• mrdiz-261739 February 2018
    Could have been much better...
    I am a little disappointed by some points of the movie. The qay of filming is very basical, but the actors' play is quite good. It's a shame that the image aspect and coloration is not detective-movie-like. The computer-drawed landscapes are useless and do not contribute to make me love that film. The scenarisation at the end of the film is disappointing. I really think it could have been better as an adaptation of the novel. Though the movie is quite good. I have not read the original novel yet, but I except something better.
  • sebastiendidonseon8 February 2018
    Beatiful ans spetacular
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is a really good interpretation of Agatha Christie's novel. The story is really well-told and the actors are amazing at playing their role. The 3D effects for the landscapes are incredible, this movie is a pure beauty. Perhaps the links between the characters might be a little bit complicated to understand because the story goes quite fast but overall this movie is really good.
  • maudebersold8 February 2018
    Good but....
    I really like this movie, the casting was very intersting with very good actor. It was quite long at the end, but there was very good suspens. I'm don't very like the end of the movie even if is not common of the other detectiv movie.
  • champomyboy8 February 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    The casting was really good with actors like Johnny Deep. The film is a good detective film with Hercule Poirot who solves a crime in the Orient Express train. I like the film because there are many turnaround. The suspens was always present during the movie and the end was also really good and surprising.
  • coudertcapucine8 February 2018
    Despite the impressive casting, the interpretations of the stars are trite. Moreover the soundtrack is kind of senseless compared to the plot. However the scenario is fascinating ! As always A.Christie does not decent us. The film is good but not very striking. You can watch it once but not twice
  • kevinish13 January 2018
    The greatest Agatha Christie film
    Normally, when you put this kind of "star studded casts" together, you wind up with a messy collection of scenes with each actor trying to outdo the others. Instead, legendary director Sidney Lumet has created a tight, fast paced, eerie, whodunnit, with a claustrophobic atmosphere that makes the locked room murder more than a puzzle to be solved. Excellent performances from a unbeatable cast, this film is a must for any mystery buff, or film buff for that matter. Keep an eye out for the under the radar performances by Redgrave and Balsam; but Finney's Poirot is pure genius.
  • mark.waltz10 January 2018
    When cinema gets it right, it truly is majestic.
    Warning: Spoilers
    The nostalgic 1970's brought a modern twist to the old fashioned values that took America by storm in a turbulent era. Films like "Airport", "The Sting" and "What's Up Doc?" seem like they could have been made 40 years before, and only slight modern twists made them appear current. For the first of the Hercules Poirot murder mysteries, an all-star cast was hired, many of them veterans and many of them still quite in demand. This was the one and only opportunity for Albert Finney to play the part of the sly Belgian detective, and he's quite different from Peter Ustinov who played the part in half a dozen films, both for the cinema and for television.

    With a lemon puckered voice hardly musical (even though he sang in two films), Finney is less bumbling than Ustinov, but that doesn't mean that the comedy isn't there. He is much more direct, solemnly business like, and in a sense, more obviously shrewd. James Coco brilliantly spoofed Finney the following year in "Murder By Death". Surrounding him is an international cast who obviously knew that this film would be something special, and a chance to work with actors they might never have the chance to work with again.

    Like subsequent entries in the Pierot series (and other Agatha Christie stories), this starts off with a prelude seemingly unrelated to the main story, but as I found out by watching the others, nothing should be dismissed. Every move, perhaps every prop, is a clue, giving the audience ample opportunity to guess who did it. There's plenty of suspicion cast on everybody, even those who seem to be completely innocent.

    The victim? Richard Widmark. The suspects? Many. Annoying Lauren Bacall, Bible spouting Ingrid Bergman, imperious royal Wendy Hiller, her maid/companion (Rachel Roberts), suave nobleman Michael York, nervous mama's boy Anthony Perkins, graceful butler John Gielgud, nasty American businessman Martin Balsam, among others (Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave). They are all stuck in the snow in the middle of nowhere when the murder is discovered. Of course, the mixture of personalities creates additional conflict, with the recurring joke of everybody desperately trying to avoid Bacall every time she appears, and the multiple error of Finney assumed to be French, not Belgian.

