Murder on the Orient Express, PBS Masterpiece Mystery!, Sunday, July 11, 9 PM local listings. Starting 7-12, watch this episode online at this link.
David Suchet as Hercule Poirot
Hercule Poirot arrives at Masterpiece Mystery for Series X and the viewer will not be disappointed. David Suchet is back as Poirot, the Belgian detective, and I can imagine no one better in the role. This summer’s Masterpiece Mystery! will feature three new Poirot mysteries based on Agatha Christie Novels: Murder on the Orient Express (July 11), Third Girl(July 18) and Appointment with Death (July 25).
The Orient Express was more than a train – it was an experience. Considered the height of luxury in travel, it was also the turbojet Concorde of its day in that it provided the fastest route from Paris to the East. Agatha Christie and her husband traveled in style all the way to Instanbul, and her trips gave her the background information and details she needed to craft a truly unique murder plot. More a string of luxury sleeping cars, seating cars, couchettes, and dining cars than a regular passenger train, the Orient Express crossed many borders over rail lines owned by a number of companies and nationalities. With so many consortiums and countries involved in its smooth running, one marvels that the train made its destination at all, much less in record time.
Passengers trapped on a snow bound train
In 1929 the train was stalled in a snow storm in Turkey, leaving the passengers stranded for days. Christie based her 1934 murder mystery on that true event, as well as on the 1932 kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., which made the headlines in respectable newspapers and scandal sheets for weeks.
Toby Jones plays the evil victim
This PBS production of Christie’s famous tale is darker in tone than the famous Sydney Lumet adaptation of the book in 1974, which starred Albert Finney as Poirot. That movie’s ending was more pat and Hollywood in style. There was no doubt that Ratchett, the villain (Richard Widmark), was evil through and through, whereas the villain (Toby Jones) in this PBS production seems to operate more from fear and self-protection.
The suspects have no place to go
The ending in this most recent adaptation is strikingly dark and ambivalent; raising questions of justice, ethics, and morality. I confess that it has been so many years since I’ve read this mystery that I cannot recall how faithful this film’s ending is to Agatha’s book.
Barbara Hershey as Caroline Hubbard
The actors are once again superb. We do not see Barbara Hershey enough these days, and the fabulous Eileen Atkins makes an unforgettable appearance. Samuel West, David Morrissey, and Hugh Bonneville round out a sterling cast. My major complaint about this production is its length, which was too short to develop the story lines for many of the suspects.
Eileen Atkins as Princess Dragomiroff, one of the suspects
Jane Austen's World 
I see Poirot (by way of the BBC), is now supporting the Muslim practice of stoning women to death.
I’m a long time fan, but -This is beyond disgusting – I will not be watching anymore of these.
This version was disappointing and not faithfull to the novel. It did not take the time to develop motives or the characters themselves. Suchet is a bit too stern and lost the quirky lightness that makes the reader enjoy Poirot. I usually love Masterpiece theatre but in this case the 1974 version is superior. A Dame Agatha fan.
Where did you get your information? I think you must be smoking too many DOOBBIES!
The scene is not in the book, but I believe it was intended to set up the dark tone of this production and the ambivalent nature of justice that the plot sets up. I did not get the impression that this production justifies stoning or supports the practice in any way.
I didn’t either. I thought it was to set up a dark foreshadowing!
Murder on the Orient Express is one of my favorite books, and frankly, this was an abysmal adaptation. They “mislaid” a character, changed several others substantially, threw in excessive amounts of religion at random, completely neglected to delve into the wonderfully complex characters with only one exception (they spent time on Mary Debenham, of course), included a number of completely made up (and, for that matter, ridiculous) scenes, and, frankly, portrayed Poirot as a cranky, bitter, angry man. I’ve been watching the Suchet Poirots since I was a child, and I’ve never been this disappointed. I’m going to go back to the 1974 Albert Finney version for a movie version of Murder on the Orient Express and just go back to reading the darn book.
I want to read the book again. I recall a less serious religious tone in Agatha’s story. The script took on its own tone – a very dark and somber one. In a way I am glad that this production was not a rehash of the 1974 film, which in my estimation is the definitive Poirot film. But I rather enjoyed this radically different (and it seems controversial) take on a familiar mystery.
Yes, abysmal is how I’d rate it too. It was the worst adaptation I’ve ever seen, and it made me long for the Albert Finney one, which I thought was bad. Whoever adapted this violated the novel and the character of Poirot. I was really disgusted and offended by this version.
I would have to say an interesting adaptation of Agatha Christie’s ‘Murder on the Orient Express’.
The acting was superb all around, the writing was well done but let’s make no mistake, it was an adaptation, not a legitimate expression of Agatha Christie’s intent.
