Powerful

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This TV movie was clearly meant to be the pilot for a US version of David Suchet's classic UK Poirot show. Hulking Alfred Molina joyously replaces Suchet here and that's where the hilarity begins. Poirot is physically a small man, and that's one of the key points of his character - a completely unassuming man with larger than life intellect. Molina is not bad as Poirot but looks nothing like him. Even Albert Finney, who played Poirot in the first and best adaptation of the Orient Express story in the 1974 theatrical film, and is also a pretty big man, had to pretend to be tinier than he is to sell himself as Poirot better.Other things that make Poirot Poirot like his trademark mustache, love of Belgium and asexuality are also gone. Molina's mustache is more of a tribute to Poirot's than an actual eccentrically unique facial hair. He has a hot foreign girlfriend now (no joke), and ss for his amusing patriotic bravado (he's Belgian, not French, you see) you won't find it here, other than as a throwaway line spoken by another character.However, despite all of this, Melina actually really is one of the rare good things about this adaptation. The TV cast of characters who play his suspects range, on the other hand, from forgettable to passable, but they aren't the worst thing about this movie either. No, the worst thing about this film is the attempt to modernize the story by setting it in present day IT savvy world, which (un)intentionally brings in so many plot and logic holes that you can build a tunnel out of them. This had to be done carefully and thoughtfully but it wasn't. It was done bluntly and carelessly. As a result there are so many ridiculous and (un)intentionally hilarious moments, and they aren't even all related to the fetishistic use of technology in the movie.For instance, Poirot touches every piece of evidence with his bare hands because he's sure "that the killer didn't leave any fingerprints" on them. The police of any country would have immediately arrested him on the spot just for this. Maybe in 1934, when the book and almost all other adaptations of the story are set, they actually could have gotten away with this (although in most adaptations, Poirot actually uses a handkerchief to hold and inspect evidence, never his bare hands), but in 2001, with DNA evidence and fingerprints technology being a crucial part of any serious investigation, what Poirot does here is the dictionary definition of the term 'contaminating the crime scene'. Also, the murder plan as is doesn't really work in modern times either because of this, since any proper forensic investigation of the dead man's cabin would have easily uncovered inconsistencies in the killer's story. Another silly thing about the movie is that it's not set in winter. It's actually set in what appears to be autumn and the train doesn't end up being snowed in, but a cave in causes the train to stop. The fact that they are not really stranded in the middle of nowhere, and that the passengers could easily simply leave the train, walk around the pile of rocks on the tracks and get on another train, possibly the one that brought the workers to clear the road, which could then take them to their destination, comes to no one's mind at any point.Finally, the way they use technology in the movie may be the most blunt way of doing this in a mystery ever. You see, Poirot simply googles the passengers to try and uncover the culprit. It is as stupidly funny as it sounds. Also, some of the suspects are now a software engineer, a fitness instructor and the widow of a deposed and killed South American dictator!And then there's the hilarious happy-go-lucky epilogue that completely ruins any dramatic effect that the mostly fateful ending may have had on the audience. Seriously, this epilogue feels like the script originally truly was suppose to be for a parody.The odd thing about all this is that the movie does actually have some fan service and in-joke bits. For instance, the fitness instructor is a fan of Poirot's work and actually references some of his old cases from the books. So, whoever wrote this mess clearly did read Poirot's books.In conclusion, watch the 1974 version for the full dramatic and emotional effect of this ingenious story (it's no false praise to say that this Agatha Christie tale is one of the most uniquely original crime mysteries ever written), and only then see this US TV version, especially if you're looking to have a good laugh (this is genuinely a so-bad-it's-good movie, and often (un)intentionally funnier than most comedies) or simply enjoy Molina as an actor (he really could have had a good Poirot run on TV, like the equally hulky Peter Ustinov before him in the 1980's, and it's truly sad that this inept adaptation had to be the pilot for this project and immediately and effectively kill off any chance for a further Molina Poirot series) or you simply wish to see every Murder on the Orient Express adaptation out there (the plot itself is mostly the same as the one in the book, so you should get at least something out of it then).As an (un)intentional comedy and because of Molina, I give it a 6 (although, if judged realistically for what it's meant to be, it's closer to a 3 or a 4).

Alfred Molina stars as the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot who even in a modern age of computers still prefers his little gray cells even though one of the suspects in this modernized 21st century remake of Murder On The Orient Express is a dot com millionaire. The little gray cells still work pretty well and as we know Molina comes up with two solutions for the murder.Which is of Peter Strauss a rather crass and wealthy American who is getting death threats and he wants to know the source. When Molina turns him down later that night on the train Strauss is stabbed several times in his sleep. The officials on the Orient Express ask Molina to take charge of the investigation while a landslide blocks their path.For anyone who has seen the big screen version which contained an all star cast I won't go into details. But that version is set at a time when traveling on the Orient Express was a matter of class and elegance and you got performances of the cast reflecting that. Agatha Christie stories be they Miss Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot, or Tommy&Tuppence should always stay in the period they are written in. They lose so much when they are not.Standing out among the passengers are Meredith Baxter as a minor American TV actress and Leslie Caron as the widow of a South American dictator.Compared to the big screen version this one is good root beer as opposed to elegant champagne.

OK, it's a TV movie.OK ,they have moved a great story in the modern age without too much money and with some undistinguished TV actors.But Molina is a great, great, great Poirot (and actually now the best living film actor) second only to Suchet...because Suchet can live in Poirot's age! And Natasha Wightman is far better than pale-acting Vanessa Redgrave as the frosty and haughty Mary Hermione Debenham (and Amira Casar give some sense and heart to the Helena'character ;Jacqueline Bisset was only beautiful, but she don't gave any feeling to her part as the only living survivor in a butchered family.Casar was tragic and shattered.Bisset was a model on the catwalk):The screenplay is quite faithful, and not a buffoonery as sometimes it happens with Poirot films (if Ustinov is on the crime scene,alas!)So, not so bad at all...And I love to think Monsieur Poirot in the arms of beautiful Vera De Vasconcelos!!!! They could make a miniseries,I would love to see Molina solve faithfully at last THE MURDER OF ROGER ACKROYD!!!!!!

The 1974 movie of this book was a mixed bag. Obligations to the all-star cast caused most of the problems, as the writers and editors jockeyed to give everyone an equitable amount of screen time, an actorly moment and some close-ups. This prevented it from being a very deep film, and Sidney Lumet is really only a workmanlike filmmaker. But still, despite those limitations, there is much pleasure in the earlier version; the wordless flashback prologue of a kidnapping is beautifully done. Rare for a murder mystery, the unfolding of the solution provides a startling, satisfying emotional payload.For this retelling, a decision was made to update the material to the contemporary era. The topical references that acknowledge the world has changed since the thirties really achieve naught, except perhaps alleviating some writers fear that the material is passé... There's too many of these self-conscious references (to air travel, the internet, VCRs, taking the Express out of mothballs, Ross Perot) and they become annoying. Other changes are there simply because filmmakers thought it would make it more conventional (Hercule Poirot has a ridiculous romantic interest, "Vera"). The biggest bummer is the substitution of a utilitarian diesel engine for the original stylish steam locomotive. Thud.Ultimately these revisions add nothing to the movie and seem to have taken the focus off producing a tight, compelling, methodical script. The highlight of the previous movie was the cross-cutting between the temporal time-frame and the crime. This movie lifts that technique, but doesn't really come up with any contribution of it's own. The color palette, the research and the envisioning of the crime were all more vivid in the earlier version. Alfred Molina is pretty bad in this. It just isn't interesting.