    A mention of Garbo puts attention on fellow Swede Bergman, winning her third Oscar for her greatly underplayed performance. With a cast like this, it's easy to get lost in who everybody is, but this is done in such an amusing manner that it never gets dull. It's a fully gorgeous production with every detail practically perfect. I can't imagine the 2017 remake topping this in any way.
  • Eric Stevenson4 January 2018
    A murder all right
    This is the first time I ever saw any version of "Murder On The Orient Express" and I guess it's only fitting that I review the original. This is a good movie, but it's not one of my favorites. The best part is easily the final scene. Well, not quite the final scene. I remember hearing about the ending and was afraid they might change it, but they got it right. I guess even if you do know the ending it can still be enjoyable. That's obviously doesn't mean I'm going to mention it here. It's too good to ruin.

    This features the character Hercule Peirot who I have heard about but never got the chance to see in action. There's one point in the film where they suspect that the butler did it. Never in any Agatha Christie novel does the butler actually do it. Maybe this film is where they got the idea? I was confused by the newsreel at the beginning, but it all made sense later. It's worth checking out.
  • Kshitiz Mangal Bajracharya26 December 2017
    One of the best murder mysteries ever.

    This film is got to be one of the most interesting murder mysteries ever. The film delivers at everything it is expected to - mysterious build, a good detective character to actually care for and the final unpredictable twist. The film surely feels predictable at many times, but most of your predictions are probably bound to be wrong. The mysterious part has been built very nicely throughout the film. Every character has something in them which makes you feel he/she is the culprit. Hercule Poirot is one of the believable detective characters in a movie like this. As the story proceeds further, it becomes more and more complicated, and when the final twist is revealed, it is jaw dropping and quite emotionally compelling - which is a rare thing because most of these type of films do have a better jaw dropping reveal than this did, but doesn't have the emotional aspect to it as in this one. This film works in almost every level. It is really enjoyable and watchable. The way Poirot does his work in the story is really excellent.

    Really very few parts of the film feel like a plot device and were merely relied on coincidence. Also, it was heavily accented and I did have some trouble understanding some words and some phrases. Other than these, the film was excellent and well made.

    Score : 9.1/10

    Grade : A
  • Stephen Abell21 December 2017
    A Superb Whodunit With An Excellent All-Star Cast
    This is an apotheosis of a star-studded movie - but where most films of similar ilk fall flat this reigns supreme... The Story is so good and the director does a brilliant job of bringing this to the large screen and the actors add to the strength of their skills.

    There are a couple of drawbacks, for me... Firstly, I'm not a fan of Hercule Poirot (I much prefer Miss Marple) and Finney's portrayal of the detective left me cold and irritated. Though he and the director did get his pompous peacock preening down pat, it was more Finney's vocals and no-neck stance that got under my skin. Secondly, there were a few scene's where the director used Perkins "Norman Bates" to cast suspicion on his character, as Norman does make an appearance a couple of times.

    Though, all this said, the rest of the film is delicious and splendidly filmed. There are some really nice panning sequences; I especially liked the sequence where the train guard walks down the platform as the train pulls out - this is expertly done and sets a great atmosphere, though the music is a little too saccharine for me.

    This is a great whodunnit, which I did solve before Hercule, but not too quickly so as to spoil the film, so this is a bonus as it draws the audience in and makes them part of the story and movie. If you like murder mysteries then this is the one to watch, you should even enjoy it if you've read the novel and know the outcome, as the acting and direction is that good.

    I would recommend this to mystery and thriller lovers as well as movie aficionados. This is now on my favourites list and I will watch it again - even though I'll have to put up with Finney's Poirot.
  • Myriam Nys21 December 2017
    opulent and gorgeous
    Warning: Spoilers
    A fairly faithful adaptation of Christie's famous novel, set against a gorgeous, glittering Art Deco background. The movie shares much of the characteristics of the Art Deco movement : it is interested in the unusual, the exotic, the playful and the eclectic. And, just like Art Deco, it favors style over substance. This happens to suit Christie's dark-hearted game of charades very well.

