Agatha Christie Lovers discussion
General
>
The new movie Murder on the Orient Express - Love it or Hate it?
date
newest »
newest »
It is a pity that I had to go to Denmark at this time! If I have stayed back in Lithuania, I would have seen the movie already. And now I have to wait for another 10 days or so to be able to see it here.In summer I have read the book and re-watched the movie with David Suchet and I am very interested to compare. I hope to write my thoughts later, when I see new version. In David Suchet version I was pretty surprised that Poirot got very angry and yelled several times. I never expected that from him.
I agree that the mustache on new portrayal of Poirot looks really strange. But I remember it was described as being big in the book (can't remember the exact words, also, I was reading in Lithuanian). So maybe the size is not the biggest issue with me. The bigger issue is their color. Real Poirot would never let his mustache go gray. He would dye it frequently.
Generally speaking, I loved the movie! Not to disagree with everything you said^^ there are definitely some details missing, but I think Branagh paid enough attention to detail and has a lot of respect for his source material. The film generally followed the plot faithfully, adding in a couple action sequences to help it fit in with the Hollywood standards.
The acting was incredible, and Poirot as a character had enough of his trademark quirks to satisfy me.
The part that bothered me the most was the ending. Without giving too much away ( in case there’s still a few people out there that haven’t read it :p ) Poirot acts as some buzz are supreme judgement deciding who gets charged and who doesn’t. There could have been a million other ways to end the movie. (I’m partial to a more open-ended ending to this one :/).
Overall, a great movie that lived up to its hype imo, I hope it generates more interest in Poirot and Christie much like the Sherlock Holmes reboots have. The ending could have been better though.
I thought it was okay. Rather pointless action sequences and character changes, but it stuck reasonably closely to the book's plot, at least as much as one can expect from most films of the book. But I much prefer the 1974 version.
Aušrinė wrote: "I agree that the mustache on new portrayal of Poirot looks really strange. But I remember it was described as being big in the book (can't remember the exact words, also, I was reading in Lithuanian). So maybe the size is not the biggest issue with me. The bigger issue is their color. Real Poirot would never let his mustache go gray. He would dye it frequently."One of the problems that Agatha Christie had with Albert Finney's Poirot in the 1974 film was the moustache. She said, "It [the film] was well made except for one mistake. It was Albert Finney, as my detective Hercule Poirot. I wrote that he had the finest moustache in England — and he didn't in the film. I thought that a pity — why shouldn't he?" I think if Christie disapproved of Poirot's moustache in that film what would she have thought of Kenneth Branagh with it? Oh, the horror! No, she definitely wouldn't like it. I don't if she would have liked the style of the moustache but she would have shuddered at the color. In the series, Poirot dyes both his hair and his moustaches. Kenneth Branagh said that he read some of the books in preparation for the role. Well, he should have uncovered this fact . . . .or else, have taken better notes. David Suchet did. Suchet prepared wholeheartedly for the role. That's probably Suchet is and to my mind will always be the definitive Poirot.
I felt the middle of the film was disjointed, spliced with ridiculous action-scenes and the interviews felt short and rushed. If only the beginning was cut, and middle scenes like the “Katherine” angle, Poirot’s inner struggle, and ridiculous action sequences and more attention was placed on the interviews/interrogations themselves along with a longer film running time, I feel like the pay off clearly would have been more powerful. One complaint about the film that I’ve heard was many viewers didn’t feel they were involved in the solving of the mystery; the clues weren’t all there and they felt cheated. To get to that big payoff, you have to keep the viewers involved and invested in the mystery. I found the ending powerful and it could be because I already know the conclusion (which I always found powerful) and on top of that the music in that scene moved me. But the middle was so crammed together with too many things, I can see how viewers lost interest and if they lose interest, how can they feel the power of the ending? You lost them way before the mystery’s solution. More emphasis should have been on the clues and interviews themselves. That’s the key to a mystery. That’s the key to keep an audience interested whenever a mystery is adapted onscreen. And screenwriters and directors, you can still film it in such a way for a 21st century audience that won’t bore or deter them if that’s something you’re worried about when filming a true whodunit. Because great visuals and cinematography just isn’t enough for a mystery. And having action sequences to compensate for those "boring" interviews for a modern audience, c'mon, there has to be something different because even they will become old after a while.
Overall, disliked it intently. The only good thing was the cinematography. Flat acting, Poirot not acting even remotely like he was created, God-awful changes, not the least of which was the bizarre ending and the way Mrs. Hubbard "finds" the knife.Global disaster.
Mod
I think that was the best version too Louise (although I did love Suchet's)
Great movie. I am Happy it is not just an Update of The old movie.