For someone who has read Agatha Christie since I was a child, this was not the Poirot that I know nor is it the Poirot Agatha Christie knew.
Poirot had more control, had much more pomposity and would not have shown his emotions in such a raw form, which is what made this an intriguing adaptation.
The story is a powerful one that all of us take ownership of, which makes it hard for us to watch when others take liberties with the author’s intent.
Interesting adaptation but I felt Poirot’s character was not held to Agatha’s standards and unfortunately neither was the plot. I don’t think I would have enjoyed it as much if the acting wasn’t so brilliant (or the cinematography for that matter), but in the end, I was let down with a director and writer who felt their views and visions were more important than Agatha Christie’s and that I cannot forgive.
I liked the film and no, it is not the Book…it is definitely a rawer emotion driving Hercule Poriot in this adaptation than We are used to seeing. But Hercule Poriot was Belgian and as such Catholic although this was not dwelt upon in the Books. There is a different Poriot as he ages..remember the scene in one of the Books where the Child is bored and says I have seen the Ocean to his Mother and Poriot is sitting and realizes he is bored not involved with a case. He had retired…. Or the last Book where he takes Justice in his own hands because the Murderer cannot be caught by conventional methods.
I think that some people will not like the darkness of the film but there is always the Book.
I personally did not like the other Movies about the Orient Express because they were “caricatures.” David Suchet looks like and talks like Hercule Poriot to the extent he has become the Character and as such gave him a depth we don’t usually see. The struggle between Justice and Right and Wrong is a dark one.
Just my thoughts….
I have not read the book, but I have seen the ’74 version, and so can at least compare on that level. I personally am in the camp that feels that this version is a little too dark and somber. I mean, Where’s the fun? I feel that Poirot stories are meant to be more lighthearted, rather than entrenched in drab psychology. They’re armchair mysteries, which are supposed to be fun, above all else.
With that said, it’s not that I didn’t enjoy this version . . . it’s that I didn’t enjoy it as much as I hoped I would. The cinematography is great, the acting is good enough, and it’s at least interesting to get a different take on the subject.
I liked this movie adaption. Yes, it went away from the book but I don’t feel in a bad way. The movie focused more on an emotional level that the books rarely went to (in my memory, it’s been a while since I’ve read them). The original crime obviously touched Poirot and now he is faced with a moral dilemma of his own. The law may be black and white, but it’s definitely influenced by green and intimidation (if you know what I mean). What happens when the legal system is perverted and justice is not served? Morally, do we go by law or by whether justice is served?IMHO, the director took an interesting direction in saying that perhaps Poirot lived by law and left justice to God.
I’m puzzled by the lack of humor in the recent Poirot series. I loved the early versions, and really miss Hastings and Miss Lemon. Some of the patent Poirot attitude-the fastidiousness and eccentricity-has apparently been edited out. As in most British productions, the acting is superb, but the pacing has become rushed over the years in the Mystery & Masterpiece series (maybe to appeal to a younger audience?).
This cast was excellent, and the production values were great. But I hated the adaptation. Hated it. Colonel Arbuthnot considering murdering Poirot? Poirot condoning stoning? Poirot not even solving the case, but having it explained to him?
The point that Poirot redefined justice for this case (and let the intruder solution stand) wasn’t a breaking point for Poirot, but rather an aberration in his methods that he stood by. He didn’t defend The Law. He defended Justice.
I am so disappointed. Suchet is the perfect Poirot, and this was an opportunity lost.
I agree completely – what an awful adaptation. What a waste of an opportunity for the definitive Poirot actor. I only saw the last half and I couldn’t believe that it was the same story that Christie wrote. Since it had been many years since I read the book, I re-read it and was even more disgusted by this version. As others have noted, it’s painfully obvious that some arrogant hack writer felt he could modernize the story by fabricating huge chunks of the plot, trashing all evidence of Christie’s characteristic humor, and “improving” it with his own shallow socio-political views.
Also, as a Catholic I found the religious conflicts gratuitous and more than a little insulting, especially Miss Debenham’s dialogue with Poirot in the end. None of it was in the book… well, there was too much else that wasn’t in the book.
What made Christie the most beloved mystery writer of all time was the fact that she always meant to entertain the reader. That was totally lost on those responsible for this travesty.
May I say that you are completely right and that I agree with your point? And I would like to add this. Somebody may tell the story of bringing some present features into an old novel of an old genre. But the main things in A.C.’s novels are the plot, the logical structure and the psychology of the characters and, most of all, the way these three work (and simply are, as parts in a whole) together. The book (and I could tell “Murder on the Orient Express” almost by heart) is a masterpiece, in this respect. In the film those three things are absent (logic) or intolerably altered (plot and psychology); instead it is full of rubbish.
And I have been waiting for all these years…
(I need 11 people to catch a train with me.)
