Murder on the Orient Express (2001)

best movie i've ever seen.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

At the time of first watching this version of Murder on the Orient Express, I had not yet read the book. Nor had I seen the "amazing" other films. Indeed, the only reason I picked it up was to complete my Peter Strauss collection!! Having since become familiar with other versions, I feel somewhat better qualified now to write a review. I have to say that the 1974 version with the star-studded cast is probably only so highly regarded because of its star-studded cast. Some have even suggested watching the '74 film *instead* of reading the book. First off - Nothing will ever compare to the book. Secondly - This is a 'made for TV' version and doesn't try to be anything more. It does make a few attempts to be unique and interesting, or at least different, by attempting to modernise the tale. It does so because many of the original references are no longer relevant and will not generally be understood by audiences younger than about 50. But alas, herein lies it's very downfall. Many reviewers have already ranted about the 'crimes' against Christie's original. Personally, I can see where they were trying to go with this version, but still regret the omission of characters and the changing of certain key plot details - The most glaring is the reduction of the Twelve persons involved down to Nine. The reason 12 were included was to be the same number as that of a jury. Without this I feel the story is too far compromised. What I will mention is that, while Alfred Molina's performance does not begin to compare to David Suchet, he does offer a very unique interpretation of the character. The performance was enjoyable enough, but Molina is no Suchet. In my mind, Suchet is the ONLY Poirot and indeed, Christie's grandson himself has expressed how Suchet is the most convincing Poirot. I can very easily accept Molina as a 'young' Poirot, perhaps fairly early on in his career. I would call this a 'pocket-money' role - Something an actor does for a bit of cash on the side. With that in mind, the rest is standard TV movie faire, with two exceptions...Peter Strauss, the very reason I bought the DVD, always impresses me when he plays a 'bad guy'. Strauss is often cast as a neat, suave, smooth sort of 'nice guy', well suited to wearing a suit. However, he happens to do 'nasty piece of work' exceptionally well and I fear that his impressive performance here is utterly buried beneath the sludge of the movie itself. The second is the makeup department. A lot of their work is subtle, so much so that those not very familiar with members of the cast might not notice just how much of a transformation has been worked on these actors. Strauss in particular looks so different when portraying Cassetti ... truly evil!!The good news is that David Suchet has now filmed a proper version of Murder on the Orient Express, which is slated for screening later this month (July 2010). Overall - This 2001 version is good watch if you have never encountered Poirot before. It also stands up just as well if you have never read the books or seen a Suchet portrayal. Perhaps something I would recommend as an introduction, or for a young audience.

I saw this on TV and thought: Yeah its alright. Then I looked deeper into it. The story is pretty much as the book and the 1974 film. Horrible man gets bumped off during the night. Differences are this is set in 2001 instead of 1934. Bringing Poirot and technology together is a worse move than bringing mankind and dinosaurs together. Poirot using a VCR? A Laptop computer? Falling for a beautiful woman? Come on please??? this is Hercule Poirot not James Bond. Characters are missing - I wont list them as it spoils it. The technology as I mentioned and an EWS loco pulling it??? where does this train run from? Birmingham to Bristol? EWS stands for English, Welsh and Scottish Railways Ltd and is a freight carrier. I will add, although its nothing as the great Dame Agatha envisaged, its worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon even just out of pure curiosity for die hard Poirot fans.

Although I was disappointed that Granada Television never did a version of this story with David Suchet, the definitive Poirot, none the less I did enjoy this updated version of the story of a murder on the world famous luxury train. While, like many I was partial to the star studded cast of the 1974 version with Albert Finny, I have always felt that Finny's Poirot was a way overblown Charicture of Poirot, as were all of those Peter Ustinov portrayals. But Molina's essay of the Belgian sleuth, was in the best possible tradition. By the way, if anyone wants to see a perfectly disgusting rape of a Poirot story don't miss the 1966 Tony Randall film "The Alphabet Murders." That film is absolutely the worst Poirot film in history. Randall is not bad in the part, but the script and direction was a direct slap in the face of Christie. But back to this film. Given that almost everyone who knows Poirot is already familiar with this story, I found it to be a very entertaining 100 minutes.