    Finney makes a good Poirot, although there is a distinct lack of Belgian-ness about him. Most Belgians, for instance, would fly like pigeons to the nearest well-stocked bar, and to hell with the occasional corpse lying left or right. (Still, the movie is called "Murder on the Orient Express", not "Drunken man screams 'Do you want a piece of me ?' and attacks locomotive single-handedly".)

    The movie unwittingly illustrates one of the main failings of Christie's plot : the various suspects have a sad tendency to contradict or incriminate themselves with nearly every word they speak. (In my country, or at least in the northern part of my country, we call this "jezelf aan de galg praten", which translates as "talking yourself a way to the gallows".) It can't be that difficult either to shut up or else to imagine some plausible lie along the lines of "In France, I worked as a proof-reader for a small religious publisher", "Why are you calling me a cook, I can't even boil an egg" or "My sister, who is alive and well, works as a chemist in a perfume factory". Also nice : "Sadly I understand you fine tongue badly, thus this answers poor".

    The production values are out of this world, resulting in a truly gorgeous spectacle. On the other hand this is not the most riveting or intriguing of movies : one watches for the visuals, not for the tension or suspense.
  • Harry T. Yung20 December 2017
    The number 12
    Warning: Spoilers
    Watching the new Branagh remake triggered re-watching the 1974 version which in turn lead to this posting which is not exactly a review. More like a "deconstruction", I'd say. In the movie, Poirot makes reference to 12 passengers and 12 stab wounds. But they are all different.

    Let's start with the murderers. One way of deconstructing them is by their relations to the Armstrong Case deaths:

    Blood/marriage relation to victim: 1. Mrs Hubband (Lauren bacall) 2. Princess Dragomiroff (Wendy Hiller) 3. Countess Andrenyi (Jacqueline Bisset) 4. Count Andrenyi (Michael York)

    Armstrong household employees: 5. Greta, nursemaid (Ingrid Bergman) 6. Hildegarde, cook (Rachel Roberts) 7. Beddoes, butler (John Gielgud) 8. Mary Debenham, secretary (Vanessa Redgrave) 9. Foscarelli, chauffer (Denis Quilley)

    Loved one of the wronged housemaid who killed herself: 10. Pierre, father (Jean-Pierre Cassel, father) 11. Hardman, sweetheart, a policeman (Colin Blakely)

    Colonel Armstrong's colleague 12. Arbuthnot (Sean Connery)

    Other association: 13. McQueen, would-be stage protegee (Anthony Perkins)

    Yes, 13 murderers! How would than reconcile to the various number of 12?

    For passengers, Pierre does not count as he is the train conductor. (There are 4 other passengers who do not count: the victim, Poirot, Martin Balsam's company director cum Poirot's host, George Coulouris's doctor who happens to be on the train).

    The mystery of the 12 stab wounds is even simpler. The Count and Countess held the knife together, executing one single stab.

    Characters in Branagh's version stay largely with the original but there are also some changes, in names as well as background. Some would call them innovative and clever; others stupid and irritating. But that's another story.
  • Filipe Neto2 December 2017
    A cast of heavyweights in a pretty good movie.
    Agatha Christie was one of the greatest writers of crime novels ever. However, its hard to doubt that the short episodes and films of "Agatha Christie's Poirot" set a new paradigm for the adaptation of these books to cinema or television and that it will be difficult, in the next years, to surpass the interpretation of David Suchet. Anyway, this movie is prior to all this, dating back to 1974. The plot faithfully follows the book, so there is no great mystery here. What struck me most was the luxurious star-cast, worthy of a true super-production, with memorable names like Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Jean- Pierre Cassel, Sean Connery, Wendy Hiller, Anthony Perkins and Vanessa Redgrave. Impressive. Personally, I didn't find Finney convincing in the role of the Belgian detective. The way he moved and spoke seemed very unnatural, particularly the way he seemed to be hiding his neck all the time. But this is the only negative criticism for cast performance, which did a very good job. Particularly, I would point out Lauren Bacall for the intense and passionate way she was given to her character. Ingrid Bergman and Wendy Hiller also deserve a word of praise. The rest, however, did not have much room to truly shine. It even feels sometimes that the cast has not been completely taken advantage of.

