Have Your Say

Discuss Poirot

Talk about everything Poirot related!

Murder on the Orient Express

blusted 03 Aug 10 at 3:48 p.m. GMT

My wife and I have bought all the Poirot DVDs. We have watched them many, many times and love them all. That is, until we watched the new "Murder on the Orient Express". What a huge disappointment! I can't believe anyone thought it was a good idea to have Poirot played as this cold, grim, dark, unsympathetic and self-righteous person. It was not a pleasure to watch, it was painful. This isn't the Poirot that so movingly speaks about all he has missed in life when talking about love in "Death on the Nile". It isn't even the Poirot that sheds a tear when 2 characters kiss at the end of "The Third Girl" in the same series! This has been such a wonderful series for so many years. Please do not let this ruination of Poirot continue.

Thanks, Brian Lusted

Login or register to add posts and reply

13 replies

Reverse order

john_c_hamilton 31 Dec 11 at 10:46 p.m. GMT

Post Scriptum. I am sorry for sending my review in two parts, but the site won’t allow more than 2,000 characters at once – very much like b****y UCAS!!!

john_c_hamilton 31 Dec 11 at 10:46 p.m. GMT

PART 2

To take it even further, having engaged myself to this task of writing at least one good review regarding this film, Poirot might after all be testing these people and their morality to the very last point in order to reassure that without their noble cause they could not again commit such a grave crime - taking for granted that murder is a much more serious crime than jewellery theft as dear MissQuin does not seem to comprehend. It would seem impossible that in a real life situation the people engaged in such a tragedy - referring to both the actual crime and the loss of their loved ones - would get acceptance and forgiveness that fast, or even if they did that they would sit back toasting with champagne for their achievement - having forgotten all the pain and loss that brought them to commit a crime - as the adaptation with Albert Finney suggests. In the Suchet production on the other hand, it is obvious that even when they are free of the burden of their guilt, their grief is still present and they all including Poirot who now is aware of the truth fight with their inner moral values.

 In conclusion, by introducing these questions regarding morality and righteousness - even when your cause is noble - offers to the Suchet series a unique chance to explain to the fans of the series the end of Poirot’s life in the very next season, since we shall now be able to see with clarity the burden of the guilt caused by the crime he himself is now obligated to commit - no matter how justified. A burden that he could not possibly stand, judging from his reaction on the Orient Express, and that unavoidably leads him to suicide.

john_c_hamilton 31 Dec 11 at 10:44 p.m. GMT

PART 1

I strongly believe that the i-tv version of 'Murder on the 'Orient Express' is enormously misunderstood. David Suchet is the most prominent 'Poirot specialist' that we have at our disposal, and since his word is the one that matters the most after the series' comeback at 2005, we should not really be so judgemental of the episodes. I comprehend that the omission of several characters can potentially be irritating, as can the depressing tone that the films have adopted since 2008 - especially 'Murder on the Orient Express' - but since it is not Virginia Woolf but Agatha Christie that the channel is tampering with, we could all, in my humble opinion, be a little more sympathetic! By this remark I do not in any way imply that Agatha Christie's work should be disrespected, but unlike most forms of prose, crime fiction is meant to be more enjoyed than analysed, hence any film adaptation does not need to be so rigidly based on the actual novel.

It is my personal view, that the specific adaptation discussed here, is an immensely good version of the original story if not even an ameliorated one. The introduction of the religious element in the series might make Poirot more serious, but it simultaneously makes it more seriously considered, since it allows us to examine the film from many different angles. The exchange of Mr Hardman for Dr Constantine does not really influence the flow of the story, since it is mainly Ms Debenham, and secondarily Princess Dragomiroff, that are referred the most. Finally Poirot - who might not have originally been pious, but has been definitely law abiding - would not so easily accept the violation of the law even for such a just cause.