I hated the changed ending. For the last half hour, Poirot has an obvious dilemma of whether or not to turn in the guilty. Apparently, the writers of this version had no clever way to solve the dilemma, and so did not try. What a cop-out. They should have used Agatha Christy’s ending if they had nothing better to offer. This was the worst ending since the final episode of The Sopranos.
It seems obvious to me that this adaptation–which I found superb–is meant to bring a modern take onto an old genre. Yes, it’s much darker than either Agatha Christie or the previous Poirot character played by David Suchet. Those are wonderful, but now seem quaint and dated. I think the episode really shows how to bring new life into familiar material, and probably is intended to bring in a younger audience, which is absolutely necessary.
While it certainly could have been lengthened into a miniseries to flesh out the characters, with a 1-1/2 show they did a good job of editing to keep the outline of the plot clear, and give a sense of the characters.
I agree that this adaptation is different and appeals to different sensibilities. Originally, in my opinion, this novel was just another one of Agatha Christie’s “what ifs.” That is: what if the victim is guilty? What if the narrator is guilty? And then what if everyone is guilty? Her stories were meant to be light entertainments that satisfied the natural desire, especially during turbulent times, for a belief in order and justice.
This adaptation, questions the simplicity of notions of justice and order from the outset. That’s why the suicide portrayed as a disproportionate reaction to fault and public humiliation and the stoning, portrayed as a barbaric way of maintaining society’s order, are included. They lead to Poirot’s questioning his absolutist approach to justice and society’s way of accomplishing it. The story, rather than simply amusing and reassuring, raises questions that are difficult. That’s why the religious aspects are added and why there is more ambiguity about the victim. As for leaving out characters and failure to explore some, that’s clearly a product of the time constraints. I was surprised that the whole production was in one 90 minute period. In order to have done more, two parts would have been required and that has its own drawbacks.
I LOVED this darker approach to the story. Eileen Atkins’ monologue as the other passengers do the deed was absolutely chilling. And comparing the film version with this TV version, I have to say this one wins for me. David Suchet, as usual, was incredible. I found the whole cast exceptional. Excellent production.
This was a poorly crafted, badly directed and staged production
of Murder On the Orient express. Agatha Christie wrote her stories to entertain not to enlighten. She didn’t try to compete with literary giants. What we have here is an overreach by the director, an overreach that was neither entertaining or riveting. David Suchet, the perfect Poirot, was badly used. The religiosity of the characters, including Poirot, was so much an embarrassing diversion, it was as though the players wandered onto the wrong set by mistake. The atmospherics and dark setting were unworthy of the spirit of the mystery. If I want darkness and a study into the heart of humankind, if I yearn for some special revelations about crime and punishment, there’s always the Russian writers. Christie doesn’t need the heavy hand of a director who tries to outdo the material handed to him. A dark and dull presentation entirely unworthy of a PBS production.
Although a well acted adaptation of the novel, I believe the version too dark. They could have introduced the moral ambiguities but not in so heavy a handed fashion. Poirot seems depressed and bad tempered throughout the entire film and is not balanced by the humorous side of his character. Death on the Nile was excellent because it had a lot of humor but there were moments when regret and sadness did come through. As for his struggle for the right of law over justice, in the past he has fudged – granted it wasn’t in the case of murder. However, he did let someone off for a killing because it was an accident. I’m all for a deeper understanding of the character but I felt it was just to unrelentingly dark. It made you wish he had taken the next train.
This PBS production of Christie’s famous tale is darker in tone than the famous Sydney Lumet adaptation of the book in 1974, which starred Albert Finney as Poirot. That movie’s ending was more pat and Hollywood in style. There was no doubt that Ratchett, the villain (Richard Widmark), was evil through and through, whereas the villain (Toby Jones) in this PBS production seems to operate more from fear and self-protection.
The 1974 movie was much closer to Christie’s adaptation, including the Hollywood style ending. And both the 1974 movie and the 1934 novel were pretty dark in their own ways.
I just re-read the book and you’re exactly right.
If only they could insert David Suchet into the 1974 movie, it would be perfect.
First, let me say that, for me, Suchet IS Poirot. In this production, he is obviously older and wearier of what he has seen of the evil men do. The cinematography was wonderful in creating the atmosphere of being stranded in the snow. Like many of you, I have fond memories (as well as a copy) of the Lumet production – which I love due to its recreation of the glamor of the era and the fabulous ensemble of big-name stars. (In fact, it was difficult to forget Ingrid Bergman’s portrayal of Greta Ohlsson or the wonderful Wendy Hiller as the Countess.)
