Murder On the Orient Express (2017)

It is mentioned that Poirot's moustache is large (" His moustache was very stiff and military. Even if everything on his face was covered, the tips of moustache and the pink-tipped nose would be visible."), but I have trouble imagining it this... bushy, Especially when it's mentioned how meticulous and borderline Super OCD he is about his appearance.

It's not ....inaccurate.

That said, much like Cracked pointed out, I am not sure what the goal of the movie is. I like (Some) Poirot books, and Murder on the Orient Express is one of them, but I got like... 0 interest in watching another adaptation. I've seen 2 already. One of which was an oscar winner. Like, who is this movie for? What's the appeal when I know the solution to the mystery....

I don't think it'll be bad, it just feels... unnecessary. Telling a story that's been adapted several times, and very well at that. And without really anything new about it.

edited 26th Oct '17 5:30:58 PM by Ghilz

What was the appeal of Sherlock Holmes when it was obvious Moriarty was involved.

Which one?

Any one, really. There've been dozens of different adaptations of the same basic story. And that's the point here, I'd say— while people love the structure of mystery novels, a lot of the plots are fairly similar, and Agatha Christie invented a lot of those plots. The appeal of mystery isn't so much about being surprised by the solution but in seeing it solved. Method and rigor. Little grey cells. The pleasure of watching a craftsman at work.

Holmes movies in general tend to be a different beast. Holmes suffers from numerous poor adaptations and original plots. Take the Guy Ritchie where it's an original plot (so you don't know the solution - Moriarty is an exterior party to the main villain), who also decided to focus on Holme's more negative trait and make Watson more of a baddass and less well, The Watson he's ofter flanderized as. There's new material here. It's also not about who did it, but how they did it. The villain is set up from the start.

Sherlock shakes the formula by setting in a modern day and making Sherlock (more of) an asshole and gives original plots.

Etc...

This is a loyal adaptation of a movie loyally adapted twice (Heck, more but I'll count the 2 I saw).

Well, if it's what you enjoy, I can't argue with that. I just can't stand watching a mystery if I know the solution AND how he gets to the solution. But I guess it answers my question.

edited 26th Oct '17 5:42:36 PM by Ghilz

Yes, but we're talking about Kenneth Brannagh, famous Shakespearean actor and director. How many times have the Bard's plays been staged? You get something a little different out of every performance, and what makes Christie's work so timeless isn't so much the mystery as the way each book is a study into these archetypal characters while evoking a very specific time and way of life. There's a reason the trope used to be called Christie Time.

Coz it's what the first person who thought of the trope thought to name it? I mean, if being the trope namer for a trope is all it takes to be timeless classic... :-P

(Alternative Obvious Rebuttal: There's a reason the trope is no longer called that too).

And I don't diminish the quality of the book - it's a good book, one of those of Christie's I can stomach. I'd also argue a murder mystery and a Shakespeare play have different appeals entirely.

edited 26th Oct '17 5:48:33 PM by Ghilz

Eh. I miss the quirkier, more specific names. They were more entertaining.

Not unrelated, but works can have multiple different appeals, some of which overlap. Shakespeare and Christie both created works of popular entertainment which were were considered disposable in their day, sometimes by the author him or herself, but have gone on to acquire that timelessness that comes with that core of simple recognition, seeing something so familiar in someone very different from yourself. There's a cleverness and an art to the Poirot books that goes beyond what seems like a simple story about a funny little man and bunch of suspicious strangers. They resonate with people.

edited 26th Oct '17 6:46:21 PM by Unsung

The elimination of the old trope names is, of course, part of the relentless campaign to make the wiki more and more boring. And it's a shame.

"What's the appeal when I know the solution to the mystery...."

Well there are a lot of people who don't know the solution to the mystery. Agatha Christie has been dead for forty-odd years now. AFAIK the last cinematic version of this story was made so long ago that Ingrid Bergman was in it.

"but we're talking about Kenneth Brannagh, famous Shakespearean actor and director. "

Who's been terrible in many movies. He's a Large Ham and sometimes he doesn't know when to stop. Have we forgotten Wild Wild West already?

"Already"? It was 18 years ago. And he's done plenty of quite good movies, before and since. He was good in Wallander and he's been good in heightened stage drama, and he's a good director. This seems to combine a lot of his strengths.

edited 26th Oct '17 7:21:44 PM by Unsung

His films are either very very good or trainwrecks.

Yeah and Citizen Kane is even older than that and I don't see it being remade. And this is honestly one of the most well known Whodunnit books out there. Like it's been said in THIS thread, Agatha Christie is still one of the best selling author of all times. This is a story that even if you've never read it or seen the movie, has been parodied, referenced, and lampshaded to death. And it's not like it's an effects heavy work "Ah, but with modern cgi they can finally do it justice" deal either.

