Murder on the Orient Express (Kenneth Branagh)

[TGM]

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS

Director: Kenneth Branagh

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3402236/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

[TGM]

So they over-scheduled us at work yesterday, meaning someone got to go home early, and I volunteered, because fuck work. Anyways, so I decided to check out this new release as a result of getting off earlier than expected, and it was sorta just meh. I haven't read the book, but based solely on its own merits, I honestly wasn't all too impressed.

A lot of the mystery is being solved via details that the main character just suddenly remembers from another story, meaning not by piecing together clues from the actual film we're watching, so it felt a bit cheapened in that way, how it didn't feel like a mystery we were actively involved with, but being artificially left in the dark on. Then the final reveal and the lead's reaction to it was just radically over-dramatic, and felt like the movie had issues balancing its tone properly all of a sudden, ending on a real dour note that felt inappropriate given the rest of the film preceding it.

I also didn't buy that this particular case was his tipping point on what's just in the world, and what he's willing to turn a blind eye on, considering how this character was originally presented to us, so that turned me off to the film as well in the end. All of his reactions post-reveal just felt forced, and like I was suddenly watching a completely different movie starring a completely different character.

Prior to all of this, however, it's mostly fine. The performances are alright, though again, a lot of the actual character actions feel really forced, particularly after the reveal in the end, which retroactively sorta ruins a lot of what had previously transpired. It was also pretty well shot, so there's that. But all in all, yeah, this really was just meh.

[Peng]

I also didn't buy that this particular case was his tipping point on what's just in the world, and what he's willing to turn a blind eye on, considering how this character was originally presented to us, so that turned me off to the film as well in the end. All of his reactions post-reveal just felt forced, and like I was suddenly watching a completely different movie starring a completely different character.


I'm a fan of Agatha Christie and just liked this book well enough, but I have been hearing about this... About how they add a tortured backstory for Poirot that directly relates to his decision at the end? That seems ill-advised. Mind, it's been more than ten years since I last read it, so anyone can correct me if I remembered it wrong, but in the book this decision comes off as extremely pragmatic with just a hint of humanity in it, both as a front to urge people to the option of that choice in the guise of stoic fairness and as a way to keep his detective-ness intact.

[Pop Trash]

I haven't read the book, but this was deadly dull. After about the first 45 minutes the movie just kinda dies on screen right when it should be getting suspenseful. I was more perplexed by how ridiculous Branagh's mustache was than anything going on plotwise.

[Spinal]

Mild yay. I thought it was fun to see a film that felt like one of those beautifully shot, big cast movies from the 60s. Branagh is very enjoyable in the lead role and it's a delight to see all of these actors together. I would have liked to see them interact with each other more, but alas, that's not really how this story goes. If anything, my biggest complaint would be about the source material which really asks you to accept some preposterous circumstances.

[Spinal]

I'm a fan of Agatha Christie and just liked this book well enough, but I have been hearing about this... About how they add a tortured backstory for Poirot that directly relates to his decision at the end? That seems ill-advised. Mind, it's been more than ten years since I last read it, so anyone can correct me if I remembered it wrong, but in the book this decision comes off as extremely pragmatic with just a hint of humanity in it, both as a front to urge people to the option of that choice in the guise of stoic fairness and as a way to keep his detective-ness intact.

I think it's a stretch to call it a 'tortured backstory'. If you're very familiar with the Poirot character, then the brief prologue may not be something you need. As someone who was not familiar with the character, I appreciated a little time to get to know him and understand how he ticks.

[Irish]

I think it's a stretch to call it a 'tortured backstory'.

Do me a favor and spoil it for me? Based on the book and the '74 adaptation, I think I know what you're referencing but I'm not sure. I gotta know.

[Spinal]

Do me a favor and spoil it for me? Based on the book and the '74 adaptation, I think I know what you're referencing but I'm not sure. I gotta know.

