Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

lightwing-60770 This version I loved. Poirot as a person delivering justice all his life, and facing a situation as this, would not easily have let the vigilantes go. It would indeed go against his principles. In all the stories he has always, no matter the circumstance, let the guilty pay the price. He has been sometimes diplomatic about it, but he has never let anyone go. He has given speeches about the justice! To let everyone get away with their deed would indeed pain him, as is so very well shown by Suchet in the end. He questions God, questions what is His true will and can he live with a God who allows revenge. The ending here is very deep and very disturbing if we think of what really happened. 12 people murdered 1 man. They had a reason. We all agree on that. But does that mean that murder is ok under certain circumstance? WE can think so, but what about Poirot? Who was always fighting for justice, not for revenge? I do not think it would be so easy for him. And this is why I really appreciate this version. Here we see the character of Poirot take on flesh beyond the books, we see him become a real person.

lostlinguist I was stunned by the emotional intensity that David Suchet brought to this role. I have always felt that the character in the novels and in the earlier seasons of the series was immutable and thereby incomprehensible - a criminal superhero who readers and viewers could count on to consistently find the murderer but who at best, is only admirable for his talents. The last scene of Murder on the Orient Express, where Poirot walks away in tears knowing that he has been forced to make a terrible decision created for me, for the first time, something real. Highest praise to the writers, producers and actors of this episode for bringing Poirot alive. Although he is aged, tired, sick, and morally conflicted, the episode creates a doorway by which Poirot becomes something reflecting the human condition in its particularity as opposed to just the trivial diversion of a static, invariable genius.

tedg Lawrence Olivier was an actor who delivered rewards, but acting is not storytelling and sometimes the opposite is the case. He made a well regarded Hamlet and approached it as expected; he inhabited the character and let *that* being drive what was presented. If only he understood the confounding dynamic structure the author erected to allow us to have at each instant several beings inhabiting that soul. The beauty of the play is in how their layers, folds and governance stay always ahead of our ability to cleanly see the world's edges.Suchet has similar power over the detective he has played now for some time. He has inhabited the character and extended him far beyond what the author envisioned. Some of it is quite impressive and affords the intensity Suchet (or any actor) desires. But it fights the structure Christie mastered. It is a matter of personal discovery for me that I crave both Christie and Shakespeare. The former is about abstract purity, logical clarity where emotion is color only. Shakespeare uses urge as his primary quality, where urges can be spiky or smoky, weaving and stinking. He conveys reason without logic, sense without cleanliness.Christie's villains are simply wicked. The story is a matter of presenting logical impossibilities and having our detective sort them so that they are physically possible. These are logic puzzles. The characters have emotions, color and even motive as a second order. Her attention was all in the form; she could have no suspect be the murderer, or all. The narrator could be, or the murdered themselves. The more physically impossible, and the more unlikely the solution, the better. Like Holmes, Poirot would be far more interested in resolution than justice. Most editions of this story have a diagram of the coach, showing who could see what and where anyone could move. Facts as they appeared and were reshaped were all done so in this physical context. The Sidney Lumet 1974 version preserved all this while adding enough color to satisfy viewers who did not want to engage with the story, helping to sort the pieces.This version has none of that detective folding, where we work with the detective. The impossibilities of the murder are largely omitted. The culpability of the porter is necessary here but ignored. On the other hand, we have three fine locomotives. I don't know where they got that remarkable train, but it would be a great addition to any competent story.And of course we have Suchet, who seems to be far ahead of all the other production assets in defining what the story is and what it is about. I am not a fan of the notion that each character has/is one primary urge and the bumping of these urges is what drama is about. No, that doesn't work for me. But it is interesting to see the control he has, dragging all else behind to suit.The big surprise for me: Jessica Chastain! What a presence, something between Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore and every bit as powerful. Suchet could take lessons; power is in what you give away to make your world work. A Two: has some interesting elements.

chazbro61-790-208190 I cannot believe all of the negative reviews of this adaptation.Having read the book,and watched the classic Albert Finney version,I thought this was excellent.Why all of the negativity about Hercule and his Catholic persuasion? And why does this offend people? I believe I know why,but I won't get into that in a review.Poirot's Catholic faith leaves him in turmoil into letting 12 souls get away with murder,and his agonizing over how to proceed was very interesting.Other reviewers also questioned Poirot's grumpiness and edginess,and I attribute it to a lifetime of being around and solving murders,and his constantly seeing others turning to murder when all else fails,leaving him disillusioned with people in general.A lifetime of dedication to looking into the dark side of human behavior must leave one somewhat disdainful and disillusioned.Overall,I thought this was an excellent adaptation,staying close to Agatha's masterpiece,but also putting an analytical spin on the thoughts and beliefs of Hercule Poirot.Bravo!