Murder On The Orient Express (2017)

[PaulaO]

I saw this Sunday and enjoyed it.  I've read all of Christie's works numerous times so knew the plot and the ending.  I saw the 1974 movie when it came out, but don't remember much.  Could not finish watching Suchet's version.   One thing really bugged me about this version:  Poirot's eyes are GREEN!  Could Branagh not have worn contacts?  And the moustache was OTT. 

[KatWay]

I haven't seen any other adaptations of the book but I thought this one was just okay. Some of the cinematography was nice but tbh it all felt very try-hard, they were attempting to evoke a feeling of drama and epicness that wasn't really there IMO. A lot of the scenes felt melodramatic but didn't actually make me feel anything like Poirot repeatedly talking to that picture, what exactly was the purpose of that? It went nowhere and had nothing to do with anything. Even the ending, everything felt super dramatic (very theatre-like) but not really as tense as it should have. As a crime mystery it falls flat because of the whole one suspect after the other being revealed as involved in the Daisy Armstrong case. My friend who knew nothing pretty much guessed they were all in on it after the third reveal. The stabbing scene was also kind of ridiculous.

The performances were pretty good though and I liked the cinematography overall.

[Captain Carrot]

8 hours ago, KatWay said:

The stabbing scene was also kind of ridiculous.

Agreed. I liked the image of them all opening their doors to commit the murder, but they should have cut to black then showed the killers leaving the victim's room. The actual killing was so melodramatic that it got silly.

[scarynikki12]

On 11/20/2017 at 5:58 PM, BetterButter said:

'Murder on the Orient Express' Sequel in the Works

Death on the Nile!  This should be fun.

[elle]

On 11/14/2017 at 7:13 PM, hendersonrocks said:

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.

Of all the times I have watched the 1974, I never thought about this, and this is the type of question I have been known to ask.  Also in the 1974, there is a dramatic scene of the main characters boarding the train in which we also see a group of people boarding of whom I guessed would be considered the third class passengers.  Did they show this in this version?

To answer your question, I would guess they would be trying to stay warm being stuck in a snowdrift/avalanche. 

On 11/16/2017 at 6:01 PM, GaT said:

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.

Seconded!  Please come tell us what you think.

On 11/20/2017 at 4:58 PM, BetterButter said:

'Murder on the Orient Express' Sequel in the Works

Urgh, they are calling it a sequel?!

[Black Knight]

2 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

Death on the Nile!  This should be fun.

I figured that from the line in this movie about a murder on the Nile, but I wonder if it's actually the murder from the book or if it's just another murder that gets Poirot on the scene for the book's murder case. It would be a fairly significant change to have him get involved with the book's murder case after the murder had already occurred. I always remember some dialogue of his from a later book, regarding the Egypt case:

Spoiler

"Twice in my life I have warned a murderer, once in Egypt, once elsewhere. In both cases the killer was determined to kill..."

 

I enjoyed the movie adaptation with Angela Lansbury et al, and I think the case as a whole works better for film than Murder on the Orient Express does, although I liked Branagh's solution of montaging the interviews with Poirot. But he won't have to resort to the sort of tactics that he did in MotOE to keep the story moving along.

I know Christie never did an onstage adaptation of MotOE, and I'm curious as to how she would have approached it if she did. She was not shy about changing her books for the stage. A lot of writers don't do well at adapting their work because they're too attached to the original form, but Christie recognized that what works in one medium doesn't work in another. I think she would have approved of Branagh's doing most of the interviews as a montage.

[hendersonrocks]

Quote

Also in the 1974, there is a dramatic scene of the main characters boarding the train in which we also see a group of people boarding of whom I guessed would be considered the third class passengers.  Did they show this in this version?

They showed others boarding in the station before the train departed, I believe, but the main thing that triggered my question was after the murder happened. Poirot said something to the effect that the people in the other cars should just stay there - the murderer was clearly in this car, so he was only going to question them. I thought it was funny that all the time the train was stuck in the show, and there was time actually spent outside, we never saw any trace of or reference to other people on board.

[dkb]

11 hours ago, Black Knight said:

I figured that from the line in this movie about a murder on the Nile, but I wonder if it's actually the murder from the book or if it's just another murder that gets Poirot on the scene for the book's murder case. It would be a fairly significant change to have him get involved with the book's murder case after the murder had already occurred. I always remember some dialogue of his from a later book, regarding the Egypt case:

  Hide contents

"Twice in my life I have warned a murderer, once in Egypt, once elsewhere. In both cases the killer was determined to kill..."

