- What order to watch Star Wars films?
- Star Wars The Last Jedi: Where we last left all the essential characters
- Deadpool Review: Ryan Reynolds' pansexual superhero is needy, insane and extremely hilarious
- Rotten Tomatoes under fire because of 'Justice League'
- Black Panther's Poster & Trailer: A Dash Of Batman Here, A Bit Of 007 There
No, we didn’t. I assume that’s your first question: “Did we need another Murder on the Orient Express?”
We already had a quite inert specimen from 1974 directed by Sidney Lumet, made remarkable by a brilliant assemblage of stars (Albert Finney, Ingrid Bergman, Vanessa Redgrave, Sean Connery, Maggie Smith, Anthony Perkins, Lauren Bacall, John Gielgud…) with a fine TV version with David Suchet’s near-definitive Hercule Poirot and the young Jessica Chastain. Kenneth Branagh’s latest has a less memorable but still impressive group of actors and changes the dramatic emphasis, turning Agatha Christie’s famed Belgian detective (played by Branagh) into a poignant lost soul instead of an unvarying collection of tics and pet phrases. But it’s basically the same slog.
The pacing is built into the material. I admit to having read all of Christie’s books — every one, God help me, at an early developmental stage — and the only reason that Murder on the Orient Express loomed large was its unique solution. Otherwise, it’s not much of a mystery story. Poirot finds himself on a train with the dead body of a sleazy businessman (who’d been receiving threats) along with folks from a strangely large number of classes and cultures. All of them look guilty and all of them look like red herrings. A second viewing (after you know the outcome) would yield no new insights. Which means the best person to ask about the effectiveness of Branagh’s adaptation would be someone who went in cold. I’ll try to be second best.
To forestall our sad realization that we’ll be stuck for a couple of hours on a train (and partly a stationary, snowbound train), Branagh begins the movie with an irrelevant mystery astride the Wailing Wall that does bring about one good bit of business: Poirot steps squarely into a pile of manure, and instead of washing it off, he plants his other foot in the same pile to restore the balance. He later explains that he’s a man who cannot help but home in on the unbalanced, the disorderly, the illogical, the piece that doesn’t fit. And in this version it’s portrayed as a curse rather than a blessing. This reflexive aversion to disorder, Branagh’s Poirot shows, has kept the man away from the world of men — and women. His “little gray cells” are his only company. He’s the most forlorn of Hercules.
As the shady businessman, Ratchett, Johnny Depp sports scars and uses a thuggish accent. He comes off like a huge, summer-stock actor — but I like summer stock and like, in small pieces, his hilarious voices and wardrobe choices. He and Branagh have one of the tightest scenes, in which Ratchett asks Poirot to work for him and Poirot, not given to niceties, says he doesn’t like Ratchett’s face. Depp’s Ratchett takes that in stride. His face isn’t his fortune.
As for the rest, there’s not enough of Penélope Cruz (even though what’s there isn’t much fun) as a religious neurotic or Olivia Colman as the help of an oddly subdued Judi Dench. But Daisy Ridley is a pleasingly stylized ingénue, Leslie Odom Jr. in fine high indignation as a self-important doctor, Josh Gad a fount of fish eyes and twitches as Ratchett’s drunk-ass secretary, and Tom Bateman breezily attractive as the wealthy railroad executive turned impromptu Dr. Watson (or, this being Poirot, Captain Hastings). Willem Dafoe’s silly accent as a racist Austrian professor made me laugh out loud (with him, not at him), and Michelle Pfeiffer is a hoot and a half as a flamboyantly theatrical man-hunter, stealing every scene.
Say this for Branagh: He works his ass off to jazz things up without being vulgar. The film is full of arresting vistas — arresting in part because you’re constantly wondering what’s real (probably little) and what’s CGI (probably lots). The camera zigs and zags and hustles after Poirot and other characters as they move through the Istanbul station (the movie is set in the mid-1930s) and onto the platform of the legendary Murder on the Orient Express .
When the dead body is discovered, Branagh cuts to an overhead shot of the businessman’s compartment. Why? Makes for a change. For the final unveiling of the killer, Poirot doesn’t use the handy dining automobile. He sits the suspects in a straight line at the end of a railroad tunnel with torches on either side. It’s Survival: Agatha Christie. God! Branagh puts nothing into evoking a mood of terror or paranoia. For him, the story centers on the personal growth of his character: Will Poirot’s aversion to disorder finally yield in the name of humanity?
To return to why Murder on the Orient Express was remade: Beats me. Maybe it’s someone’s idea of counterprogramming when every other film in the multiplex is for kids or yahoos. Maybe it’s a tax shelter. I enjoyed parts of Murder on the Orient Express movie, savoring the actors though aware that half of my own little gray cells were snoozing. A higher portion might be engaged if you’re new to Christie’s world, in which case bring your knitting tools and a flask of Earl Grey and brace yourself for a mild ride.