Murder on the Orient Express

Don't watch this movie if you think it'll be the transposition of Agatha Christie's classic "Murder on the Orient Express", because THIS IS NOT IT.

The problem it's not just what they changed or omitted, but all the clues they invented to replace the real story make little sense.

Difficult Kenneth Branagh makes, produces, and stars in good movies, and this version of Murder on the Orient Express features impressive sets, beautiful scenery, and lovely period clothes. An impressive case features Penélope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Kennth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. I think those who are not familiar with Agatha Christie, Poirot, or the story may very well like this movie.

I, on the other hand, was massively disappointed, especially by Branagh as a sort of English upper-class colonel with a stick-on cavalry moustache and by the needless addition of an introductory scene at the Wailing Wall. But I am prejudiced. I read the 1934 novel decades ago and again more recently. I liked the 1974 star-studded version with Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, and Michael York—despite the fact that Albert Finney was a very poor version of Christie's Hercule Poirot.

In my opinion, the 2010 television version of the story starred David Suchet as the definitive Poirot, and the ending was far and away the best of all the versions with which I am familiar. So I think Christie fans may want to skip this edition of the classic.

There's a big problem with Kenneth Branagh's 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that's the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the "who" of the "whodunnit" (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.

The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.

Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in "The Gangs of New York". The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!

Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40's. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos ("Mamma Mia" and who also collaborated with Branagh on "Thor) with lots of innovative "ceiling down" shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.

The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh's "Thor"). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).

All these technical elements combine to make the film's early stages look and feel truly epic.

And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench ("Victoria and Abdul"); Olivia Coleman ("The Lobster"); Johnny Depp ("Black Mass"); Daisy Ridley ("Star Wars: The Force Awakens"); Penélope Cruz ("Zoolander 2"); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi ("I, Claudius"); Willem Dafoe ("The Great Wall") and Michelle Pfeiffer ("mother!"). A real case again of an "oh, it's you" film again at the cinema – when's the last time we saw that?

It's also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year's excellent "Sing Street", getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.

With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film's opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green ("Blade Runner 2049"; "Logan"). At heart, it's a fairly static and "stagey" piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train's derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn't always looking on to yell "Cut"!

All this leads to the "revelation" of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic "thank heavens for that" rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn't know the twist).

However, these reservations aside, it's an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can't be too grumpy about it, given it's a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.

For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some 'tuning in' to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in "Death on the Nile" – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov's outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A- list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!

'Murder on the Orient Express' as a book is, speaking as a big Agatha Christie fan, one of her best with a compelling and twisty story, many characters that are also nicely developed and one of her most ingenious endings (along with 'And Then There Were None', 'Death on the Nile', 'The Murder of Roger Ackroyd' and 'Witness for the Prosecution').

Of the four filmed adaptations of 'Murder on the Orient Express' the only outstanding one is the 1974 Sidney Lumet film, which is one of the best cinematic Agatha Christie adaptations to me. The others are the David Suchet version, which is often considered one of the worst of the series but from personal opinion while very flawed it's better than given credit for, and the 2001 Alfred Molina version which is a mess. This latest version has a good deal going for it but feels like an adaptation too far. Actually saw it a couple of days ago, but was not sure what my thoughts on it were.

Let's start with 'Murder on the Orient Express's' good things. It is a very beautiful film visually, very elegantly shot, lots of stunning scenery, sumptuous costumes that are evocative of the period and a train that has the grandeur and claustrophobic confinement that is necessary. The make-up is also wonderfully elaborate. The story does have some intriguing moments and it is a very clever one in the first place. Poirot is an interesting as he should be. Kenneth Branagh does a very nice job with the visual style, the script is thought-provoking and Poirot's crime-solving is delightful. The relative faithfulness to the source material is commendable too.

He also stars as Poirot and generally is surprisingly good, he is very commanding, suitably steely and captures his crime-solving skills beautifully. He could however have brought out more of Poirot's lighter and more eccentric side, like the obsessiveness, there isn't enough of that here. The cast is star studded and generally the acting is very good. Standouts include Judi Dench, Michelle Pfeiffer, a surprisingly well-cast and suitably conflicted Josh Gad and Daisy Ridley, Derek Jacobi and Willem Dafoe also make much of not very much.

Conversely, there are other elements that don't work. The mystery itself is intriguing as a story but doesn't have enough tension or energy. With so many characters and so much focus on Poirot, the exploration of the supporting characters is limited, meaning many of the characters are really sketchy in development. Branagh excels in the visual side of the direction but it comes at the expense at providing enough depth to the mystery.

The film has a slow and awkwardly staged beginning and the ingenious denouement feels under-cooked and contrived for an ending so justifiably famous and brilliant. Just to make it clear, the problem is not the denouement itself, it's the execution of it that's the problem. While the cast are on very good form mostly, an exception is Johnny Depp. Really didn't get the sense that Rachett was a nasty piece of work, like in the book and especially Toby Jones' interpretation in the Suchet adaptation when talking of the previous versions, and that the performance was too much of a pale caricature of Depp's lesser roles. Have really liked a lot of what Patrick Doyle has done, but this is not one of his better music scores. It's not awful, but it is blandly uninspired and its slightly syrupy feel doesn't fit. Oh, and Branagh's moustache is like a character of its own and am really not sure as to whether that is a compliment or not.

In summary, some good things that stops it from completely derailing but the lack of steam makes it a bland endeavour, this wonderful story and Christie deserve better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Agatha Christie needs a bit more mystery and depth in a film particularly when the story is so well known. Branaghs's Poirot is more eccentric than brilliant, in fact most of the characters are over played and a bit silly.

In the end you don't really warm to anyone or want more, it's very predictable and flat.