"Murder on the Orient Express" Movie Adaptation | Old vs New

The finial installment of my exploration of "Murder on the Orient Express" is here! This week, I'm comparing "Murder on the Orient Express" the OLD MOVIE to "Murder on the Orient Express" the NEW MOVIE. Adaptation palooza!
~*~*~
Books Mentioned:
"Murder on the Orient Express" by Agatha Christie
Videos Mentioned:
Review of "Murder on the Orient Express" - • SPOILER FREE "Murder o...
Book or Movie: "Murder on the Orient Express" - • Book or Movie? | Murde...
~*~*~
Thanks so much for watching! Please like, subscribe, comment, enable notifications, etc. if you are interested in hearing more from me. All of these things help me out by letting me know what y'all are interested in seeing from me :)
You can find me here, or elsewhere on social media at @bookslikewhoa.
You can email me at: [e-mail]
Goodreads: goodreads.com/bookslikewhoa
Twitter: / bookslikewhoa
Instagram: / bookslikewhoa
~*~*~
Disclaimers: Unless specifically noted by me in this video, title, or description, this video is not sponsored and I have not been compensated for its creation or publication. If I receive any form of compensation, or if I am provided with any books or goods discussed in this video for promotional consideration, I will disclose that in the video or description.
Any video on my channel is reflective solely of my opinion and is for entertainment purposes only. Any copyrighted materials or excerpts are for "fair use" for such purposes as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. (Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

[@graphiquejack]

The issues I had with the movie, some of which you also had: 1. I agree they tried to make it more action/adventure than mystery. I felt it was a rip off of what Guy Ritchie did with Sherlock and it cheapens the material. The scene of him walking on top of the train car was a perfect example of trying to butch-up what would be best described as an effete, vain and uptight detective who's 'foreignness' and strangeness helped him trick suspects into underestimating him and revealing secrets they wanted to keep hidden. This shows a lack of understanding of the charm and humour of this odd little 'frog'.... I'm an odd little BELGIAN! I guess they think audiences don't want a smart, quirky hero, they want a tough hero... like they had to dumb down Poirot for a dumber audience? 2. Brannagh's characterization of Poirot was shit. I didn't see Poirot in Brannagh's performance AT ALL. From the ridiculous 'wild west' moustache to the made up lost love... he wasn't fat enough, either. About all that was left was a little pompousness and his anal-retentiveness. After Suchet has filmed all of the Poirot cases, and done them so brilliantly, do we need any other version? 3. Because all the attention was on Poirot, we didn't really see any of the characters well flushed out. Some of them were barely in the film at all. Part of what made the Sidney Lumet version work was the all-star cast that all had wonderful character roles... this had a good cast, but gave most of them little to do. Since we as the viewer need to learn about the suspects in order to solve the crime, this is a pretty big flaw to virtually ignore about half of them. It also changes Poirot's detective style which is less to do with discovering 'clues' and more to do with understanding the psychology of the various suspects and figuring out who has the inclination for murder. 4. The overwrought ending was completely unnecessary. You want to take one of the most clever and complex murder plots of all time and make it even more convoluted? Why? 5. Why pick Orient Express anyway? It's one of the most famous Piorot novels and there's lots of good material to choose from. They should have picked a novel that was lesser known so fewer people would know the plot and it wouldn't be compared to a near flawless existing film. 6. The way they filmed both the flashbacks and the murder were nowhere near as dramatic or gripping in comparison to the Lumet/Finney version. This also lost a lot of the 'glamour' of the Lumet film and settled instead for grit. I agree that the panoramic scenes of outdoors were beautiful, but the panning along the train cars outside, dangerously stuck on a rickety looking bridge, was rather cliché. It did, also, take away from the tension and suspense of feeling trapped on a train car with a murderer. 7. At the end, Poirot is asked to turn back and go to Egypt because there's been 'a death on the Nile'. Oh great, so they are doing a sequel and doing the other most famous Poirot book. And oops... this little scene makes no sense because the 'death on the Nile' happened while Poirot was there, he didn't go to Egypt after the (first) murder took place. Starting off a sequel with a major continuity/plot hole problem is not an auspicious beginning for another film.