    Visually, the movie is very good. Cinematography uses a lot of light and the colors are pleasant, as well as the choice of locations, sets and costumes. The soundtrack was competent and did his job well, but it's far from iconic.
  • adonis98-743-1865031 December 2017
    I hope that the Remake is better..
    Warning: Spoilers
    In December 1935, when his train is stopped by deep snow, detective Hercule Poirot is called on to solve a murder that occurred in his car the night before. With the New Murder on the Orient Express being out in Theaters for weeks now and since i'm going to go and see it tomorrow i thought that this would be the perfect time to review the original as well. But unfortunately i was very disappointed with this movie i found it boring, dumb and above all the acting was trash. Especially from Albert Finney who was over reacting as Poirot and almost sounded as Gollum from LOTR the same goes for Lauren Bacall and her character was so annoying as for the actual murder? The way that this particular person dies was so over the top and almost hilarious in a bad way and i wasn't surprised when the killer was shown and who did the crime it was kinda obvious after a while. Overall Murder on the Orient Express (1974) is an overrated and boring mess of a film that tries so much and yet it fails in every level and unfortunately it shows how some viewers and critics have stuck on the Past and think that everything that was made back then still is fresh and new in this Century well this movie is not fresh and definitely not good.
  • Enkidu19 November 2017
    great story-line, deeper and much more entertaining than just a murder case
    One of my top 10 favorite movies. i always like Detective Poirot series and this movie is one of the best and maybe most complicated ones (number of suspects and misleading parts). Poirot happens to be on a train which a mafia member is on it and almost whole cabin have planned to be on that train same night to murder him. Along the movie when Poirot interviewing suspects and you can enjoy his funny acts and talks, a non criminal story happening, introducing western countries nations from Agatha Christie point of view. We got American, Swedish, German, Russian, Hungarian, French, Italian, Greek, Scottish, ... which is quite entertaining and a great job (you be agreed with writer or not, you still we give her many points). Me myself, enjoyed the under layer nations behavior more than confusing criminal case, not that after ending conclusion i still find it difficult to understand, but number of suspects and that actually are were involved almost equally, was quite different compare with other same category movies. Beside the murder case and different nations behavior, at the end, you got to make a moral decision, to agree with Poirot to call the case closed as the victim was indeed a brutal murderer or leave the case to police ( Yugoslavian) or as you can say "to the law".
  • imgalib12 November 2017
    Mystery plot with a flavor of classics
    Decent mystery plot, intelligent but not intense flow of the story. Story revolves around the murder motives, but personally I feel not all motives were strong enough to carry out the murder, like the chauffeur. And how the detective knows all the character's background is also a mystery that wasn't solved.Like sherlock holmes used to keep a journal for all the crime happened in past with details. But how this detective remembers that god knows. Most of the charterer's played well deserved role, specially detective poirot. Ending is a twist and I liked that. A nice movie to watch who loves classic mystery films.
  • tlooknbill10 November 2017
    Foreign film feel with '30's era oddball characters beautifully filmed.
    From Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns to the makers of "Taken" there is something about European productions and their set locations in a movie that makes me feel like a stranger in a strange land as an American and Murder On The Orient Express has this in spades. It's engagingly balanced by its character driven story making it more gripping and entertaining though you do have to pay attention due to its use of flashbacks in connecting the dots.

