User Reviews

For those of you who object to changing a word of Christie's books or altering (= developing) Poirot's character: there have been so many filmed versions of the story, what's the point of just doing the same thing over again?

The script (by Stewart Harcourt) gives Suchet a chance to be more brilliant than ever, and modifies many details of the story in order to make it both more concise and in its own way more moving and more plausible. The1974 film version with Finney turned the whole thing into high camp—not a bad idea! But this version brings new depths to the story and new resonances.

Those who object to the introduction of Catholicism, etc., seem to ignore the way this version begins: Poirot watches his own methods of "justice" go terribly wrong when a military man whom he has proved to be a liar, and whom he castigates with terrible vehemence, commits suicide in front of him. Then he witnesses the stoning of an adulteress in Ankara. Surely a man as brilliant and cultured as he must either take such experiences to heart or not be a human being worth knowing or caring about. Poirot's brain is made of grey cells, not computer circuits. He is brilliant but vain; polite and yet capable of brutality in words if not deeds; generous yet coldly formal. What's wrong with throwing a Catholic sensibility into the mix, especially when he is growing old, and his upbringing must be coming back into mind more and more? Anyway, such is his character in this version, and I find it fascinating.

Finally, a word of praise for the superb direction of the episode (Philip Martin). Acting, camera angles, lighting, pacing—all have great style and verve, and the music (Christian Henson) adds considerably to the tension and forward momentum.

In sum, I share the enthusiasm of all the others here who have found this a wonderful episode. Thank you, David Suchet, and all others involved!

David Suchet gives a towering and commanding performance as famed Belgium detective Hercule Poirot in this latest version of "Murder on the Orient Express" based on the novel by Dame Agatha Christie. There is such fire and passion in Suchet's eyes that I scarcely recognized his Poirot from the other times he has performed Poirot throughout his many years in this role. I literally could not take my eyes off of him.

This 2010 version of Murder on the Orient Express chooses to focus on the character of Poirot, his belief in justice, and his inner turmoil on how to reconcile the solution to the mystery with his own values. This is done rather than focus on the glamorous suspects on the train, which has been done in other versions. As the reality of who the murderer or murderers becomes clear, Poirot becomes visibly weary at the path that lay before him. Will he make an exception and let the murderer or murderers go?

Mr. Suchet knows the inner workings of Poirot's mind so intimately from having played the character more times than any other actor in history that he is explosive on the screen as he portrays Poirot's soul in turmoil. Mr. Suchet's performance is the reason to watch this version.

My one criticism that prevents me from giving the film a 10th star, is the use of religion as something that would enter Poirot's consideration. The film conveniently omits reference to Poirot's reference to his "little gray cells" because the logical mind of Hercule Poirot is not affected by religious considerations. I believe that Suchet could have portrayed Poirot's inner conflict with a secular opposition to murder as the break down of society. In this 2010 film, Poirot says as much when he savagely defends the rule of law to prevent man from descent into anarchy on the train. The introduction that Poirot was a Catholic was a cheap shortcut to clarify Poirot's decision as to what to do with the murderer or murderers at the end. Instead of using Catholicism, Poirot's open and often spoken belief in the value of life could have been used to justify Poirot's final decision.

Regardless of the screenwriter's choice to make Poirot unnecessarily ultra religious (even going so far as to have Poirot clutching rosary beads in the last shot of the film), I strongly recommend this 2010 version of Murder on the Orient Express to your kind attention.

The film gets marvelous interpretations , lush costume design and adequate production design along with glimmer photography . The movie is an excellent whodunit and this version of the story takes place in 1938 , concerning about one murder on the Orient Express train with Hercules Poirot , David Suchet , as the intelligent sleuth-man to solve it . There Hercule meets various passengers and Ratchett , Toby Jones , an American executive , traveling with his valet and male secretary , and he attempts to secure Poirot's services as he fears that his life is in danger . When the murder of the abrasive American businessman occurs on the train he's travelling on , celebrated detective Hercule Poirot is then recruited to solve the case . Shortly after , the Orient Express is blocked by a blizzard in Croatia . There are many suspects , all support cast : David Morrissey , Susanne Lothar ,Barbara Hershey , Hugh Bonneville , Steven Weaver , Jessica Chastain ... As usual , the final scenes, Poirot shares his solution of the case.

