

That looks...better, I guess?  Aside from Depp gotta be Depp-in'.

They're certainly getting their money's worth out of that Imagine Dragons song.

[voiceover]

On 6/11/2017 at 5:58 AM, starri said:

It starts with an officer in the British Army that Poirot has been investigating committing suicide right in front of him.  The officer had been lying about the accidental death of his mistress, and even though he was innocent, he shot himself in the head to avoid shaming his family.  That goes to the woman being stoned, and both things lead Poirot to make the decision he makes, because the only thing doing the opposite will accomplish is to continue to hurt people.

Trace this one back to the fascination with Origin Stories.  Because today's audience must have their food chewed for them prior to ingesting it on their own.  God forbid Poirot's motives aren't written in crayon.  Because surely Dame Agatha would pen Baby Hercule & Baby Jane* books if she were still with us.

Get off my lawn!!!

 

*Marple not Hudson

[Morrigan2575]

Was song was in the trailer? Was it Beliver by Imagine Dragons? 

[AimingforYoko]

12 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

Was it Beliver by Imagine Dragons? 

Yes, unfortunately. (Believer is one of my violence songs. If I hear it one more time, I will choose violence.)

[Silver Raven]

I actually enjoyed this.  Branagh did a great job.  Beautiful cinematography, beautiful costumes, beautiful set design.  The acting was all universally good.  I'd never seen Josh Gad in a dramatic role and though he pulled it off.  I was worried that they were going to fiddle with the ending, but no, they went with the original and I appreciated it.

The only thing I objected to was that there was no motive for Johnny Depp's character committing the first murder.

Michelle Pfeiffer sang the song over the closing credits (lyrics by Branagh!) I wonder if they were pushing it for an Oscar nomination.

[Wynterwolf]

16 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

The only thing I objected to was that there was no motive for Johnny Depp's character committing the first murder.

I'm only generally familiar with the book, was there a specific motive for the death of the little girl in the book?

[scarynikki12]

I haven't read the book in a while (did not want to spoil the movie) but I don't remember him revealing a motive.  He did it, he was killed for it, and Christie was more interested in explaining the latter.  If the story were updated I would expect there would be a motive assigned.  My guess is that Cassetti kidnapped Daisy intending to ransom her and she was killed as he tried to keep her quiet. 

I thought it was a solid adaptation.  All the actors did a good job.  Even Depp made an effort, which surprised me because he clearly stopped caring about his craft after the success of the first Pirates movie.  I was also getting worried that they'd change the ending and make it one or two people but they didn't.  The flashback to the murder was excellent and ended up being my favorite scene.

I thought the opening scene of Poirot solving the theft was well done and a smart way of demonstrating just how good he is.  As much as I think people should read Christie's books, odds are they haven't so there's probably a decent percentage who have heard of her but are unfamiliar with her work and, specifically, Poirot.  Throwing in a demonstration to open the movie supports his later declaration of Greatest Detective.  A lot of other movies would open with everyone gushing about Poirot's ability and then have the burden of proving it.  Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.  But giving the example before the bragging works better.

I would like to see someone tackle the challenge of bringing a Christie mystery into the modern day.  Seeing screenwriters getting around and/or incorporating modern technology without sacrificing the story would be great.

[Wynterwolf]

1 minute ago, scarynikki12 said:

I haven't read the book in a while (did not want to spoil the movie) but I don't remember him revealing a motive.  He did it, he was killed for it, and Christie was more interested in explaining the latter.  If the story were updated I would expect there would be a motive assigned.  My guess is that Cassetti kidnapped Daisy intending to ransom her and she was killed as he tried to keep her quiet. 

Thanks for the answer!  If there was no motive in the book, I suspect it was done to mirror the Lindbergh kidnapping in 1932 (with the original book published in 1934).  As far as I know, no known motive was ever found for why the Lindbergh baby was killed either.   

[scarynikki12]

Oh it was definitely mirroring the Lindbergh baby which, come to think of it, is probably why she didn't assign a motive.  Baby Charles was kidnapped and killed in 1932 and this book was published a couple years later.  With the fame and popularity of Charles Lindbergh and the crazy publicity surrounding the case, she could easily tap into the emotions of her audience as most, if not all, would have at least a passing familiarity.  At that point, no one would care why it happened, just that the poor kid died and, at the time, the man who would be executed for the crime hadn't yet been arrested.  That's also why she has Poirot make the decision to tell the police the first story and let everyone go.  The public's desire for revenge and justice for baby Charles and the family was so great that they would have cheered on the killers if this were real life.  Poirot arresting them would probably have resulted in some upset readers even though it was fiction.  Maybe she'd have made some changes if she'd written if after the trial and execution but that happened later.