I liked the film but didn't love it.The beginning didn't bother me and I was pleased it showed the lighter, humourous side of Poirot which I think is often missed in the screen adaptations.
The photography was beautiful but there were a couple of stylized visual angles that I felt were rather over done.
The moustache was a little over the top which in itself didn't bother me but I felt it was indicative of the melodramatic tone of the whole film. Intead of people discussing matters amonsgt themselves they made dramatic, emotional speeches: just too Hollywood and not at all Agatha Christie.
The movie was okay. But I'm not too happy about it. There was too much emotional drama especially towards the end. I guess that can be expected from any Hollywood movie.
I have just came back from the movie. And I should say that I agree with all the critique given here by all of you. Apart from accent, this wasn't Poirot at all.If I remember correctly, David Suchet wrote in his book Poirot and Me, that objective for him was to portray Poirot so no one would laugh at him, but they should rather laugh with him. And this movie failed in that aspect: the audience was laughing at Poirot when he measured the eggs, when he stepped in s***, etc. And I was laughing when Poirot was behaving how he would never behave in the book.
But after reading the book and seeing two adaptations, I started to understand why this story is one of the strongest about Poirot: it is because we can see Poirot not only solving the crime (which he always does), but also evolving as a character and seeing that justice might not always be single-sided.
Neither, because I went with very low expectations. I did like the cinematography and Johnny Depp, though.
Mod
Oooh, Johnny Depp [sigh].
Carolyn F. wrote: "Αγγελίνα wrote: "Neither, because I went with very low expectations. I did like the cinematography and Johnny Depp, though."Oooh, Johnny Depp [sigh]."
Was he not good in it?
Mod
Crude, vulgar, poorly plotted, most of Agatha Christie's dialogue thrown out in favor of typical Hollywood babble. A real mess that fails completely to capture any of the charm that makes Christie Christie.
I'm not keen to even see it. The photos I've seen just look too exaggerated / camped up. I love Poirot - I don't want anyone making him look ridiculous! Also it's one of my favourite Christie books, and I think they've taken some liberties with the plot too. It's a pity - I really admire Kenneth Branagh both as an actor and as a director. Whenever I've heard him interviewed he seems to really give some thought to how to portray his characters. But this is a big mistake on his part I think. And yes, I admit I have no right to critique a film I haven't seen! ;-)
But you've none-the-less hit the nail on the head! The methodical way that the murder is solved may not make ORIENT EXPRESS a particularly good candidate for a motion picture adaptation (although the 1974 version is very well respected), but the clumsy attempts to "open up" the story in the latest movie version are ineffective to the point of being pathetic.
i'm open-minded everytime i watch the movie adaptation 1st before i read the book. so, i admit that i still havent read it but i will do it this year. before i saw the new adaptation, i borrowed the DVD from the 1974 film & loved it. i totally agree w/ @LovesMysteries' critique on Branagh's version that i felt disappointed after i watched it.
Hate it. They ruin Poirot's look. Damn that moustache. TV version with David Suchet is closer to what I imagine him from the book.
Although David Suchet's Poirot is an impossible act to follow, I enjoyed the movie especially for the setting and the story and Branagh's performance was good.
I can accept that the motion picture is an entirely different medium than a book, and I expect some liberties to be taken. But, in this case, Agatha Christie's novel wasn't just adapted for a different medium, it was completely disrespected.
Agree with the "drama" thing. Got even bored of it at some point. Not hate it, but not like it either.
Mod
"They" tried to make it a movie that would be liked by people who normally wouldn't like period pieces, but in my opinion they ruined it for the fans who went to see it with all the gymnastics and ridiculous tears.
I watched it over the weekend and I really couldn't get into it, ended up switching it off before the end. It was pretty disappointing considering how great the book was and the casting seemed to be spot on.
I saw it a few months ago. I liked it but didn't love it. However, I'm not a tough critic on movies made from books because I realize that it is nearly impossible to make the movie as good as the book. So I try to evaluate the movie based on its own merits. This novel has always seemed an odd choice for a movie adaptation, and I thought they did a decent job. I was entertained.
The best part, though, was it got a couple of my movie going party to pick up the novel and meet Ms. Christie as she should be discovered.
Teri wrote: "I saw it a few months ago. I liked it but didn't love it. However, I'm not a tough critic on movies made from books because I realize that it is nearly impossible to make the movie as good as the b..."Do they like the book version? I try not to view movies of books as I would rather enjoy the book. Seeing the movie version would ruin the book for me. Hopefully, those who tried the book will pick up other books by Agatha Christie
From cinematography to how the story was told, I thought the film was very well executed. I love that they added a twist on the doctor and portrayed him as an African American involved in a interracial relationship which is something I imagine to be frowned upon back then. They didn’t stir away from the main plot which I liked
I hated it because the whole time I had the feeling they mixed up Hercule Poirot with Sherlock Holmes. I was sitting in the cinema like "Hercule wouldn't do that" "Poirot wouldn't say it like that" I think if I didn't watch previous films or read the books I would maybe enjoy the movie, but now I couldn't at all.