    I saw this movie in the theaters in '75 when I was a teen and was just taken to another world that felt dangerous with the "you're on your own" aspect of traveling abroad (without the traveler's diarrhea) while running into some of the most quirky, creepy, eccentric and odd behaving characters that one might expect to meet on a train in Europe in the '30's. This seemingly eccentric behavior runs interference in hiding the truth about why and what would bring together on one train 12 oddball characters who seem to have nothing in common. Poirot slowly and diabolically works his way in his questioning of the 12 to make the connections.

    That ensemble of convincingly cagey acting characters is what the audience and Poirot must break through aided by effectively and obviously placed brief flashbacks to confessions and character back story each character reveals that at first were obscured by first impressions. Of course Poirot humorously dismisses with smart ass and equally quirky European flare and sophistication the suspect's phony behavior as a form of personal interrogation to rattle them in order to draw out more detail that points to the real murderer. Standouts in this form of re-remembering what was said outside the context of first impressions at the start of the movie is performances by oddly pasty pale complected Anthony Perkins and Ingrid Bergman's nervously, devout humanitarian character. The performances are not from your typical B-movie detective who done it.

    As a teen I was totally confused by these flashbacks and line of questioning even though I had read several Agatha Christie novels including "Murder On The Orient Express". The book had no flashbacks. This movie actually creates a whole other more interesting and character driven way to tell a who done it detective murder mystery in a most elegant and stylish way while remaining brilliantly grounded and believable by the performances of top shelf actors in gorgeous and authentic looking '30's era costumes.

    Through the years I've had to watch this movie several times in TV re-runs to understand the connections provided by the flashbacks even though I already knew the surprise ending. It's still fun to watch and I can't wait for the US release of the Blu-ray. I wish I could give the same review of the 2017 remake I saw last night.
  • leplatypus17 September 2017
    Not as good as expected and I have only one culprit for that mess (dad)
    I picked this one in advance to new adaptation with Pénelope and was happy to find here such a good cast with Connery, Golden age Hollywood actresses and the Cassel father… Lumet was a inspired director (with Al movies), Christie is the queen of thriller novels and this Orient Express was to the train what Titanic was to the boat, exoticism in addition!

    However, the movie opens with a child abduction tragedy worthy of a mute movie and we start the trip in Istanbul!

    In a lot of stories, and especially the crime ones, beyond the originality of the facts and locations (that are met there), we need to have also a original detective (remember Dale Cooper, Robocop – Murphy, Martin Riggs, …): however, here, we have a plain, copy of Sherlock Holmes and, in my opinion, terribly embodied by this Finney. I don't say he can't act, I just tell that his Poirot was just painful to watch: between effeminate and a look alike of a certain famous Adolph. It's funny (or not) but french critics had the same feeling at its release. His way of investigation is rather poor (just interviews) and I got quickly bored in addition because the suspects are rather just dull, old, very dusty and honestly, this murder becomes a quick who's who (the driver, the maid, the sister, the aunt, the buddy,…) that's totally a turn-off.

    Unlike Titanic, this movie doesn't age well and now I really consider to go watch the new adaptation!!
  • cinemajesty13 August 2017
    When murder becomes the business
    Warning: Spoilers
    Opening in classic decor title cards salmon-colored silk followed by a Film Noir styled montage of light and shadow paired with newspaper bulletins and cinematographic shutter speed changes initiated by lighting cameraman Geoffrey Unsworth gives the otherwise classical content of an infant kidnapping inspired by actual event from March 1st 1932 of baby boy Charles Lindbergh Jr., Director Sidney Lumet establishes a visual mystery that will last to the premising shot conclusion.

    The director had been able to be blessed by one of the major casting ensemble of its time, produced in Season 1973/1974, starting all out-going screen presence from Albert Finney as the main character private investigator Hercule Poirot to Lauren Bacall as the supporting character of Mrs. Hubbard over to Richard Widmark performing as the business criminal Ratchett, who becomes the object of murder on an express train from Istanbul to Paris, which gets stuck in ice and snow in the middle of nowhere, a scenario which had been repeated in production season 2016/2017 from Director Kenneth Branagh, who does not shy away to take on the main role of Hercule Poirot himself and further fostering a major ensemble cast with Johnny Depp as Ratchett and Michelle Pfeifer as Mrs. Hubbard and more to revealed in November 2017. Beauty, excellency and splendor on the train, which departs at around 20 minutes into the "Murder On The Orient Express", Director Sidney Lumet keeps tight focus on any of his twelve murder-involved characters to give them some screen-time to make a mark towards an investigating streak by the character of Hercule Poirot, which still seeking an equal in emotional sophistication, mental navigation and a portion of humorous ease at work, which makes the film another candidate for multiple revisits.