However (and you probably knew that was coming) – for all of the joy of seeing Suchet as Poirot again – I agree w/those who feel this was a Disaster. I realize that this was an “adaptation,” but…those of us who love Christie (and Poirot) for what the stories are – this was a major letdown. I loved William’s comment regarding the Russian writers for the darker side of crime and punishment. Suchet in a period piece would have been so satisfying – there would have been nothing wrong w/letting Poirot unravel the puzzle in his own inimitable style.
BTW, did anyone else find the portrayal of M. Bouc beyond annoying? I kept thinking of Jar Jar Binks!
Plot line: A maniacal Poirot encounters insane murderers on board a luxury train. Who will survive? After a short time, who cares? A horrendous train crash would have been a suitable ending. This is the first Poirot DVD I won’t be buying.
I thought this was an amazing adaptation. I am surprised how this movie has polarized so many Poirot fans.
Does this movie stray from the book? Yes.
Is it different from the 1974 movie? Yes.
Is it a very solid, well acted movie? Yes.
Did David Suchet do a great job as always? Yes.
One thing I never liked about the 1974 movie is how quickly Poirot decides how he is going to deal with his moral dilema. In this version, Poirot is suffering (any anyone, even Sherlock Holmes would) with having to make just a huge decision.
I have to disagree with you. I loved the ’74 version. The cast was great. I also thought this one was okay. Not great , but okay. I have to wonder why 2 of the characters names had been changed. Also who ever played Greta did not sound Scandinavian. She sounded American. I also have to disagree with you however about Sherlock Holmes suffering with his decision. He wouldn’t have. Because: 1. Sherlock Holmes wasn’t religious. Quite the opposite. 2. He wasn’t an emotional man. He was an extremely logical man. He was so unemotional and logical, he was almost inhuman. He was more like Spock than Poirot.
+
I have to agree with the majority of posters on here. The production quality was superb and most of the acting was as well, but this adaptation went too far astray. First and foremost, this IS Poirot. Since when has Poirot not found the solution to the crime? That was a major disappointment.
I have no problem with losing some of the pieces of the story that were cut out (Dame Christie was herself very heavy-handed when it came to adapting her works for the stage.) The addins, however, I found unnecessary and often distracting. Why did Ms Debenham NEED to be partially paralyzed? Why does the Colonel, to whom proper justice (12 men, good and true) is so important, jump out of character and decide he should kill Poirot? Why did this story need a brief tangent on the Catholicism vs. Protestantism debate? And WHY did Helena appear to be having a seizure in her compartment? (Maybe that one was just me, but it did seem to go beyond hysterics.)
Lastly, I have to say that Rachett’s plea for redemption seemed entirely out of character compared to his behavior the rest of the time. This was an arrogant man who considered himself too powerful to be touchable, except in that one scene.
I can see where they were trying to go with this adaptation. I just feel that it was either misplaced in this story, or not followed through to its fullest. Keep to the original story or totally redevelop it. This was left somewhere inbetween in an attempt to please everyone. It didn’t work.
You are right. The colonel’s rash behavior at the end was out of character. And Rachet’s behavior in this film made no sense. He was evil through and through, which made it easier for the reader to accept that 12 people could dole out justice with impunity.
Regardless of my previous post, I still have to say that David Suchet was SUPERB as always!
I just finished watching this online. This was not a good adaptation. I admire screenwriter for trying to deal with the topic of the killers taking the law into their own hands. But if I must be honest, it was dealt in a heavy-handed manner that featured a great deal of hammy acting . . . even from Suchet. This was not well-handled. This adaptation has some virtues. It’s costumes designs were not as over-the-top as the 1974 version. And since the sequence featuring Poirot’s outrage over the killers’ actions against Rachetti was not well handled at all, they could have cut out the entire scene featuring the death of the Turkish woman.
I was not that impressed by this adaptation. Not at all.
The opener with the woman being stoned was inaccurate and un-Agatha Christie, especially in the way Poirot just passively accepts it. But I think it was meant to show his absolute morality and view of justice. Poirot’s rosary and prayers surprised me, because overall Christie draws him as a Deistic rationalist: a good man who believes there is a good God somewhere, but who, in the end, advocates enlightened reason over faith.
It was not really Poirot-like, but for our times of violence but no justice, and the clash of raw religious idealism that has left the true soul of religion far behind, it is an adaptation for our times. Yet I also miss the humor and the charm that were so evident in the TV series from the 80’s-90’s. There was nothing light hearted about this story.
But I thought the story worked. I don’t think it was as good as other Poirots from the Suchet ensemble (though his acting was excellent). But the rationalistic, slightly comic, pompous and fastidious Poirot of the novels, solving such a ghastly murder and then letting the killers go, would not have rung true in these days of moral dilemma and moral failure. As I recall, Christie did see Poirot as a moral light: a thoroughly good person. Keeping Poirot as a moral light in these times of moral darkness may require putting Poirot into a certain darkness, showing his struggle.