 

I enjoyed the movie adaptation with Angela Lansbury et al, and I think the case as a whole works better for film than Murder on the Orient Express does, although I liked Branagh's solution of montaging the interviews with Poirot. But he won't have to resort to the sort of tactics that he did in MotOE to keep the story moving along.

I know Christie never did an onstage adaptation of MotOE, and I'm curious as to how she would have approached it if she did. She was not shy about changing her books for the stage. A lot of writers don't do well at adapting their work because they're too attached to the original form, but Christie recognized that what works in one medium doesn't work in another. I think she would have approved of Branagh's doing most of the interviews as a montage.

Agree @Black Knight. I will be annoyed if they change the story of the Death on the Nile.

Spoiler

Poirot's presence on the scene, interacting with people before the murder, is a vital part of the story. It will lose a lot of the dramatics again if he arrives after the murder already occurred.

[Morrigan2575]

Just caught this on TV, very amusing.

[attica]

Stay for the credits, and you'll be treated to Michelle Pfeiffer's vocals to a song cowritten by Branagh and Patrick Doyle (composer to all films Branaghesque). It's really lovely, I think. A lullaby of sorts. (I'd have been over the moon if they found a way to use LOJr too, but that's just greedy.)

I liked it. I'm not one usually rankled by most disruptive adaptations; I'm willing to be pleased if well-rendered. I liked KB's take on HP. I liked that he was less dour than other iterations, if only as a change of pace. That he was continually cracking up over Tale of Two Cities? A fun touch.

I agree that there was insufficient Dench for my liking, and a helping more of Colman wouldn't have gone amiss, neither.

[Blergh]

Actually, I liked this one fairly well and it had some good touches- such as using a train worker's kerosene  lamp to uncover a message in a burnt note (as opposed to the '74 version using a lady's hatbox) as not only would that have been more accessible under the circumstances but also unlikely to have caught fire. Also, I thought everyone gave good performances with Miss Pfeiffer especially shining going from a carefree bored Society divorcee to revealing what was truly driving her character. Also, I was a big fan of the train set itself being a sucker for trains.

 

 However; there were a few things that didn't quite set right for me. One is that it was supposed to have been set in a single train car- yet not only did it seem odd that this group alone had access to the dining car but also that the Russian princess's and the count+countess's own cabins each seemed larger than the  train car itself! Also, in spite of a good number of the characters having to be outside in a snowy environment while in flimy 1930's cocktail attire without top coats or furs, not one of them seemed to either seem chilled by the outside temp or express relief being back inside the warmer train cabin.  Lastly, I know it seems trivial but why was Mr. Brannaugh's upper lip covered in something that looked to be what a kindergartner would have used for a walrus costume?

 

  OK,  even with the above strikes, I would recommend the move!

Edited November 27, 2017 by Blergh
corrected surname

[BookWoman56]

On 11/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, thuganomics85 said:

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?)

About halfway through the movie, I thought, "Oh, Daisy Ridley is the new Keira Knightley."  I liked the movie but didn't love it. The performances were fine, the scenery was gorgeous, but IMO it lacked the emotional punch of the book, largely because of the movie's slow reveal that each passenger had some connection to the Armstrong household. In the book, there is that moment when Poirot realizes who the dead man really was, and it seemed that for once Poirot was not personally offended by the act of murder. But even though he goes through questioning each passenger, it's a bit of a revelation when he realizes at the end that the only solution that makes sense is all of them being in on it and that the only place where such diverse characters would have been together was in an American household.  IIRC, in the book Mrs. Hubbard/Linda Arden describes the devastation that occurred with the kidnapping and murder, and then when the trial ended in a mistrial or acquittal because of some technical issue. (It's been a while since I read the book, so my memory may be a bit off.) But I remember the impact of that scene in the book like a punch in the gut because it made the horror and ongoing tragedy of the event very real. Michelle Pfeiffer gave her version of that scene in the movie everything she had, but to me there wasn't the same effect because it had already slowly become obvious that everyone was involved in the murder rather than being hit with it all at once. I also thought the murder scene itself was ridiculous. OTOH, I really liked the performances and it was a good reminder, at least for me, that Depp is perfectly capable of doing a straight dramatic role and that Pfeiffer can do good comedy.  The only note I thought was totally off was Poirot's periodic sighing over the photograph of his lost love; where the hell did that come from and what purpose was it supposed to serve? The only thing I can conceive of is that his lost love is meant to remind him at the end that Mary Debenham and Dr. Arbuthnot will lose their chance at love if they both go to prison for their part in the killing, and that's a pretty weak rationale. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by BookWoman56

[callie lee 29]

Finally saw it and write enjoyed it. I think it a beautiful movie (those train cars are magnificent) and better acted than the '74 movie. Poirot is not my favorite Christie character but I liked this take on him.  

