I enjoyed this a fair bit. It is not particularly pulse-pounding as a suspense film—perhaps partly because I knew the solution to the mystery beforehand from the novel and the 1974 film with Albert Finney—but it is a very...comforting viewing experience, odd as this may sound for a film in which the inciting incident is a brutal knife murder. It is a pleasurable cinematic experience to simply revel in, from the lustrous 65-millimeter cinematography, with its snow-swept mountain vistas and winding overhead shots of train compartments, to the large and talented ensemble cast, though Olivia Colman and Penélope Cruz feel underutilized. Johnny Depp delivers an unexpectedly excellent performance as the gangster-esque art dealer who dies on the Orient Express, and this is a welcome reminder how dashing and exciting a screen presence he can be.

B

MOE is not a bad film, but it's just wholly unexciting. Perhaps in the vein from it's original source material, the story develop slowly. It succeeded in keeping my interested in the unveiling of what actually happened, it has a fine cast too, but no-one stands out as no element of the film does either. It just all comes across very averagely. While it's original story has some fascination to it, the film fails to make it engaging tale with interesting characters. While each character has its own quirks, it feels plain and dull like a tv-opera. I wouldn't call it a misfire, but just a run of the film film that would go completely under the radar if not for its well known cast.

C

I’ve always found that to be one of the biggest problem with reviewers when they discuss adaptations of older works. They never take into account that this was at the time brilliant and ahead of its time material that has been copied and built on as a result. And then they have the audacity to call a film/ adaptation boring as a result because they’ve seen every film that has been influenced by it.

This is one of those stories you have to treat more like a play than a film.

Little bit of a rant so I apologize but that doesn’t sound like a C grade review, the faults you have are pretty much about the plot.

Yeah I guess, but maybe what you point out also shows that there perhaps was no point to making this film if it's done before in the same and other similar forms. Also I don't think I probably would enjoy reading the book. At the end though when there was notion of a new case on the Nile, I thought interesting. MOE is really not a bad film, it was just a bit dull, even while I didn't know who did it, it was my wife who called that out about mid-way through it while we're watching it, so that was then kind of stock in my mind too. But also when it geared to tthe ending and Poirot pointed out, it was definitely you, Daisy Ridley I found that a deflating conclusion, of course it wasn't reallly. Lastly Poirot is a bit of a cocky bastard, I never liked Branagh much in any role, although brilliant in Dunkirk, so it didnt help either he was cast in the lead.

I liked Branagh's performance the most, which surprised me.

I thought the development in the second half hindered the movie. The mystery wasn't very engaging from the interviews with all the suspects which I found unfortunate.

Murder on the Orient Express

Eh, I was dreading all the way through that the producers would be too chicken-shit to pin the entire plot on one murderer, and my worries were confirmed. And not only did all of them plan it, but each one stabbed him too! This was ridiculous and cowardly. The film also was not so pleasant to follow, and a bit of a bore. Branagh's French accent is incredible, but oftentimes it made it difficult to truly grasp what he said. And, I know he was playing a Belgian, but that was still a French accent. Following (or caring about) the arc of the investigation was not made easy either in terms of the storytelling. It is never known why "Ratchett" killed the Armstrong's child, or is it? Maybe I missed it. Anyway, the ensemble is large but not particularly impressive. Depp was actually my favourite (second was Branagh). Pfeiffer is mutton dressed as lamb. Not even cougar material, just an over-the-hill starlet with a weirdly bloated face and lips. Strange seeing the result of surgical enhancements in a thriller supposedly set in 1935. Ridley is goofy and unpleasant on the eye. Cruz's glamour is hidden and, thus, wasted. A decision I am sure the crew thought was, oh, so ironic, as they proudly chuckled. But Olivia Colman and Lucy Boynton are valuable as always. I did like the use of accents and language, and the production team did a good job in terms of camera movement and set design (though I wish it felt less 'produced').

Still, met the tease of a sequel, the Poirot classic Death on the Nile, with glee.

