Murder on the Orient Express (2017) – a review

Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is travelling to London by the luxurious train: the orient express. Then one night one the of the passengers is murdered right under his very nose well groomed moustache. Who is the culprit? Who of the twelve passengers on board had means, motive and opportunity? It’s up to the Belgian sleuth to figure out. 

From all of Agatha Christie’s books ‘Murder on the orient express’ has been turned into a movie quite a lot of times.

Only losing to ‘And then there were none’ – which was made six times so far.

There is the famous 1974-version with Albert Finney. The TV-version with the amazing David Suchet in his career defining role. And the little known (but rather interesting actually) modernized version that has Alfred Molina as the Belgian sleuth.

There’s also a (haven’t seen it yet) Japanese version and a (terrible) videogame so there’s that.

So for Kenneth Branagh’s version things had to be a bit different this time around lest he’d be accused of ‘rehashing’.  Well…in the safe hands of the Shakespearean theatre buff Branagh there are a lot of things that go right in this particular outing. But, alas, to me this version of Murder on the orient express also falls prey to the preferences of the director that don’t always work for me. Let’s start with the positive: the moustache.

The moustache – style.
Kenneth Branagh has always been a rather stylish director. From décor; like his strange timeless setting of Hamlet (1996) or his highly modern version of Sleuth (2007). To strange camera-movements that managed to give Thor (2011) one up on the standard Marvel-fare to that point. This is a man who loves to have fun with a setting and a camera. This ‘20s murder mystery is no exception.

There are long sweeping shots- with never a ‘celeb’ out of sight - at the start of the movie that introduces all the characters. One shot in peculiar has a movie-buff like me giggling: “There’s Dafoe, there’s Dench, there’s Cruz…” The camera picks up on them in the background without focussing on them which sells the idea of an ensemble movie.

Another great example of a shot is the fact that the camera (in the first two investigative scenes) never enters the compartment of the murder victim. The camera hovers above. During the discovery of the body outside of the compartment. At the investigation of the body well above so the audience can’t make out any details.

And then of course there are the final ‘last supper shot’ and  the ‘point-of-view-shot’ from the trailer which thankfully made it into the movie.

So if you know the story by heart then this version of ‘Murder…’ has more than enough cinematic tricks up its sleeve to keep you interested. And that’s even before you get introduced to the powerhouse actors Brannagh has managed to acquire.

The small shoes – Acting
Branagh as Poirot first. Branagh’s Poirot is actually rather pleasing. True, he fails miserably at the ‘egg-shaped head’ of the Belgium detective. But the wonderful moustache and the twinkle in his eyes make up all the better for it. I did however wonder about –at the movie progressed- the ‘activeness’ this rendition of the famous sleuth showcases.
Poirot isn’t a fighting man. In fact, early in the movie you see Poirot bending down to feel the wind blowing underneath a door. Even that’s not Poirot. That’s not the man who walks on painfully small shoes because they look better on him.
So Branagh’s Poirot is a mixed bag for me. He looks and acts the character when he’s speaking to a suspect. But whenever he’s investigating or (dear me) fighting he’s as far removed as Margaret Rutherford was as Miss Marple.

Now in a play that has twelve suspects to be interviewed you can only give so much screen time to each. In short: you are going to get people with minor parts. Derek Jacobi, for instance, only has a three minute scene to leave his mark. But, that’s all an actor of his stature needs. He sits down, plays his part beautifully and leaves.
Each and every actor is perfectly devoted to his/her part: Ridley, Jacobi, Cruz, Dafoe, Depp at his vilest (always great). With, of course, Michelle Pfeiffer standing out as the modern day Lauren Bacall.

With Cruz who has the greatest shoes to fill: Ingrid Bergman's Oscar winning performance.

Personally I wish to tip my hat to Josh Gad. I always enjoy the actor. His role in 21 was nerdy and fun and he never really stopped playing that character-but with a twist. Each time he gives you exactly what you expect but takes it a small step further.

He certainly was the best thing in Beauty and the beast (That and the snowball flooring Belle – sorry I’m a sucker for slapstick comedy).

The accent: music
The music by Patrick Doyle, then, is great in this outing. But I do miss the train element that worked so well in the score of the 1974-version or other ‘train movies’ like The first great train robbery.
The score contains three main tracks (ha!) from Mediterranean, to bombastic to dramatic small. It is never overtaking like a John Williams score can be. Rather it makes its presence known at those little moments of silence whenever the movie demands it.

The (titanium?) cane: What I disliked.
However, there are a few things that I disliked in this version.
For starters casting Leslie Odom Jr. as the doctor. This is a period piece so, due to this casting-choice, racism is going to be part of the story. The problem, however, is that it doesn’t have to be. If the movie decided on a Caucasian actor for the part (the Sean Connery part in the 1974-version) it wouldn’t have to sidetrack by answering questions how a Afro-American man got a degree in Medicine.

This is a two-part critique I always have with Branaghs later movies: he makes it too difficult on himself by including additional elements or he focuses too much on subtext. Let’s start with the latter.

Not Dead again mind you. That movie is practically perfect in every way (LINK)!

Subtext.
His version of Sleuth, for instance, shifted focus on the underlining homosexual tension between the two main characters. True, this tension is right there in the original play but it’s not the most important thing –which is two men trying to outsmart each other.
In ‘Murder…’ the same happens with the final choice Poirot gives the suspects. Yes, the deeply religious Poirot does –deep down inside- want honest justice for crimes committed. He wants to be judge and executioner. But he never gives in until the very end of his life. So by highlighting the subtext Branagh’s movie makes Poirot far more vengeful already than the path he is travelling at.

Additional elements.
‘Murder…’ has two big action sequences the movie could have done without. True, they aren’t very annoying if not for the fact that the ‘walking penguin’ which is Poirot suddenly becomes a bit of an action star.
But what ‘annoyed’ (for want of a better word) me more were the two additional ‘attack’-scenes included (the knife and the gun). Those aren’t in the book and rather overcomplicate an already complicated plot.
So that’s my issue with this rendition of ‘Murder…’ There are things added that didn’t need to be added. Instead this movie could have been even better with more time spent on the suspects. I would’ve loved an additional three minutes of Jacobi or Cruz.

Madame et monsieur
2017’s re-adaptation of Murder on the Orient express works and fails evenly. The characters are well acted and the style of directing is a feast for the eyes. However, the plot muddles with unnecessary additions and a focus on subtext.
Personally I would have preferred the exact same script of the 1974-version with Branagh’s style of directing and (maybe) cast. Now I only got half of the perfect Agatha Christie retelling.
But, then again, after two great versions of the ‘train murder’ it was a hard act to follow. Perhaps Brannagh will find more solid ground on a boating trip down the Nile.