desertvixen | Murder on the Orient Express

MV and I went and saw the 2017 Murder on the Orient Express last night. I give it a 6/10.

Pros: Gorgeous visuals and photography - the settings are exquisitely done and there is a sense of the train as a character. Some casting choices (Daisy Ridley, Leslie Odom Jr.) are very good.

It's not bad, but I feel like the credits should have "Based on the title by Agatha Christie"...

Cons: Changes to plot that didn't really work for me. Some casting choices OR lack of screen time (Kenneth Branagh isn't great as Poirot. Judi Dench does not get enough time.)

Without further ado, let's move onto the specifics. Spoilers lurk and I'm going to assume that you have read the book. (Yes, I took notes.)

Opening Scene: Jerusalem 1934

Poirot is here to solve some crime, and calls up a rabbi, a priest, and an imam. My first thought is, Is this a joke? Then Poirot references “the old joke”. The actual solving of the case is Poirot-like.

The moustache – look, I get that Branagh is physically a very different type from Suchet or Finney, but that moustache and the little soul patch are ridiculous.

They’ve swapped Bouc/Bianchi from being a contemporary of Poirot to being that man’s nephew. Other than casting a younger semi-hot guy, not sure that it really changes anything. Wikipedia says “son” but I thought he said “nephew”.

General history people note – some language feels too modern or not right. Example #1 “Bunkie”, which may be about the right age in American slang, but doesn’t feel right. “Fudge” is also used, but it feels wrong. (However, Cassell’s Dictionary of Slang says I am wrong, for American slang at least.)

Johnny Depp does a decent job as Ratchett/Casetti, although now I feel like we need a Christie/Fantastic Beasts crossover…

Mrs. Hubbard is played somewhat differently – I think to take advantage of the fact that Michelle Pfeiffer is more conventionally attractive than Lauren Bacall in the same role, but by the end her performance is great.

I thought there was going to be a reference to the Countess Vera Rossakoff, but for some reason they decided to shoehorn in some Katherine as Poirot’s lost love – cue lots of staring at her framed picture and muttering “ma cher Katherine”.

Poirot fingers Ratchett as a criminal as first reason why he won’t sell (selling fake antiquities to gangsters, which is a departure) but then chimes in with the classic line “because I do not like your face”.

Arbuthnot – So, not only is Arbuthnot’s character black, but he is a doctor. I have to admit, this one actually worked very well. The cast of characters was diverse for its time period, but they don’t just add the black guy in – it is treated with historical accuracy and done well, IMO. Also, having a doctor on board eliminates the need for Dr. Constantine’s character in the original. They still work his connection to Armstrong nicely, by making him a World War I vet who served under Armstrong (could work historically, as Arbuthnot could have been commissioned and I believe there was still a trend to put white officers in overall charge of black units, although there were all-black units).

Bouc goes a bit over the top in his guilt trip…I mean appeal to Poirot for help.

Penelope Cruz plays Pilar Estravados (name lifted from Hercule Poirot’s Christmas) to fill in for the Greta Ohlsson character. It works out okay.

“Probably the greatest detective in the world” – Can’t picture Poirot saying this. He’d have dropped the “probably”

Poirot walking on top of the snow covered train (not just a snow block but an avalanche that almost takes out the train) – I think not.

Josh Gad plays Hector MacQueen (yes, Olaf) – I guess this is his attempt at a serious role and he does okay, but I didn’t care for the changes to the character. I prefer Anthony Perkins’ portrayal.

Attitudes from characters are generally historically correct, which I applaud.

The clue found in Ratchett’s quarters is not as good, IMO. They also felt the need to shoehorn in a tie between Colonel Armstrong and Poirot that I did not care for.

Gerhardt Hardman (later shown to be Cyrus Hardman, Pinkerton) is pretty well done for the character he plays.

I liked Dame Judi Dench for the small amount of screen time she occupies. However, the change to make Daisy her goddaughter (rather than Daisy’s mother Sonia) doesn’t seem to add anything. Also a Russian aristocrat who employs a German woman but does not speak German?

One of my biggest complaints is the physical scenes with Poirot. Poirot is not a physical guy - not just due to age, but inclination. That’s what he has Hastings for. Poirot is NOT chasing people though scaffolding, okay – especially when you have Young Bouc and guards who could do it for him.

There’s a whole sub-plot about MacQueen stealing from Ratchett that’s just stupid, and doesn't seem to add anything. In the original, I thought the whole idea of MacQueen working for him and never letting his performance slip was a great one.

Instead of Mrs. Hubbard “finding” the knife in her sponge bag, they have a whole deal where the “murderer” stabs it into her back. One, that moment is one of my faves about Bacall’s performance and two, WTF? One of the whole things is that the murderer is meant to have left the train already.

The Andrenyis are pretty much absent in this whole thing. The Count is a dancer with a hot temper (another pointless action scene early in the film) and the Countess is apparently a drug addict. I think they occupy about five total minutes together.

They decided to go with Goldenberg from the book, rather than Gruenwald from the 1974 movie. Poirot also busts out with the Helena, not Elena, right there after no period of “thought”.

Arbuthnot takes a shot at Poirot (an actual shot with a pistol) because he thinks Mary is threatened/confessing. WTF? Do not approve of this at all.

Pierre Michel is Suzanne’s brother, not father. Not sure why the change, and there is no real effect from it.

There’s a lot of divining info that isn’t really shown – the interviews are cut up and spaced in. I didn’t care for it.

The “trial by jury” concept makes no appearance, and also tears at the heart of the movie - in the book, Poirot is fine with them electing the first solution without a bunch of soul searching. Ratchett/Casetti is a criminal. Justice has been administered. (Before you ask, I did not like the Suchet adaptation for this either.) Poirot has been shown, time and again, to serve JUSTICE, not necessarily the law. Murder on the Orient Express is not the only example - look at all the times Poirot has permitted the killer to take "the gentleman's way out". It didn't work for me.

I will say that Michelle Pfeiffer is magnificent in the end of the movie.

There’s a whole deal where Poirot ostensibly gives them the chance to kill him because he cannot lie…but the pistol is empty.

Joke reference at the end to Death on the Nile. I hope they’re not planning to tackle that one next…