Off My Shelf: Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
As you would probably expect -- knowing (if you know this) that I'm a big fan of Agatha Christie -- I have a few problems with this movie.
Plot: World-famous detective Hercule Poirot is on a train headings towards vacation -- when a murder happens. There are twelve other people on the train -- and therefore, twelve suspects. Whodunnit?
Like I said, I'm an Agatha Christie fan. I decided, a few years back, that I would make it one of my goals in life to read all her books -- and she's one of those very prolific authors who turned out a couple books a year and lived for a long time -- so this was an undertaking. I haven't made it quite through the whole lot of them yet, but I'm close -- so, I can confidently state that when I read Murder on the Orient Express, I could understand why it was considered "one of the good ones". It had a very interesting plot, and I was surprised at the revelation of the murderer (don't worry, I won't spoil it!)
So, admittedly, I went into this movie knowing exactly what "the surprise ending" was. And I'm not sure if that threw off my judgement or not.... but I don't think it did.
Surprise! No lips!The Things I Liked
To my absolute shock -- the thing I might have enjoyed most was Johnny Depp's performance. I say this with shock because this was one of the things I went in expecting to enjoy least. I admit, I have grown to have a somewhat bad opinion of Johnny Depp's acting skills in the past few years. I tend to not find him funny in comedic roles, not find him heroic in heroic roles, and not find him convincing in serious roles. I didn't like him in The Lone Ranger, or Dark Shadows, or Pirates of the Caribbean. Just about the only Johnny Depp films where I didn't mind his performance were Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood -- and they were both characters that were a little off, to say the least. But in this role (small as it was) he was great, and perfectly convincing! Perhaps, the issue isn't so much that Johnny Depp is a bad actor -- just that he's a niche actor who has been consistently cast outside his niche? (His niche, apparently, being sleazy, 1930's thugs). I found him, in this role, to be both believable, funny and interesting.
The other thing I liked is that Branagh's Poirot had a ridiculously large mustache. Excellent as the David Suchet version of Poirot is -- the books describe him specifically as having an "enormous" mustache, and Suchet's nice little waxed 'stache doesn't really fit that description.
The Things I Liked the Least
Cinematography
Oddly enough, one of the big things I didn't like about this movie was one of the things I thought I would enjoy the most -- the cinematography. There were a lot of genuinely awkward, hard-to-look-at shots. Also shots that break basic rules of filmmaking -- i.e. when you first introduce a character, you should be able to see them. The most egregious example of this is when Michelle Pfeiffer's character was introduced (a pretty significant character)... and she and Poirot are walking behind things that obscure us being able to see them. Some people might cast that as a "bold directorial choice" -- but I call it crappy cinematography. The revelation of the dead body, too, was bungled twice -- and that's another significant thing that I'm not sure why it was messed with. It made me really question a) the editor's skill, and b) the director's skill. Perhaps Kenneth Branagh was trying to "visually" create "mysteries" (or visually imply mystery, somehow) by not letting us see things -- so that our brains are going, "What's going on behind that door frame that I can't see? What a mystery!" If that's the case, I suppose it was creative -- but it was really annoying and ultimately didn't work.
Unnecessary Diversity
I understand in this day and age, it must be very hard for a filmmaker to get a film greenlit that doesn't have "diverse casting" available. In order to counter that, the filmmakers of this film inserted some (relatively time-period inappropriate) diversity into the film -- and then, to counter the fact that the diversity they inserted was not wholly time-period appropriate, they made another character a goofy, cartoonish racist to comment on not wanting to be seated next to them folks, as sort of a nod to what they'd done. "See? We know this wouldn't have worked out well in those days, so we're commenting on it! That means we're good storytellers!"
So, not only did they create a problem, they very ham-fistedly played it out in the story, to no particular end. The story they created didn't go anywhere. Personally, I have no problem with diversity (if I did, I'd have to have problems with my own genetic makeup) -- but I'm also a big advocate of both "good storytelling" and "author's intentions" with regards to adaptations. So, if Agatha Christie wrote the story about a group of white people, and it makes sense for the time period and it muddles the story for to not just be white people, just let it be a group of white people. No one is going to be transformed into a racist by watching a movie that only has white stars. Agatha Christie was a pretty open-minded gal for her time and extensively well-travelled, so cut her some slack, folks, and tell her stories as they were intended to be told.
Poirot
I essentially enjoyed Kenneth Branagh (and, as stated, enjoyed his mustache), but thought the decision to include Poirot frequently moping over the picture of some long-lost love made him into a bit of a sad-sack. I didn't like the fact that the very first thing the movie does is include a bunch of big, exciting scenes that establish how smart and cool Poirot is -- because that is the antithesis of one of Agatha Christie's central themes about Poirot. In the books, people constantly underestimate Poirot because he's a short, funny-looking little old man, with a big silly mustache and an inflated opinion of himself. A character in the book even remarks upon this:
"The little man removed his hat. What a magnificent head of hair he had! In spite of her preoccupations, Mary Debenham smiled. This man was a freakin' badass! She took him very seriously!"Also, the ending (which I won't spoil for you) adds some unnecessary drama for Poirot and then basically makes it seem like Poirot was abandoning one of the central characteristics of his character. Why, when you are clearly, clunkily laying down groundwork for a sequel ("They say there's been a death... on the Nile!") would you make Poirot abandon one of his central personal characteristics?