    Nevertheless some characters established with extraordinary effort at on-location exteriors as the hidden affair of Mary Debenham & Colonel Arbuthnot, performed by Venessa Redgrave and Sean Connery, have one or two decisive moments as striking couple in the film, but their relationship never gets the flourishing beat besides practicing murder as within an unit of twelve, which probably let screenwriter Michael Green of the 2017 remake exchange the character of Mary Debenham to a young, in this case Star Wars actress Daisy Ridley, and making the character of Arbuthnot become a doctor instead of a military officer. When it comes to the blue-lit 12 hit-stabbing of the character of Ratchett, every character dies alone in the moment of committing murder, before reviving each and everyone's spirit in the contradicting scene of drinking a glass of champagne after getting exposed by Hercule Poirot, who does not loose his temper once to be the master of persistence and as to say breaking the ice with anybody he encounters.

    Director Sidney Lumet and Cinematographer Goeffrey Unsworth had everything under controlling timetables with building constant suspense and excitement with skillful scenario camera pan, as on the train station platform, catching three major supporting character delivering beats in one single panning shot from left to right, which presented editor Anne V. Coates with the coverage to keep the pace for an exceptional Thriller, which finishes without one single action sequence.

    © 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)
  • aramis-112-80488015 July 2017
    Best and Brightest of Christie Films
    Warning: Spoilers
    Remade several time, "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974) is the grand-pappy of them all. It's stylish, fun, and has a superb cast down to the smallest parts (in this case, Vernon Dobtcheff, Jeremy Lloyd and John Moffatt--barely visible here, Moffatt would later play Poirot in an excellent BBC radio adaptation of this story).

    Before "Murder on the Orient Express" (1974) Agatha Christie's work had not done well on film, with the single exception of 1945's delightful "And Then There Were None." For this reason, Dame Agatha was reluctant to sign off on "Orient Express." But it's a classy vehicle (pun intended) with an all-star cast who were willing to take relatively small parts. Most of the time, they have little to do except react to Albert Finney's Poirot, though each of the stars is able to give a star turn at some point.

    Topping the list is "James Bond" himself, Sean Connery, Pukka Englishman whose stiff upper lip is hidden by an impressive mustache. He and Vanessa Redgrave play covert lovers who may be hiding more than their affair, since the murder appears to be done by a man and woman in tandem.

    Non-illicit lovers are the Count and Countess Andrenyi: Michael York, fresh off his star-making double-dipping "Three/Four Musketeers) and Jacqueline Bisset, looking ethereally lovely. They're a charming couple, but why does she look so nervous and why is he so defensive? Is it merely his Hungarian nature? Also nervous is stereo-typically twitchy Anthony Perkins, secretary to the victim (all-too-brief Richard Widmark).

    Another odd man/woman duo is Wendy Hiller as an aging, exiled Russian Princess and her secretary (Rachel Roberts) who boasts of being strong.

    Ingrid Bergman won a controversial Oscar for her Swedish missionary. This movie was made before EVERY person of faith in the movies was a weirdo, a hypocrite, a nutcase or a beast, so in 1974 she was on the cutting edge. But Bergman is able to do one thing few modern actors can, make her faith seem sincere. But her part is, like most of the others, a cameo, albeit a long one.

    The two actors with the most screen time are Martin Balsam as an official of the rail line who deputizes Poirot to solve the murder; and Albert Finney's masterful job as Poirot.