Well, I'm at a disadvantage since this is the only version of the story I know. But I assume that we're talking about ...

Poirot is seen in Jerusalem ordering hard-boiled eggs. He measures the eggs and notes that they are two distinctly different sizes. Although he is good-natured about it, it is clear that there is something about the asymmetry that displeases him.

Later, he is asked to intervene in a case involving a theft at a church. A priest, a rabbi and an imam are the primary suspects, but through his deductive reasoning, he instead accuses a law enforcement officer. He talks about his need for order and his skill for putting things right. He embraces a world of black and white.

This leads to a personal crisis when the solution to the main mystery ends up being just a muddle of human suffering, grief and pain without a clear moral resolution.

[Irish]

Well, I'm at a disadvantage since this is the only version of the story I know. But I assume that we're talking about ...

Poirot is seen in Jerusalem ordering hard-boiled eggs. He measures the eggs and notes that they are two distinctly different sizes. Although he is good-natured about it, it is clear that there is something about the asymmetry that displeases him.

Later, he is asked to intervene in a case involving a theft at a church. A priest, a rabbi and an imam are the primary suspects, but through his deductive reasoning, he instead accuses a law enforcement officer. He talks about his need for order and his skill for putting things right. He embraces a world of black and white.

This leads to a personal crisis when the solution to the main mystery ends up being just a muddle of human suffering, grief and pain without a clear moral resolution.


Whoa. That's interesting! It isn't from the novel, but I wouldn't be surprised if it originated from a short story. Then again, maybe not?

Christie seemed to borrow Poirot's sense of justice from Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Both men aren't so much about the letter of the law but about its spirit. At the end of this story, Poirot steps back and let's the people most affected, not only the passengers but the director of train line, decide what to do. I liked that there was something of a tacit admission in doing that---that maybe justice was most served by having this man die, and nothing would be served by insisting that every perpetrator be arrested. Plus, it gave you something extra to talk about later beyond the pure mechanics of the mystery.

I have a love/hate thing going with both Christie and Poirot. But this one is a favorite because of the moral ambiguousness of its ending.

[baby doll]

I thought it was fun to see a film that felt like one of those beautifully shot, big cast movies from the 60s.Those movies sucked too.

[Morris Schæffer]

Very dull indeed, cripplingly unintriguing, an air of artifice hangs over the entire endeavor. Some nice shots and I will say the ending was...unexpected and certainly a little bit clever.

The opening 15 minutes may be the worst opening 15 minutes of all movies I have seen in 2017.

I didn't like this.

[Peng]

Don't mind me, I'm the one who loves what Branagh does with the Asgard stuff in the first Thor. And he brings similar theatrical panache here, which suits this film less but keeps it moving along enjoyably and messily fun enough to distract from how this story is still absolutely resistant to being cinematic. I actually like this better than Lumet's version, in part because it's livelier, and also from having a better ensemble (or at least having the one I like more), who can turn in both larger-than-life campy and darkly emotional modes. And I'm so glad Michelle Pfeiffer is given this role, because few can do both better than her. 6.5/10


And now that this launches Christie Cinematic Universe, hope they move on to her stories that are actually more adaptable as cinema. Death on the Nile is a great start, but I hope they come around to the less-filmed likes of The ABC Murders and Peril at End House as well.

[Stay Puft]

I liked Lumet's version way more than this one. Branagh's version gets needlessly convoluted. It conflates the colonel and the doctor and then has the doctor get involved in the murder in unnecessary and contrived ways, all to make the film more exciting, I guess? And that chase scene, ugh. Every scenery change is a baffling excuse for an even more bafflingly large budget. It's a story set on a train. What the hell. I felt like they completely muddled and muddied the story, particularly with the opening sequences and trying to add more to Poirot, and the way the film handles piecing together the old case and the final revelations was clumsy and lacked all of the intrigue and impact of Lumet's version.

That's gonna be a "nay" from me.