Slapstick humor, action and chase scenes. Could this be an actual Agatha Christie adaptation?

(Warning, here be dragons plot reveals! However, I'll try to be clean about it, and not to reveal the main plot.)

Last weekend, I "bought" and watched Murder on the Orient Express on Youtube Movies for 16€.

Written by Michael Green, directing and main role as the private detective Hercule Poirot by Kenneth Branagh, the 20th Century Fox movie adaptation Murder on the Orient Express is a 2017 movie based on Agatha Christie's famous characters, and a detective novel by the same name.

I'll be making a somewhat biased, comparison between the two films (TV movie of 2010 and the Branagh adaptation in 2017), and might quote a little bit from the book as well.

First of all I don't find Branagh's version of Poirot very accurate. It doesn't really fit the common book description of a funny little man with an egg shaped head. What's even more important, is how he portrays the role. It feels empty, like a an eggshell without yolk or egg white. There is really no soul or character of Hercule Poirot present in his acting.

"The little man removed his hat. What an egg-shaped head he had! In spite of her preoccupations Mary Debenham smiled. A ridiculous-looking little man. The sort of little man one could never take seriously."

In comparison, David Suchet's version of Poirot is very close to the description, if you forgive his lack of hair and green eyes. (Suchet's eyes are brown, Branagh's blue.) But after seeing him in the role of our little detective, you will gladly forgive and forget, as his performance actually brought Poirot to life.

Basically, David Suchet studied the character in deep detail from the novels, and became Poirot, as closely as possibly possible. And he did it with passion and love. The result was a Hercule Poirot, that was an immediately approachable, funny little man, who could ultimately use his "little grey cells".

The Branagh version on the other hand is more akin to the Benedict Cumberbatch version of Sherlock Holmes.

Of course there is nothing wrong with Sherlock Holmes, or trying to make Poirot look and act more like Holmes, but ultimately he will simply no longer be seen as Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot.

Slapstick humour

The movie starts with a scene where Poirot is investigating a theft, and miraculously, after stepping on donkey poo, both reveals the perpetrator, and apprehends him by the walking cane he had previously stuck up in a wall.

^{Setting up a trap.}

I think it's a bit unnecessary comic relief for a murder mystery.

Acting in the film

Unlike in the Suchet films, the acting in this movie was pretty much sub-par. Most of the characters were superficial, dull and forgettable.

The reason I watched the film in the first place, was because of the current drama surrounding the actor Depp and actress Heard. I wanted to see whether Depp still has an edge in acting.

I was sorely disappointed. Depp was given the role of a dead man, and while it was a short one, there coult still have been plenty to work on. His character comes off as aversive, easily irritable, and not at all likable, as wherein the novel, he is depicted as having a smiling mouth, and having looks seemingly communicating of a benevolent personality.

"He was a man perhaps of between sixty and seventy. From a little distance he had the bland aspect of a philanthropist. His slightly bald head, his domed forehead, the smiling mouth that displayed a very white set of false teeth - all seemed to speak of a benevolent personality. Only the eyes belied this assumption. They were small, deep-set and crafty. Not only that. As the man, making some remark to his young companion, glanced across the room, his gaze stopped on Poirot for a moment and just for that second there was a strange malevolence, an unnatural tensity in the glance."

In Fact, Depp's character Ratchett's introduction in the movie was made in such a way that we could easily imagine him being a mafia boss, the bad guy from the very first time we don't even see his face. No surprise element included, none-whatsoever.

But then, when he gets introduced in person in the train, where he demands the cabin bed made and his Dictaphone to be brought, he sounds almost soft, not at all assertive as the dialogue suggests. So I find it a little bit backwards, as much of the other stuff on the film too.

The depiction of the Hungarian Count, Rudolf Adrenyi is a bit silly. He is portrayed as a completely paranoid martial arts genious who beats up just about anyone with his over-the-top flashy kung-fu moves, for just about any reason, like taking a photograph.

I'm a photographer, and I think I'm going to steer clear of portrait photography in the future, if people generally start following any of the morals set in this movie.

At this point, I was pretty much starting to feel like this was just an action flick masquerading as a murder mystery.

^{The feeling is mutual.}

The murder

I would have thought that the actual murder depiction would have been done better than it was the 2010 TV movie, but sadly all the CGI of today couldn't create a more believable stabbing scene, not even in black and white.

My conclusion:

I don't recommend watching it, nor paying for this film. After paying 16€ for it, I feel violated, and I think I might have developed some sort of PTSD symptoms. I'll have to ask my therapist about this.

If you still want to watch it, don't say I didn't warn you!

At the very least, don't pay for it if you only can avoid it!

---

Final plot reveal.

OMG! ^{_{(Warning! Don't read further if you don't like plot reveals!)}}

When the movie is all but finished, and Hercule Poirot steps out of the train, a police officer comes to him "looking for a Mr. Poirot", and continues to inform him that "he is needed on a very urgent matter" in Egypt, as "there has been a murder, right on the bloody Nile".

That's a bit silly.

Can't wait to see the Disney produced sequel, Death on the Nile. I bet it's going to be impressive!