Then prepare to be flattered. This film has long since been shunted aside as the dubious and inferior version of the 1974 classic. And while it's true that the 'made-for-tv' label lacks the star-studded ensemble which had Lauren Bacall leading a troupe that would be virtually impossible to recast today, especially given the salary and artistic 'demands' of current leading performers; what's completely overlooked is that this film *works*. I first saw this when it was broadcast on a local CBS affiliate in 2001, not out of interest but curiosity. How would Alfred Molina interpret the role so memorably and indelibly created by Albert Finney? How would the writers craft the isolation needed for the plot to work - given this takes place in modern times and deals with the virtual impossibility of escaping the information world? And most importantly, how would the director and writers create enough drama for this, one of the best loved "murder-mysteries" in filmdom, when everyone even remotely familiar with the original film production knows in advance how it all ends?Despite all those hurdles, I was impressed. Molina delivers a wonderful performance as the dandified private detective. Even going so far as to give us a wonderful (and accurate) character revelation - seen early in the film when he must deal with the loss of a beautiful and vivacious woman. And speaking of which - when did it become okay to accept implied homosexuality in character where Christie herself had Poirot of the novels hopelessly in love with a woman? (Countess Vera Rossakoff) How and when does his sexuality even become Poirot's most important character trait to comment on? The amount of reviewers here suggesting that very thing is STUNNING. Read the books before making assumptions! I'd like to quote TV character Frasier Crane here (another metrosexual like Poirot) and say, "I've never seen anyone 'in' themselves before." And to the "reviewer" who points to the inaccuracy of the real Orient Express' existence. Well, duh, it's *explained in the film*. Guess you wouldn't know that if you had watched the film in the first place. And if you had, why point out the "inaccuracy"? Don't try to ply your con here you pretentious fop. (this reviewer actually has the nerve to claim humility in his post - incredible)Still, I do agree that Meredith Baxter was terribly miscast. Never an actress of great ability, her portrayal in the key role of Caroline Hubbard was far beyond her reach. And her screeching voice does tend to wear on you. However, I'd like to offer up cheers to Dylan Smith, who did an absolutely outstanding job as the gimmick entrepreneur and freshly born capitalist Tony Foscarelli - he was hilarious!I can recall early in 2001, when hearing about this production, speaking with a fellow film fan about how shocking it was that David Suchet was not cast in the role he had been steadily doing for more than ten years in the ongoing BBC series. But after seeing this film - I have to tell you that Molina does a fantastic job. Within ten minutes he was Hercule Poirot. Admittedly a touch more gregarious and less coiffed-n-dandified than you would expect. And quite a bit taller than imagined by Christie, but still a worthy interpretation.There are far too many reviewers here who seem to be extremely priggish themselves. Frothing over the '74 version as if it we were talking 'Casablanca' or 'Gone With The Wind' where recreation or reinterpretation is truly impossible. Relativity. Everything is relative and should be placed in its proper context. It's been nearly *thirty years* since the Lumet version. My God, an entire human generation has been born, grown up, and had kids of their own since 1974. Are you so entrenched in your own wistful memories of youth to deny another generation Poirot and Christie? That's well-aged hubris and denial talking. "No, it's *our* story", "No, *ours* is better!" Can you hear the creaking bones of the baby boomers? (I'm one myself so don't go pointing your cane at me)I would encourage you to find your own path and not be deterred by doddering old codgers who won't give up the torch. Sometimes you have to TAKE it from their decrepit clutches. Especially the Boomers - who are obviously not going to do so gracefully.Is this as good as the 1974 version? No. But, is it as good as the story it wants to tell? Yes, very much so. Check out both films and enjoy the subtle variations of a new storyteller.