[TheGreenKnight]

I didn't think it was a great movie, but it was worth seeing. I've always loved a murder mystery anyway. I have read some Agatha Christie, but nowhere near everything by her, and I'm more interested in Marple in general. Maybe not having read the book made the movie a little more enjoyable? I loved that Pfeiffer performed the End Credits song; it left the movie on the best note possible, imo.

[Katsullivan]

On 12/3/2017 at 9:27 PM, BookWoman56 said:

  The only note I thought was totally off was Poirot's periodic sighing over the photograph of his lost love; where the hell did that come from and what purpose was it supposed to serve? The only thing I can conceive of is that his lost love is meant to remind him at the end that Mary Debenham and Dr. Arbuthnot will lose their chance at love if they both go to prison for their part in the killing, and that's a pretty weak rationale. 

I can't get over the fact that they gave Poirot, one of the few acknowledged asexual characters in literature, a girlfriend. 

[VCRTracking]

With seeing Kenneth Branagh's latest version, I have now seen all four adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express and I would rank this one second behind the 1974 movie directed by Sidney Lumet and above Suchet's with the modern day one with Alfred Molina last.
Knowing what the solution is going in  Branagh's ginourmous mustache was silly at first but I got used to it. I was amused he made Poirot of an action guy but not too much. The cast was excellent. Michelle Pfeiffer was fantastic in the final scene.  Willem Defoe's reveal was fun. Josh Gad is very good in a serious role. Johnny Depp of course was perfect casting as a scumbag that you wanted to see stabbed 12 times. I liked the changes with Arbuthnot and that it still ties in with him being an old army buddy of Armstrong like in the book. 

It's the most famous Agatha Christie but one of the least enjoyable for me because the backstory behind the murder is so tragic and sad. Suchet's version really  took the darker aspects of the story with him struggling with his Catholic belief and the questions of is it justice or revenge. Branagh was in between that and the Albert Finney Poirot who was like "I'm just going to look the other way on this one."

On 12/3/2017 at 6:27 PM, BookWoman56 said:

The only note I thought was totally off was Poirot's periodic sighing over the photograph of his lost love; where the hell did that come from and what purpose was it supposed to serve? The only thing I can conceive of is that his lost love is meant to remind him at the end that Mary Debenham and Dr. Arbuthnot will lose their chance at love if they both go to prison for their part in the killing, and that's a pretty weak rationale. 

 

On 4/12/2018 at 7:11 AM, Katsullivan said:

I can't get over the fact that they gave Poirot, one of the few acknowledged asexual characters in literature, a girlfriend. 

Kenneth Branagh pining for a lost love is nothing compared to Molina's Poirot having a sexy young girlfriend who is jewel thief!

Edited July 18, 2018 by VCRTracking

[methodwriter85]

Did the stabbing scene remind anyone else of the slapping scene from Airplane? Just like more melodramatic?

Edited July 18, 2018 by methodwriter85

[VCRTracking]

7 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Did the stabbing scene remind anyone else of the slapping scene from Airplane? Just like more melodramatic?

 

It makes sense on an emotional level but I like the ritual nature of the 1974 version where each person just calmly says "For my (insert)" before stabbing because they all agreed to go through with it and they feel justice is finally being done. The 2017 version does have the satisfaction of Ratchett being awake and knowing he's as opposed to completely drugged asleep.

[Black Knight]

On 4/12/2018 at 7:11 AM, Katsullivan said:

I can't get over the fact that they gave Poirot, one of the few acknowledged asexual characters in literature, a girlfriend. 

 

On 7/18/2018 at 12:27 AM, VCRTracking said:

Kenneth Branagh pining for a lost love is nothing compared to Molina's Poirot having a sexy young girlfriend who is jewel thief!

That's inspired by the books, in which he has a long-standing infatuation with the beautiful jewel thief Countess Vera Rossakoff, to the point that he allows her to escape being apprehended. Hastings ribs him about his being smitten with her. And in a short story set during Christmastime, at the close of his investigation a young woman takes the opportunity to snog him under a mistletoe, to his enjoyment.

I'm not sure where he was established as asexual. Being in love and enjoying kissing don't preclude his being asexual, of course; ace people can be in love, and some truly enjoy kissing as a form of connection. But I don't remember any confirmation of his being ace.