[enoughcats]

The talk of casting problems (and watching some football) led me to wonder if the next interation will be on a star ship and feature wookis, klingons, the krell, tribles, and all the other sci fi characters that we think we know.  Call it Murder on the Errant Express.

[callie lee 29]

I don't remember a motive in the book,  though it's been a few years since I read it.  I'm looking forward to seeing this,  good to know Depp didn't completely phone it in.  I'm really excited for Pfeiffer,  I miss her in movies. 

[GaT]

I still haven't decided if I'm going to see this yet, but I'm curious about how they explained the Daisy story. Did they do something like the Sidney Lumet version (which is brilliant), or did it just come out during the movie?

[elle]

1 hour ago, Wynterwolf said:

If there was no motive in the book, I suspect it was done to mirror the Lindbergh kidnapping in 1932 (with the original book published in 1934).  As far as I know, no known motive was ever found for why the Lindbergh baby was killed either. 

The motive for the kidnapping was money.  The cause of the death of the child is never explained. The leading theory in the Lindbergh case was that the baby was killed by accident, possibly dropped during the actual kidnapping.  

The way the Lumet film opens I am surprised that it ever could be considered "light" or "comedic".

1 hour ago, scarynikki12 said:

I would like to see someone tackle the challenge of bringing a Christie mystery into the modern day.  Seeing screenwriters getting around and/or incorporating modern technology without sacrificing the story would be great.

Apparently there was one made in 2001

Murder on the Orient Express (2001 film) (wikipedia)

A thoroughly modernised and poorly received made-for-TV version starring Alfred Molina as Poirot was presented by CBS in 2001. This version co-starred Meredith Baxter as Mrs. Hubbard and Leslie Caron as the Princess Dragomiroff (renamed Señora Alvarado and portrayed as the widow of a South American dictator). Poirot is portrayed as significantly younger and less eccentric than Christie's detective, and is given a subplot involving a romantic relationship with Vera Rosakoff, who is loosely based on an infrequently recurring character of the same name. The story is updated to a contemporary setting, and four of the suspects (Hildegard Schmidt, Cyrus Hardman, Edward Masterman and Greta Ohlssohn) are deleted, as is Dr. Constantine

 

1 hour ago, enoughcats said:

The talk of casting problems (and watching some football) led me to wonder if the next interation will be on a star ship and feature wookis, klingons, the krell, tribles, and all the other sci fi characters that we think we know.  Call it Murder on the Errant Express.

If done sincerely, it could work, something like a spaceship disabled by a solar storm and so on.  The tribbles would be red herrings, of course.

Quote

voiceover: This one makes Branagh look like the guy from Shakey's Pizza.

Snerk!

A review that dedicates many words to said mustache.

I do not plan to see the movie, but there is something in the trailer that is bugging me.  Is the train stuck on the bridge? Because of the avalanche? Just to ratchet up the scene? 

Edited November 12, 2017 by elle

[tinaw]

9 hours ago, elle said:

 

I do not plan to see the movie, but there is something in the trailer that is bugging me.  Is the train stuck on the bridge? Because of the avalanche? Just to ratchet up the scene? 

Spoiler

There is a bad storm and an avalanche is started that detailed the train.

I would say it happened to give a reason for all the suspects to have time to kill their enemy

Edited November 12, 2017 by tinaw
To finish my thought

[backgroundnoise]

I saw the movie today, and, boy, what a drag.  They took a really interesting story and sucked all the fun out it.  I can't help but compare it to the 70's movie which was a blast to watch.  This one was dragged down by an angsty Poirot and unrelenting gloom.  Parcelling out the

Spoiler

discoveries of the passengers connection to Daisy Armstrong one at a time instead of when all are in the dining car caused most of that impact to be lost.

Beautiful visuals, though.

[dkb]

I think this was an okay movie for me. I liked the acting, the visuals and the music, but the story as a whole didn't do it for me.

 

I love the book, and I like the ITV version with David Suchet. This one doesn't have the tension or the drama of either.

 

I wonder if they want to make this a movie franchise or not, cause I don't think this was good enough for a sequel/continuation?

 

Looked gorgeous though.

[Sharpie66]

Just got back from seeing it. Background: I think that the Lumet is one of my all-time favorite films. That said, I think that parts of this version were actually better! I particularly thought that Daisy Ridley’s Miss Devanham was better that Vanessa Redgrave’s, as was Odom’s Doctor an improvement over Connery’s. Josh Gad was great, and I loved Derek Jacobi’s accent. The Count and Countess were a mixed bag for me—I loved her changes from the Lumet, but his Action Nobility role was really anachronistic for me. The chauffeur got shorted in screen impact, but I really liked Dafoe. Cruz and the German maid were both pretty meh, as was the conductor, who at least tried to put some life into his character. Michelle Pfeiffer was as good as Bacall in her performance.