In my opinion, Suchet’s Murder on the Orient Express was capably done for this era. More time would have improved the fleshing out of the characters, but again, then the producers would have had to consider a two-parter for a story everybody already has read (just about), so maybe this was the best they could do: a 90 minute condensed adaptation.
I am a casual Poirot reader and watcher and after having just watched this episode I am not surprised by the passions it has stirred up. Yes, this is a contemporary Poirot in which he is forced to descend into a certain darkness and perhaps even unfamiliar territory as Joseph Campbell used to say. I liked that about this story – and maybe as a result of his experiences here we will see a darker detective going further. Characters should undergo change as they encounter unfamiliar challenges. Has Poirot ever been challenged in quite this way before? You tell me. While I’ve enjoyed some of the earlier lighthearted Poirot’s, and while a dandy is both charming and disarming, I was riveted here by Poirot’s demeanor, his moral dilemma and how it appeared to ravage him. While this is not the armchair mystery many were expecting I thought the production was marvelous. While it appears Poirot passively accepts the stoning of the woman in the opening and backs this up with an explanation later on, there was nothing passive about his experience which clearly set the tone for this piece. From what I’m reading many wished the story didn’t open with this scene, however it was there and how was Poirot supposed to take on 50 or more inflamed assailants? Indiana Jones was somewhere else.
I think one must be a philosophical Catholic to truly appreciate this adaptation. The agony on Poirot’s face as he leaves the scene of HIS crime, having committed for himself the Original Sin of Man – playing god, was breathtaking!
Then the perfect ending of his having recourse to Holy Mary (the Rosary) who alone can bring him back to relationship with Her Spouse, the Holy Ghost, Whom Poirot had lost by this mortal sin.
@cathy jones
I agree that being a philosophically-minded Catholic seems to change ones appreciation for this production immensely. I absolutely loved this production, and found it much more compelling than the vast majority of mysteries (Poirot or otherwise) that I’ve seen.
That said, I had a very different take on the ending. I saw the final scene with the Rosary not as Poirot seeking forgiveness, but rather Poirot seeking strength. Here is a man impeccably dedicated to the rule of law, and torn apart by his choice to abdicate that dedication. In the end, Poirot does what no one else in the show has been able to do – he forgives. Here is a case where all the murderers think they made a morally correct decision. What is more just, to let them go to the grave in a smug sense of self-righteousness, or to show to them the quality of mercy which they were unable to find in themselves?
Fletcher
You seem to be saying Poirot is forgiving the murderers for being the cause of his fall from grace; his betrayal of his beliefs.
But Poirot, himself, is the cause of his own sin. He had not the courage to submit them to the law. He left them confirmed in their smug self-righteousness. They were justified that even the great Poirot, lover of justice, agreed with their action.
It was an elaborate temptation, down to the devil having the woman stop the man who wanted to kill Poirot, with the plea “It will make us just like Ratchett”, when, in fact, they already were. But this seemed to move Poirot to false sympathy for them, leading him to join them in their sin of playing god. He decides to be judge and jury for them, as they were for Ratchett.
I interpreted the last scene as an act of forgiveness and mercy as well. The swedish missionary and the rest of the 12, from a philosophically catholic perspective, misinterprets divine justice. They resort to ‘stoning-like’ revengeful old Testament justice, rather than the divine justice as revealed in the new Testament.
And yes, this production is vastly more compelling.
I agree completely with you. For those who thought this was “too dark” obviously don’t realise that the tone of the film wasn’t ‘dark’ but philosophical. I’ve been immersed in a lot of catholic philosophy, and this particular adaptation is a visionary approach to a very familiar murder mystery.
A common complaint amongst any adaptation is ‘not faithful’. And to be honest, if art was always merely ‘faithful’ there wouldn’t be art in this world. Art is always re-interpretation. Agatha Christie wrote wonderful books, but they weren’t exactly artistic landmarks and masterpieces. It’s quite incredible in modern TV then, that they chose to re-interpret the original story in a much more philosophically and religiously challenging manner.
My take on it:
http://gneech.com/talk/murdering-the-orient-express/
-The Gneech
cathy, if you think the BBC script writers had that much insight into the rosary, you’re mistaken. I grew up Catholic. You pulled out the rosary for penance. I’m sure it didn’t go any further than that in the minds of the writers.
So far, this entire series has drifted far away from the rational deist that Christie portrays in the novels. I found it pathetic and seemed more like pandering to a perceived audience than a legitimate exploration of the character. In the next episode, he starts proselytising, so I suppose by the last he’ll be carrying religious tracts and Holy Cards around to press upon everyine he meets. Feh!
I’ve been very disappointed, all in all.