[VCRTracking]

1 hour ago, Black Knight said:

 

That's inspired by the books, in which he has a long-standing infatuation with the beautiful jewel thief Countess Vera Rossakoff, to the point that he allows her to escape being apprehended. Hastings ribs him about his being smitten with her. And in a short story set during Christmastime, at the close of his investigation a young woman takes the opportunity to snog him under a mistletoe, to his enjoyment.

I'm not sure where he was established as asexual. Being in love and enjoying kissing don't preclude his being asexual, of course; ace people can be in love, and some truly enjoy kissing as a form of connection. But I don't remember any confirmation of his being ace.

I just learned about Vera Rossakoff in the DVD commentary after posting!

[Katsullivan]

On 21/07/2018 at 9:27 PM, Black Knight said:

I'm not sure where he was established as asexual. Being in love and enjoying kissing don't preclude his being asexual, of course; ace people can be in love, and some truly enjoy kissing as a form of connection. But I don't remember any confirmation of his being ace.

Christie won't have had the vocabulary to describe him as ace, but without using any of the modern terminology, it's established that - very unlike Hastings - Poirot didn't have any of the usual inclinations towards sex, pretty men or women and was basically "immune" to sexual attraction. (Even his admiration of Vera is like an Irene Adler kind of fascination where he seems more moved by her mind than her physical attractiveness).

Some have argued that Poirot's fastidiousness with "order and method" are signs of high functioning savant-level ASD. But I don't completely agree.

[Black Knight]

56 minutes ago, Katsullivan said:

Christie won't have had the vocabulary to describe him as ace, but without using any of the modern terminology, it's established that - very unlike Hastings - Poirot didn't have any of the usual inclinations towards sex, pretty men or women and was basically "immune" to sexual attraction. (Even his admiration of Vera is like an Irene Adler kind of fascination where he seems more moved by her mind than her physical attractiveness).

Fair enough. I can see the argument for it, although you haven't addressed when he makes out with the young woman and thinks to himself afterwards that he's had a very good Christmas (and the way Christie structures those closing lines gives a hint that the two of them might not have stopped at kissing). Like I said before, that doesn't preclude him being ace, but to some degree it does muddy the picture given the author. Even nowadays lots of people still don't know much of anything about asexuality. Would Christie really have understood that an asexual man might still enjoy, in a non-sexual way, a snog under the mistletoe with a beautiful young woman? (A clearer case can actually be made for Miss Marple, given that as a woman of independent means she was certainly quite marriageable but still never married, and so far as I can recall we never hear of any type of attachment or dalliance or particular feeling for someone, unlike Poirot who is repeatedly shown as having a weakness for women, although the exact nature of that weakness can be debated.)

But probably the better point to make is that you questioned Poirot having a girlfriend, but ace people can have girlfriends. They can fall in love, they can want to spend their lives with someone; they just don't feel a desire to have sex. (In a way it was easier for asexual people back then since the prohibitions against premarital sex were much stronger, so no one would think it odd if someone wanted to keep a courtship chaste. Unlike today where ace people often feel pressured by expectations within a couple of dates...) It's been a while since I've seen the movie, so I don't remember; did Poirot express any kind of sexual feeling for his lost love? I just remember him looking at her picture wistfully, but maybe he had a conversation with Mary Debenham that I forgot. Otherwise, you could just make it your head canon for the movie that this was a woman he loved but parted from once he explained to her that he'd never be able to give her the "usual" sort of marriage, or children, and she decided she couldn't live that way.

Edited July 24, 2018 by Black Knight

[voiceover]

This whole defining of Poirot's sexuality feels like a grad student lit paper.

Christie was, first & forever, all about *plot*.  Such sex as existed served more as possible motive for murder (true even for Tommy & Tuppence) then as deep-dive into her series detectives.  Hastings had a fabulous sexy whirlwind romance (Murder on the Links), but he was a sidekick. Possibly why her two most prominent detectives were retirees, and -- as culturally bound to the times -- not seniors with active dating lives.  Ariadne Oliver was probably Poirot's missed opportunity, and Some Random Vicar might've been Jane Marple's.  But they never seemed the worse for it, and I never missed it.  

"Cosy" detective romance? go read Ngaio Marsh, Josephine Tey, Dorothy Sayers, Elizabeth George, or even PD James (who should've married off Adam to Cordelia, but that's *my* grad lit paper).

[Mabinogia]

8 hours ago, voiceover said:

Christie was, first & forever, all about *plot*.  

