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

[Adam Lenhardt]

The price for the 4K/UHD of this title dropped to $21.24 at Amazon so I combined it with some bonus points and it's cheaper for me to watch this film on disc then to got to a movie theater, buy a movie ticket(s) along with my usual eats.

This was shot using a combination of Panavision Super 70 on Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 film stock and ARRI Alexa 65 at 6.5K and color timed via a 4K digital intermediate.

On one hand, seeing a 65mm movie on the big screen is always a rare treat, and this one didn't disappoint. On the other hand, that UHD release should be spectacular.

 

[benbess]

Finally saw this one with my wife with MoviePass last night. Really good movie! We both read Agatha Christie mysteries as kids, and we thought this was the best adaptation of one of her books we'd ever seen. And it's a surprising box office hit, at least compared to its production budget. Here are the numbers from box office mojo:

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Domestic Total as of Nov. 29, 2017:$77,221,227
Distributor: Fox Release Date: November 10, 2017
Genre: Thriller Runtime: 1 hrs. 54 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $55 million
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $77,221,227 38.0%
+ Foreign: $126,211,060 62.0%
= Worldwide: $203,432,287

That's getting close to what BladeRunner 2049 did.

Anyway, we thought it was surprisingly emotional at the end too. I hope they can start making more of these asap. It would be good if they could put one out every couple of years imho.

 

[3D Projectionist]

Been to see it a third time at the Kinema a real treat of a film.

 

[DavidJ]

We saw this on Friday and really liked it. The cast is quite strong and Michelle Pfieffer is a standout.

Anyway, we thought it was surprisingly emotional at the end too. I hope they can start making more of these asap. It would be good if they could put one out every couple of years imho.

We also commented on this. I think a lot of credit has to go to Pfieffer’s excellent performance.

 

[cinemiracle]

This was shot using a combination of Panavision Super 70 on Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 film stock and ARRI Alexa 65 at 6.5K and color timed via a 4K digital intermediate.

On one hand, seeing a 65mm movie on the big screen is always a rare treat, and this one didn't disappoint. On the other hand, that UHD release should be spectacular.

Seeing 65mm movies on the big screen is not the rare treat that you had hoped for. It may have been mostly shot in 65mm but is was then digitalised and along with the many special effects, transferred back onto 70mm film. So what you eventually saw on screen was a digital film-.I call it fake 70mm. Compare it with HAMLET or BARAKA and you will have noticed the dismal quality of MOTOE. I managed to see 181 different feature films projected in 70mm but I refuse to see MOTOE as it is not a true 70mm film.It is also being projected onto cinemascope screens in multiplexes..Where I worked ,we had a 60ft wide screen for 70mm projection and another cinema a few blocks away had a 62 ft wide screen. Now that is what I consider justifying the 70mm experience.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It seems like comic book movies and Star Wars movies are the only things that have legs in terms of discussion any more.

Yeah, I've noticed that as well.

To a certain extent, the way we consume this entertainment has changed. For the most part, if you don't see something opening week, you're not going to see it in theaters at all. So movies are basically "over" in a week now, when it used to be weeks or months.

It's happening on the TV side due to the new Netflix style of releasing all episodes at once. The Stranger Things 2 thread is over and that came out just a month ago. But everyone who wanted to watch it watched it in the first week (seems like the first weekend for most), so everyone's seen it and the discussion is over.

Star Wars stays in theaters for at least a month, which counts as legs these days.

I actually finally made it out to see the movie today, but it's extremely rare that I get a chance to do that this long after opening.

 

[Chris Will]

I first must say that I have never read the book or seen any other adaptation for this, I didn't even know the story or what it was really about. The trailers looked intriguing and the cast looked amazing. Generally the comments have been mostly positive here and I made sure to avoid spoilers.

Well, I have now seen it and I came out disappointed. The ending completely ruin the movie for me because I saw it as a cop out. All the time spent and that was the best they could come up with for who had done it. I was really enjoying the movie, I was really into the mystery and trying to figure it out myself and then, well, we find out and I literally rolled my eyes. Maybe it works in the book, maybe I just don't get it but, it was a cop out IMO. Funny thing is that my wife actually spoiled the ending the day before I saw it but, I seriously thought she was kidding and didn't think twice about it. Oh well, can't like every movie I guess.

 

[benbess]

I liked the movie a lot, but here's a witty and insightful review from Anthony Lane (my favorite film reviewer) of The New Yorker that points out some of the flaws of the original novel....