All you people moaning about the stoning had better get used to it because when England and other countries are taken over by The Muslims in the next twenty or so years you will see alot more of it under Shariah Law.
This Poirot story was marvellous and it was very brave of the makers of Poirot to show the true side of Muslims and not some pc nonsense.
Tony, I will approve this comment because I believe in freedom of speech and expression of opinion . As blog owner, I do not endorse or condone the content of your first sentence. I do agree with your second sentence in that the producers were original and brave in including that scene, which, as far as I can tell, has little to do with the overall story.
Everyone’s points of view are interesting.
I just finish watching the 2010 version and after that watched the special with David Suchet on the Orient Express. God, I want to ride on that train! Even if it means suffering with no shower for three days!
As for the movie, I was surprise at the tone of the movie compared to the book and the 1974 version. To be honest, I dislike the the 1974 version. The Poirot in that movie appeared rather crude to me and rather loud. However he did follow the spirit of the book.
I had also hoped that this newer movie would be longer so that Mrs. Hubbard would get all of parts in – my favorite character in the book. Sadly, this new version did not do it, but I like the idea that she was disguising herself – pretty ingenious.
The religious factor in the movie was too much of the focus instead of the idea of people coming together at one place at the same time like the book focuses on. It made the movie dramatic but I feel that it is too strong for the next generation of mystery fans who should know about this classic.
However the ending I felt was the best scene out of the entire movie. It made you think about what exactly did Poirot said to the police. You hear words about the conductor uniform but you don’t know exactly what he is saying. Is he telling the truth or is he covering it? If leaves off with Poirot leaving the police who are looking at the group. Are they going to be interviewed to confirm Poirot’s explanation or are they going to be taken into custody?
And Poirot’s face with him clutching his rosary, who’s soul is be crying for? His own for covering up the truth and accepting the law of those who took justice into their own hands or for them in telling the truth to the police.
I felt that scene is a pretty powerful one. My only wish is that David Suchet redo the entire movie and have it done in his more lighter style.
What a waste of time! Poirot’s performance was reflective of the script – I’m sure he dreaded doing it. Unentertained I kept getting hit with morality pie in the face so often that I began to develop a nervous tic. In spite of this I continued to watch hoping for ten new murders on the Express. Finally, as I held my remote, it, as if by devine direction, turned the TV off. I will always hold this remote close to my heart.
The excessive religious elements in this adaptation are due to the fact that Suchet has now become a “born-again” Christian. There was a previous adaptation recently where he presented a young woman with a small gold crucifix, which, I believe, was not part of the original story.
As for the stoning, which is not in the novel as far as I am aware, this is blatant nonsense. Turkey under Ataürk was a secular republic that was attempting to westernize and
Shariah law was certainly not the “law of the land”. In any case, a mob has no right under Sharia law to take the law into its own hands and this penalty is to be imposed after the adulteress or adulterer has been tried by court. It seems that the scriptwriters did not do any research before devising this scene.
The adaptation is far better than the 1974 movie, with excellent performances but it is marred by the curious change in Poirot’s character and the curious lack of empathy that he exhibits. In the opening scene, an Army offices kills himself because Poirot has revealed him to a liar, and yet his violent suicide seems to leave Poirot completely unmoved. Likewise, the murder of a woman by a vicious mob is shrugged off by him and he tries to justify his attitude by claiming that the adulteresss knew what she was risking. He does not even consider the possibility that she was falsely accused and for a highly educated man and much-travelled man, he seems curiously ignorant of the fact that Muslim countries also have courts and a system of law.
Alot of people are blaming the BBC, the BBC have nothing to do with these adaptations. UK TV network ITV fund them.
This was a gloomy production where Suchet appeared tired and the glamour of the train was not apparent-even the locomotive was inaccurate being British!
I have been a Poirot´s fan all my life, and I think David Suchet`s is the best. But when i saw this adaptation i did not recognise “this Poirot” is dark, bloody, cruel (the scene when they kill Cassetti giving him a drug that paralizes him but allowes him to feel everthing!!!! what’s that??!! where is the good old “romanticism” the famous little grey cells, the logic, the “clean elegant” crimes. What is this? If i wanted to watch the Silence of the Lambs I would have done so…. If the good old Hastings would have seen this ….
Still as someone said before, the 1974 version with David Suchet in it would have been perfect.
I saw this movie last night on DVD. I am a fan of David Suchet’s and Dame Agatha. Having said that, I believe that this version was simply anti-Catholic propaganda. It was ridiculous, particularly when the anti-death penalty statement is used to justify murder. “Ye without sin, cast the first stone” is meant to stop murder not justify it. To premise this based on the murder of a child, makes the killers worse than the kidnapper. Horrible waste of film.
