Murder on the Orient Express (1974) UHD/Blu-ray Review (1 Viewer)

[Wes Candela]

I didn’t find it terrible in any way shape or form.

Was not a huge fan of it myself
Underwhelming
Hoped for more.

Some performances enjoyed, some I didn’t.

Not terrible, I’m not talking about attack of the killer tomatoes or anything

 

[Henry Kujawa]

I'd completely forgotten my 1st exposure to Agatha Christie or Poirot was THE ALPHABET MURDERS. No, really. Somehow, I never saw ORIENT EXPRESS when it came out. But when I saw the coming attraction for DEATH ON THE NILE, I knew I had to go-- and did. TWICE. It may have been the only time I ever went to see anything with my Dad TWICE, and because only 1 week or 2 had passed, we remembered EVERY detail, so the 2nd time around was a completely-different experience. I believe complex murder mysteries are BETTER the 2nd or 3rd or so time around. But-- you do NEED to see them the first time "cold". That way, you get to experience not knowing, and on later re-watches, you get to really see and know what's going on, when you didn't before.

Which brings me to ORIENT EXPRESS. My best friend BLEW the ending for me before I had a chance to see it. When I told him this, he replied... "It came out TEN YEARS ago! I assumed you MUST have seen it by now!" Take this as advice! NEVER assume that. NEVER discuss an old movie, unless you first confirm someone has seen it-- or, doesn't mind having it blown for them.

I'll never know how I might have reacted to ORIENT EXPRESS if I'd been able to actually watch it "cold" the first time. Having the ending blown for me in advance may have irreparably ruined it for me. I will say it's one of the BEST-PRODUCED films of its type I've ever seen, with incredible locations, sets, cast, costumes, music, the whole shebang.

Apart from having the story blown for me, however, there's always been ONE major problem for me. Albert Finney. I know, from reading and hearing about Poirot that Christie's character was an absurd eccentric of the highest order. But Finney's entire performance in the film looks and feels like what it is-- AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT. He doesn't seem "real".

By comparison, although I know Peter Ustinov is puttng on a certain amount of make-up and is definitely acting, he SEEMS real. Ustinov doesn't seem to be acting-- even though I know he is! And David Suchet... who is far more of a creation than Ustinov, seems COMPLETELY real. The first time I saw Suchet interviewed on PBS, it blew my mind. He's NOTHING like the character! And when he slipped into "Poirot" in mid-interview, it was jaw-dropping. HOW DOES HE DO THAT? Wow.

Crazy enough, another version nobody talks about, which I actually enjoyed, was Alfred Molina's. Who would have imagined that minor character at the start of RAIDERS would come back decades later to play Poirot? Like all the other CBS-TV adaptations, it was updated to the present day, and thus offends a lot of people. Yet I found HE was very good in it, and I actually preferred that film to at least one of the 3 Ustinov did for CBS. (The actress who played Poirot's love interest, I thought, was one of the most beautiful women I've seen onscreen in many years.)

I missed the first 2 Branagh films, but did get to see A HAUNTING IN VENICE... and loved it.

I've yet to start upgradng my AC collection to disc. When I do, boy, will I have a lot of stuff to go after! I've still never seen about the last 1/3rd of the Suchet adaptations. Truthfully, I have to put in some effort to CLEARING OUT huge chunks of my collections (books, magazines, tons of comic-books) to make room for new stuff... but since I started buying DVDs and Blu-Rays, I've been enjoying collecting movies & TV shows more than at any time in the last 45 years.

 

[Richard Kaufman]

Finney is and always has been the best Poirot for me. He is also by far the finest actor ever to take on the task of portraying Poirot. Ustinov is flat. Suchet is too serious. Finney plays Poirot in an elevated and theatrical performance which meshes perfectly with the film. He was directed toward that portrayal.
Branagh's "Haunting in Venice" is the best of the three Poirot films he's done.

 

[Jimbo.B]

When this was released in 1974 I was so dazzled by the cast and production I really didn’t pay attention to the excesses of Finney’s performance. Watching it again recently, Finney was one of the weakest parts of the whole movie for me. It just read WATCH ME ACTING all over it. The music is terribly dated as well though I still like this movie very much, much more so than the Branagh remake, in my opinion.

 

[Konstantinos]

Watching it again recently, Finney was one of the weakest parts of the whole movie for me.

I agree.
For me the best Poirot is Ustinov..

 

[Will Krupp]

Watching it again recently, Finney was one of the weakest parts of the whole movie for me. It just read WATCH ME ACTING all over it.

It's funny because, while I've always been somewhat critical of Finney's performance (I've always said it was acted with a capital "A," which is basically the same thing you're saying) I have found myself warming to his Poirot in recent viewings. I guess I'm getting more indulgent in my old age!

Ustinov, however, is still my personal favorite.

 

[Robin9]

(The actress who played Poirot's love interest, I thought, was one of the most beautiful women I've seen onscreen in many years.)