C

Trueish but Christie is up there with Shakespeare or a Christmas Carol, at this point it’s not about the plot, it’s so well known. Like anyone who has taken a film class knows who did it MOTOE. This movie had no intention to change cinema. Branagh is famous for doing non original works.

99.9% of films released have no intention to change cinema. That doesn't mean people shouldn't expect to enjoy it as if they've never seen it before (and a lot of people [even those that took film classes] haven't despite you trying to make it out as some kind of Jurassic Park). You talk as though Murder on the Orient Express is such a story that has stood the test of time and everyone should know it. That isn't true. It hasn't stood the test of time. If it had, teenagers would know it, and they do not. It has been mildly popular among old people throughout the generations mainly because it keeps getting re-made, whether for film or TV.

Tell me you are fucking with me, pm if you must. You deserve your face forced into a pile of urine!

That’s bull shit times eleven.

A: You are wrong. The majority of liquids can pile. That's science you learn in elementary school.

B: How about shit? That has a higher density most of the time. And great response by the way!

Ok dude believe what you want.

I have never read Murder on the Orient Express, nor seen the previous film adaptation, so the unusual twist on the whodunit plot was interesting. However, only Kenneth Branagh seemed to be relishing his role - the rest of the cast seemed to be sleepwalking. *C+*

Ah, so I was correct. Late response too, how many hours did you spend trying to make me look like an idiot before that bullshit concede?

So anyway. Hopefully watching this today. Can't believe I skipped two JL screenings over the last two weeks, and this is number one, despite knowing everything.

As it is so important to you, yes you were correct. Can we move on now, slick?

Based on your graceless concession, it appears that it was important to you too.

Typing a comment does not mean anything is important. It is probably one of the easiest things you can do in the world.

This was "fine" but honestly disappointing and fairly dull despite the all-star cast and excellent whodunit premise. It's sound on a technical level and everyone gives good performances, particularly Michelle Pfieffer, but the pacing is very slow and I found it very hard to get invested in what was happening. I actually thought the miniseries "And Then There Were None" from a few years ago was a thousand times more cinematic and effective. B-

I loved the beginning (grew too familiar in the middle) but absolutely loved how they shot and edited ending. The Acting is good all around, and I wouldn't mind seeing Branagh in the role again (The Nile story is one that I actually never got around to so that'd be great)

In a world of Law and Order, CSI, NCIS, any initial or mystery film you can think the story may seem slight. I do think it's an effective adaptation to attract most newcomers. Today, this story is simply a good episode of your favorite cop show. Which is what I was expecting, but the way some things were done were truly great.

This was pretty darn good, but something keeps it from being truly great. Mainly because none of the suspects ever seem like they truly did it. Every single one of them was way too obvious, so it made the ending a little less surprising because while I did not predict it per se, there were no good red herrings to throw you off. The performances were uniformly great, and the production and costume design, and the makeup and hairstyling are Oscar worthy.

B+

It's interesting you bring that up, because I didn't think about any current day crime equivalents as comparison before, but using those as an example I've found myself being more entertained with an episode of CSI than this film.

B-
I wish I hadn't seen Knives Out before this because it's hard as fuck not to compare.

I remember thinking this looked very dull and boring from the trailers. So I skipped it back in the day, but have now read the book et j'adore le livre tres bien. So I thought, oh well it probably won't be dull and boring now.

Non! I had to watch in two parts because I fell asleep the first time. The big mistake here is that Branaugh should not have directed. He is clearly having a blast playing Hercule Poirot, and his performance is the one thing keeping this movie watchable. The other actors are so stiff though. Worst of all, so is the camera. It never reacts to any of the big revelations. It is just static, keeping its eye on Branuagh and having no other care in the world. Who seriously thought those ceiling shots looked good? Je ne sais pas!

I guess if you didn't know the ending it could have been compelling in that way. The mind swirling with possibilities could make one ignore everything else in the film moving as fast as a train stuck in the snow. Le cinema est tard.

D

This started very promising. Some beautiful visuals. But ultimately it drags and ends up being a train to nowhere.