That is one of the reasons she will always be my favorite. She didn't feel the need to shoehorn romance into a murder mystery. I often get quite turned off as soon as I identify the "love interest" character for the main detective because I realize we are going to spend at least some of the book with all the flirting, banter and missed communications that are ripe in romance. It is different with married couples since they are already established. I enjoy Thomas and Charlotte Pitt or Radcliffe Emerson and Amelia Peabody because they are passed the cutesy misunderstandings stage and into the witty banter ala Nick and Nora Charles.

It is interesting, to me, this discussion of the sexuality of Poirot since, in all the times I've read his novels and all the movies I've seen with him, I have never given is sexual preference a second thought. It is quite refreshing really, since it has no bearing at all on his ability to be a great detective. I don't need to see Poirot flirting or in love. I need to see Poirot doing his master detecting.

[VCRTracking]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

That is one of the reasons she will always be my favorite. She didn't feel the need to shoehorn romance into a murder mystery.

Well there was romance but it would be between suspects! It was a way to get readers  emotionally involved if there was a couple in love and you didn't want either of them to be guilty because the other would be hurt. The first Poirot story "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" had two pairs of lovers.

Edited July 24, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Mabinogia]

20 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

Well there was romance but it would be between suspects! It was a way to get readers  emotionally involved if there was a couple in love and you didn't want either of them to be guilty because the other would be hurt. The first Poirot story "The Mysterious Affair at Styles" had two pairs of lovers.

That is fine. It is part of the overall story. And I'm not against romance. I just appreciate that she didn't feel the need to "hook up" her protagonists just for the sake of them having love in their lives. I get that movies you almost have to, and it can't be a nice easy romance either. There has to be drama and tension in Hollywood. If the main character doesn't have a love interest, they must be pining for the one that got away.

I respect the hell out of any writer who avoids the "romance" trap. Since the bulk of the stories were about his cases and not so much his personal life, I think it's fine we don't know what his sexuality was. I don't think she purposely left it ambiguous so much as, it wasn't a part of the stories she was telling.

[GaT]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

It is interesting, to me, this discussion of the sexuality of Poirot since, in all the times I've read his novels and all the movies I've seen with him, I have never given is sexual preference a second thought. It is quite refreshing really, since it has no bearing at all on his ability to be a great detective. I don't need to see Poirot flirting or in love. I need to see Poirot doing his master detecting.

I've never given his sexuality a thought either. This discussion reminds me of when JK Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay, my first thought wasn't "Dumbledore is gay?????" it was "Dumbledore has sex?????" 

[Katsullivan]

53 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

I just appreciate that she didn't feel the need to "hook up" her protagonists just for the sake of them having love in their lives.

 

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

She didn't feel the need to shoehorn romance into a murder mystery.

Actually, AC was quite good at inserting romance and hooking up protagonists* - just about every lead character in a non-Poirot or Marple story has a romantic storyline - the most famous example being Tommy/Tuppence.

*Technically speaking, are Poirot and Marple even "protagonists"? They are too... I think the right word would be omniscient, for most of the story. They aren't the "conventional" detectives who follow clues and track down suspects and "detect". 90% of the time, Marple basically stays near the window, knitting and her way of solving crimes is "I know Mr. B killed his wife because he reminded me so much of Mr A who lived here 20 years ago that did the same thing." Calling Poirot the protagonist of say, Links, would be like calling Aslan the protagonist of the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe. 

Anyway, my point is that Christie didn't have a problem giving romances, or creating romantic sub-plots for her characters. So there must have been a reason why she wrote Poirot as Poirot not Tommy Beresford or even Colonel Race who while single, had an unambiguous romantic subplot in his introduction. 

The reason why romance doesn't seem shoe-horned into the mysteries is because it's not. Most of the time, the romance is the mystery. Murder of the Links is as much a murder mystery as it is the narration of two generations of the same love triangle. The entire "bedrock" of Death on the Nile is a twisted love story. The Man in the Brown Suit is romance/adventure, not even strictly a mystery. 

 

 

13 hours ago, voiceover said:

go read Ngaio Marsh

my goodness, I tried to read them after I ran out of Christie books and I was bored. out. of. my. fricking. mind. 

6 minutes ago, GaT said:

This discussion reminds me of when JK Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay, my first thought wasn't "Dumbledore is gay?????" it was "Dumbledore has sex?????" 

THIS.

This is exactly my point. 

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I get that movies you almost have to, and it can't be a nice easy romance either.

