Good concept, poorly executed.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

By the time that this film was made of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express," David Suchet had played the role of Hercule Poirot for more than two decades. In that time, he had delved into and dissected the character that Christie created. Suchet had played Poirot in dozens of films from Christie stories. He had studied Poirot's appearance, his manners and mannerisms, his speech and his carriage. Suchet had probed the depth of the character. And, he fine-tuned his arrogant behavior with subtle, small changes as he, and the character, matured in the role over the years. Audiences knew Hercule Poirot only as Suchet now presented him. It was now 3½ decades since the original defining "Orient Express" of 1974. Albert Finney in the lead role and more than a dozen big name screen stars of the day had presented a masterpiece on film. But in between, a 2001 modernized version of the story was made for TV and aired on CBS. To say that that version was forgettable would be the kindest thing one could say about it. So, with movie rights in hand, ITV took another look at Christie's story. The writers returned to the original story and considered the darker overtones of the novel. They made one change in the plot toward the end that added an aspect of intrigue. And this time, they looked more deeply into Poirot's character, which, by now, had become so familiar to many millions of people through the British TV series and many individual films. Christie wrote a background for her 1934 mystery based on a real event. In March 1932, a kidnapper took the one-year old baby boy of the Charles Lindbergh's from their home in New Jersey. Two months later, the boy's body was found in the woods not far from the home. This movie is set in 1938, as war loomed in Europe, so the fictional kidnapping and killing in the story would have been in 1933. By 2010, the millions of viewers and fans of the previous two decades would be very much aware of Hercule Poirot's strong views on types of crimes. He vehemently disapproved of murder. No one could ever be justified in killing another human being in cold blood. Poirot believed strongly in justice under the law. And, with this new film, viewers get a further look into Poirot. He cannot tolerate revenge that leads to vigilante justice. This differs from the book though, where Poirot was a little empathetic toward those who wanted to right a miscarriage of justice. The producers did many things to capture the time of the story. The train cars were rebuilt to resemble those of the 1930s, down to the decorations, art works and frills. The costumes, dress, makeup and grooming condiments were authentic for the period. Much research went into the planning of this new film. The script, direction and acting meticulously followed the manners, mannerisms and customs of the time. The 1974 film was true to the book and met with Christie's approval. Yet it didn't explore the dark side of murder as deeply as does this 2010 film. In this film, the script and cast play it just slightly more somberly. And Greta Ohlssen iterates how the avengers justify their form of vigilante justice. It's when God has not seen that justice was done. The contrast with Poirot and his serious moral convictions (when he prays the rosary), is striking. Poirot's strong abhorrence for anyone killing another person remains. This film is every bit as good as the 1974 movie. Each has its own appeal, with a slightly different approach. The preferred roles of the casts vary between the films. Suchet's Poirot is slightly better than Finney's. But most of the rest of the cast in the 1974 film outshine the performances of the 2010 film. Richard Widmark's Rathchett is much better than that of Toby Jones who seems to be overacting at times. Sean Connery's Col Arbuthnot is much better than David Morrisey's role. And, Ingrid Bergman is for superior to Marie Croz at Greta Ohlsson.

This version I loved. Poirot as a person delivering justice all his life, and facing a situation as this, would not easily have let the vigilantes go. It would indeed go against his principles. In all the stories he has always, no matter the circumstance, let the guilty pay the price. He has been sometimes diplomatic about it, but he has never let anyone go. He has given speeches about the justice! To let everyone get away with their deed would indeed pain him, as is so very well shown by Suchet in the end. He questions God, questions what is His true will and can he live with a God who allows revenge. The ending here is very deep and very disturbing if we think of what really happened. 12 people murdered 1 man. They had a reason. We all agree on that. But does that mean that murder is ok under certain circumstance? WE can think so, but what about Poirot? Who was always fighting for justice, not for revenge? I do not think it would be so easy for him. And this is why I really appreciate this version. Here we see the character of Poirot take on flesh beyond the books, we see him become a real person.

It happened more than once that a death occurred while I was on a train, just in my case, it was a suicide on the tracks, not a murder. This 2010 adaptation of a Christie classic starring the brilliant David Suchet can be credited with the same good stuff we're used to by now- excellent production design, period-accurate interiors and costumes. What makes the movie interesting is the combination of a small enclosed space-train cars stuck in snow-with a group of colorful characters made of a Russian princess, an American governess, a former driver and a doctor, among others. During the night, one of the passengers is stabbed to death in spite of having had asked Poirot for protection, which he refused. Of course, Poirot starts an investigation and unfolds a surprising connection of all passengers with the murder case of a young American heiress. Being from former Yugoslavia, it is a bit flattering that Christie set the novel within the country. In many recent episodes, Poirot is portrayed with a devout, religious side to his character, which in my mind is too much in contrast with his logic-based approach to solving his cases. "Murder on the Orient Express" is a great example of that, because it obscures the line between poetic justice and morals. Eileen Atkins and Jessica Chastain deliver great performances as the wax-faced and stoic Princess Dragomiroff and Miss Davenham, the fragile teacher. The solution is the only one of that kind in the whole Poirot series, based on the disappointment into the judicial system and the individual right to exert justice when being let down by official institutions in charge of it. In the end, you're left wondering what you would have had done in Poirot's position, and this might be the only episode in the series to have such an effect on you. The gorgeous winter landscape only accentuate the cold-blooded manner of the murder, clashing breathtaking beauty with breathtaking cruelty. I'm not one to mind on-screen plot alterations as long as they're subtle and add to the effect of the movie, which was certainly the case here. Which is why I prefer to regard it as an individual work, not that common in the Christie crowd, it seems.

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.