[@garfreeek]

Yes, all of these, YES! Taking about the death on the Nile is so stupid. Him being there is so important for character development and plot! The murder is like 1/3 or even half into the story normally!

[@sealfan1000]

Your analysis is spot-on. I was so dissatisfied with the portrayal of Poirot in the new film, but it was interesting. I think the casting was good, but the script was...I have just discovered your channel and I LOVE your vibe.:)

[@bookslikewhoa]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@MeSimoneI]

If I'm totally honest, David Suchet is Poirot to me and I can't see past that. I agree with your comments on the newer adaptation though. I think they tried too hard to make it something it wasn't!

[@bookslikewhoa]

I think Suchet is definitely the Poirot of most of our hearts 🕵🏻‍♂️❤️

[@ladynottingham89]

I have no desire to see the new version. I really think David Suchet IS Poirot, period. The character should be laid to rest as far as TV or films. I highly doubt anyone could top Suchet's performance, its as if he was born to play the part.

[@bookslikewhoa]

I agree with you overall- David Suchet is who I picture as Poirot at this point. For Murder on the Orient Express in particular, I prefer the Albert Finney performance, but that may just be because I think the overall production is better than the BBC... YMMV :)

[@tacitus7797]

Little late here - Love David Suchet, but I felt that giving him overt Catholic angst weakened the plot and was not true to the book in his version of Murder on the Orient Express. However it is miles better and more true to the book than this new version which felt forced in so many ways.

[@suzie_lovescats]

@@bookslikewhoaIt was ITV not BBC.

[@amazingtheatre1262]

Your analyses of Christie are superb

[@srnc]

I saw the film last week, and I must say I agree with you on most of your points! They tried to make Poirot into this Tragic HeroTM that was really not Poirot, and also, I don't know, it was so... Branagh-esque? In the sense, he's a BRILLIANT actor, but he kind of, IDK, always tends to be FRONT AND CENTRE in an annoying way? Like, yes, WE GET IT, you're the main character, let's move along now thank you. . . . . . And don't even get me started on the "final confrontation" setting, as you said... it was SO contrived (even more so than the usual "getting them all into one room" thing), and the visual reference was just... cheap. (I'M TRYING NOT TO GET SPOILERY, IT'S SO HARD) What I mean is that that particular setting kind of reeks of a cheap way to make audiences go "I get that reference!!!" while the situation has really nothing to do with the "thing" that is being referenced, and it just felt really as if it was trying to hard. And also, what's with Poirot's mutton-ish moustache oh my goodness. EDIT: also, in the Suchet version there is David Morrissey playing the Colonel Abuthnot, and I've loved him since I saw him playing Col Brandon in Sense & Sensibility! Though, in the 1970s version Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman and Anthony Perkins are just SO MINDBLOWING that I remain in awe of them every time, seriously.

[@bookslikewhoa]

"Tragic HeroTM"-- LOL! Yes, I just think he tried to make Poirot into something that that character just fundamentally is not. I'm sure if this is the only version of the story you've encountered, it wouldn't play as badly, but I think anyone who has read the book or seen the 1970s version can't take this seriously. This is what you get when the lead actor is also the director o_0 And that mustache... I can't even...

[@graphiquejack]

the visual reference being the Last Supper? Yah, that's what I thought when I saw it... and I was like... why?