You know this is good point. When Christie adapted And Then There Were None for the stage, she "fulfilled" the romance that she had written into the novel. She was quite firm that for the play to "work", it had to have a HEA ending.

[Sharpie66]

I haven’t yet seen the Ustinov Appointment with Death, where they shoehorned Poirot into the plot for the film adaptation.   I am interested to see how they handle the main romance there, which is between a nearly-estranged married couple. (I was in a high-school production, playing the evil stepmother who gets killed off halfway through, but not before trying to drive the couple further apart just to screw with the stepson—loads of fun playing the bitch!)

[Katsullivan]

45 minutes ago, Sharpie66 said:

I haven’t yet seen the Ustinov Appointment with Death, where they shoehorned Poirot into the plot for the film adaptation.  

Shoehorned? But Poirot was in the novel.

[VCRTracking]

14 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

I haven’t yet seen the Ustinov Appointment with Death, where they shoehorned Poirot into the plot for the film adaptation.   I am interested to see how they handle the main romance there, which is between a nearly-estranged married couple. (I was in a high-school production, playing the evil stepmother who gets killed off halfway through, but not before trying to drive the couple further apart just to screw with the stepson—loads of fun playing the bitch!)

 

13 hours ago, Katsullivan said:

Shoehorned? But Poirot was in the novel.

Yeah, it was a Poirot mystery so I'm curious what the version without him would be like.  I watched the movie on TV a long time ago. I remember Carrie Fisher and Hayley Mills were in it but forgot the resolution so I could probably rewatch it and be surprised again.

Edited July 25, 2018 by VCRTracking

[Sharpie66]

Really? Never read the novel, just the play script, where there is a generic police inspector doing the legwork. 

Just read the Wikipedia page for the play—apparently, Christie really changed it for the stage production. Won’t spoil the other big change other than taking Poirot out.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Sharpie66

[VCRTracking]

4 hours ago, Sharpie66 said:

Really? Never read the novel, just the play script, where there is a generic police inspector doing the legwork. 

Just read the Wikipedia page for the play—apparently, Christie really changed it for the stage production. Won’t spoil the other big change other than taking Poirot out.

 

There are two Agatha Christie stories I know(and I've read)  which didn't feature her two famous detectives but were turned into Miss Marple mysteries "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?"(aka "The Boomerang Clue" and "Ordeal By Innocence" in the 2000s. I've never seen them but I have seen the 1980 adaptation of Evans and there's a 3 part miniseries of "Ordeal" starring Bill Nighy which aired on BBC a few months ago. Apparently it was supposed to come out last Christmas but because of rape allegations against cast member Ed Westwick, they reshot all his scenes with a replacement actor.  They also changed who the murderer was from the novel. As much as I like the travelogue mysteries with the suspects a list of colorful (supposed) strangers I also enjoy the ones where the murder is at a country estate and there's all that family drama and intrigue like "Ordeal" and "Affair at Styles".

Edited July 27, 2018 by VCRTracking

[GaT]

12 hours ago, VCRTracking said:

There are two Agatha Christie stories I know(and I've read)  which didn't feature her two famous detectives but were turned into Miss Marple mysteries "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?"(aka "The Boomerang Clue" and "Ordeal By Innocence" in the 2000s. I've never seen them but I have seen the 1980 adaptation of Evans and there's a 3 part miniseries of "Ordeal" starring Bill Nighy which aired on BBC a few months ago. Apparently it was supposed to come out last Christmas but because of rape allegations against cast member Ed Westwick, they reshot all his scenes with a replacement actor.  They also changed who the murderer was from the novel. As much as I like the travelogue mysteries with the suspects a list of colorful (supposed) strangers I also enjoy the ones where the murder is at a country estate and there's all that family drama and intrigue like "Ordeal" and "Affair at Styles".

They changed who the murderer is on a story based on an Agatha Christie novel?????? WTF? 

[starri]

On 7/27/2018 at 4:07 AM, VCRTracking said:

There are two Agatha Christie stories I know(and I've read)  which didn't feature her two famous detectives but were turned into Miss Marple mysteries "Why Didn't They Ask Evans?"(aka "The Boomerang Clue" and "Ordeal By Innocence" in the 2000s

I think the ITV series was about half stories that didn't feature Miss Marple originally.  Some were actually quite good--I highly recommend Murder is Easy, with a pre-Sherlock Benedict Cumberbatch, and the Pale Horse, which was a solo adventure for Ariadne Oliver.  Some where not, like By the Pricking of My Thumbs, which really didn't do Tommy and Tuppence any favors.

