Murder on the Orient Express (2017) (1 Viewer)

[SamT]

So this opens up on the same day as Star Wars here. Should I go see Star Wars or this?

 

[Jack P]

I was not impressed by the fact that certain characters from the book have been altered to suit the PC casting approaches of today's movie making. I'll probably give it a look but that's one strike going against it.

Familiarity with the project is why the Suchet version made one significant change in terms of how Poirot reacts to the situation, which is dramatically different from the classic telling. But for those seeking a really fresh take on the material AND a surprise twist, check out the computer game version of the story (where Suchet also voices Poirot). It lets Suchet do a more "traditional" telling of the tale in the tradition of the 74 movie and the original novel, but there is a special added twist for those who were already familiar with the property and it manages to work.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

I was not impressed by the fact that certain characters from the book have been altered to suit the PC casting approaches of today's movie making. I'll probably give it a look but that's one strike going against it.

Familiarity with the project is why the Suchet version made one significant change in terms of how Poirot reacts to the situation, which is dramatically different from the classic telling. But for those seeking a really fresh take on the material AND a surprise twist, check out the computer game version of the story (where Suchet also voices Poirot). It lets Suchet do a more "traditional" telling of the tale in the tradition of the 74 movie and the original novel, but there is a special added twist for those who were already familiar with the property and it manages to work.

How do you know the 'PC' casting as you call it wasn't a matter of the right actor being found for that role? Why must the casting of people of color (which is what it appears you are trying to say) in stories from back in the day (when people of color would never have been written in to such prominent works) be dismissed as simply a politically correct capitulation. I for one welcome diversity in casting and have found that it is usually reasonably explained within the context of the time and story when it is done these days.

 

[FanCollector]

I’m curious to see the new version, but I have to say an unexpected disappointment is reading all the reviews that disparage the original version, which is one of my all-time favorite movies. I don’t care so much about individual critical opinions, but it does make it less likely that people will seek out the original.

 

[Edwin-S]

That's interesting, because I'm pretty sure the original version got pretty solid reviews when it came out.

In my case, to paraphrase the words of that film classic "Highlander", there can be only one movie Poirot and he is David Suchet.

 

[FanCollector]

The original reviews were generally, though not uniformly, good. I suppose I just thought the movie’s reputation had gotten better over the last forty years, but that doesn’t necessarily seem to be the case.

 

[Jack P]

How do you know the 'PC' casting as you call it wasn't a matter of the right actor being found for that role? Why must the casting of people of color (which is what it appears you are trying to say) in stories from back in the day (when people of color would never have been written in to such prominent works) be dismissed as simply a politically correct capitulation. I for one welcome diversity in casting and have found that it is usually reasonably explained within the context of the time and story when it is done these days.

Because I believe in letting period pieces stand on their own merit as products of the time they're depicting. The 1974 film did quite fine sticking to the characters exactly as they were written, as has a fine BBC Radio adaptation and no one complained then. If you want to give it a contemporary setting and change things to reflect the different time we're living in that's fine, but if the period setting remains then I prefer to let things stay as they were and how the author wrote them. I'm not going to apologize for that viewpoint.

And just FYI, I haven't been crazy about other character alterations that have nothing to do with color in previous remakes of other Christie properties. Mischa Auer's stunt casting in the original "And Then There Were None" doesn't add anything, and the altering of the Emily Brent character in the second and third remakes into a glamorous movie actress adds nothing to either version.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Because I believe in letting period pieces stand on their own merit as products of the time they're depicting. The 1974 film did quite fine sticking to the characters exactly as they were written, as has a fine BBC Radio adaptation and no one complained then. If you want to give it a contemporary setting and change things to reflect the different time we're living in that's fine, but if the period setting remains then I prefer to let things stay as they were and how the author wrote them. I'm not going to apologize for that viewpoint.

And just FYI, I haven't been crazy about other character alterations that have nothing to do with color in previous remakes of other Christie properties. Mischa Auer's stunt casting in the original "And Then There Were None" doesn't add anything, and the altering of the Emily Brent character in the second and third remakes into a glamorous movie actress adds nothing to either version.

I believe that any period piece movie reflects, to some extent, the period in which the movie was made. The creators of the movie can try very hard to be faithful to the source material, but the creators are not of the period and that has to effect their efforts.

 

[Douglas R]

The film looks good with better production values than the 1974 film, which tended to look a bit like a TV film. Unfortunately, and particularly after the murder, it's all rather dull and plodding. A pity because I had been looking forward to seeing what Branagh would make of the story.

