Have Your Say

Television and Film

Talk about Christie TV and Film here

2001 version of Orient Express

(Contains spoilers!)

go_leafs_nation 16 Sep 09 at 11:26 p.m. GMT

This contains spoiler information. Show

I was originally hoping to call this post "The Curious Case of the Unnecessary Butchering of Murder on the Orient Express". The title, however, was far too long.

Basically, for those of you who were lucky enough not to see the Alfred Molina version of Murder on the Orient Express, I will sum it up as best as I can. Those who've seen it might want to read this just for the sarcasm. Obviously this contains spoilers, so those who didn't read the book had better shy away from this topic.

The movie opens as Poirot solves a murder case in Istanbul. He comes to the conclusion that a linguistics scholar committed a murder because the threatening note the victim received was also a palindrome. (gasp!) There follows a far-too-long scene between Poirot and Vera Rossakoff, during which I’m tempted to cry out “Sexual tension! Sexual tension!” Basically, Vera asks Poirot to marry her and settle in Istanbul. Poirot refuses to settle in Istanbul. They part. As Poirot walks through a marketplace, he sees Mary Debenham and (Mister!!!) Arbuthnot talking, a conversation he overheard at a completely different time in the novel.

Poirot comes to his hotel, and meets Wolfgang Bouc, who convinces him to take the Orient Express to London instead of a plane. Poirot accepts, and it is conveniently at this time that Mr. Ratchett gets a threatening phone call at the front desk. He throws a little temper tantrum, and life goes on.

Poirot and Bouc then board the Orient Express. The cabin reserved for Mr. Harris is given to Poirot without any issues, mainly because there are now only nine passengers on board. (There is the puzzling question of why a businessman like Ratchett would go anywhere near a train with the fast transportation aviation offers- a question this movie never attempts to answer. Maybe it's just as well- its explanations for everything else are silly.) Ratchett gets a videotape delivered to his compartment. Meanwhile, Poirot discusses Vera with Bouc, lamenting that they are complete opposites. (And I thought the bathtub scene in The Sittaford Mystery was mushy!) Ratchett throws another tantrum, obliterating the videotape in front of practically all the passengers, when he could’ve done it far more conveniently in the privacy of his own cabin.

Next, Mr. Ratchett tries hiring Poirot, who refuses. We are then confused immensely as we plunge straight into everyone’s alibi— we don’t know who half the people are. Did I mention it was boring? Ratchett prepares for bed by loading a gun (Foreshadowing!). In the night, a gunshot sounds. Poirot gets up, hears an exchange between Pierre Michel and Ratchett (but hold on! The door remained closed! It just screams “A clue, Sherlock! A clue!”), and then goes right back to bed. He is later woken up again, and this time speaks with Pierre, who informs him of Mrs. Hubbard’s hysterical declarations that there was a man in her room.

But hold on! The train has been stopped by a landslide! Sacré! The next morning, the obligatory corpse is found, and Poirot comes to the conclusion that the killer must be on the train. Wonderful. Ratchett was stabbed nine times (the horror!). Anyhow, there follows a conversation between Poirot and Mr. MacQueen. Afterwards, Poirot speaks with Pierre Michel, and then Mrs. Hubbard (and she gives away half the plot by describing herself as an actress). She found a button! (Cue the dramatic music.)

There follows a talk with Mr. Arbuthnot, CEO of some software company. Although Poirot irritates him completely, he still allows him to borrow his laptop. Poirot then uses the computer to search the Daisy Armstrong case (did I mention he played the destroyed tape earlier, and for the seven seconds that worked, conveniently found out it was a news broadcast over the Armstrong case?). He reveals Arbuthnot’s involvement, and then goes on to outline the case in a way that screams “A CLUE!”

By now, Alfred Molina realizes what a mess of a movie he’s in, and chats with MacQueen. After that, it’s a talk with Foscarelli, who has decided to go and try clearing the landslide. Foscarelli is no longer a car salesman— he sells an exercise machine of sorts, and is the most stereotypical Italian you’ll ever see. Watch the actor prepare himself for about 15 seconds to do the classic “kiss the fingers saying ‘muah!’”. His accent is over the top, and he is like the rest of the characters: a bore.

Suddenly a scream rings out! Poirot and Bouc rush away from Foscarelli (who goes back to clearing the landslide instead of following them, although he’s expressed admiration of Poirot and an interest in the case) and find Mrs. Hubbard, who reached for her moisturizer and pulled out a knife. Shocking.