That said, I had always hoped they'd do Crooked House as well, since that was Christie's personal favorite novel.  Alas, the Christie estate sold the rights to the BBC before that could happen.

[SlovakPrincess]

I have a hard time imagining anyone but David Suchet (from the PBS version) in the role of Poirot.   The ridiculous mustache in this version really didn't help.    Also, I don't remember Poirot having a tragically dead love of his life (and a picture of said woman, that he talks to) in the books .... but perhaps I've just forgotten.  

The movie was gorgeous to look at in parts, and Michelle Pfeiffer was great.   But other than that, I was kind of bored.   None of the characters really got a chance to be interesting -- maybe because there were too many of them, and this story is naturally just depressing and therefore leaves little room for the dose of high-class banter and fun you otherwise get to lighten the mood in one of these murder mysteries.    

At least Johnny Depp didn't ham it up too much, as he is wont to do these days.  

[GaT]

3 hours ago, SlovakPrincess said:

At least Johnny Depp didn't ham it up too much, as he is wont to do these days.  

Isn't he mostly dead?

[Matt K]

So I finally got around to watching this on HBO and I liked it.  I have no experience with any of Christie's novels nor have I seen any other adaptations of this story (just the vague knowledge of a looked door train mystery).  Taken as just another movie I thought it was pretty good.  It had a nice pace to it, the acting was good (including Depp's which was a surprise) and the visuals were pretty good too.  My only real gripe was the chase scene on the bridge seemed kind of tacked on and a few of the characters (the sister and her husband?) seemed to come out of nowhere.  The story was good too but it seems they mostly followed Christie's novel so I can;t give them too much credit there.

Overall I really liked it

Edited August 14, 2018 by Matt K

[GaT]

1 hour ago, Matt K said:

So I finally got around to watching this on HBO and I liked it.  

I had no idea it was on HBO, thanks for the heads up.

[VCRTracking]

2 hours ago, Matt K said:

  My only real gripe was the chase scene on the bridge seemed kind of tacked on and a few of the characters (the sister and her husband?) seemed to come out of nowhere. 

It was. The filmmakers said they wanted to give Poirot of a bit of an action scene.

2 hours ago, Matt K said:

and a few of the characters (the sister and her husband?) seemed to come out of nowhere.

Some of the characters were changed from the book and some invented. The sister and her husband were in the book but he was just a count, not a ballet dancer and didn't do any fancy fighting.

[GaT]

Finally watched this tonight & all I can think of is NOPE, DO NOT WANT. Here are my random thoughts.

He looks wrong. I know I've been whining about this since the first pictures came out, but it's supposed to be BLACK hair & mustache (which is also the wrong shape), not grey, not salt & pepper, but JET BLACK because that is the color he dyes it. Also, not supposed to have a goatee.  This is basic stuff, it's like remaking Harry Potter & having his scar be in the shape of a triangle.

The beginning of the 1974 movie set the movie up so beautifully, there was nothing that did the same thing here, & it was lacking.

Why did they have Mrs Hubbard get stabbed? It was stupid. In the books she finds the knife in her sponge bag.

Hercules Poirot action star! NO, This character never runs around in the books, he's famous for talking about his "little grey cells" & why using them is better than running around looking for clues & chasing criminals. Having him suddenly be an action star (I can't believe they had the doctor shoot at him) is another basic characteristic (like his hair color) that they totally screwed up.

The denouncement was supposed to take place in the dining car, not in a train tunnel. It looked ridiculous watching Poirot pacing back & forth in front of what was obviously a green screen setup. It looked completely fake.

When did the sister become a drug addict & her husband the count become a kung fu master?

The end with them all stabbing Rachett was just a mass of people stabbing, not nearly as dramatic as the 1974 version when they came in one at a time, stated who they were doing it for, & then stabbed him.

WTF was that piece of crap song that played at the end?

This whole thing was just one big disappointment, & I doubt Death on the Nile is going to be any better.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I was really looking forward to seeing this based on the cast and because its Dame Christie! David Suchet has and always be Poirot for me. But I wanted to be fair and give Branagh, who I also like, a chance. It all started on the wrong foot with that horrid moustache! Not ti mention it wasn’t BLACK!

So it’s a good thing I missed watching it in the big screen.  But the movie was such a snoozefest. It couldn’t hold my attention. And that upset me because I really thought and expected to love it. What was mist frustrating to me was trying to figure out the names of the characters. The opening scene, then the restaurant, followed by the ship scenes, to the Express was a big giant confusing mess.