A love that dares not speak her name? For those who haven't seen this film, who is she?

 

[lark144]

It's funny because, while I've always been somewhat critical of Finney's performance (I've always said it was acted with a capital "A," which is basically the same thing you're saying) I have found myself warming to his Poirot in recent viewings. I guess I'm getting more indulgent in my old age!

Ustinov, however, is still my personal favorite.

I read the books featuring Poirot by Agatha Christie and especially the short stories--collected in the "Labours of Hercules"--when I was growing up. At first I found Poirot a very off-putting character. He's arrogant, conceited and overacts shamelessly. Much of Poirot's reactions and dialogue in the stories initially seem false and overbearing, but they turn out not to be. He's someone you warm to over time, just as you have warmed to Finney's performance. So perhaps what you're reacting to in your perception of Albert Finney's "overacting" is simply the fact that he's really deep into the character, as all of that he expresses--good, bad and indifferent--is an aspect of Poirot. Ustinov as Poirot is utterly charming and a joy to watch. And that's the problem I have with his performance. Unlike Finney, Ustinov doesn't express any of Poirot's negative character traits. His Poirot is very likeable--much more so than the character written by Ms. Christie--and therefore one dimenional. He's more like a host at an elegant soiree than Christie's irritating, unlikable, pompous yet brilliant detective, which is why I prefer MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS to the others; though the actors that surround Ustinov in EVIL UNDER THE SUN are so bitchy and unrestrained, his sleepwalking through the film doesn't matter as much.

 

[Will Krupp]

He's someone you warm to over time, just as you have warmed to Finney's performance. So perhaps what you're reacting to in your perception of Albert Finney's "overacting" is simply the fact that he's really deep into the character, as all of that he expresses--good, bad and indifferent--is an aspect of Poirot.

Not quite.

I warmed to the literary character of Poirot years ago (I've read the novels as well) and I simply feel that Ustinov's portrayal is a better one for film. We've gone back and forth about this before and it just comes down to a difference of opinion. I'm liking Finney's Poirot more now than I have at any point in the last 45 years or so, but I don't love Ustinov's any less. For me, he still wins.

 

[ahollis]

When I first saw Murder On The Orient Express I had no expectation of Poirot and I relished Finney’s portrayal. With the release of Death On The Nile and Evil Under The Sun, I was able to really appreciate Ustinov’s representation of the character. For me Ustinov is the best, but I have a soft spot for Finney. I am not a fan of Branagh’s interpretation.

 

[Will Krupp]

For me Ustinov is the best, but I have a soft spot for Finney.

This, exactly!

 

[lark144]

Not quite.

I warmed to the literary character of Poirot years ago (I've read the novels as well) and I simply feel that Ustinov's portrayal is a better one for film. We've gone back and forth about this before and it just comes down to a difference of opinion. I'm liking Finney's Poirot more now than I have at any point in the last 45 years or so, but I don't love Ustinov's any less. For me, he still wins.

I actually find Ustinov a whole lot hammier, closer to Nigel Bruce's Watson, but as they say, to each their own.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Branagh's "Haunting in Venice" is the best of the three Poirot films he's done.

As much as I enjoyed the other two [among a handful of films my wife will willingly watch with me], I must agree.

 

[Nils Helstrom]

I agree.
For me the best Poirot is Ustinov..

I've always been a David Suchet fan, myself, but just recently saw the entire Ustinov run of films (even if my copy of Appointment With Death is awful) and must say he's pretty d*mn good. I have room in my heart for both! On the other hand, Jonathan Cecil's Captain Hastings doesn't hold a candle to Hugh Fraser (probably because he wasn't given anything to work with, but there it is).

 

[Henry Kujawa]

Jonathan Cecil-- AUGH!!!!!

 

[Henry Kujawa]

A love that dares not speak her name? For those who haven't seen this film, who is she?

Tasha de Vasconcelos as Vera Rossakoff

 

[Jack P]

I did the upgrade. Looks great but the commentary was a letdown that IMO should have focused more on the differences between the film and the book because there is one VERY critical difference between the book and the film that IMO becomes the biggest blemish in the entire script. In Christie's book it is clearly established that Ratchett "beat the rap" for his crime because Poirot says he was acquitted on a technicality which made him a free man who could never face justice under the legal system because of double jeopardy. THAT is the reason why the plot was put into effect. The law failed to do its job so that's why this horrible murder was resorted to. Unfortunately, this very critical point which is so central to the justification for the story's final resolution is missing because Dehn's script says Ratchet merely escaped after the #2 man who did the actual killing deed at his behest was executed. Therefore in this universe it was technically possible for Ratchet to have simply been arrested, extradited and tried for his crime. Which then puts the whole deed of the murder in a less than justified light (and makes nonsense of Colonel Arbuthnot's remark about how it would have been preferable to have been done in a proper trial). This detail should have been corrected because while it doesn't make the film less enjoyable, it does throw the film's moral compass off in a not insignificant way.