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/20/murder-on-the-orient-express-and-thelma

"....“Murder on the Orient Express,” which was published in 1934, and turned into a Sidney Lumet film forty years later, retains a certain cachet as one of Christie’s most ingenious works. I was alarmed to realize, upon grinding through it once again, that ingenuity is all it has. The characters are perfunctory; their actions are described in galumphing style (“Hector MacQueen leaned forward interestedly”); the ethnic stereotyping is an embarrassment (“A big, swarthy Italian was picking his teeth with gusto”); and the Queen of Crime, as she is worshipfully known, cannot resist slipping into breathless italics at the prospect of something significant (“Neatly folded on the top of the case was a thin scarlet silk kimono embroidered with dragons”).

Given that Christie’s books have sold more than two billion copies, there’s no impugning the taste of her fans, but the fact remains that, in many of her stories, the murder should technically be logged as the second death, the life of the prose having been snuffed out long before that of the victim. Compare Georges Simenon, the creator of Inspector Maigret. He may not have been the commercial equal of Dame Agatha, with sales as paltry as half a billion copies, yet he outdid her in industry—he produced more than four hundred novels, to her sixty-six—and in pretty much everything else, displaying a frighteningly intimate acquaintance with mortal weakness for which she could only grope. If you have just started a Christie, and somebody tells you the murderer’s name, there is no reason to go on reading. With a Simenon, there is no reason to stop.

All of which means that Kenneth Branagh, the director of the new “Murder on the Orient Express,” and Michael Green, his screenwriter, are free to do as they like. There is nothing to desecrate...."

(more at the link)

 

[SamT]

Kenneth Branagh is down for an Agatha Christie cinematic universe

 

[Edwin-S]

Please, no. Just make the films but, please, don't call it a "cinematic universe". The words are just sounding like parody already.

 

[Mike Frezon]

D'ya think each film in the universe will end (after the credits) with Nick Fury and Miss Marple sitting down to an afternoon tea?!?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I can't help but wonder, with this being a Fox production, if this is something that will just get shut down when/if Disney is successful in taking over Fox. I really enjoyed the film, but it was also the type of classic mid-level budget film that Hollywood generally doesn't make anymore, and that specifically Disney has rejected making in favor of tentpole films. A movie that costs $50 million to make that could earn $100 million doesn't seem like the kind of thing Disney has been interested in for quite some time.

 

[Malcolm R]

Please, no. Just make the films but, please, don't call it a "cinematic universe". The words are just sounding like parody already.

Apparently this is the unwelcome evolution of studios trying to turn every successful film into a trilogy. They may not make direct sequels, but they still want to try and link everything.

 

[benbess]

I can't help but wonder, with this being a Fox production, if this is something that will just get shut down when/if Disney is successful in taking over Fox. I really enjoyed the film, but it was also the type of classic mid-level budget film that Hollywood generally doesn't make anymore, and that specifically Disney has rejected making in favor of tentpole films. A movie that costs $50 million to make that could earn $100 million doesn't seem like the kind of thing Disney has been interested in for quite some time.

Yeah, I'm worried about that too. But it was solidly profitable....I don't care what they call it, I just hope they make more. My wife and I really like this movie.

Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Domestic Total as of Dec. 25, 2017:$99,444,878
Distributor: Fox Release Date: November 10, 2017
Genre: Thriller Runtime: 1 hrs. 54 min.
MPAA Rating: PG-13 Production Budget: $55 million

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $99,444,878 31.9%
+ Foreign: $212,302,504 68.1%
= Worldwide: $311,747,382

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I just hope they make more.

Likewise. I could enjoy Branagh solving a new mystery every couple of years. The script, performances, design and photography were all first rate and a joy to watch.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I can't help but wonder, with this being a Fox production, if this is something that will just get shut down when/if Disney is successful in taking over Fox.

All god points in your entire post. But, on the other hand, Disney loves a franchise, and Branagh continuing in the central role makes it one. You're not wrong to fear a shutdown, but I think the future of this project comes down to what Disney wants to do with the Fox studio altogether. If Fox continues somewhat autonomously, like Marvel and Lucasfilm do, then there's no reason this couldn't continue with them.

Also, Disney enjoys a good relationship with Branaugh and he has directed multiple films for them, including the fist Thor film for Marvel, plus Cinderella and the upcoming Artemis Fowl for Disney live-action. That relationship is going to help matters, too, especially if he wants to do more and Disney wants to stay in business with him.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Here's hoping. Disney, under any of their current divisions, has no interest producing $50 million films that gross $100 million dollars. They are interested solely in $250 million films which have the potential to gross a billion.