    While his Poirot has gotten lots of derision since, especially in light of David Suchet's television series, Finney does a superb job. He manages to look short and fat, and he seems to have taken Christie's work as his Scripture. He holds his head to one side, as Poirot is said to do. And his decor is full of oddments that make him the embodiment of Poirot. Sure, he's a lot more flamboyant than the Poirot of the page, but his mustache is a lot more believable than Suchet's.

    What makes this movie so grand, however, is its look and feel. The costumes look like they've never been worn. They're 1930s glamour through and through. And, though the story centers around a murder, there's no a dark moment after the beginning (which bases itself loosely on the Lindbergh kidnapping case). Director Sidney Lumet described it as a fluffy soufflé. It's even better than that. It's fun, and funny. And scriptwriter Paul Dehn has Balsam's character have a line at the end that's even better than Christie had, as a wrap-up, about the mysterious uniform found in a suitcase.

    Also fun is playing connect-the-dots with the characters. For instance, Perkins and Balsam appeared together in Hitchcock's "Psycho." Wendy Hiller played Eliza Doolittle in the movie of Shaw's "Pygmalion"--which was made into a musical starring Rex Harrison, who was married to Rachel Roberts. Train Conductor Jean-Pierre Cassel was the King Michael York's D'Artagnan served in his "Musketeers" movie. Ingrid Bergman costarred in "Casablanca" with Humphrey Bogart, husband of Lauren Bacall (Mrs. Hubbard). And so on. You can also play "Who has the best mustache?" All the stars are enjoyable (even the rising ones; Denis Quilley's reaction shots are often priceless).

    With its humor, its jaunty score and its timeless "play dress-up" 1930s glamour, this "Murder on the Orient Express" is still the best.
  • slightlymad2210 May 2017
    They Don't Make This Type Of Movie Anymore
    Murder On The Orient Express (1974)

    Plot In A Paragraph: In December 1935, when his train is stopped by deep snow, detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) is called on to solve a murder that occurred in his car the night before.

    Murder on the Orient Express is an entertaining movie, it's a classical who done it and it has a large and expensive collection of stars. Sidney Lumet got together an all star cast for this movie. Alongside Connery was Anthony Perkins, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jaqueline Bisset, Vanessa Redgrave and John Guilgood.

    In his fourth Lumet movie in 9 years, Connery is not really given much to do, but he looks good with a thick moustache in a dapper suit. His moustache has been present in every movie he has made since Diamonds Are Forever. Presumably in an attempt to distinguish himself from James Bond.

    According to Sidney Lumet, Paramount Pictures were so unsure about the movie, they decided to release the film on a Sunday in only two theaters on the film's opening day!!

    The Movie was nominated for six Oscars. Amongst them were Finney for Best Actor and Geoffrey Unsworth for Best Cinematography, whilst Ingrid Bergman won Best Supporting Actress.

    Murder On The Orient express become Connery's biggest success away from the Bond franchise by quite some distance as it grossed $36 million at the domestic box office to end 1974 as the 11th highest grossing movie of the year.
  • Leofwine_draca21 February 2017
    About as good as it gets for Agatha Christie
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have to admit that Agatha Christie isn't one of my favourite authors. I do like the detective and whodunit genres quite extensively but Christie always approaches them from an angle that doesn't really interest me so much. I enjoy stories dotted with clues that give the viewer a chance to work out the murderer for themselves but in Christie adaptations you often don't get the opportunity because the motivations are only revealed later on.

    In addition, the exposition always feels quite clunky and heavy handed; an approach that works better on the written page, I should imagine, than on the screen. So I approached MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS with some trepidation. I needn't have worried too much, because in the hands of famed director Sidney Lumet this is solid stuff, enlivened by an incredible all star cast and slick production values. The setting is brought to life in a vivid way and the train setting is appropriately claustrophobia. Albert Finney's lead is a bit of a distraction in a caricaturish kind of way but the likes of Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Richard Widmark, and George Coulouris are quite excellent. Anthony Perkins has a role that hilariously references PSYCHO and Lauren Bacall is memorably icy. Fans of the author will be in their element.
  • theocharous_an25 January 2017
    Great story, but nothing great about the rest of the film
    Agatha Christie, Sidney Lumet, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Albert Finney, what could possibly go wrong? Well, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't as good as I expected. I haven't read the book, but I have the feeling that the story is too complex to be translated into a 2- hour theatrical release. It's still a great whodunnit though and one of the most well-known adaptations of Agatha Christie's books.