At this point, my brain melted, and I simply couldn’t force myself to continue critiquing this sad excuse of a movie any longer. Maybe someday I’ll finish, though…

Login or register to add posts and reply

22 replies

Reverse order

belgian_in_ireland 22 Mar 11 at 9:49 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

I actually like the newer version of MOTOE.  Never took to Albert Finney as Poirot even though the rest of the cast was superb.  Furthermore I have always thought that Poirot, in this book, was not a likeable character and IMO the closing of this newer version was more in synch with the book.  Ok, I know that in the book, Poirot leaves the carriage saying I have to write my report to the police.  BUT you never really know what is in that report!  Mr Bouc, his friend director of the Wagon Lits, nearly begs him to accept the theory that it is "un altro mafioso" (as the chauffeur exclaims), but it's left in the open.  As for Poirot's praying and rosaries, it is mentioned in other books that Poirot is "a good catholic" (as he would have been for his generation in Belgium - if you had any higher post in the police - you would have to be a good catholic).

Tommy_A_Jones 08 Mar 11 at 5:01 p.m. GMT

I think quite alot of the ITV series of Marple lack charm IMHO

Tommy_A_Jones 22 Oct 09 at 4:13 p.m. GMT

Perhaps the reviewer thought that Julia McKenzie's portrayal of MM from GMs that he forgot that the rest was a disgrace to the book, although I enjoyed Most! of it, I didn't think it was turned into a Tommy-and Tuppence type story but I did think it was odd to give MM 2 Assistants

go_leafs_nation 21 Oct 09 at 5:01 p.m. GMT

Oh, not at all! Sure, that version was updated, but look at the Marple version. All they did was alter characters, introduce some very twisted motives, change the murder method so that it barely holds water, change half the story, add Miss Marple, and turn it into a Tommy-and-Tuppence-ish story instead of a cozy mystery where MM fit right in (as a matter of fact, a reviewer at the time commented that MM was not annoying in it!)...

Puffinjill 21 Oct 09 at 2:59 p.m. GMT

Ha, ha!! I'm glad I've seen so few adaptations if thats what they were like! I remember seeing the US TV movie of Murder Is Easy (which I believe starred some guy from The Incredible Hulk - thats showing my age!) many moons ago but most of these others have escaped my attention. Thank Heavens!!

I might of had to live through the 80's (and done the big hair thing - cringe!) but I don't want to see some of my favourite books set in that era. However, I do seem to remember that that version of Murder Is Easy was a little more faithful than the recent Miss Marple one...

McGinty 20 Oct 09 at 8:44 p.m. GMT

I was forgetting,there were also US made tv movies of Murder Is Easy and The Man in the Brown Suit, both set in the present day. Murder is Easy wasn't half bad but the Man in the Brown Suit was pitiful - another example of  a story written in th 1920s and then expecting it to work when thrown into the 1980s, all shoulder pads and big hair ! Fortunately I only saw it the once.

I've deliberately forgot the awful Murder on the Orient Express with Alfred Molina, which should have been shown neither in cinemas or on tv !

McGinty 20 Oct 09 at 8:37 p.m. GMT

Tommy, the ones made as 'movies' and shown in cinemas, as opposed to 'tv movies' were (excluding the various ten little whatever you want to call thems, because I think, though I may stand corrected they were all theatrical releases) were:

Murder on the Orient Express (Finney)

Death on the Nile (Ustinov)

The Mirror Crack'd (Angela Lansbury)

Evil Under the Sun (Ustinov)

Appointment With Death (Ustinov)

Ordeal By Innocence (starred among others Donald Sutherland)

I honestly don't remember Sparkling Cyanide being shown in cinemas though I may be wrong. Why Didn't They ask Evans and Seven Dials were made by ITV and shown on tv - in full, all in one go, which made for a very long evening in front of the box ! The American made Ustinov's 13 at Dinner, Dead Man's Folly and Murder in Three Acts(Three Act Tragedy) and the Helen Hayes Murder With Mirrors (They Do It With Mirrors) were only shown on tv,never shown in cinemas in the UK, maybe they were in the States. ITV also filmed a reasonably good Pale Horse which starred Colin Buchan, although for some reason Ariadne Oliver was written out, and that too was only shown on tv. I wish ITV would stop messing around with Christie and film more one-offs like They Came to Baghdad or Destination Unknown. Better still to make up for their treatment of Tommy and Tuppence in By the Pricking of My Thumbs they could film NorM?, but do it properly, set it in wartime and KEEP MISS MARPLE OUT OF IT !! But then again I'm probably fooling myself into thinking that they care !

Tommy_A_Jones 20 Oct 09 at 4:45 p.m. GMT

McGinty does that mean that the ones for the TV were not shown in Cinemas like the Pauline Collins version of Sparkling Cyanide and I think 7 Dials and Why Didn't They Ask Evans? I get confused by what different people call Movies and also I assumed Thirteen At Dinner, Dead Man's Folly and the other one were shown at the Cinema.

Tommy_A_Jones 19 Oct 09 at 1:18 p.m. GMT

I personally preferred ther Ustinov version of Appointment With Death to 13 At Dinner and Three-Act Tragedy or whatever it was called and I am reading They Came To Baghdad and enjoying it.

go_leafs_nation 19 Oct 09 at 1:03 p.m. GMT

I was rather irrated by Lord Edgware Dies, in that I was definately on the right track, but had the book spoiled for me midway. Either way, I disagree about the LED being the easiest to guess. I guessed the killer as soon as the character was introduced in They Came to Baghdad.

