ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

bensonmum2 I swear I really tried to watch this version of Murder on the Orient Express without comparing it to the 1974 Sidney Lumet film, but like this movie, I failed miserably. This made-for-TV movie lacks much of the class, style, and glamour of the '74 version (and the book for that matter). Talk of VCRs, fitness trainers, and computer styluses seem cheap in comparison to dragon kimonos, pipe cleaners, and butlers. The acting also lacks the class of the '74 film. With the exception of Leslie Caron, none of the other actors are worth mentioning in the same breath with Ingrid Bergman, John Gielgud, or Richard Widmark. The worst offender has to be Meredith Baxter. I couldn't watch a single second of her performance and not be reminded of the great Lauren Bacall. Plot points have been changed that really hurt the story. As Col. Arbuthnot so emphatically put it in the first, "Trial by twelve good men and true... is a sound system." Why change it to nine? This is just one example, I could go on and on about plot changes that I couldn't get past. Finally, Alfred Molina is no doubt a fine actor, but he's not Poirot (and I'm sure the screenwriters are as much to blame for this). I've read a lot of criticisms of Albert Finney's portrayal of Poirot, but to me, he nailed most of the idiosyncrasies that made Agatha Christie's character so unique. Sure, he went overboard at times, but Molina's character never even seems to try to be Poirot. And, what's with the love story involving Poirot? Like the rest of this movie, it's all wrong.In summary, if you want to watch Murder on the Orient Express, skip this one and check out the 1974 film. Or better yet, read the book.

maal-1 I am no cinephile, so I rarely comment here. However, I am an aficionado of Dame Agatha Christie, and have read everything she has written (as Agatha). I think I am correct in quoting her as having said, "I do know something about character and plot development," and I really hate and detest Hollywoodizing a novel which has sold millions of copies.I like equally the Albert Finney and the David Suchet versions, but abominate most other attempts to define the character who David Suchet does so well. Please don't do any more updates like this. I nearly barfed.

ozthegreatat42330 Although I was disappointed that Granada Television never did a version of this story with David Suchet, the definitive Poirot, none the less I did enjoy this updated version of the story of a murder on the world famous luxury train. While, like many I was partial to the star studded cast of the 1974 version with Albert Finny, I have always felt that Finny's Poirot was a way overblown Charicture of Poirot, as were all of those Peter Ustinov portrayals. But Molina's essay of the Belgian sleuth, was in the best possible tradition. By the way, if anyone wants to see a perfectly disgusting rape of a Poirot story don't miss the 1966 Tony Randall film "The Alphabet Murders." That film is absolutely the worst Poirot film in history. Randall is not bad in the part, but the script and direction was a direct slap in the face of Christie. But back to this film. Given that almost everyone who knows Poirot is already familiar with this story, I found it to be a very entertaining 100 minutes.

T Y The 1974 movie of this book was a mixed bag. Obligations to the all-star cast caused most of the problems, as the writers and editors jockeyed to give everyone an equitable amount of screen time, an actorly moment and some close-ups. This prevented it from being a very deep film, and Sidney Lumet is really only a workmanlike filmmaker. But still, despite those limitations, there is much pleasure in the earlier version; the wordless flashback prologue of a kidnapping is beautifully done. Rare for a murder mystery, the unfolding of the solution provides a startling, satisfying emotional payload.For this retelling, a decision was made to update the material to the contemporary era. The topical references that acknowledge the world has changed since the thirties really achieve naught, except perhaps alleviating some writers fear that the material is passé... There's too many of these self-conscious references (to air travel, the internet, VCRs, taking the Express out of mothballs, Ross Perot) and they become annoying. Other changes are there simply because filmmakers thought it would make it more conventional (Hercule Poirot has a ridiculous romantic interest, "Vera"). The biggest bummer is the substitution of a utilitarian diesel engine for the original stylish steam locomotive. Thud.Ultimately these revisions add nothing to the movie and seem to have taken the focus off producing a tight, compelling, methodical script. The highlight of the previous movie was the cross-cutting between the temporal time-frame and the crime. This movie lifts that technique, but doesn't really come up with any contribution of it's own. The color palette, the research and the envisioning of the crime were all more vivid in the earlier version. Alfred Molina is pretty bad in this. It just isn't interesting.