[@eleanor7]

I liked the movie and didn't at the same time. It was a bit too Hollywood and a bit too over the top PC heavy handiness which messed with the overall story. Honestly I thought the reason that they made Poirot an action star was because of Kenneth Branagh's ego. He's a brilliant actor and director, but he tends to have a bit of a big head and tends to indulge himself too much. Watching any of his Shakespeare movies, he tends to overindulge, but that works for the material. I've seen a lot of his movies, ones he's acted in and ones he's acted/directed in. I haven't seen him play a smaller kind of character really. Not that Poirot is smaller type of man, but he's more a thinker than fighter. And Kenneth for the most part plays the big man who takes up the scene in a more macho man style. He also likes to bring the drama/melodramatic and make things bigger than they need to be. So I think a lot of the issues, is that Kenneth might had wanted this Poirot to fit his style, instead of Kenneth fitting Poirot? I think I prefer David Suchet version the best because David brought the heart.

[@asifhove]

Thank you for your review. I just watched the new adaptation today. I must say that I completely agree with your preference in order of rating. The book when first read,without knowing the conclusion ,was absolutely mind blowing. A great satisfying denoument. The 1974 version with Albert Finney playing Poirot, was also very faithful to the book and plot.So equally satisfying. This third version,although very visual with the CGI,and breathtaking scenery, was just okay . There clearly wasn't enough depth to the characters,and Poirot's moustache was beyond absurd.Overall I give this new movie a score of 5 out of 10. Was okay. Would I see it again? No. With the immense actors that were cast for the film,I expected a lot more ,in terms of keeping me fixated to the production. To be fair ,their acting talent clearly wasn't utilised to their best ability, given the material that the had to work with.

[@justice2beauty]

I just started reading Agatha Christie books and I absolutely loved the book and am excited to see the movie - I’m happy to see your review so that I don’t set my expectations too high which will probably help me enjoy it more.

[@bookslikewhoa]

I'm glad that this helped! I think if you're expecting a light entertainment, you won't be disappointed. Enjoy your Christie binges! You've got lots of amazing reading ahead ;)

[@suzie_lovescats]

Try watching the 2010 version. It’s a hell of a lot better than the 2017 version.

[@aprilwoods92]

and okay, Johnny Depp is a great actor but i dont think he's the best choice for Mr. Ratchett

[@maplepainttube8158]

I saw the film when it came out, and I straight up forgot he was in it until I saw this comment

[@lovelyfma]

thank you so much for this video, it was a very fair view on this very specific subject I needed to learn more on. thank you for the spoiler alert, also.

[@bookslikewhoa]

Glad it was helpful!!

[@sfbirdclub]

I actually think you were, um...somewhat, um,....KIND...to this wretched waste of an originally great story.

[@markwatson7652]

I agree completely, but I did like the David Suchet version, too. I thought Suchet's version had some depth that was lacking in the original, which nevertheless remains my favorite.

[@brookelackey6231]

I loved the book and was so looking forward to seeing this adaption. Now I may just be patient and wait for it to be available to rent at Redbox since the actual theatres are so expensive lately. In the meantime, I'll rent the original on Amazon streaming!

[@bookslikewhoa]

That would be the route I would suggest- I think you won't be disappointed by the original adaptation! If nothing else, it has some serious period costume porn going on, plus Sean Connery in his prime

[@brookelackey6231]

I'm there. I have some pre-holiday (I work retail) PTO coming up at the end of this week and will set aside a night for hot cocoa, kitty, and the original adapation.

[@bookslikewhoa]

This is quite literally #goals

[@suzie_lovescats]

You should try the 2010 version.

[@ysbel]

They expected the audience to not accept anything but an action-adventure movie so they wanted to deliver.

[@InkHeart17]

Overall, I'm in agreement with you. I didn't enjoy the reboot movie and found very few good points to recommend it for future viewing. I thought the different settings like the baggage car and the bridge scaffolding and the overpass tunnel were so unnecessary. Like you said, it ruins the claustrophobia of feeling trapped with a murderer and the trade off is only so the audience can feel like something is changing when actually we're still just seeing interrogations and conversation. I hated the overhead shot of when the body is first discovered. It totally removed me from the feeling of being involved in the mystery and instead shifted the view to be above the characters. I wanted to be down there WITH the characters and see what they saw, not feel separated with a bird's eye view. Could they really not build a set where each wall could be removed for the camera angles? Finally, the weirdest character change was the fake-racist fake-German. I understand the film wanted to diversify the characters and add a period-inappropriate public interracial romance, but the way they wanted to discuss it in the film was by putting in a character who believed in racial and ethnic purity so the couple could argue against him. But then OH Just Kidding. He's not REALLY a racist. It was an act for the sake of concealing his real motives for being there. We can't actually have characters that are bad or horrible people if they aren't the murder victim who totally deserved it.