christines 02 Feb 11 at 8:05 p.m. GMT

I just saw it a few weekends ago in the US on my local PBS station.  Although I have not seen David Suchet in too many others yet, I agree with the general sentiment here about Murder on the Orient Express.  He played Poirot rather straight-up and a bit mean.  He didn't seem quirky or possessing that other-worldly intuition he has.  His demeanor was practical, somewhat intolerant of others, and just not how I think of him when reading the books.  The looks are perfect, but it just didn't seem to add up to our beloved Poirot.    This 2010 TV version also seemed to rush through the story.  I watched the 1974 movie on TCM recently and I think that one is much better.  The movie clearly is a bigger production, but that wouldn't necessarily matter if the characterizations in the new one weren't so off.  However, I loved seeing Barbara Hershey in this ITV/WGBH production ... haven't seen her for a while. 

Miss_Eylesbarrow 02 Feb 11 at 9:41 a.m. GMT

I found Dead Man's Folly to be a grow-er.  I've got more into it since getting it on audio book although it is read by David Suchet who does one of the worst interpretations of Ariadne Oliver I've ever heard! 

Can't believe that you've not see the Finney version of MOTOE, I thought everyone in the whole world had seen it!  I won't give anything away, but the last scene always brings a lump to my throat - do watch it!  And the music is FAB.

MissQuin 01 Feb 11 at 3:32 p.m. GMT

I've not seen the Finney version, I'd like to. Oddly enough I've heard more about the infamous facial hair than anything else about it. It has to better than 2010 Misery On The Orient Express.

I bet the Orient Express ticket sales went up after the Suchet documentry. Even though it is v v expensive. But I would have thought the actual Suchet adapt would be enough to make ticket sales slump.

I didn't enjoy the book Dead Man's Folly very much, but I think the adapt colud be an improvement on the book in some ways. Some of the uninteresting characters could be cut out. Maybe seeing Mrs Oliver again will bring a smile to Poirot's doleful face?

Miss_Eylesbarrow 01 Feb 11 at 10:05 a.m. GMT

MissQuin  I prefered David Suchet's programme about his trip on the orient Express. It certianly had more joy and warmth.

I quite agree with you Miss Quin, and all the other comments about Poirot being too grim and bigoted.  I also preferred the David Suchet on the Orient Express programme, I'd watch that again, I wouldn't watch the Poirot MOTOE again.  Come back Albert Finney, all is forgiven!

Tommy_A_Jones 28 Jan 11 at 3:38 p.m. GMT

I think someone must have looked on wikipedia and seen that Poirot is Catholic and had decided as it has been ignored pretty much up to now tha it should be mentioned, If it hasn't been mentioned mentioning it now is a bit silly in My view, I think there is a new trend of leaving thing ambiguously which the Makers obviously approve of wrongly in my view which is obviously why we are left wondering if the Murderer(s) get away with it, There is another solution, Poirot might have  decided to gve the facts to The Police and let them decide what to do but I don't think Poirot is a Coward do you? I missed The Character who was dropped and Dropping him it didn't make sense to me. 

MissQuin 28 Jan 11 at 2:53 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

ChristieFan Blogger- I agree with your comment. I only watched MOTOE Suchet the other day and was greatly unimpressed.  SPOILERS:

I didn't like the fact each of the characters personailties had been taken away. They all seemd pretty much the same, bleak, grey, hopeless. One comment in the book was that Ratchett was killed so that he couldn't inflict any more suffering on people with his henious crimes. This wasn't mentioned. Also the murderers paralysed him so he knew what was happening, but couldn't cry out. It was done as a form of torture. I don't think that the characters in the book woludn't stoop to this level of cruelty. They weren't like Ratchett. They were just ordinary people, whose suffering and anger at the injustice of it, had drove to them this crime.

I hated all the boring moralising done by Poirot. The way he bullied a young solider at the very start. This poor man killed himself as a result. Yet was Poirot sorry? No. Even with this man's blood on his face, he's later complained the man lied. Is this the same Poirot who let a woman get away with jewel theft?

