Last night I went to see the new film version of Agatha Christie's Murder On The Orient Express and several of my friends have asked for my thoughts. So this is my non-spoilery (for the three people in the English-speaking world who don't know the solution) review.
I've seen and enjoyed both previous versions, the 1974 Albert Finney movie as well as the more recent Poirot television version with the inimitable David Suchet. And I have read the book several times so all of this colors anything I say. Also, I should state from the start that the Finney version is still my favorite. With that out of the way I've got to say that overall I liked Kenneth Branagh's take on both the book and the role.
Firstly, visually it is stunning. The cinematography is very lush and Branagh experimented with some very interesting camera angles. The costuming is gorgeous and hope the costumer gets an Oscar nomination. All other considerations of story or acting aside, if you enjoy film as a visual art form you will like this film.
As for the story, Branagh and screenwriter Michael Green have made some unusual changes from the book. While the bones of the story remain the same - while traveling by train in the Balkans, a man who is not who he claims to be is murdered and Poirot must determine who did it and why - several of the character details were changed. The biggest is turning the very proper English Colonel Arbuthnot into the black Dr. Arbuthnot without in the end changing his motivations but still making him an interesting and unique.
Indeed the result of making Agatha Christie's lily white cast of characters more diverse by switching some out for a black and two Hispanic characters adds an element of modern race relations that is good commentary without getting highhanded or preachy with several characters betraying their own prejudices as they are interrogated by Poirot. Ironically from my point of view, where this element falls down is fairly late in the film where - since this is Europe in the mid 1930s - some anti-Semitism is added to the race relations. This felt both forced and unnecessary.
Branagh's interpretation of Hercule Poirot fascinating. Early in the film he admits outright to being what we would call obsessive-compulsive without using those words and explains the way he interprets sensory input as something we would call high-functioning Asperger's. But he also has something of a sense of humor about it and himself, at least until the situation turns serious. His motivation in a desire to seek justice at all costs because crime is taint on his obsessive-compulsive worldview is better than some other portrayals of Poirot as a fussy, funny Belgian man who just happens to solve mysteries.
The rest of the cast does a very good job, in some cases rising to excellent in both Leslie Odom as Arbuthnot and Daisy Ridley as Mary Debenham. Of course, Judi Dench and Derek Jacobi can do no wrong in their roles, as usual. As a director Branagh manages to keep a tight enough leash on Johnny Depp as the vile Ratchett that Depp provides an emotive performance without falling over into self-parody. I've said before that when he's working with a strong director, Depp is a very good actor. It's only when he's let loose that he goes off the tracks.
I do have a couple issues with some characterizations though. The conductor, Pierre Michel, is turned into a very minor character in this version where he is far more important in both the book and previous adaptations. I can live with that though as it is a sometimes necessary evil of screen adaptation that some characters get slighted. But the one change I do not get and straight out do not like is turning Count Andrenyi from a Hungarian diplomat to a ballet dancer! And a hyper-violent ninja ballet dancer at that. Firstly the idea of a pre-war noble Hungarian family allowing one of its members to become a dancer instead of doing something respectable is absurd on the face of it. Secondly, it creates a plot hole in that if Andrenyi is not a diplomat why are he and his wife traveling on diplomatic passports, a key element of the story? Overall most of the changes I either liked or can accept, this one is just stupid and pointless.
The film has added a couple action sequences because apparently Hollywood feels modern audiences need some in their mystery movies rather than just people talking on a train as Poirot tries to put together all the pieces of the puzzle. That said, they weren't overdone or overly intrusive and in the case of the fight between Poirot and Arbuthnot provides some good characterization too.
Overall this version of Murder is less typical crime procedural in which we follow the sleuth as he discovers every minor clue to put together a whole and more of a character study in which we look at the motivations of both the suspects and Poirot himself. If you prefer the former type of murder mystery stick with the 1974 Finney adaptation. Otherwise it is a very enjoyable film.
One final note: The film opens with Poirot in Mandatory Jerusalem solving a case of the theft of a relic from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The main clue is a crack in a "well-maintained fresco". I've been to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and there is nothing in that building that was been well-maintained since the Crusades!