[@JadeAndersonactor]

The reason they changed the Colonel Arbuthnot character to a Doctor is because they completely got rid of the Dr. Constantine character in order to tighten up the cast and trim fat, which, in my opinion isn't the worst decision since I have felt since I first read the novel and watched the original adaptation that the Greek Dr. Constantine character was a bit unnecessary and obviously only added by Christie so that there could be some intelligible light shed on the way that Ratchet was killed from a person who is not suspected as well as another "audience surrogate" to pal along with Bouc (even though we really don't need two people to make random guesses at who done it and to follow Poirot around the whole time). It's funny because in the cast list on Amazon prime, Leslie Odom Jr. is listed as playing both Dr. Constantine and Col. Arbuthnot even though his actual role is "Doctor Arbuthnot". Honestly, you do need a doctor to just so happen to be in whatever location the dead body is found, so I get that but, for me, in many of Christie's stories it always feels a bit too convenient and forced into the plot to be at all truly believable so, I just get over it and continue enjoying the book!

[@billyjustus8639]

I think you 'stabbed the Ratchett' as it were (yes, I'm laughing at my own corny joke) when you said that they didn't trust their audience and it came across as melodramatic. That said, I'm not entirely sure it was a terrible decision on their part. I as a Christie fan found a lot of the changes irritating, but my friends who had never read/seen a Christie plot loved the movie. One point we all agreed on was that the actor playing Poirot should not direct the film.

[@mbwyatt1978]

Have just watched the 2017 movie again for the well something something time ... and it still grates me compared to the 70s version. Both films were a who's who of Hollywood. 2017 shoild have been a great film. It had a great template. One thing I hit on is the characters in 2017 have ... well, no character. Compare Mrs Hubbard's character where Pfeiffer didn't hold a candle to Bacall. Nor Cruz to Bergman. In the 70s you could feel the geography of the characters on the performance. Which idiots employed Dame Judy Dench and gave her nothing to do? But, nor even does this great actress carry the atmosphere that was Wendy Hiller. And if anyone bothered to notice Olivia Coleman was in this would never dream 12 months later she'd pick up Best Actress for the Favourite ... before going on to the Crown. I keep watching trying to find things to like. Johnny Depp was wrong casting, the 70s character made you feel uncomfortable. Depp can't do that to an audience. Finally, the 70s movie gave you the background of the Armstrong tragedy. Branagh's version gives us Poirot being a needlessly picky customer about eggs post great depression, a showman in front of a crowd who would not understand a thing. And as for the line director going from someone who cares about his business and reputation to an entitled kid running with prostitutes and acting like he is in a Hollywood fantasy mystery. Finally the sets and CGI going from an authentic setting to something out of the Polar Express. Oh and Brannagh's overcoat, God blimey was that from the Matrix wardrobe?

[@sherrirabinowitz4618]

I think this is not a good movie, there are exceptions Judi Dench, Olivia Colman and Daisy Ridley were the best. Sorry I think Leslie Odom Jr didn't have the part he deserved, he is a good actor but I thought what the character was made to do was really over the top. Also I have to correct you, keep calling him Abernathy, his name was Arbuthnot . Sean Connery even sounded it out if I remember right in the first film. The thing is Kenneth Branagh is a great actor and director but i think he is trying to make Poirot younger, that is why all this lost love and action man. To show he is a younger man and action hero. When I see him play Poirot, all I can remember is in the David Suchet series when Ariadne Oliver is talking to Robin in Mrs. McGinty is dead and he is trying to make her detective into an action hero and ladies man. And it is funny because she obviously wants to kick but she is too much of a lady.