The music was tiresome and preventing me relaxing to watch it. The only good thing was the acting, although it was all too serious. I prefered David Suchet's programme about his trip on the orient Express. It certianly had more joy and warmth.

ChristieFanBlogger 27 Jan 11 at 8:41 p.m. GMT

This reply contains spoiler information. Show reply

This version was so very different from the book.  Poirot was angry and harsh, and surprisingly quite Catholic.  I’ve been reading a lot of Christies and Poirot’s religious preferences have never made themselves known as far as I can remember.  When did he become a devout Catholic?  Or maybe the question really is, why did the creators of this movie decide to infuse that into the story?  I find it so odd this was part of this movie, yet they tossed out other very good and in my opinion, important, parts of the book.

I noted when I read the book, and with the wealth of Poirot knowledge I’ve been amassing, that Poirot respects justice.  He will send a likable character to jail if they are guilty, believing justice is the job of the legal system and not the individual.  But he has also allowed the guilty party the opportunity to commit suicide to spare their family members (The Murder of Roger Akroyd and Murder After Hours).  In this story, he also makes an exception.  Justice was not served in the legal system, the victims of this heinous crime were cheated.  Therefore, he sides with the victims and helps to hide their crime.  He helps without hesitation.  Yet this movie version, we have a very different ending.  It is unclear what Poirot will do.  He fights and argues and condemns the conspirators.  He shows no understanding of their pain, no mercy.  He walks away from the 12 towards the police and the credits roll.  Did he turn them all in or not?  Had I not read the book, I would assume he did.  He was portrayed as an angry man for some reason.

Tommy_A_Jones 27 Jan 11 at 4:27 p.m. GMT

Mr Suchet has been portraying Poirot as Cold and Grim amd Unsympathetic for a while and it is such a shame, I still enjoy the series as I always hope he will go back to portraying Poirot in the way he used to, Bouc was out of place, I wondered if I was too influenced by the Albert Finney Film, I thought Bouc was supposed to be an old friend of Poirot, I watched the Albert Finney Version on Sunday, It wasn't as light as I remembered it but not as Grim as the ITV version, I hope for the remaining ones Mr Suchet plays Poirot Lighter, He doesn't need to be so depressing in Dead Man's Folly does he? I hope not.

Krissi75 27 Jan 11 at 7:53 a.m. GMT

Hi Blusted; I feel exactly the same I'm afraid. I consider David Suchet is the best Poirot ever and has always portrayed the character in a way that I felt was the best fit for the Poirot stories. I had been waiting YEARS for David Suchet to provide us with what I believed would be a total masterpiece.

The evening it screened here in Scotland, I had everything ready for a good two hours of long awaited enjoyment. My son was tucked up in bed, the choccies were open and a nice glass of red was by my side. I was unbelievably disappointed. The casting was awful and Poirot was sullen, angry and at times down right rude which is clearly not the Poirot that we all know and love. For example his reaction to meeting M Buc was dreadful; these were supposed to be two men of a similar age who were friends of long standing and yet Poirot's reaction was standoff-ish and M Buc was portrayed as a much younger man which just didn't 'fit'.

I'm saddened that this version was allowed to air. I felt that it was directed and scripted by people who had never read any of Christie's books or researched the characters. This could have been amazing, and a fabulous one for David Suchet to end on as he's now done them all; instead it left me frustrated, disappointed and a little angry. I cheered myself up by watching Albert Finney in the 1974 version!

MissQuin 03 Aug 10 at 4:03 p.m. GMT

Welcome to the Chrisite board blusted.

Your not the only one to feel this way. Ive read lots of internet reviews that have said that poirot isn't the same. Ive not seen the epsiode yet (not been on in UK) but Ive felt that he's straying from Chritie's creation. Ive always liked suchet and he's always so willing to talk about poirot in interviews and such. But this Religousness and sadness. it's not there in the stories. Yes, he reflects back into the past as he gets older.

But the Poirot in Third girl, seemed like he needed a dose of prozac!! His quirky eccentricness has gone.