Adriana wrote: "I hated it because the whole time I had the feeling they mixed up Hercule Poirot with Sherlock Holmes. I was sitting in the cinema like "Hercule wouldn't do that" "Poirot wouldn't say it like that"..."I was thinking the exact same thing. The things that I saw Poirot do in the film isn't what the Poirot that Agatha Christie would have done. It appeared as though the film wanted to lean towards some action-oriented elements which shows up no where in the book. And the film misses out on that claustrophobic feel. Everything takes place on that train and not one moment in the book does anything occur outside. The film took liberties and missed out on the closed mystery aspect that Christie went for.
hate it. They changed poirot a lot, its okay to change his look a little but the movie-Poirot's demeanor was a lot different than christie's portrayal (which I love) of him. movie was very fast and so short, it missed out on some things, interesting and imporatnt things. I was so excited about the movie, because I thought the cast was perfect, but I hate that it didn't play out that well.
the BBC short series(s) are so much better. maybe they'll make one of this book too. I hope they do.
I'd say it is good for people who do NOT read. We're very picky; we know our Poirot all too well, and the movie changed him a lot. I watched the movie, trying so hard to actually enjoy it. But the Poirot lover in me kept cringing all along!! euh
Mél wrote: "I'd say it is good for people who do NOT read. We're very picky; we know our Poirot all too well, and the movie changed him a lot. I watched the movie, trying so hard to actually enjoy it. But the..."
It reminds me a little of the The Dark Tower movie. People who enjoyed it had not read the book series but the people who had hated it.
Coming late to the discussion here, but I didn't enjoy the movie. I love Kenneth Branagh, especially his Shakespearean work. I disliked his work in this adaptation. I particularly disliked how much of the story was outside the train. As someone said in a previous post, it removed the claustrophobia that is part of the book. My husband, who doesn't read Christie, thought it was an OK movie. For me, who has revered Agatha Christie since 5th grade, it was a great disappointment.
As a devotee of Christie and a huge fan of David Suchet's Poirot, I tried to turn off some of my expectations before watching this version. Still, this movie was a big disappointment. Not authentic in so many ways, from Poirot's character (romance/action hero?) to the way the clues are revealed, to the final denouement. Why are they all sitting on one side of the table (?) inside the tunnel (I guess?) while "Poirot" reveals the solution at gunpoint (?) So many changes in the script adaptation made the mystery not mysterious and turned the solution into nonsense. Not a tribute to Christie's ingenious plot and story. As an antidote, I suggest watching the David Suchet version--or even better--reading the book again!
My dad purchased this in 4K, which came with a Bluray copy, which he gave to me. I tried watching it several times and fell asleep each time. 🤷🏻♀️
Mod
I did the exact same thing Adriana!
Mod
I hated it too, but I hated it so much that I left after ten minutes, yes, I only saw the first ten minutes.
Martha wrote: "Carolyn F. wrote: "Okay, I'll start. Hated it! I watched it with my husband who has never read or watched one of the previous movies. The beginning was all new and I didn't like it - I leaned over ..."I think that's how long it took me to get bored with it.
I'm gonna make this short and sweet. I fairly enjoyed the movie, not as much as Crooked House but that is a whole different story. But, as always, the book was better.
Carolyn F. wrote: "Okay, I'll start. Hated it! I watched it with my husband who has never read or watched one of the previous movies. The beginning was all new and I didn't like it - I leaned over and said this wasn'..."My feelings exactly!
Then Poirot mooning over this picture over and over again - ugh - give me a break!
Then Poirot as a kind of acrobatic action hero. That was so wrong in so many ways. They tried to make him a 1930s Sherlock Holmes - didn't work.
And then the ending - Poirot in the book was sympathetic but felt that no one can be judge, jury and executioner - except the new "improved" Poirot was way, way more sympathetic than the book.
And they're in the middle of winter and Poirot usually can't stand being wet, cold and/or getting his clothes dirty or wet - so in the movie hardly anyone wears a coat and if they do wear a coat they never button them. Poirot's running around in a blazer most of the time. And they're in on a snowing, icy, mountain pass!
I was willing to give them a chance with this new take on the movies/book but too much was different. I am NOT going to watch any more of the movies (if they make anymore).