[@DavidMacDowellBlue]

The Suchet ORIENT EXPRESS was the best version imho.

[@suzie_lovescats]

Absolutely 💯

[@internetkurator9256]

Thank you for this review! :-) I am late for the party, but to help your channel with the algorythm I will still write a comment. I disagree with the "more place" point: The CGI was horrific and looked less convincing then a PC game. And the change of characters made the story more confusing, and the motivations less clear. It was very very obvious "whodunnit" even for those who never read the book or seen earlier version. In my opinion, the words DoN ever...

[@brentandrew2419]

The problem with the 2017 version (besides the twee and grating musical cue they play over, and over) is the tone is all over the map in terms of Poirot- Branagh seems to be setting up an 'arc' for him that will presumably pay off in Curtain, but it's unlikely that movie will be ever made. (talking about how there is good and evil and evil must be punished, etc) WE know where the character is headed but to the average moviegoer, this would make no sense and be baffling and thus the version of Poirot is incomprehensible.

[@davidnaumann5511]

2 words that ruined this movie: Johnny Depp.

[@eveb.6568]

I've seen it and i nearly laughed out loud at the melodramatic scenes and twists and etc. Totally ridiculous and totally useless. why spoil a good thing?! Just keep it the original way it was written and that's good enough!

[@JoeScottish]

If this was a soccer match..... the result would be.............. Old Movie 5 New Movie 0

[@mabel8880]

I have seen the 1974 movie, the modernized 2001 TV movie and the 2010 TV episode of MOTOE. I liked all 3 versions but ofc the 1974 movie is the best one. The casting, cinematography and soundtrack in the 1974 movie are just awesome and nobody else in any other version of MOTOE can beat the cast of the 1974 movie. (I like David Suchet's Poirot, but I dare to say that I prefer Albert Finney's Poirot. However, I prefer Eileen Atkins as Princess Dragomiroff in the 2010 episode compared to Wendy Hiller in the 1974 movie.) I didn't watch the 2017 remake and I don't have any interest in seeing it, tbh, though my brother and my father have seen it. I agree with people who say that remakes aren't that great compared to the originals, this is very true for the 1974 MOTOE movie. The 1974 movie is perfect, there are no flaws, so I don't understand why it needs to be remade. I think that Branagh is a good actor, as I enjoyed his performance in 'Dunkirk'. But I don't think I will enjoy his performance as Poirot, don't even get me started on his ridiculously large mustache. Never mind about the fact that two of the characters have their races changed in the 2017 movie, what's worse was that William Dafoe's character pretended to be a racist just to throw Poirot off his track. Branagh is trying to make race an issue in his movie, which I don't like. MOTOE is a murder mystery, not a story about race relations. Was it really necessary to involve race in the story when it wasn't even in Christie's book or any other version of MOTOE? Seriously, who needs that? The 1974 movie is definitely the best on-screen adaptation of MOTOE to ever exist.

[@ysbel]

Race was an element of the original Christie novel, the spirited repartee between Colonel Arbuthnot and Hector MacQueen centered around the British treatment of Indian natives - it was a red herring but a significant one. I didn’t like the movies’s changing the racist Colonel into a POC. I would have much rather that be Hector MacQueen.

[@TNO73]

I think the way the 74 version changed M. Bouc into Bianchi and changing names is less troubling than changing that having things like an interracial couple in Europe in the 30's. I get that everyone is woke and PC is overwhelming, but if you are going to make a film set in the 30's you got to keep in grounded in the reality if the time. I could not agree more with your take on the new film trying to make hims an action hero. He doesn't fight with his hands. He is smarter than everyone else and he knows it. I love the 74 version and Albert Finney. I over David Suchet, but even his version is inferior IMHO

[@johnkiunke4508]

I think the original wins no contest, when you have the director of 12 Angry Men and he avoids messing with the book too much. That being said I don't agree at all with Suchet's performance as Poirot, he's really quite ferocious and intense which, based on all the Poirots that I've read (not very many I'll admit) doesn't sound like him at all. Poirot is very vain and conceited but he's a gentle personality that even the suspects almost always like.

