Dylan Keyne At the time of first watching this version of Murder on the Orient Express, I had not yet read the book. Nor had I seen the "amazing" other films. Indeed, the only reason I picked it up was to complete my Peter Strauss collection!! Having since become familiar with other versions, I feel somewhat better qualified now to write a review. I have to say that the 1974 version with the star-studded cast is probably only so highly regarded because of its star-studded cast. Some have even suggested watching the '74 film *instead* of reading the book. First off - Nothing will ever compare to the book. Secondly - This is a 'made for TV' version and doesn't try to be anything more. It does make a few attempts to be unique and interesting, or at least different, by attempting to modernise the tale. It does so because many of the original references are no longer relevant and will not generally be understood by audiences younger than about 50. But alas, herein lies it's very downfall. Many reviewers have already ranted about the 'crimes' against Christie's original. Personally, I can see where they were trying to go with this version, but still regret the omission of characters and the changing of certain key plot details - The most glaring is the reduction of the Twelve persons involved down to Nine. The reason 12 were included was to be the same number as that of a jury. Without this I feel the story is too far compromised. What I will mention is that, while Alfred Molina's performance does not begin to compare to David Suchet, he does offer a very unique interpretation of the character. The performance was enjoyable enough, but Molina is no Suchet. In my mind, Suchet is the ONLY Poirot and indeed, Christie's grandson himself has expressed how Suchet is the most convincing Poirot. I can very easily accept Molina as a 'young' Poirot, perhaps fairly early on in his career. I would call this a 'pocket-money' role - Something an actor does for a bit of cash on the side. With that in mind, the rest is standard TV movie faire, with two exceptions...Peter Strauss, the very reason I bought the DVD, always impresses me when he plays a 'bad guy'. Strauss is often cast as a neat, suave, smooth sort of 'nice guy', well suited to wearing a suit. However, he happens to do 'nasty piece of work' exceptionally well and I fear that his impressive performance here is utterly buried beneath the sludge of the movie itself. The second is the makeup department. A lot of their work is subtle, so much so that those not very familiar with members of the cast might not notice just how much of a transformation has been worked on these actors. Strauss in particular looks so different when portraying Cassetti ... truly evil!!The good news is that David Suchet has now filmed a proper version of Murder on the Orient Express, which is slated for screening later this month (July 2010). Overall - This 2001 version is good watch if you have never encountered Poirot before. It also stands up just as well if you have never read the books or seen a Suchet portrayal. Perhaps something I would recommend as an introduction, or for a young audience.