Albert Finney at that point in time was IMO the best actor to play Poirot compared to who had played the part before, but Suchet has in the decades since, eclipsed him completely and Finney's performance now seems TOO eccentric. The only problem though is that Suchet's version is simply an awful version of the story (though certainly better when compared to the 2001 Alfred Molina disgrace or the ridiculous Branagh version). Happily, if you have the computer game version of the story, you can get the chance to hear Suchet voice Poirot in a more traditional telling of the story and do the classic revelation of things that is brilliant (Though if you have the computer game, which draws heavily from the 74 movie, you also get to experience a twist unique to it that manages to work since it was done for the benefit of those who already knew the story well).

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I did the upgrade. Looks great but the commentary was a letdown that IMO should have focused more on the differences between the film and the book because there is one VERY critical difference between the book and the film that IMO becomes the biggest blemish in the entire script. In Christie's book it is clearly established that Ratchett "beat the rap" for his crime because Poirot says he was acquitted on a technicality which made him a free man who could never face justice under the legal system because of double jeopardy. THAT is the reason why the plot was put into effect. The law failed to do its job so that's why this horrible murder was resorted to. Unfortunately, this very critical point which is so central to the justification for the story's final resolution is missing because Dehn's script says Ratchet merely escaped after the #2 man who did the actual killing deed at his behest was executed. Therefore in this universe it was technically possible for Ratchet to have simply been arrested, extradited and tried for his crime. Which then puts the whole deed of the murder in a less than justified light (and makes nonsense of Colonel Arbuthnot's remark about how it would have been preferable to have been done in a proper trial). This detail should have been corrected because while it doesn't make the film less enjoyable, it does throw the film's moral compass off in a not insignificant way.

Albert Finney at that point in time was IMO the best actor to play Poirot compared to who had played the part before, but Suchet has in the decades since, eclipsed him completely and Finney's performance now seems TOO eccentric. The only problem though is that Suchet's version is simply an awful version of the story (though certainly better when compared to the 2001 Alfred Molina disgrace or the ridiculous Branagh version). Happily, if you have the computer game version of the story, you can get the chance to hear Suchet voice Poirot in a more traditional telling of the story and do the classic revelation of things that is brilliant (Though if you have the computer game, which draws heavily from the 74 movie, you also get to experience a twist unique to it that manages to work since it was done for the benefit of those who already knew the story well).

I agree with you on all points except describing the Branagh version as ridiculous. That mustache is fabulous, and the rest of the cast acquits itself nicely. It's also gorgeous, having been photographed on 65mm.

 

[Henry Kujawa]

I actually find Ustinov a whole lot hammier, closer to Nigel Bruce's Watson, but as they say, to each their own.

Something that completely went over my head when I saw it in the theatre... in Mel Brooks' DRACULA DEAD AND LOVING IT, Harvey Korman's 'Dr. Seward" goes thru the entire movie "doing" Nigel Bruce. (Call me crazy, but right now, the Brooks' film is probably my favorite adaptation of DRACULA. Of course, it's mostly based on the Lugosi film... which was mostly based on the stage play.)

 

[Henry Kujawa]

certainly better when compared to the 2001 Alfred Molina disgrace

I believe I read that TV film was done mostly to capitalize on the real-life re-opening of the actual Orient Express after decades. I suppose it was an opportunity that was too good to pass up, being able to film a version of the story on THE ACTUAL Orient Express.

I've seen it twice, and the part that I liked the most was Alfred Molina's performance. I caught it when it was rerun in 2004, the same weekend that SPIDER-MAN 2 hit theatres! I feel Molina was the single MOST-authentic live-action adaptation of a comic-book super-villain EVER done. They only made a minor change to his personality. In the original comic Steve Ditko wrote & illustrated, Otto had no personality to speak of-- UNTIL the accident that drove him dangerously INSANE. So he went from 1-dimensional to 2-dimensional. But in the movie, he was shown as a really decent person, making what happened to him a genuine tragedy. He went from 3-dimensional to 2-dimensional. That 2-dimensional personality was EXACTLY as the guy was in the comics.

Too many who never read the comics (and frankly, too many who DID!) mistakenly think The Green Goblin was Spider-Man's #1 arch-enemy. NO, HE WASN'T. That was DOC OCK. The insane thing is... Ditko left the book just before the Goblin's origin was revealed. And the story John Romita wrote, was basically a RIP-OFF of Ock's origin. Ock's origin was never mentioned again in the comics, but they spent years trying to make us feel sympathy for Norman Osborn, who really deserved NONE. He was always supposed to be a criminal with ambitions to become a mob boss. It wouldn't surprise me if most movie fans thought the 2nd movie ripped off the plot from the 1st one, but in the comics, it was the reverse of that.

I also really liked Tasha de Vasconcelos as Vera Rossakoff. I would not have minded a follow-up with her. But ratings were apparently poor enough to SCUTTLE any thoughts of a new series of films on CBS.