ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

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

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Alfabeta 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).

TheLittleSongbird ...and this is on its own merits(which I consider a fairer way of judging a book adaptation) as well as an adaptation. This version of Murder on the Orient Express does have brownie points for its sumptuous settings and a good performance from Leslie Caron. Of the cast though, only Caron makes an impression. Alfred Molina is a fine actor, but is too impersonal and lacking in energy as Poirot (how he's written is a large part of the problem though), with an accent that is never consistent(though not as bad as Tony Randall's in The Alphabet Murders). Apart from Meredith Baxter, who's unbearably shrill, annoying and just wrong, the supporting roles are not disastrous, just not very memorable.They are not entirely to blame though. The characters are nowhere near as interesting and are pale shadows of their book characters. Poirot in particular is written to the extent that he doesn't seem like Poirot with little here that makes him so unique as a character. The dialogue is stilted and could have been more intelligent and subtly humorous like Agatha Christie's prose, again apart from the title and without the knowledge of who wrote it you wouldn't know if it was Christie who wrote the story. Poirot's deductions are introduced too quickly and too soon for example. The story also suffers. It is an ingenious mystery, but feels rushed and lacking in mystery and suspense(two essential ingredients to Christie and any crime-mystery drama). Some may find it more solidly paced than the Albert Finney version, but actually for me the pacing of Finney's was wholly appropriate for the development of the characters and how the story unfolded, and also preferable.Murder on the Orient Express(2001) does try to stick to the spirit of the original story, but also makes the decision to update it to the present day. Having a story set in the 30s(?) with modern references and products just didn't gel, especially as Christie's settings and writing were always so specific, and perhaps dates the story. And this was a similar problem I had with the Oliver Ford-Davies version of Sparkling Cyanide. The way the film was shot was not too bad, but at the same time there was nothing remarkable, competent but never above good TV quality. The music fits more with the present day setting and didn't come across as memorable to me.Overall, a mess on its own merits and a poor adaptation of one of the Queen of Crime's best ever mysteries. See Finney's version instead, still one of my favourite Agatha Christie adaptations to this day, and while it has its problems the David Suchet(the definitive Poirot) was also better than this. 2/10 Bethany Cox

johnbol If you like the Agatha Christie films to be faithful to the book or view them as period movies then forget this one. However ! If you like whodunit movies no matter what, then this one is OK. It's not the best of it's kind but you'll have a nice 90 (or so ) minutes. Yes it's updated ( computers, mobiles) and yes Poirot has a love interest. But that does not mean that it's a bad movie. I liked the 1974 one better and the book even more so but i can see that this movie is entertaining as well, just not as good as the 1974 one. As for Poirot i have to say that i did not care much for Finney's portrayal and Molino does not do it any better. Suchett and Ustinov are my favorites. For those who would like to have the DVD : it's for sale in The Netherlands. Together with the TV movie The Pale Horse it has been released as the DVD box "Agatha Christie Mystery Box ".

T Y 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.