Push Admin

Movie review: Original 'Murder on the Orient Express' vs 2017 version

Article (news)

Fred Hawson

There had already been an excellent film adaptation of Agatha Christie&#x27;s novel &quot;Murder on the Orient Express&quot; back in 1974, directed by Sidney Pollack. It was nominated for several Oscar awards including Best Actor (Albert Finney), Best Supporting Actress (Ingrid Bergman, who won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, and Best Costume Design. Its all-star cast included Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Anthony Perkins, Jacqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave, and Wendy Hiller.Famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot was a last-minute passenger on the Orient Express, a luxury train running from Istanbul to Paris. One night, an avalanche causes the train to derail. That morning, it was discovered that one of the passengers in his train car was murdered with 12 stab wounds. Poirot investigates the case by interviewing each of the colorful characters in that same car, which included a chatty widow, a mousy missionary, a hot-headed Hungarian diplomat and his beautiful wife, an elderly Russian princess and her maid, and a doctor in an interracial romance with a governess, among others. <figure class="op-interactive"><iframe height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z68frP9Q7XA?enablejsapi=1" width="560"></iframe></figure><div class="iwantbar">Watch more in <a href="~//www.iwantv.com.ph/">iWantv</a> or <a href="~//tfc.tv/">TFC.tv</a></div>Because I had already watched the 1974 original, I already knew the solution to the case (a most memorable one). So honestly, I was watching only to see how director Kenneth Branagh was going to spin this tale and the lead character Hercule Poirot and make these his own. The rest of the time was spent trying to figure out which characters were which from the original film, as some changes were made.Kenneth Branagh played Poirot with utmost gravity and pompousness. Even from the trailer, you cannot miss the new take on the iconic Poirot mustache, so unrealistically atrocious it looked like a joke. There was his irascible obsession for perfection, balance, and details, but this time magnified into practically a God-complex. There was a mention of a missed love which went nowhere, until perhaps for a future sequel, maybe? Michelle Pfieffer was a scene-stealer as the flirty, husband-baiting Caroline Hubbard. This role was played by Lauren Bacall in the original. Penelope Cruz was very quiet and plain as the missionary Pilar Estravados. She was not made to do as much with this role that won Ingrid Bergman her Oscar in 1974. Judi Dench played Princess Dragonmiroff much more low-key than how Wendy Hiller memorably played this character before. &quot;Hamilton&quot; stage actor Leslie Odom Jr. and &quot;Star Wars&quot; new star Daisy Ridley took over roles John Arbuthnot and Mary Debenham previously held by Sean Connery and Vanessa Redgrave. Arbuthnot became a doctor here to streamline the cast (there was a separate doctor character in the original), which was not a bad decision. Because of Odom&#x27;s casting, the obvious issue of race entered the story where it was not before. Johnny Depp looked so gaunt and disagreeable as his gangster character Samuel Ratchett should, but his portrayal was so awkward and felt miscast. To be honest, Richard Widmark in the original also felt miscast because he also did not look Italian as the character should. Josh Gad also could not flex much comic muscle that I could feel his frustration for not being able to do much with his role of Ratchett&#x27;s secretary McQueen. The cinematography is lush and luxurious. The feeling of claustrophobia was enhanced by those unusual overhead shots as we look into the action as if peeking through a hole in the ceiling. The costumes and the musical score, though, were not as remarkable as the original. In terms of storytelling, I thought the arrival at the solution was clearer and more logical in the original than in this remake, where Poriot made some fantastic jumps of insight.The climactic scene of Poirot&#x27;s grand revelation of his solution to the case was taken outside the train in a more dramatic (though more improbable) tableau of the whole cast seated side-by-side on one side of a long table. In the original, the cast was seated in the dining car of the train while Poirot spoke. The recreation of the murder itself was executed in a remarkably frantic manner which was a fine energetic departure from the blue-lit, rather melodramatic way it was done in the original.At the end of this movie, there was a not-so-discreet hint that there is a planned next case for Poirot, a murder on a boat on the Nile River. Obviously, this refers to the Christie book &quot;Death on the Nile,&quot; which also already had a well-known film version in 1978 by director John Guillermin, with Peter Ustinov as Poirot and Bette Davis, Maggie Smith, Angela Lansbury, and Mia Farrow in its all-star cast. I really do not get it why Hollywood insists on remaking already classic films. While I am all for reviving public interest in Agatha Christie&#x27;s works, I am sure there are lesser known books or film versions they can revive, not those already too well-known for a remake to be necessary in the first place. Anyhow, this film would still be good for those who have not seen the 1974 original. Yet, but I would still advise them to check out that first one. 1974 version: 8/10 2017 version: 6/10This review was originally published in the author&#x27;s blog, &quot;<a href="https://said-fred.blogspot.com/2017/12/review-of-murder-on-orient-express-2017.html">Fred Said</a>.&quot;

This film would still be good for those who have not seen the 1974 original.