(ETA: forgot to add that Dench’s princess was a different approach over Hiller, but I love them both. And the train rep was hilarious, much more interesting than Balsam.

The two I worried about beforehand were Depp and Branagh. However, they both exceeded expectations. Depp was appropriately unconvincing in Ratchitt’s attempt to portray an honest businessman, and slimy in his seduction attempt. As for Branagh, he was magnificent! I really liked him in the final scenes, but he was really fantastic throughout. The accent, the fastidiousness, the casual arrogance, his interactions with everyone, were all really well done. I really loved the scene between Poirot and Ratchitt. 

Branagh’s direction was equally good. My favorite thing was the repeated shots through the beveled glass in the club car’s doors while Poirot was interviewing everyone individually—the multiple images added a lot of enigmatic perspectives. The production was gorgeous, and the set and scenery were wonderful, definitely Oscar worthy. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Sharpie66

[magdalene]

I just cannot take the thing on Branagh's face seriously.

As long as they stick to the plot of the mystery and don't get cute and "creative" I will probably enjoy the movie.  I expect to root emotionally for the murderers in this and intellectually  for Poirot to solve the crime and leave it at that.  

[voiceover]

4 hours ago, backgroundnoise said:

an angsty Poirot 

 

Aaaiiieee!!  I *knew it*!

No such thing.  The closest he got to neurotic was in Curtain -- and that's because 

Spoiler

he was dying.

[CofCinci]

I fought to stay awake during this film.  The only thing that kept me awake was people shouting at the screen during Johnny Depp's scenes.

[MerBearHou]

We saw it today.  I enjoyed it very much and loved the quick, snappy dialogue.  Branagh as Poirot did a tremendous job.  Loved Mary and the doctor.  Josh Gad was not annoying and neither was Depp.  Several of the actors had very little to do.  The sets and cinematography were STELLAR.  I could not believe what I was seeing so well done, Branagh and production team.  

Full disclosure -- my husband fell asleep in the movie.  Too slow, too dialogue-driven for him.  It is indeed slow and it feels like a faithful throwback to whodunits, but neither bothered me at all -- unfortunately it didn't hold his attention.  

[elle]

13 hours ago, tinaw said:

There is a bad storm and an avalanche

The snow storm/avalanche is a point on which the plot takes a turn, being stuck on a bridge would mess that up

Spoiler

the footsteps in the snow of the alleged killer would be missing, which was one of the things they had to improvise because they never planned on being stuck on the track nor of course imagined that *the* Hercule Poirot would be a passenger.

3 hours ago, CofCinci said:

I fought to stay awake during this film.  The only thing that kept me awake was people shouting at the screen during Johnny Depp's scenes.

What were they shouting, was it accompanied by laughter?

[scarynikki12]

Only part of the train is stuck on the bridge.  They still didn't do the footprints though.

[Sharpie66]

One other thing I liked about Branagh’s direction was the discovery of the body and subsequent investigation of the crime scene. Completely shot from directly overhead, it looked just like a crime scene sketch showing the entire layout.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Sharpie66

[benteen]

I thought it was good, sometimes very good.  But I liked the 1974 version better (still need to watch the BBC version).  Some of the stuff they added just didn't work for me and I don't think they fleshed out the characters enough.  Also, the scene of the murder taking place was a frantic mess compared to the 1974 version, which was much stronger.  I don't think I particularly liked "montaging" some of the interrogations either.

I thought Branagh was terrific as Poirot and I would certainly see him again in the role.  Did not realize he also directed the movie and co-produced it as well.  I thought Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench and Willem Dafoe was also standouts.  Enjoyed seeing both Daisy Ridley and Olivia Colman in this...those two were the reason I first wanted to see this.  Some terrific visuals which they really used to their advantage.  Depp, well...was Johnny Depp.  Though I did enjoy the scene where he looked at himself in the mirror and you could see the disgust.

[methodwriter85]

I never watched the original so I didn't know what the ending would be. I kind of just went "What the hell???" when everybody starts stabbing Johnny Deep.

[benteen]

26 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

I never watched the original so I didn't know what the ending would be. I kind of just went "What the hell???" when everybody starts stabbing Johnny Deep.

They completely botched that scene up.  The 1974 version did that scene a hell of a lot better.  It really looked ridiculous and confusing onscreen in this version.

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

I fought to stay awake during this film.

I saw a 4:20 showing and started to nod off at about 5:15, just for a minute or two. Fortunately things picked up a bit from there and I was able to hang on until the end. I felt like it was a movie of highs and lows - some performances (Ridley, Pfeiffer, Dench) were great, some (whatever the Count/Countess were supposed to be) were not. Some parts of the story were engaging and flew by, others not so much. I went in knowing Depp was the victim (THANK GOD) but nothing else about the story, and I don't think it was entirely easy to follow the evolution of the case. 