I agree with many of the commentators here. The version strayed too far from Christie’s book (Murder on the Orient Express). There is a reason why Agatha Christie is the most celebrated mystery novellist in history. She really is the best at what she does. This version – loosely based on her work – was not.
Great film! But isn’t there also a special piece with David Suchet on today’s Orient Express train? When does that air? Thanks.
Murder on the Orient Express was one of my favorite Agatha’s. The 1974 film followed the book so faithfully. I looked forward to seeing the new adaptation, but was so disappointed by the changes. Why alter a perfect book? David Suchet is a wonderful Poirot. Perhaps he was disappointed in this remake, too.
Well, by all the purists’ comments, this adaptation was not a success. However, as an Agatha purist as well and someone who hates the way most adaptations destroys the book, I found this adaptation riveting. I have had too much experience in dealing with injustice and the legal system and Dave Suchet was fantastic in portraying the raw emotion that accompanies it. I relived the pain my family felt when we didn’t get justice. But more importantly, I felt the same agonizing position when I served as a victim witness advocate in deciding what is justice and what is right and fair. An agonizing position to be in and Suchet was real.
I loved the cinematography. I thought it was gorgeous. However I agree with those who were disappointed in the heavy handed preaching that was in no way part of the Agatha Christie oeuvre.
I love Suchet as Poirot but he certainly looked like he was suffering from gout throughout the production. Everyone was testy and dark and it did not ring ‘true’. I thought that it was probably a more realistic portrayal of religious reality of the time in many ways, if my European Catholic relatives are any measure, but it was not a real factor in the story as written.
I hated the Albert Finney version because he made such a poor Poirot, but here we had the perfect Poirot acting like his own grumpy, ill-tempered, constipated twin. It was a shame.
[…] Murder on the Orient Express: A Review of a PBS Mystery! Thriller «Murder on the Orient Express, PBS Masterpiece Mystery!, Sunday, July 11, 9 PM local listings. Starting 7-12, watch this episode online at this link. … Miss Marple: Murder is Easy on Masterpiece Mystery PBS – Recap & Review… […]
I love the book and the 1974 version. I love David Suchet as Poirot, but…this new version of MOE was way too dark and oppressing! From the very beginning of the movie, it gave me an uncomfortable feeling. I did not like seeing Suchet’s Poirot so lost, so depressed, so angry. The look of the film, the cinematography, the set, the costumes, the props, were outstandingly perfect for a telling of MOE. The screenplay was disappointing. Too harsh. Too weak in character development. Too dark. It’s as if the screenwriter wanted to totally “rework” Agatha Christie’s fabulous book and make it their own. Characters were watered down, along with the plot, or in some cases, totally ignored. My first thought when the movie was over was a huge sigh of relief! I have the book and the 1974 movie of MOE and will read and watch them over and over. I have several David Suchet Poirot’s on dvd and love watching them over and over. However, I do not, will not, watch this version again. I did not like the Poirot that I saw. He was an angry bitter man. Wish Mr. Suchet would remake this film and be the Poirot we have all come to love and admire. Just my opinion, of course!
I have a few questions about this adaptation.
*Could someone explain why Suchet’s Poirot spent the first 15-20 minutes of the movie, resembling a victim of post-traumatic stress?
*Why did Rachett or whatever his name told Poirot that he needs to seek penance, while acting like a complete boor to others such as Mary Debenham and Pierre Michel?
*Why did they include the stoning scene in Istanbul?
*Is the weather in the Balkans usually that cold in late September, the movie’s time period?
I don’t know what I found more irritating in this production – the hammy acting, David Morrissey (Colonel Abuthnot), Toby Jones (Rachett), Serge Hazanavicius (M. Bouc) or the heavy-handed topic of religion.
However, there were some virtues in this movie – Denis Menochet (Michel), Samuel West (Dr. Constantine), Brian J. Smith (Hector McQueen), and the costumes.
“MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS” has always been a dark tale. Even the 1974 version has an air of melancholy hanging over it – especially in the movie’s montage at the beginning and the revelation scene. The problem with this movie is that the tale’s darkness was handled with a great deal of heavy-handedness.
Poirot , shown as a devout catholic , grateful for his native religious persuasion, is a staunch upholder of local laws. Any deviation from the locally ordained law should be met with punishment as prescribed. Stoning an adulteress in Istanbul doesn’t disturb him ; he dismisses it as a local custom and blames the victim for transgressing the law and inviting the punishment . I wonder how he could have reconciled such a strong belief, with Jesus , in a similar situation, rescuing a woman of apparently easy virtue, from stone throwers with a rhetorical question. Why was Poirot not impelled to invoke a similar device to foil the Istanbul barbarians? or is it that he cannot and should not imitate Jesus/God?