The Adaptation
The adaptation of this story... wasn't great. I felt like they spent too much time on little bits and twits that they'd added into the story (Poirot being obsessed with the size of eggs he is served? Poirot moping over a picture of his long-lost love? Not to mention jarring, absolute bottom-of-the-barrel comedy; i.e. Poirot steps in poop.) and never really built up a good sense of "mystery". There are twelve suspects -- but I never got a real sense of every single person being seriously considered as a suspect. Freakin' Clue does a better job of creating a mysterious atmosphere, and I HATE THAT MOVIE. There simply wasn't a heightened sense of suspicion, making you, the audience, suspect everyone and wonder who would be the killer could be. I wondered if I felt that way because I was familiar with the story and already knew who did it -- but Mr. Hall went to the movies with me, and was not familiar with the resolution of the story, and didn't feel that way either. I felt they left out too much of the mystery and too much of the detection in favor of... what? A couple unnecessary chase scenes? The racism sub-plot? Poirot's brand-new obsession with eating two identical eggs?
I have to say, I've never had a problem finding identical eggs. SPEAKING OF EGGS.... this adaptation pretty much "reads" like somebody just watched previous adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express and didn't bother to read any of the multiple other books of Poirot's adventures to become familiar with the character. Why, when Poirot is a notoriously bad sailor, do they have a long scene of him happily strolling around on the deck of a ship? Why, when Poirot is well-known to always start the day with a cocoa, is he depicted as being obsessed with eating identical eggs? Bad Kenneth Branagh. I would have expected better research from you.
Ultimately...
In the end... although I was really looking forward to this movie, because I like both Agatha Christie murder mysteries and snow, I found the experience muddled and lack-lustre. Oh, I've seen worse movies. But I've also seen movies that did a better job of doing their research, of adapting a story, and of creating a sense of mystery and intrigue. Ultimately, that's what was really missing from this movie.
If it came down to you having to watch either this movie or Clue, please watch this movie. And if you're a Kenneth Branagh fan, you'll probably enjoy this. It wasn't a terrible couple hours in the movie theater. It was just kind of weak.
Very Weakly Recommended
Plot: World-famous detective Hercule Poirot is on a train headings towards vacation -- when a murder happens. There are twelve other people on the train -- and therefore, twelve suspects. Whodunnit?
Like I said, I'm an Agatha Christie fan. I decided, a few years back, that I would make it one of my goals in life to read all her books -- and she's one of those very prolific authors who turned out a couple books a year and lived for a long time -- so this was an undertaking. I haven't made it quite through the whole lot of them yet, but I'm close -- so, I can confidently state that when I read Murder on the Orient Express, I could understand why it was considered "one of the good ones". It had a very interesting plot, and I was surprised at the revelation of the murderer (don't worry, I won't spoil it!)
So, admittedly, I went into this movie knowing exactly what "the surprise ending" was. And I'm not sure if that threw off my judgement or not.... but I don't think it did.
Surprise! No lips!The Things I LikedTo my absolute shock -- the thing I might have enjoyed most was Johnny Depp's performance. I say this with shock because this was one of the things I went in expecting to enjoy least. I admit, I have grown to have a somewhat bad opinion of Johnny Depp's acting skills in the past few years. I tend to not find him funny in comedic roles, not find him heroic in heroic roles, and not find him convincing in serious roles. I didn't like him in The Lone Ranger, or Dark Shadows, or Pirates of the Caribbean. Just about the only Johnny Depp films where I didn't mind his performance were Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood -- and they were both characters that were a little off, to say the least. But in this role (small as it was) he was great, and perfectly convincing! Perhaps, the issue isn't so much that Johnny Depp is a bad actor -- just that he's a niche actor who has been consistently cast outside his niche? (His niche, apparently, being sleazy, 1930's thugs). I found him, in this role, to be both believable, funny and interesting.
The other thing I liked is that Branagh's Poirot had a ridiculously large mustache. Excellent as the David Suchet version of Poirot is -- the books describe him specifically as having an "enormous" mustache, and Suchet's nice little waxed 'stache doesn't really fit that description.
The Things I Liked the Least
Cinematography
Oddly enough, one of the big things I didn't like about this movie was one of the things I thought I would enjoy the most -- the cinematography. There were a lot of genuinely awkward, hard-to-look-at shots. Also shots that break basic rules of filmmaking -- i.e. when you first introduce a character, you should be able to see them. The most egregious example of this is when Michelle Pfeiffer's character was introduced (a pretty significant character)... and she and Poirot are walking behind things that obscure us being able to see them. Some people might cast that as a "bold directorial choice" -- but I call it crappy cinematography. The revelation of the dead body, too, was bungled twice -- and that's another significant thing that I'm not sure why it was messed with. It made me really question a) the editor's skill, and b) the director's skill. Perhaps Kenneth Branagh was trying to "visually" create "mysteries" (or visually imply mystery, somehow) by not letting us see things -- so that our brains are going, "What's going on behind that door frame that I can't see? What a mystery!" If that's the case, I suppose it was creative -- but it was really annoying and ultimately didn't work.
