Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This review comes on the heels of having just viewed the 2017 abortion directed by and starring Kenneth Branaugh and is more a comparison of the two cinematic versions than a simple review of the 1974 Sidney Lumet version. First of all, Agatha Christie's novel takes place in the 1930s. Lumet acknowledges this is a "period piece" and treats it as such. Glamour was a big thing in films set before the end of the studio system in Hollywood, and Lumet gives us plenty of it here (Branagh gives us little). The dramatic score for Lumet's 1974 film was composed by Richard Rodney Bennett, who is also the pianist on the soundtrack, which is lushly orchestrated and fits this production quite nicely. The all-star cast here is composed of well-known, proven actors, beginning with Albert Finney as Christie's sleuth, Hercule Poirot. It's unnecessary to list the entire star-studded cast here, as it's on the main page for the film, but the whole cast gives exemplary performances. The cinematography is exquisite, with Geoffrey Unsworth's excellent use of Panavision cameras and lenses. In fact, there's nothing bad to be said about the film. This was followed by several other Brabourne-Goodwin productions of Agatha Christie novels ("Death on the Nile," and "Evil Under the Sun," both with all-star casts with Peter Ustinov as Poirot and "The Mirror Crack'd" with Angela Lansbury as Christie's female sleuth, Miss Jane Marple), but none of the successors were as well-done as this one. The Kenneth Branaugh remake tells us that Branaugh's portrayal of Poirot was more important to him than the development of any of the other characters. The viewer gets the impression that Branaugh focused more on Poirot's obsessive-compulsive side than any other characterization in his film. In one word each, here's a description of the two versions: Lumet, 1974: magnificent; Branaugh, 2017: pedestrian.

A fairly faithful adaptation of Christie's famous novel, set against a gorgeous, glittering Art Deco background. The movie shares much of the characteristics of the Art Deco movement : it is interested in the unusual, the exotic, the playful and the eclectic. And, just like Art Deco, it favors style over substance. This happens to suit Christie's dark-hearted game of charades very well.Finney makes a good Poirot, although there is a distinct lack of Belgian-ness about him. Most Belgians, for instance, would fly like pigeons to the nearest well-stocked bar, and to hell with the occasional corpse lying left or right. (Still, the movie is called "Murder on the Orient Express", not "Drunken man screams 'Do you want a piece of me ?' and attacks locomotive single-handedly".)The movie unwittingly illustrates one of the main failings of Christie's plot : the various suspects have a sad tendency to contradict or incriminate themselves with nearly every word they speak. (In my country, or at least in the northern part of my country, we call this "jezelf aan de galg praten", which translates as "talking yourself a way to the gallows".) It can't be that difficult either to shut up or else to imagine some plausible lie along the lines of "In France, I worked as a proof-reader for a small religious publisher", "Why are you calling me a cook, I can't even boil an egg" or "My sister, who is alive and well, works as a chemist in a perfume factory". Also nice : "Sadly I understand you fine tongue badly, thus this answers poor". The production values are out of this world, resulting in a truly gorgeous spectacle. On the other hand this is not the most riveting or intriguing of movies : one watches for the visuals, not for the tension or suspense.

One of my top 10 favorite movies. i always like Detective Poirot series and this movie is one of the best and maybe most complicated ones (number of suspects and misleading parts). Poirot happens to be on a train which a mafia member is on it and almost whole cabin have planned to be on that train same night to murder him. Along the movie when Poirot interviewing suspects and you can enjoy his funny acts and talks, a non criminal story happening, introducing western countries nations from Agatha Christie point of view. We got American, Swedish, German, Russian, Hungarian, French, Italian, Greek, Scottish, ... which is quite entertaining and a great job (you be agreed with writer or not, you still we give her many points). Me myself, enjoyed the under layer nations behavior more than confusing criminal case, not that after ending conclusion i still find it difficult to understand, but number of suspects and that actually are were involved almost equally, was quite different compare with other same category movies. Beside the murder case and different nations behavior, at the end, you got to make a moral decision, to agree with Poirot to call the case closed as the victim was indeed a brutal murderer or leave the case to police ( Yugoslavian) or as you can say "to the law".

Decent mystery plot, intelligent but not intense flow of the story. Story revolves around the murder motives, but personally I feel not all motives were strong enough to carry out the murder, like the chauffeur. And how the detective knows all the character's background is also a mystery that wasn't solved.Like sherlock holmes used to keep a journal for all the crime happened in past with details. But how this detective remembers that god knows. Most of the charterer's played well deserved role, specially detective poirot. Ending is a twist and I liked that. A nice movie to watch who loves classic mystery films.