Review of Murder on the Orient Express (2017) by Erin J — 11 Nov 2017

Beautifully shot, yes. Wonderfully talented cast, yes. Based on an impeccably written classic mystery novel, yes. Good (or even decent) movie? Sadly, no.

For someone who is a huge Agatha Christie fan a huge Poirot fan, and a huge fan of the murder mystery movie genre, to say I was excited when I heard this movie was being made is an understatement. Unfortunately from the first viewing of the trailer to the rolling of the credits I was doomed to be disappointed.

I should begin by saying that the scenery, set dressing, costumes, and cinematography are excellent. From the start we feel as if we are a part of the period and part of the world in which the story takes place. These things deserve a full star on their own, but that's where the positives end.

Though most of the casting is wonderful, none of the actors are even remotely used to their potential, and the vanity casting of Kenneth Branagh as Poirot all but single-handedly ruins the film. Branagh is the antithesis of Poirot. Physically he is nothing like Christie's description of a diminutive, bald, meticulous, cultured, calm and even tempered Belgian ex-policier whose pride and joy is his small, black, perfectly manicured moustache. His accent is abysmal, his carriage is misguided, and his tone is self-important and egotistical in all the wrong ways. Though I'm sure viewers who are not already familiar with the character would not be aware of the lack of faithfulness to the original, the importance of Poirot as the central character in the story cannot be underestimated. He sets the tone, not only for the solving of the crime, but also for the interactions of the other characters and the progression of the plot. The Poirot of the original story is a brilliant and well-respected genius, not a pompous spectacle to be used as a punchline. The Poirot of Christie's telling uses his little grey cells to expertly and calmly discover the root of the crime- not with chases, gun fights, and threats, but by building relationships with each of the characters, observing their interactions with each other and asking intuitive questions. Perhaps most importantly, we are meant to follow along with him, to see our own guesses and theories explored through his actions. When the movie attempts to 'move it along' it seems disharmonious with the plot, and yet the expository questioning was so slow as to literally put members of the audience to sleep.

Agatha Christie prided herself on leaving breadcrumbs, making sure that every clue instrumental to the solving of the crime had been included, that there were no surprises and that a re-read (or re-watch) would reward the reader/viewer with an opportunity to see how the solution was reached, piece by piece. This film re-telling pushes all of that to the side, makes leaps and guesses that have no footing within the film, and includes several [original to the book] clues that are not followed up or expanded on later in the movie. This not only disrespects the careful crafting of the original story, it creates a disjointed and confusing narrative, that only 'comes together' in a deus-ex-machina ending whose tone and execution are, again, the exact opposite of the original.

If you're someone who has never read an Agatha Christie book, has never heard of Poirot, doesn't mind seeing great actors underused, and likes pretty looking period pieces and mysteries that are solved by the sudden introduction of hitherto unknown clues... then this might be a film for you. If you like Agatha Christie, Poirot, or the original book (or the original film!) even just a little, do yourself a favor and stay away.