In the picture there is mystery , emotion , suspense , twists , actors's interpretations are wonderful and including snowy outdoors . At the beginning of the film talks about a kidnapping and killing a baby similarly to the Lindberg's son and which the murderer was condemned to death row , this one will be related with the death of the train . In fact , Agatha Christie's story , being published in 1934 , was inspired by the notorious kidnapping, and subsequent murder, of famous aviator Charles A. Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh's baby, Charles Lindbergh Jr. in 1932 . The pace is deliberate , slow and relaxed . And while the dialogue is in English, the film has a deliciously international flavor , with a mix of interesting accents and word pronunciations . The motion picture is only set on two scenarios : the station and train . However this doesn't make boring it . The support cast is pretty good , formed mostly by British and American actors , such as : Jessica Chastian , David Morrissey , Toby Jones , Stanley Wever , Samuel West , Joseph Mawle , Serge Hazanavicious , Marie-Josée Croze and special mention for Eileen Atkins as the veteran as well as bittered Princess Dragomiroff and Hugh Bonneville who portrays a trusted valet of a wealthy gentleman . The set design and costumes are riveting , the flick is magnificently set by that time . Evocative and suspenseful musical score by Christian Henson . Alan Almond's cinematography is atmospheric and colorful ; being shot at Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire, where the design team built a believable replica of an Orient Express carriage . This Hercule Poirot episode was efficiently directed by Philip Martin .The TV movie will appeal to suspense enthusiasts and thriller lovers.

There are several adaptation based on this known novel by Agatha Christie : Murder on the Orient Express (2001) by Carl Schenkel with Alfred Molina as Hercule Poirot , Meredith Baxter , Leslie Caron , Adam James , Dylan Smith , Tasha de Vasconcelos , Amira Casar and Peter Strauss . And the outstanding rendition was Murder on the Orient Express (1974) by Sidney Lumet Sean Connery , Anthony Perkins , Vanessa Redgrave , Jacqueline Bisset , Richard Widmark , Rachel Roberts , John Gielgud , Michael York and Ingrid Bergman's Oscar-winning performance . And finally Murder on the Orient Express (2017) starred and directed by Kenneth Branagh with Johnny Depp , Josh Gad , Derek Jacobi , Adam Garcia , Judi Dench , Penelope Cruz , Olivia Colman and Daisy Riley .

I have read through many of the reviews on here, it's fair to say on first viewing, which I think was Christmas time a few years ago, I didn't like it, too much of a fan of the Albert Finney fan, but on the second viewing I'll be honest I fell in love with it. I can imagine when they were in the pre-production stages they came up with the 'dark' theme, it's such a contrast to the movie. Toby Jones is brilliant in the role of villain, he plays his scenes with such venom, a great actor, totally loathsome. I think I originally found the stoning scene a little distasteful during Christmas TV, but it's there to set the tone.

David Suchet is on his A game here and gives a masterclass to the rest of the cast, he is outstanding. You get a true sense of claustrophobia on the train when they are marooned, and the obvious cold they would have encountered is definitely evident. Poirot's summing up seems more as to what I would have believed in with Poirot, a sense of injustice. The closing scene had me in tears on the second viewing, it is truly brilliant.

This version is also superior to the 2017 remake, and although Kenneth Branagh was excellent as Poirot, David Suchet will always be Christie's famous character.

By the time that this film was made of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express," David Suchet had played the role of Hercule Poirot for more than two decades. In that time, he had delved into and dissected the character that Christie created. Suchet had played Poirot in dozens of films from Christie stories. He had studied Poirot's appearance, his manners and mannerisms, his speech and his carriage. Suchet had probed the depth of the character. And, he fine-tuned his arrogant behavior with subtle, small changes as he, and the character, matured in the role over the years. Audiences knew Hercule Poirot only as Suchet now presented him.

It was now 3½ decades since the original defining "Orient Express" of 1974. Albert Finney in the lead role and more than a dozen big name screen stars of the day had presented a masterpiece on film. But in between, a 2001 modernized version of the story was made for TV and aired on CBS. To say that that version was forgettable would be the kindest thing one could say about it.

So, with movie rights in hand, ITV took another look at Christie's story. The writers returned to the original story and considered the darker overtones of the novel. They made one change in the plot toward the end that added an aspect of intrigue. And this time, they looked more deeply into Poirot's character, which, by now, had become so familiar to many millions of people through the British TV series and many individual films.

Christie wrote a background for her 1934 mystery based on a real event. In March 1932, a kidnapper took the one-year old baby boy of the Charles Lindbergh's from their home in New Jersey. Two months later, the boy's body was found in the woods not far from the home. This movie is set in 1938, as war loomed in Europe, so the fictional kidnapping and killing in the story would have been in 1933.

By 2010, the millions of viewers and fans of the previous two decades would be very much aware of Hercule Poirot's strong views on types of crimes. He vehemently disapproved of murder. No one could ever be justified in killing another human being in cold blood. Poirot believed strongly in justice under the law. And, with this new film, viewers get a further look into Poirot. He cannot tolerate revenge that leads to vigilante justice. This differs from the book though, where Poirot was a little empathetic toward those who wanted to right a miscarriage of justice.