And then there’s this:

12 hours ago, GaT said:

Hercules Poirot action star! NO, This character never runs around in the books, he's famous for talking about his "little grey cells" & why using them is better than running around looking for clues & chasing criminals. Having him suddenly be an action star (I can't believe they had the doctor shoot at him) is another basic characteristic (like his hair color) that they totally screwed up.

The denouncement was supposed to take place in the dining car, not in a train tunnel. It looked ridiculous watching Poirot pacing back & forth in front of what was obviously a green screen setup. It looked completely fake.

When did the sister become a drug addict & her husband the count become a kung fu master?

The end with them all stabbing Rachett was just a mass of people stabbing, not nearly as dramatic as the 1974 version when they came in one at a time, stated who they were doing it for, & then stabbed him.

That last part was so ridiculously fake that I laughed, which I dont think was the intent.

I’ve watched Suchet’s Poirot on PBS Masterpiece over the years, but dont think I ever saw The Orient Express.

Never saw the 1974 version, either.

[GaT]

5 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Never saw the 1974 version, either.

Oh, really? You should should watch it, it's amazing. The beginning alone is worth the view.

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 hours ago, GaT said:

Oh, really? You should should watch it, it's amazing. The beginning alone is worth the view.

And I’ve just now finished watching it on demand-it is VASTLY superior. And what a stellar cast!

And you were right about the beginning. 

I much prefer this one with its moments of humor and levity.

Despite enjoying Finney’s Poirot, Suchet will always be Hercule Poirot for me.

[GaT]

32 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I’ve just now finished watching it on demand-it is VASTLY superior. And what a stellar cast!

And you were right about the beginning. 

I much prefer this one with its moments of humor and levity.

Despite enjoying Finney’s Poirot, Suchet will always be Hercule Poirot for me.

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it, I really don't understand how anyone could think this version was better than the 1974 one. The beginning never fails to suck me in every time.

[VCRTracking]

2 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

And I’ve just now finished watching it on demand-it is VASTLY superior. And what a stellar cast!

And you were right about the beginning. 

I much prefer this one with its moments of humor and levity.

Despite enjoying Finney’s Poirot, Suchet will always be Hercule Poirot for me.

 

1 hour ago, GaT said:

I'm glad to hear you enjoyed it, I really don't understand how anyone could think this version was better than the 1974 one. The beginning never fails to suck me in every time.

I love director Sidney Lumet using the other conspirators toasting the mother and daughter, Lauren Bacall and Jacqueline Bissett at the end as a way to have the cast do a final "curtain call".

[voiceover]

10 minutes ago, VCRTracking said:

 

I love director Sidney Lumet using the other conspirators toasting the mother and daughter, Lauren Bacall and Jacqueline Bissett at the end as a way to have the cast do a final "curtain call".

Pure elegance.  The first time I saw it, I wept at this sequence.

[Sharpie66]

I probably first saw the Lumet film when it was first on tv when I was somewhere around junior high age, just at the time I was mainlining Christie’s books (along with Sherlock Holmes stories). All I remember is that it was a constant in my teen years, because I never missed seeing it whenever it was broadcast, and the dvd was one of the first ones I purchased. I knew just about everyone in the cast, but Wendy Hiller is a personal fave of mine ever since I saw Pygmalion and then I Know Where I’m Going when I was in my 20s. I love her Princess Dragomirov in the Lumet film, seemingly ancient and delicate in her old age, but tough as nails and sharp as them, too. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Another difference that struck me was the lighting. The 1974 version was so bright and I could see everything and everyone. This one? So DARK and DEPRESSING. Not to mention the ANGST.

[VCRTracking]

On 8/22/2018 at 1:03 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

Another difference that struck me was the lighting. The 1974 version was so bright and I could see everything and everyone. This one? So DARK and DEPRESSING. Not to mention the ANGST.

The Suchet TV version went really dark. That one began with a woman being stoned to death! And the last act is bathed in this hellish red lighting with Poirot wrestling with his Catholicism whether to let the murderers go. Pre-fame Jessica Chastain plays Mary Debenham like an angel of vengeance. The Branagh one was in the middle. It was darker than the 1974 one but not as "gun in the mouth"  depressing as Suchet's. There were amusing bits in this one, like the reveal of Willem Dafoe's character. Bouc in the 1974 was played by Martin Balsam and he was amusing was someone the same age as Poirot. I liked him being more a younger caddish playboy as played by Tom Bateman. Kind of like having Hastings in the story.

Edited August 24, 2018 by VCRTracking