I have no idea what a pop song is doing over the end credits. It is not of the period and (fortunately) is not heard during the film.

 

[Matt Hough]

We'll have to agree to disagree about the look of the 1974 film. It was very cinematic to my eyes with a cast no TV-movie could ever have afforded, and that lush Richard Rodney Bennett score swept the viewer along with the mystery in grand fashion. The David Suchet and Alfred Molina versions definitely look like TV movies, but not Sidney Lumet's version, at least not to me.

 

[Edwin-S]

Looking like a TV movie or a theatrical feature has no bearing on the actual performance of the character. No one has managed to achieve the look and mannerisms of the character, as it was written by Christie, like David Suchet.

The Poiroit in this film comes across looking more like Rumpole of the Bailey than anything described by Agatha Christie.

 

[TJPC]

The 1974 movie also had one of the most sublime background scores ever written (Richard Rodney Bennett). It was one of my first score purchase, and I wore out my first copy and had to buy another.

 

[Edwin-S]

The film looks good with better production values than the 1974 film, which tended to look a bit like a TV film. Unfortunately, and particularly after the murder, it's all rather dull and plodding. A pity because I had been looking forward to seeing what Branagh would make of the story.

I have no idea what a pop song is doing over the end credits. It is not of the period and (fortunately) is not heard during the film.

How exciting could a drawing room mystery, limited to a train,be after the murder is committed? I'm pretty sure that I saw the 1974 version years ago and it wasn't exactly bursting with excitement if IIRC.

 

[FanCollector]

The 1974 movie also had one of the most sublime background scores ever written (Richard Rodney Bennett). It was one of my first score purchase, and I wore out my first copy and had to buy another.

I got to meet Richard Rodney Bennett once, and I told him it was my favorite film score. He seemed pleased and said it was a lot of fun to do.

 

[Edwin-S]

It is incredible how the theatrical adaptations of Poirot consistently fail to capture the look and personality of the character described by Agatha Christie.

It took a TV series to finally get it right and the theatrical versions still manage to get it wrong in almost every way.

 

[3D Projectionist]

Went to see the 2017 MOTOExpress 65mm filmed version yesterday travelling a round trip of only 240 miles as I wanted to see it in England's oldest Cinema THE ELECTRIC CINEMA. From the moment we entered the auditorium the air was filled with atmosphere being a wonderful screen to see a period film in.

Soaking up the whole experience I found this version of the Christie classic to be totally immersive and with outstanding images captured on sprawling 65mm film all directed by our own Belfast born Kenneth Branagh. All those landscape scenes were amazing and the whole film for me was a thing of beauty crafted to the limit to the point where we are going to see it again locally today. This could very much be the film which gets me into 4K UHD.

Looking at the whole thing its probably the closest any film version has got to sticking to the original book and as a movie experience flawless.
10/10 from me.

 

[Johnny Angell]

How exciting could a drawing room mystery, limited to a train,be after the murder is committed? I'm pretty sure that I saw the 1974 version years ago and it wasn't exactly bursting with excitement if IIRC.

Oh my goodness. Having a group of people trapped together with an unknown murderer is not exciting or tension filled?

It is incredible how the theatrical adaptations of Poirot consistently fail to capture the look and personality of the character described by Agatha Christie.

It took a TV series to finally get it right and the theatrical versions still manage to get it wrong in almost every way.

I'm not a fan of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies. For me, the supreme Holmes is Jeremy Brett, a BBC production. Another Holmes favorite is the Cumberpatch "Sherlock." TV again.

 

[Keith Cobby]

I adore films set on trains and looking forward to seeing this new production. Terror by Night (1946), The Narrow Margin (1952) and Sleepers West (1941) are my favourites although there are many others.

 

[cinemiracle]

What's the point of showing MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS in 70mm as most 70mm films are now shown on cinemascope sized screens. I was used to seeing 70mm films ( 180 different tiles) on screens that were around 62ft wide. Seeing a 70mm film on tiny multiplex screens is a waste of time in my opinion. It is as bad as seeing Imax films on mini screens in multiplexes. NO THANKS!

 

[3D Projectionist]

Those were the days Peter and I also have wonderful memories of going to see that Imax film projector over here at Bradford on a massive screen. A bit of a story... Last time I went the film projector had gone so I asked many staff where was it now and no one could answer! For such an important piece of cinematic history I would have hoped at that moment someone could explain but in later years I discovered it was in the basement forgotten all very sad having made the trip over for many 70mm Imax viewing on that massive screen.

We went and enjoyed MOTOExpress again locally last night and the screening had a full audience which was good to see.