And I realize this is neither here nor there and entirely beside the point, but I kept wondering about the other passengers on the train - the people in the other cars - and WTF they were doing the entire time.

[CletusMusashi]

Best review yet.

 

[Morrigan2575]

That's great.

[thuganomics85]

As someone who has never read the book or seen the 1974 film (really need to change that for both of them), I though it was a solid enough of a murder mystery.  A bit slow at times and I don't think it broke any ground with the murder mystery aspects or story, but it was refreshing seeing a more old-fashioned film like this, where a crime is solved through simple questioning and interrogations (and not modern ones, which usually lead to the detective just beating the shit out of someone), and looking over the evidence and putting together all of the pieces.

Moustache aside (which really deserved its own billing), I enjoyed Kenneth Branagh as Poirot and thought he did good with having the quirks and eccentric behavior (the egg scene), but not going overboard with it.  I also thought he did a good job at showing how smart Poirot is, but not making him all-knowing about everything: he had to work to find the answers and seek justice.  And while he was clearly the lead and did give his typical theatrical performances, I thought he didn't hog the limelight and was willing to let the rest of the cast shine opposite of him.  I really enjoyed his interactions with Michelle Pfeiffer, Willem Dafoe, and Daisy Ridley especially.

The supporting cast was amazing to the point where a lot of them were kind of wasted like Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, and especially Olivia Coleman (as far as I'm concerned, Coleman is one of the best living actresses at the moment), but they still made the most of it.  Highlights where Pfeiffer and Dafoe, Josh Gad surprisingly (I usually find him obnoxious but between this and Marshall, I'm kind of warming up to him), and Ridley, who is really becoming one of my favorites (although her in period piece outfits really highlights how much she looks like Keira Knightley.  Are we sure they aren't related?)

Johnny Depp pretty much seemed to be doing a variation of his Whitey Bulger from Black Mass which works, I guess.  For his fans, they get to see him play a significant role here.  For his detractors, he isn't on screen for too long and he gets to die in spectacular fashion!

Heard it's been over-performing at the box office, which doesn't surprise me.  Even if it doesn't go down as a classic as the 1974 version has, there really isn't a other film like this for quite some time, and I'm sure that will appeal to many.

Edited November 17, 2017 by thuganomics85

[GaT]

I would love for people who have never seen the 1974 movie, but have seen this one to watch the 1974 movie & then come back & tell us how they think they compare.

[Morrigan2575]

3 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Heard it's been over-performing at the box office, which doesn't surprise me.  Even if it doesn't go down as a classic as the 1974 version has, there really isn't a other film like this for quite some time, and I'm sure that will appeal to many.

That's good to hear. I really didn't expect it to do well at all,  because the subject matter (it's a bit of a slow story) and the fact that it's been done before. I didn't think it would play with modern audiences.

[benteen]

Yeah, it's doing well at the box office (on a budget of only $55 million) and I'm glad to see that as well.  I think there's definitely an appeal for it in the market and this increases the likelihood that Brannan will be able to do Death on the Nile next.

[tennisgurl]

I am a long time Poirot fan, so I was really excited about this adaptation, and, for the most part, I really enjoyed it. There were some changes, some I liked and some I didn't, but they got the feel for the story and kept all the important beats in. Kenneth Branagh was quite impressive, even though David Suchet will always be my favorite Poirot. He was very peculiar and odd, but you could also see the wheels spinning in his head at all times. 

This was an excellent cast, even if not everyone was used to full effect. I mean, you get Judi Dench, you use Dame Judi Dench as much as you can! However, the cast did a lot with what they had, and its hard to get a lot of intense characterizaton in a short time frame when everyone is lying through their teeth. I especially liked Josh Gad here (between this and Beuty and the Beast, the guy has been really impressing me lately) and Michelle Phipher, who got the most showy part, and you could tell she was enjoying playing all the angles. The characters were mostly the way I imagined them in the books, even though there were some bits of angst that weren't really there, but I think it worked. It showed how much everyone's lives had been screwed up by this asshole, and why they would do what they did. 

I also liked the changes to Monsieur Bouc, who in the book is basically Poirot's Dr. Watson and not much else, giving him more of a playboy dilettante vibe worked pretty well to make him more interesting. I also liked the intro, it set up Poirot and the time period really well. And the costumes and sets were amazing. Everyone in these stories always look so classy. I wish people wore hats more often!

Maybe its just me, but while I liked the 70s version, I couldn't stand the David Suchet TV version. It was so damn angsty and dark, I couldn't stand it. I mean, it started with a guy shooting himself, and then a woman being stoned to death! Dear god! I would take this version any day. 

[BetterButter]

'Murder on the Orient Express' Sequel in the Works