Unnecessary Diversity
I understand in this day and age, it must be very hard for a filmmaker to get a film greenlit that doesn't have "diverse casting" available. In order to counter that, the filmmakers of this film inserted some (relatively time-period inappropriate) diversity into the film -- and then, to counter the fact that the diversity they inserted was not wholly time-period appropriate, they made another character a goofy, cartoonish racist to comment on not wanting to be seated next to them folks, as sort of a nod to what they'd done. "See? We know this wouldn't have worked out well in those days, so we're commenting on it! That means we're good storytellers!"
So, not only did they create a problem, they very ham-fistedly played it out in the story, to no particular end. The story they created didn't go anywhere. Personally, I have no problem with diversity (if I did, I'd have to have problems with my own genetic makeup) -- but I'm also a big advocate of both "good storytelling" and "author's intentions" with regards to adaptations. So, if Agatha Christie wrote the story about a group of white people, and it makes sense for the time period and it muddles the story for to not just be white people, just let it be a group of white people. No one is going to be transformed into a racist by watching a movie that only has white stars. Agatha Christie was a pretty open-minded gal for her time and extensively well-travelled, so cut her some slack, folks, and tell her stories as they were intended to be told.
Poirot
I essentially enjoyed Kenneth Branagh (and, as stated, enjoyed his mustache), but thought the decision to include Poirot frequently moping over the picture of some long-lost love made him into a bit of a sad-sack. I didn't like the fact that the very first thing the movie does is include a bunch of big, exciting scenes that establish how smart and cool Poirot is -- because that is the antithesis of one of Agatha Christie's central themes about Poirot. In the books, people constantly underestimate Poirot because he's a short, funny-looking little old man, with a big silly mustache and an inflated opinion of himself. A character in the book even remarks upon this:
"The little man removed his hat. What an egg-shaped head he had! In spite of her preoccupations Mary Debenham smiled. A ridiculous-looking little man. The sort of little man one could never take seriously." - P.5Does that description fit this man?
"The little man removed his hat. What a magnificent head of hair he had! In spite of her preoccupations, Mary Debenham smiled. This man was a freakin' badass! She took him very seriously!"Also, the ending (which I won't spoil for you) adds some unnecessary drama for Poirot and then basically makes it seem like Poirot was abandoning one of the central characteristics of his character. Why, when you are clearly, clunkily laying down groundwork for a sequel ("They say there's been a death... on the Nile!") would you make Poirot abandon one of his central personal characteristics?The Adaptation
The adaptation of this story... wasn't great. I felt like they spent too much time on little bits and twits that they'd added into the story (Poirot being obsessed with the size of eggs he is served? Poirot moping over a picture of his long-lost love? Not to mention jarring, absolute bottom-of-the-barrel comedy; i.e. Poirot steps in poop.) and never really built up a good sense of "mystery". There are twelve suspects -- but I never got a real sense of every single person being seriously considered as a suspect. Freakin' Clue does a better job of creating a mysterious atmosphere, and I HATE THAT MOVIE. There simply wasn't a heightened sense of suspicion, making you, the audience, suspect everyone and wonder who would be the killer could be. I wondered if I felt that way because I was familiar with the story and already knew who did it -- but Mr. Hall went to the movies with me, and was not familiar with the resolution of the story, and didn't feel that way either. I felt they left out too much of the mystery and too much of the detection in favor of... what? A couple unnecessary chase scenes? The racism sub-plot? Poirot's brand-new obsession with eating two identical eggs?
I have to say, I've never had a problem finding identical eggs. SPEAKING OF EGGS.... this adaptation pretty much "reads" like somebody just watched previous adaptations of Murder on the Orient Express and didn't bother to read any of the multiple other books of Poirot's adventures to become familiar with the character. Why, when Poirot is a notoriously bad sailor, do they have a long scene of him happily strolling around on the deck of a ship? Why, when Poirot is well-known to always start the day with a cocoa, is he depicted as being obsessed with eating identical eggs? Bad Kenneth Branagh. I would have expected better research from you.Ultimately...
In the end... although I was really looking forward to this movie, because I like both Agatha Christie murder mysteries and snow, I found the experience muddled and lack-lustre. Oh, I've seen worse movies. But I've also seen movies that did a better job of doing their research, of adapting a story, and of creating a sense of mystery and intrigue. Ultimately, that's what was really missing from this movie.
If it came down to you having to watch either this movie or Clue, please watch this movie. And if you're a Kenneth Branagh fan, you'll probably enjoy this. It wasn't a terrible couple hours in the movie theater. It was just kind of weak.
Very Weakly Recommended
No comments have been added yet.