In any case, I think Ustinov's Death on the Nile and Evil Under the Sun are his best movies; the others I don't care for at all, particularly Appointment With Death, which is just dull.

McGinty 18 Oct 09 at 5:34 p.m. GMT

Sorry Tommy, I think I might have misled you. Ustinov's Death on the Nile, Evil, and Appointment With Death were period set and made for cinemas. The tv films were 13 At Dinner, Three Act Tragedy (or whatever it was named !)  and Dead Man's Folly, which were all set in the present, but because the producers didn't resort to changing the stories they all worked reasonably well. i too don't care much for the book of Lord Edgware dies. I only read it once many many years ago and I thought it was probably the easiest book to guess the killer from Chapter One. I also love Evil Under the Sun, it's probably my favourite of all the big screen versions of Christie films.

Tommy_A_Jones 18 Oct 09 at 1:09 p.m. GMT

McGinty, I have always meant as a last resort and quite frankly it might be much better than some of the Changes that have been made, I too love the Ustinov films but I think Thirteen At Dinner is the least good but there again I don't much like the book it is based on, my favourite Ustinov Poirot film is Evil Under The Sun, I didn't realise they were all set in the modern day, I realised Thirteen At Dinner was because of the start of the Film - Silly Me. 

McGinty 18 Oct 09 at 12:11 p.m. GMT

Yes Tommy, but only as a last resort. I quite enjoyed Ustinov's Poirots that were made for tv, because even though they were set in the modern day the stories weren't tampered with too much. In fact I probably enjoy Thirteen At Dinner far more than David Suchet's Lord Edgware Dies.

Tommy_A_Jones 16 Oct 09 at 4:07 p.m. GMT

I see your point McGinty and in the main adding technology which wasn't around then is a bad idea (Orient Express Re-make) but If I rememberr rightly didn't they use the PC to look up the Suspects which I think wasn't too bad (I'm sorry I dfon't remember it totally) Did you watch an American PI programme called Mat Houston? I loved it and his assistant/lawyer CJ showeed him the suspects on a HUGE screen - That was Great I thought, I personally think if modern Technology is used extremely subtley it is perhaps not too bad but the makers would have to be selective asto where to use it and with which books and only as a last resort.

McGinty 15 Oct 09 at 7 p.m. GMT

Actually Tommy I was thinking of the Pauline Collins one. I don't dislike Pauline Collins, or any of the actors in the film, I just  believe that once the producers have set the story in the modern world things start to go wrong. Sparkling Cyanide was published in 1945, bringing it dragging and screaming into today just doesn't work . Agatha Christie's stories have lasted because being written long ago they rely purely on detection, throwing PCs and laptops and  CCTV into the mix makes a mockery of the stories. I assume thay do them that way because it is so much cheaper to film contemporary stuff to period drama, but I just wish they wouldn't bother. There are enough contemporary detective shows on tv without ruining an Agatha Christie.

Tommy_A_Jones 15 Oct 09 at 4:11 p.m. GMT

OUCH! But I agree McGinty, that sadly must be why some of the Adaptations have been allowed. Which Sparkling Cyanide do you mean? Although it is set around the world of Football which I hate, loath and detest I liked the Pauline Collins version but not the Anthony Andres one.

McGinty 11 Oct 09 at 8:56 a.m. GMT

I thought this film is proof why Agatha Christie stories should never be transposed to a modern day setting. Sparkling Cyanide was bad but this was terrible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Orient Express only journeyed between London and Venice since the service restarted in 1982 ? Whoever gave permission for this film to be made should be ashamed. I guess some people would agree to anything as long as the price was right.

Tommy_A_Jones 25 Sep 09 at 1:58 p.m. GMT

I thought the Guy who played Bouc was the best person in it, perhaps he should have played Poirot but not even that would have saved the film.

go_leafs_nation 25 Sep 09 at 11:28 a.m. GMT

One quick thought that just jumped into mind: at one point, Molina as Poirot says he "belongs in a different age". At that point, I jumped up and yelled at the TV (true story here) "You sure do!" This was a dreadful modernisation. I tried finishing up part 2 yesterday and gave up after 10 minutes.

Tommy_A_Jones 17 Sep 09 at 2:40 p.m. GMT

I think if you see it in a Shop called Poundland you are paying too much for it.

Monkfish 17 Sep 09 at 9:04 a.m. GMT

Sounds so bad that it might be worth watching! If I see the DVD in Poundland, I'll grab it.

GKCfan 17 Sep 09 at 1:37 a.m. GMT

Stop sugar-coating your reviews, go_leafs, and tell us what you REALLY think!