The producers did many things to capture the time of the story. The train cars were rebuilt to resemble those of the 1930s, down to the decorations, art works and frills. The costumes, dress, makeup and grooming condiments were authentic for the period. Much research went into the planning of this new film. The script, direction and acting meticulously followed the manners, mannerisms and customs of the time. The 1974 film was true to the book and met with Christie's approval. Yet it didn't explore the dark side of murder as deeply as does this 2010 film. In this film, the script and cast play it just slightly more somberly. And Greta Ohlssen iterates how the avengers justify their form of vigilante justice. It's when God has not seen that justice was done. The contrast with Poirot and his serious moral convictions (when he prays the rosary), is striking. Poirot's strong abhorrence for anyone killing another person remains.

This film is every bit as good as the 1974 movie. Each has its own appeal, with a slightly different approach. The preferred roles of the casts vary between the films. Suchet's Poirot is slightly better than Finney's. But most of the rest of the cast in the 1974 film outshine the performances of the 2010 film. Richard Widmark's Rathchett is much better than that of Toby Jones who seems to be overacting at times. Sean Connery's Col Arbuthnot is much better than David Morrisey's role. And, Ingrid Bergman is for superior to Marie Croz at Greta Ohlsson.

Man, David Suchet is one incredible actor when he plays the part of Hercule Poirot..He not only highlights the cleverness of the character to the maximum, but one can feel the desire for justice above everything. I think most people have read the book, and know what it is about...revenge...taking justice in our own hands when this is the only option left...What's interesting is unlike any previous ecranization of this novel, this one shows it in a difference perspective...Poirot perceives here that even though it seems attractive, it's wrong...By doing this every bit of civilization goes up the window...This is interesting. The interior fight in Poirot's heart on the final decision is more than clear shown...His hurt after taking his decision...Very profound. Actors also played their roles very through. This movie is a must seen even if you read the book 100 times and know every detail...It will still surprise one.

As an avid Agatha Christie reader, and a long time fan of David Suchet I was awaiting the release of this episode of Poirot for over a year.

I was amazed at how perfectly the actors were casted, so they perfectly fitted Christie's description of them in the book. However, we're talking about a long book that requires time for digestion of details, development, and also to avoid monotonousness in the rhythm of the movie.

Aside from the fact that numerous details of the case were omitted presumably because of time limitations, Poirot's character was perverted with the added religious characteristics (catholic, praying type, etc.) which is not part of the book and the description of character in any of the Christie books. I believe her original ending is much more fitting and in accordance with Poirot's character description.

To this day, I always thought what would have happened if David Suchet had starred in the original 1974 Murder on the Orient Express, instead of Albert Finney, and I can now say for certain that I will never find out! The original enjoyed a great director, an amazing all star cast and enough time for the development of the plot, none of which was present in the 2010 version. I only wish that the great David Suchet was there present in the original.

I have enjoyed the Poirots immensely but this and the few surrounding it have puzzled me. Poirot seems so much more angrier in these episodes than I remember him being before. Instead of charmingly uncovering the murderer he has been yelling at them and judging them. Not what I remember. This made the movie difficult to watch and the ending done badly, if you ask me. Otherwise, I recommend David Suchet in the role of Poirot highly, view all of the earlier seasons and enjoy them, but I think I will skip this one next time around.

I can unreservedly say that the recent version is superior to the older movie with Albert Finney. That is not to say that the classic version was a bad film to begin with. As had been the tradition in the past it had star-studed cast. Ingrid Bergman was even nominated for an oscar for her performance. Albert Finney was OK if a little bit over the top. The new film has only Barbara Hersey and Jessica Chastain and of course David Suchet as top tier stars yet it is a wonder of atmoshere, pace and dark undertones. Suchet's performance is among his best as Poirot. He conveys perfectly the ambivalence between his utter dislike for the victim and the evil he represents and his staunt objection to, however rightfully, taking the law into one's hands. He comprehends, not without sadness, that justice is not always served. Through his mesmerising performance the film acquires more gravitas. As usual all production point are faultless as is the representation of the 30's. Delightful and edifying movie!!!

I have become a fan of the fine series over the last few years, but my 1st exposure to Poirot is the Albert Finney MotOE film. Now I still find that very well done & exactly what Lumet describes as pure glamour. I enjoy Suchet & not having read any of the books I take it from other that he IS Poirot, but after watching this I read the book in question & found the 1973 film infinitely better than this. The inclusion of religion, lack of humour, almost ZERO mystery. Perhaps this is yet another case of over-hyping before having seen it. I have been waiting ages to see what Suchet could do to improve upon Finney's version. In this instance however I prefer Albert Finney. Go rent Sidney Lumet's film as it is much better than this.

Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" is one of her books that was perfect for big screen. That's why early on we had Sidney Lumet's version in 1974 with Albert Finney as Poirot, and now the new episode with the ever magnificent David Suchet in that role.

Between the two versions, the 1974 film remained true to the original story - and it is still one of the best adaptations of Christie's work prior to the series with Suchet. Now those familiar with Christie's work know that her books are focused on the mystery that is to be solved and nothing else. There is no character development aside from Poirot himself, and every side story is either for comic relief or to distract you from an important clue. The 1974 film followed the same approach, with every turn and every incident only magnifying the mystery at hand. The 1974 film keeps you thrilled and curious, with a great end scene (common in all Christie's stories) where Poirot discovers the truth. And it ends there. No hidden philosophical message. No personal conflict. Just a mystery solved.

The new (2010) TV version seems, well, different. The story has been turned from a pure mystery into a moral judgement about justice, God and taking law into your own hand. The focus on Poirot's Catholicism (which does not appear in any Christie's book) and the question of whether he will tell the truth or not - something that in the original story is left to the train boss and passengers - makes it quite a different story from the original.

It would have been okay to have a different take on the murder on the orient express if the new story had been told with the same magnificence as the original story. Unfortunately this was not true. First of all, 1.5 hour is not sufficient to properly develop a moral story as the director wanted to say. Perhaps if it was a big screen movie and an hour longer, it might have turned better. Second, in developing the moral/religious line of the story, the director has taken out a great deal of focus and thrill of the mystery story. The end scenes, especially the reaction of the colonel to Poirot's discovery of truth, is in line with the moral message of the film but looks ridiculous to veteran Poirot fans, and so is Poirot's hesitation at the end on what to do. A deep scene, but uncharacteristic of Poirot.

Overall, seasoned Poirot fans will be disappointed as this film is not really Poirot or Christie. Not even a good mystery. Others who like a film about moral judgements may enjoy it.

I was also shocked to see how old Suchet looked in this movie. I am not sure how longer he plans to play Poirot but the way he looks is now perfect to play Poirot in "Curtain", his last case.

David Suchet , an exceptional acting, a masterpiece by him. As David Suchet is the only actor who totally justified Agatha Christie's work though some changes were made bu it were totally in the limits. This man started the sensational act of Poirot and taken it to new generation as well. This particular episode of Murder on the Orient Express had an immense impact on the viewers as this side of Poirot was never ever made to public, from fun loving and charming mighty man he have come all the way to the angrier version.

I have only been an occasional follower of the TV movies with Suchet, but have seen enough to know that he delivers an excellent Poirot. Nonetheless, this episode had to follow in the rather large footsteps of an all-star classic predecessor, and I was curious on how it would accomplish it.

The main twist here is that unlike most Poirot-themed works, this really isn't a whodunnit by any stretch of the imagination. While the 1974 version keeps the viewer in the dark about at least Poirot's own reasoning until the big triumphant showdown, the 2010 adaptation gradually let's the viewer in on the solution, and really does not make much of a mystery about it. Originally I thought it was a bit of a let-down, which it is if you expect the usual Orient Express arc of confusion about the various clues and statements and suspects followed by Poirot's Grand Revelation.

However, the point of this Orient Express adventure is not to solve a murder, but to explore much deeper notions of justice and the law, revenge, multiculturalism, and doing what is right. The theme is introduced right at the opening scene, when Poirot's genius at solving a crime proves to have disastrous consequences. We then see him react to a stoning of a woman in Istanbul, and these two events frame his own path as he solves the mystery of what happens in the Orient Express.

In the course of this, Suchet shows some of the finest acting I have seen from him (and that says a lot), thinking about it still sends chills down my spine. He is a remarkable actor, and he shows us some sides of Poirot that are fresh and new and interesting (Christie purists might say that they are also not authentic, but it would seem reasonable to frame the wrestling with morality of a Belgian gentleman of the time in the context of Catholicism, which helpfully provides visuals and props for it, too, so I find it excusable).

In summary, the whodunnit crime bit is being handled mostly perfunctorily, the focus of this piece is on the morality surrounding this crime, and here it relies heavily on the enormous breadth and depth of Suchet to make the point. Eminently watchable, not just for fans.

This is the best version of Murder on The Oriental Express ever. While most are foolish comedies with opportunities for elebrity cameos, this version delves into personal morality in a deep and honest way as every character including Poirot must face a huge moral dilemma. Absolutely soul stirring. Congratulatio s to all involved.