    The story starts by informing us about a tragic incident in 1930. A young girl was kidnapped and then found murdered even though ransom for her life was paid. Five years later, the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot takes the Orient Express to London accompanied by all sorts of interesting people. While travelling through Yugoslavia, one of the passengers is found murdered and in the meantime, the train stops because of a snowstorm. Poirot takes over investigation and is determined to find who is the killer among the passengers.The story is as challenging and intriguing as it can possibly be. Everyone is a suspect, but who had the means and the motive to commit the murder? As Poirot questions passenger after passenger, it seems that many of them had a motive and connections with the kidnapping and murder of Daisy Armstrong 5 years ago make things even more complex.

    Of course, we have Agatha Christie to thank for the story, but what about the rest of the film? What about acting, directing, cinematography and music? Well, unfortunately, none of these is as expected. The cast consists of some of the greatest actors of the time, but Albert Finney seems unconvincing as Poirot. I'm struggling to understand how he got an Oscar nomination. Ingrid Bergman is good, but still not good enough for the Oscar she won. If there is one that stands out for me, this is Lauren Bacall as the intolerable Mrs. Hubbard. Anthony Perkins is very good too. Murder on the Orient Express, is far from Sidney Lumet's best pictures (12 Angry Men, Network). I got tired of seeing the train moving on after each scene. The screenplay has its flaws too. For several suspects, Poirot seems to arrive at conclusions without sufficient evidence yet nobody argues with him. Surely, as I said above, it wasn't an easy task to adapt such a novel. It's still a very easy watch, that keeps you thinking until the final moments when the quite unexpected events concerning the murder are revealed.

    More reviews at: https://reflectingoncinemablog.wordpress.com/
  • blumdeluxe11 January 2017
    What kind of a message is this?
    Warning: Spoilers
    "Murder on the Orient Express" is one of the crime classics among the movies. From the beginning on, you pretty much know what to expect, a rather slow piece in which detective Poirot unrolls the crime he's confronted with.

    This classic scheme surely serves as a role-model for similar projects until today and it is out of question that this film was in a way influential. It comes up with a creative crime that can't really be foreseen and thereby catches its audience.

    Three aspects prevent me from rating it higher: Firstly, some of the intended gags get old pretty soon, like the accusation of every single suspect that was just recently questioned, though I get that it's supposed to be reflected by the solution in the end. The many stereotypes are hard to ignore, too. Secondly some of the scenes are just too long, I don't need to see every single guest of the train in each scene involved, it would be enough to just tell they're all involved somehow. But most importantly I doubt that this movie gives an appropriate message to its audience. I am not a big fan of self justice and even though I can perfectly understand the desperation and hunger for revenge I find it questionable to support such behavior. Violence can never make up for violence.

    It would be a lie to say that this is not a good movie, it just leaves me with a few questions, and they're not about the details of the case..
  • Hitchcoc22 December 2016
    Christie at Her Best...What a Trip!
    There have never been so many suspects in a single Agatha Christie book. In this movie version, the inimitable Albert Finney plays Hercule Poirot, who is aboard the Orient Express, coming from Istanbul. A mysterious man wants to enlist Poirot's help because he fears he is in danger. Later, that man is murdered, stabbed numerous times. A whole host of passengers are logical suspects and it's up to Poirot to sort through the details of the murder. There was no love loss for this guy because he was one really bad dude. The book and the movie are classics in that every time a character seems to be the one who did it, a clue would be found to dismiss the speculation. Since I want anyone who has not seen this to get the same kick I did, I won't say any more. The result of this is different than any mystery I've read or seen.
An error has occured. Please try again.