I hope Fox is allowed to continue making films of all budgets; I think it would be a big loss to the industry if 40% of its studios were dedicated solely to event films.

 

[benbess]

Here's hoping. Disney, under any of their current divisions, has no interest producing $50 million films that gross $100 million dollars. They are interested solely in $250 million films which have the potential to gross a billion.

I hope Fox is allowed to continue making films of all budgets; I think it would be a big loss to the industry if 40% of its studios were dedicated solely to event films.

This movie has made over $300 million so far....

But I think most movies need to make c. 3 times their production budgets in order to make a profit. And so a $50 million dollar movie needs to gross more like c. $150 million worldwide to be considered a success. But since this one did double that, it's a solid hit relative to costs....

 

[Jake Lipson]

it's a solid hit relative to costs....

No one is disputing that it is a hit relative to its costs. The issue, as Josh mentioned, is that it fits into a decidedly mid-range mold which Disney has not embraced for many years. Since Disney is about to take over Fox, greenlight authority on Murder on the Nile will rest with them. There is a definite gap between the kind of projects Fox has been greenlighting and what Disney has been greenlighting over the past several years.

Also, as I noted earlier, Branaugh is in pre-production on Artemis Fowl for Disney right now, meaning he won't be available to participate in Death on the Nile until that film is finished. As of right now, Artemis Fowl has an August 9, 2019 release date, so it seems safe to assume that by the time all of his obligations to that film are complete, Disney's ownership of Fox will be complete, too.

Like I said above, the future of this kind of project largely depends on what Disney (the film side) wants to use Fox (the film side) to do. I know the deal also includes TV properties, but for the purposes of this post I'm focusing only on the film side.

I think Disney's primary goals in the deal for the film studio were/are:
1) acquire X-Men and Fantastic Four to be gifted to Kevin Feige and Marvel.
2) acquire A New Hope so that Lucasfilm's control over Star Wars is absolute.
3) acquire Avatar, because Disney's tentpole machine will do wonders for that property, and they already have it at their theme park anyway.

If those things are the primary driving forces behind why Disney as a film studio would want Fox, then the question becomes, what do they do with all the other stuff they are getting in the deal? It seems to me like when there is a Blu-ray boxed set out that includes a few movies you really want, and there are also ones in there that you really don't feel like you need to have, but you take them because the titles you want are not available individually.

Murder on the Orient Express is probably not a title in Fox's library that Disney thought "Ooohhh, we gotta have that," but they'll take it as a means of getting the bigger ones that do make their eyes sparkle.

That being said, Disney has to decide what they want the Fox label to be. Honestly, I don't think they need another label that only makes huge tentpole films. If they want to use the Fox label as a label at all, allowing it to make mid-range films like Murder on the Orient Express and The Post would distinguish it from the other labels in Disney's stable. But it's also entirely possible that they don't really plan to have Fox continue as a label at all, and just want to scrap it for parts (like their Marvel properties, Star Wars and Avatar.) We'll have to see what they want.

The deal is so fresh that I'm not sure at this stage if anyone, including Bob Iger, knows exactly what they want Fox to be doing just yet. Iger probably wanted the big prizes in Fox's arsenal, but will have to figure out how to use all of it in due course.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'd love to see them use Fox as a home for writers and directors and actors to make non-franchise projects on reasonable but not overwhelming budgets. And I wonder if they might have an easier time continuing to get top-notch talent for their Marvel/Lucasfilm/Disney franchises if they could offer as part of that deal, "Sign with us to direct the next $200 million Marvel or Disney film, and we'll make it a two-picture deal that includes a second project entirely of your choice, so long as it can be done for under $50 million."

I love when stuff like that happens. I really enjoyed Steven Soderbergh's work in the late 90s/early 2000s when he was basically operating that way, rotating between big-budget crowdpleasers and more personal films that he was still getting financing for.

Like, I'm excited that Rian Johnson has more Star Wars movies lined up, but his original (R-rated) film Looper is one of my all-time favorite things. I'd love to see deals where someone like Johnson, in exchange for making a Star Wars film, also gets to a make a film for $40 million that he has final cut on.

And, on the flip side of that, Disney could use those mid-budget movies as testing grounds for potential franchise directors, to establish working relationships on relatively safe projects where a falling out isn't the public disaster that, say, Lord and Miller being fired from Han Solo was. If Disney had worked with directors like Lord and Miller, or Gareth Edwards, or Colin Trevorrow on other projects first, they might have realized earlier that those directors were not good fits for their blockbuster productions.