[@suzie_lovescats]

David Suchet’s Poirot does have a very gentle personality but he doesn’t like being lied to or strung along.

[@puirYorick]

@johnkiunke4508, Suchet's Poirot certainly evolved radically over the years of that television run. I also noted and disliked the last three or four series of episodes. Partly, this was due to the subject matter chosen being the deeper, more savage cases when the early Poirot episodes had adapted more of the light short stories. If you mainly saw David Suchet play Poirot towards the end, then I totally agree that he warped his Poirot too much. Perhaps he felt the need to grow in his performance.

[@remyhocage9854]

I am concerned when a movie has one person in more than one position. Woody Allen may get away with starring, directing and producing but the film does suffer. Kenneth Blaaragghh, (sorry, his name is too difficult for me) should have focused on one job rather than two. A more astute director would have veered KB away from his Wallender-esque Nordic angst and could have injected more humor. Good job on The Mustaches. Cheers.

[@insanehippiehippieinsane3828]

The new one sucks 1976 version is superior by far to the 2017. David Suchet's TV version is the 2nd best and one of the best Poirot ever! One more thing PC and SJW B.S. Ruin old Classics like this

[@bookslikewhoa]

Agreed!!

[@insanehippiehippieinsane3828]

Have you noticed that most of the people that reviewed the new one NEVER saw the original or any others.

[@bookslikewhoa]

Sadly, I think a lot of people don't even know it exists. :( It breaks my heart since the OG one is a top 10 movie for me

[@emilyau8023]

The version you're talking about is the 2010 adaptation. Also, you sound way too triggered about a movie that all people can enjoy no matter what version. Stop gatekeeping a movie lol

[@suzie_lovescats]

@@emilyau8023No the 2017 version is the one that sucks, the 1974 one was a classic but the 2010 version is for me far more superior.

[@jacksonj3082]

sorry to be picky but "Natives"? - nowadays I believe they are called "Locals" - I doubt non-US people refer to Americans as Natives - also Colonel Abernathy? thought it was Colonel Arbuthnot

[@suzie_lovescats]

Do you know the difference between the two words native and local? Because there’s a big difference between them.

[@jacksonj3082]

@@suzie_lovescats I did not look up the definition, but when I lived overseas in a few countries I considered the indigenous people (original to that country) the "natives" (like Aborginal, Maori, or Malay of AUS, NZ, or Indonesia or Malaysia) and those who came to their country from other countries "locals" (like Europeans, Chinese who came to these countries), but in my communicating with citizens of those countries I would consider all (maybe wrongly) "locals" as it seemed a more modern description (I mean I tried to follow how people spoke in those countries) - how do you define natives and locals?

[@suzie_lovescats]

@@jacksonj3082Natives are people who originally come from a place but locals are people who live there. Locals may or may not be native to the place they’re living in. That’s the difference 😉

[@jacksonj3082]

@@suzie_lovescats Sounds like the same definition I gave as well. 👌

[@FS-qi1kj]

i dont really know why but I just really dislike the 70s Christie adaptations

[@missgrace6599]

I should say that the new one is better... its more like understandable for ppl especially not european. It was very detailed And they got some comedy to break the ice down, bcs ppl somehow looked at detective genre supposed to be serious, but it didnt lost points of tragic plot. When i watched the olds ones, kind a lil bit confusing with their mixed languages. And bcs the actors showed very rigid expression, it caused me to assumed all murderers was full of rage and hateful. But they got really good setting of place

[@bookslikewhoa]

I'm glad you enjoyed it! It wasn't for me, just because I felt it was too much of a departure from a well loved character/series, but I'm always happy when someone else enjoys something I didn't. And like I said, I'm always happy to see Agatha Christie's name in the news :)