I read Agatha Christie in my teen years and read them all. I enjoyed them as good light entertainment – as indeed were the earlier movies of the Orient Express. The Albert Finney was a light, rich, stagy pleasure.
This version was not so light, not so stagy – I did not expect this, but it was excellent. So it added depth by making Poirot older, more contemplative, more thoughtful, more of a real person – what’s wrong with that? It made the story richer and deeper, and more powerful. It contained the Christie, but enriched it.
[” There was no doubt that Ratchett, the villain (Richard Widmark), was evil through and through, whereas the villain (Toby Jones) in this PBS production seems to operate more from fear and self-protection.”]
And yet . . . Richard Widmark still managed to give a more subtle performance.
The previous comments all represent valid points; however, the main point from my perspective is ethics. The ethical conflict Poirot went through and the emotional anguish displayed by his face. Poirot is now a flawed character. The mystic of Hercule Poirot as infallible is destroyed. Poirot is now like the rest of us. PBS has now done what the BBC could not do; set Poirot up for destruction. If you do not have the budget to portray Poirot correctly, then do not do it. The thought does occur, what would challenge Poirot ethics?
I am not sure about this adaptation. The cast and acting was brilliant and it’s good that it differs from the 1974 version (which is great in its own way)- why would anyone want to make a film exactly the same as one already made? I appreciate the more philosophical and sombre tone, but I do feel that they over did it a little. Especially the religious motif was too much for me and the way Poirot was pictured- as an angry, bitter man. His reaction to the stoning was really hard to accept. He is just not a pleasant character to watch in this film.
Using the stoned Turkish woman as an example of the rights and wrongs of vigilante justice was a major mistake. All the screenwriter did was transform Poirot into a hypocrite.
There was no way Cassetti would have been a member of the Mafia. The Mafia in the 1930s did not engage in kidnappings of wealthy or famous personages or their children. Criminals like Alvin Karpis or John Dillinger would have committed such crimes. And the screenplay made a mistake in identifying Cassetti as a member of the Chicago mob. And there was no way the Chicago mob would have had New York judges, lawyers, etc. in their back pockets . . . not without arousing the ire of the New York mobsters. The Chicago mob would have asked the New York mob to intervene on Cassetti’s behalf. And s ome of the dialogue is incredibly juvenile.
Philip Martin did a poor job with the movie’s script.
As a die hard Poirot fan I agree with most of the post on here. I agree that the religious angle was a bit too much and that the writers took a little too much license with the addition of the stoning scene. It was beautifully done with the costumes and the filming and the actors were in top form. With that said, I would like to put my two cents worth in.
If we were to compare the books to the movies we can see where the writers had to make some concessions. In the book Murder On The Orient Express, Hercule Poirot is hardly in it. He’s more of an after thought. He let’s the other characters do all the leg work and he just sits there and thinks. At the end of the story he decides that there are two conclusions to this scenario. The reason he chooses to not turn them in is because he knows it would do no good. It is explained at the end of the story that every one of the guilty twelve would have gotten away with it anyway. some had diplomatic immunity and some, because of what they did for a living or who they knew. For instance, the detective, who is absent from the movie, had immunity because of his connections to the American Justice Dept. He decided in the end to let them all live with their own conscience.
I found the movies reflected the mood of the books. We see a progression of changing moods. In the earlier stories Poirot is young and at the height of his powers. He is famous and in demand and he has his good friend Hastings by his side. In the later works, Poirot is a lonely, bored old man. All of his friends are gone. Even Hastings hasn’t been in touch for quite some years and he sorely misses him.. People don’t remember him and all of his friends are gone. Even his apartment shows the difference. Everything is dark.
If we look at the time line of when MOE took place it’s understandable to see Poirot in a dark mood. He had been called to Syria by the military to solve this murder by a soldier (2, dead woman, suicide of soldier). During that investigation he goes to Mesopotamia (2 dead), (the movie has 3 dead in it). We all know what happened there. He goes back to Syria and witnesses the suicide of the soldier. Then on his way home to London he witnesses three more deaths (pregnant woman and unborn child, Ratchett). I would have been in a bad mood as well. You have to use Miss Lemon’s filing system to figure it all out.
When I watched MOE I was left wondering if Mr. Bouc was in on it. He was too salacious toward Poirot. In the book he is the same way. I felt he was playing Poirot like an instrument. I also felt that the other characters were playing him, especially Miss Debenham. Right up to the end she was arrogant with Poirot. She taunts him about the money, still trying to one-up him. My blood runs cold when he gives her that look and says, “And are you?”
I noticed that he stays to himself all throughout the movie. He really didn’t want to associate with any of them. Even when he was sitting in the lounge car with them he stands out as a solitary figure. It was sad to see Poirot so alone and fed up.