Yeah, there's probably people who somehow haven't seen it and don't know the plot. But I doubt these same people are also gonna show up to watch that movie in droves. If you have any interest in classic detective stories you know this, and if you don't then you probably still do, and if you somehow dont, I doubt you're the kind of person going "Well, I guess now that it's got Johnny Depp in it, I guess I can finally watch one of the most well known detective novels ever".

As far as Kenneth Brannaght goes, I don't doubt he'll do at least a decent job. The movie's likely to be excellent with such a good cast, I am not worried, and to be clear, I am not digging against the movie's quality. It just... feels pointless I guess? You have this good a cast and you're gonna do something that's been done repeatedly already... Feels like a bit of a waste.

edited 26th Oct '17 7:32:57 PM by Ghilz

Well, fingers crossed, then. I wasn't bringing up his fame as a guarantee it'd be great, just pointing out that he'd probably bring a different interpretation to it, because that's what Shakespeareans do. Some of his more subdued roles have been quite good, and going by that frosty palette that seems like more of what we're in for with this movie.

edited 26th Oct '17 7:37:11 PM by Unsung

I enjoyed the novel The Murder on the Orient Express, but it's an odd one to try to base a movie on. Of course, they made a very successful film version back in the 70's, but the whole thing is mostly Poirot interviewing people and then taking a whole lot of time to explain everything. The 70's film made no concessions, either; the last third is almost entirely Poirot talking. I'm forced to wonder if Branagh is going to action it up a bit (which wouldn't be in the spirit of the thing).

I'm at a loss to understand the thinking that describes this film as pointless. You might as well call every adaptation of anything that's been adapted before as pointless.

The poster above is also greatly overestimating the familiarity of Agatha Christie or any of her books to people who are younger than, oh, 40 years old.

I've met quite a few Agatha Christie fans of 20 years old or so. It seems like a popular author for teenagers who like mystery stories, thus several 20-something fans pop up.

To my experience, I've met a lot more young fans of her than the likes of Arthur Conan Doyle, Edgar Allan Poe, C.S Lewis, J.R.R Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, e.t.c.

Most mystery shows and movies are quite dialogue-heavy, I'd say. Depending on the mood there might be chase or a fistfight, or there might be some banter, or there might be a tea party, but spectacular action sequences are more of a recent addition to the genre, and not necessarily always the most welcome one— though I don't really expect Branagh, of all people, to action it up. He likes the classics and a certain old-timey sensibility you don't see much anymore (and again, he's a Shakespearean, and you don't get much more dialogue-centric than that).

Also Agatha Christie's popularity goes hand in hand with the not-so-recent fad for Great Gatsby parties and everyone watching Downton Abbey.

edited 14th Nov '17 12:03:07 AM by Unsung

I had the ending to the book ruined for me when I was a kid, so the book is very low on my to read list. But the movie looks pretty stylish, and a lot of the time that's enough for me to see a movie that's only two hours of my life anyway. *shrug*

For me, personally (and there's nothing wrong with engaging fiction in a different way, obviously) the mystery definitely isn't the only reason for me to watch a mystery film; I recently watched the BBC And Then There Were None miniseries after having read the book and I still enjoyed seeing what they did with the material. Historical perspective allowed the screenwriters to play up the influence of both World Wars thematically, and I really liked what they did with the ending. Of course, it's also a slightly different situation than Orient Express - as I understand it most of the previous adaptations of ATTWN make significant changes.

Heck, Agatha Christie herself wrote a stage adaptation of And Then There Were None and changed the ending from the original novel.

I'll say it again, Agatha Christie continues to be one of the most widely read authors in the world. She has fans among pretty much all age groups, and across many nationalities. I don't think they have to worry about millenials being familiar with her work. If they're fans of mystery fiction, they're probably familiar with her (and if they're not, it likely wouldn't matter whether her work was contemporary or not). I mean, his author having been dead for nearly 100 years hasn't hurt Sherlock Holmes much.

edited 29th Oct '17 12:05:45 PM by Robbery

It seems to me that Miss Marple doesn't quite have the multigenerational appeal, but that is fairly true about Poirot, yes (especially thanks to the movies/TV specials with Suchet playing the role).

One of the appeals of this movie might be on attempting to give Poirot a slightly different angle (looks-wise and maybe personality-wise, at least) from the Suchet one and from the ones done by Albert Finney and Peter Ustinov.

edited 29th Oct '17 4:50:14 PM by Quag15

I've always dreamed of a Poirot played by Jean Reno, but I guess that's not the time.

" the last third is almost entirely Poirot talking"

Albert Finney is a damned fine actor, and earned an Academy Award nomination for his role as Poirot.

Most mystery movies are mostly just people talking. Hell, most movies in general. Action movies are actually the anomaly, here.