catuus It is Alfred Molina's great misfortune that, in portraying Hercule Poirot, he has been preceded by Peter Ustinov, Albert Finney, and David Suchet. Had this not been true, we might have been tempted to give his performance a higher rating than it is now possible to do.The original novel by Agatha Christie (same title) is one of the greatest whodunits ever penned. For unknown reasons, Ustinov never did it. My guess is that, although his Poirot films were made after the timely death of the pernicious and much-despised Code, the prospect of a murderer getting away with the crime was still too daunting for Hollywood. Suchet has yet to make Orient, but then it was only last year ('07) that he finally did "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" (with, we hope, Ariadne Oliver). Suchet's voice is used for Poirot in the 2006 Orient Express video game.So finally, in 2001 a TV version of Orient is made with Alfred Molina in the key role. Alas. Molina is a talented actor. His portrayal of Poirot, while not definitive nor even close, is passable – even pretty good in some ways. However, once we compare him with his predecessors (not to mention the literary original), the problems show up like fat, pendulous, juicy pimples (the kind we all loved to pop back in the day). We all know, for instance, that Poirot was fastidious to the point of school-marmish fussiness. Molina's Poirot is neat and that's about it. Molina's accent is a sort of generalized European, not the pointedly confrontational French that Poirot affected. Molina does use the catch-phrase "little grey cells", but he rattles them out because they're in the script, not because (as is the case) Poirot is obsessive about them. Indeed, Poirot's fundamentally obsessive character is de-emphasized to the point of vanishing. Molin'a Poirot seldom speaks of himself in the third person; Poirot does so rather a lot. His mustache is some short hair under his nose; Poirot's is a fashion statement and accessory that defines his dandified appearance. Molina doesn't wear gloves. Nor spats, but then the date of the mystery has been moved up to about the date the film was made. Anyone who by now believes I haven't made my case doesn't know Hercule.While Suchet is the best Poirot overall, Ustinov bears away the palm for best actor. He inhabits the role so effectively that we become unconscious of his imposing height and bulk. Finney, who appears in the 1974 Orient, lacks for little in the Poirotishness of his portrayal. This is a competition that Molina simply can't win.The plot of the 2001 film is, incidentally, pretty much the same as that of the novel and the 1974 film. Poirot is traveling from Istanbul on the famous Orient Express. He shares the first class car with a diverse set of individuals. One of them, a highly unpleasant person (Ratchett) is stabbed to death in the dead of night. There are plenty of clues … in fact, as Finney's Poirot observes and Molina's does not, there are too many of them. The train is stalled in its journey (snow slide in 1974, rock slide in 2001) and the railway's CEO commissions Poirot to find the killer. Through patient questioning and separating false clues from real ones, Poirot does so … twice. If you don't actually know the plot already, your cultural deprivation is truly unfortunate.The problem with the 2001 production, however, runs deeper than merely the star. It's virtually the whole cast and what the update in time has done to their roles. The update from 1935 to c.2001 was apparently made because the producers figured that education has been so inadequate recently that viewers would never figure out what a White Russian (Princess Dragomirov) is, nor understand references to the Lindburgh kidnapping, nor fail to be puzzled by people going to Iraq for actual constructive purposes (archaeology), nor … well, you get the gist.The result is that we have characters who are updated but far less interesting. As for the participating actors: recall that in 1974 we get Martin Balsam, Richard Widmark, Wendy Hiller, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud, … well, again you get the gist. Want a cast list of the 2001 film? Well, there's Leslie Caron, and Who? …and Whom? …and What? …and Which? …and …and …and … well, and a group of actors, most of whom are still working. They appear primarily in small roles in TV series episodes and in fairly little-known films. The upshot is that we get OK performances of a fairly uninspired script, and that's about it. The exception is from the one fine actor in the group, Leslie Caron. That's the upside. The downside is that her performance is deeply informed by that of Wendy Hiller as Princess Dragomirov. In this film the character becomes Señora Alvarado, the widow of a fairly nasty Latin American dictator. The problem here is that the character has way more social standing than would someone coming from such a sleazy background. She is in fact treated as the royalty Dragomirov was. That is, the character doesn't really compute … in order to keep character relationships as they were before the rewrite, Alvarado had to be accorded deference even Eva Peron didn't get in exile. Still, Caron manages to convince us of her bona fides. As I said, she's good.The cold, hard fact is that there are quite a few things on TV that are better than this remake. That's something we can't say about the 1974 original. The Poirot of the remake, Alfred Molina, is a pretty good actor – but for whatever reason he has seriously misconceived the part he plays and as Poirot he winds up in 4th place in a field of 4. The picture, alas, winds up in about 9th place in a field of 2.

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.

David1985 Taken out of its 1930s setting and horribly modernised, lacking almost a quarter of the characters, on the wrong train (they used a diesel-hauled train of British Pullmans owned by Venice Simplon-Orient-Express instead of the Wagons-Lits), stopped by a rockslide instead of a snowdrift, and featuring the character of Vera Rossakoff--a love interest from a pair of short stories.Meredith Baxter as Mrs Hubbard wasn't too bad, but the rest of the cast left something to be desired. A poor attempt to remake a great story. Hopefully LWT will do a decent remake with David Suchet in the near future.