clytamnestra We all know the solution to this specific Poirot mystery: 'they all did it'. So when working my way through this series i wasn't even sure it'd bother to watch this episode.But what a pleasant surprise: the writers also realized that the viewers know the basics so they just go through the motions in that regard (the kidnapped baby, the letter 'H', the false evidence, etc). Far easier than in any other Poirot-episode do we get to the truth: they all did it, and they aren't ashamed, in fact the killers are practically bragging about their clever ruse (which makes sense, i suppose, of course they are happy to let everyone know about their revenge).Where most episodes are a 'who done it' this episode is all about Poirot's moral choice: this is a man whose 'holy mission' is to expose the truth and let the law take it from there. That truth may come at a high cost, but he will not be guilt-tripped for exposing it: if 'a good man' lied and committed suicide than that's his fault/choice and not Poirot's.The intro with the stoned woman in Istanbul doesn't make much sense in other versions of this story, but here it all kinda comes together. Poirot respecting 'the law of the land' and keeping his opinion to himself (keep in mind he is _not_ English). His faith that he is an instrument of god. The struggle it is for him to turn a blind eye. An element i haven't seen mentioned in other reviews is the racist attitude of the killers (if there is anything 'typically English' to be found in this tale it's here, in the nonchalant prejudices). Of course every judge in the world would go light on them, would bent over backwards to let them get of with a slap on the wrist. But that's not what they are after, their fear is not as much facing a judge but facing a Yugoslavian judge. To them the entirety of eastern Europe is fly-over country, a backwards backwater with less justice than the corrupt Chicago judge who set the child-murdering mafia-guy free. That's a hard sell for a war-refugee: to say 'we do not acknowledge local legal sovereignty'.Poirot was thus far presented as 'the perfect detached gentleman': a nice guy, who is always emotionally-stable and whose emotions never appear to run very deep. Here we see a different view of him, a view that is probably shocking to those who equate 'intelligence' and 'intelectual rigor' with 'millitant atheism'.

keithfmanaton This should be viewed as part of the complete 'Sutchet' catalogue of Poirot. In the same vein, with the same closed main character. Apart from the short cuddly stories Mr S plays the character as written. Endorsed by the Christie descendants and widely regard as the most authentic interpretation. She disliked Poirot herself! It cannot, like the rest of the the Hollywood interpretations be regard as 'charming', "so English" and other platitudes! However credible and entertaining the Finney version is it lacks bite. Most of the perb's are bitter rather than angry & vindictive. Poirot is methodical but not avenging. Please read the books, visit Devon. This is real Agatha Christie. For those slagging this off, watch the last Sutchet episode Curtain. Then re-watch this. Then you'll understand.

cab-63591 In the U.S. there are two types of people — those who are played by the establishment media's morality tales of Political Correctness, and those who are not. I am of the latter, and that is why this episode of Poirot at long last has ruined the entire series for me, because the writers sleazed such a pathetic morality tale into an Agatha Christie classic, where such a tale does not exist — nor anything like it in her entire body of work.The vignette about the stoning of the Istanbul adulteress was entirely made up — "exo tou dramatos." It was to set up Poirot's contrived statement later (about the then-used English death penalty) that was so ignorant and lacking reason it would prove he could never be able use reason well enough to detect his way out of a wet paper bag. Christie made Poirot's entire raison d'etre to send murderers to the gallows. Then these lame TV writers come along and morally equate the basis of their own gravy train to ad hoc street stonings of adulterous women.

blanche-2 This is a later Poirot film, from 2010. What happened to the early Poirot? The one with Hastings and Miss Lemon? This sad, miserable, angry man is not the Poirot of the books. Poirot was always charming and pleasant and let his little gray cells do the work.In this version of "Murder on the Orient Express," Poirot has just had a murderer he caught commit suicide, and he is tremendously upset. He receives a telegram to return to London and boards the Orient Express, in spite of the fact that everyone tries to keep him from boarding.A businessman is murdered, and Poirot investigates. It doesn't take him long to figure out that nearly everyone in that particular section of the train has some connection to the kidnapping and murder of a little girl, Daisy Armstrong.The emphasis here is on faith, religion, and retribution - making for a dark story indeed. The back story of a little girl dying, based on the Lindbergh kidnapping, and the tragedies that followed in her family as a result is sad enough without darkening it up even more.Of course this doesn't compare to the 1974 film, which emphasized the sumptuousness and beauty of the train and the scenery. The production values here remain excellent, but the scriptwriter has really tampered with the character of Poirot to a disturbing and uncomfortable extent. And the writer felt the need to eliminate a very important line: "They couldn't have ALL done it!" The whole investigation process was truncated.Disappointing. Gee, I hope this was just an aberration and Poirot lightens up.