Film Review: Murder on the Orient Express
I read Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie for the first time this years, and it quickly became a favorite. The 2017 film Murder on the Orient Express is the most recent adaptation of the best-selling Agatha Christie novel. The screenplay was written by Michael Green, and the film was directed by Kenneth Branagh. The film had one of the most impressive casts I have ever seen, so here is a roundup:
Hercule Poirot: Kenneth Branagh
Edward Ratchett: Johnny Depp
Mary Debenham: Daisy Ridley
Hector MacQueen: Josh Gad
Edward Masterman: Derek Jacobi
Dr. Arbuthnot (originially Colonel Arbuthnot): Leslie Odom Jr.
Caroline Hubbard: Michelle Pfeiffer
Princess Dragomiroff: Dame Judi Dench
Hildegarde Schmidt: Olivia Colman
Biniamino Marquez (originally Antonio Foscanelli): Manuel Garcia-Rulfo
Pilar Estravados (originially Greta Ohlsson): Penélope Cruz
Gerhard (Cyrus) Hardman: Willem Dafoe
Countess Andrenyi: Lucy Boynton
Count Andrenyi: Sergi Polunin
M. Bouc: Tom Bateman
As I’ve said in the past, I am not very picky about changes made in film adaptations, as long as the spirit of the story remains. There were several changes in this adaptation, but I believe they worked very well. For a film adaptation of a book, I have very few complaints. Firstly, I felt that Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot was…different. Not necessarily bad, just different. Poirot in the film was much more vivacious than I felt he was in the book. My biggest qualm was the portrayal of the evidence and Poirot’s deductions. I know screenwriters work with a limited time frame, but I did feel that all of the evidence and deductions were presented very quickly, and the charm of Poirot’s investigative skills was lost. In the novel, you can see how to chain of events leads to Poirot’s deduction. However, in the film, I feel like a lot of steps were skipped and Poirot just magically came up with the answers. I also found the connections between the passengers and the Armstrong family more obvious from the beginning, and not as much work was put into discovering those connections.
However, there were several changes that I felt had no impact or positively influenced the story:
The film opened with a look into Poirot’s previous assignment in Jerusalem. I felt this scene was a great way to introduce Poirot, as it displayed his skills as a detective.
There was an interesting aspect added to Poirot. He is very picky about his hardboiled eggs. This was the only book of the Poirot series I read, so I don’t know if this characteristic was established in other books.
Instead of meeting Mary Debenham and Arbuthnot on a connecting train, the characters are introduced on a ferry, which takes them to the train station.
This adaptation had a very strong comedic aspect that did not exist in Christie’s novel. Though it did change the vibe of the story, I found it charming.
Some characters were portrayed differently. Instead of the Swedish maid named Greta Ohlsson, the character became Pilar Estravados, a Spanish missionary. Cyrus Hardman’s disguise was changed from an American businessman to Gerhard Hardman, an Austrian professor. There were also some name changes, such as Arbuthnot being a doctor and not a colonel, and Antonio Foscanelli to Biniamino Marquez. The character of Dr. Constantine was removed all together, and Dr. Arbuthnot was the one to inspect Ratchett’s body.
We are also given a deeper look into Ratchett. We see the series of threatening letters he receives, and his exchange with Poirot is very different. He tells Poirot his life is in danger because he has been dealing art forgeries, and when Poirot denies the offer to protect Ratchett, he is threatened with a gun.
The train was not stuck in a snowdrift, but an avalanche derailed the engine.
Many of the characters kept accidentally calling Poirot “Hercules”, which I thought was hilarious.
Almost all of the evidence remained the same, but the evidence of Mrs. Hubbard’s door being unlocked was not included.
In the film, after Poirot discovers the murder is connected to the Armstrong case, we discover that Col. Armstrong actually contacted Poirot, seeking help to solve his daughter’s murder. By the time Poirot received the letter, Col. Armstrong had already committed suicide.
The rescue team sent to dig out the train arrived much earlier, which added more pressure to the plot.
There was more action in the film. After Poirot finds out that MacQueen was stealing from Ratchett, MacQueen tries to burn Ratchett’s financial records and escape from the train. Instead of finding the knife hidden in someone’s luggage, Mrs. Hubbard is stabbed in the shoulder. Lastly, as the case is close to being solved, Dr. Arbuthnot shoots Poirot in the shoulder to draw blame away from Mary.
As Poirot discusses his findings, all of the passengers are removed from the train to a nearby tunnel. It is here that Poirot offers his two solutions: the killer escaped, or all of the passengers were involved in an elaborate plot. All the passengers’ connections to the Armstrong family are revealed, and all remain the same as they were in the book, with the exception of Pierre Michelle. In the book, he was the father of the French maid who committed suicide, but in the film, she was his sister.
When all the passengers confess, Poirot hands a gun to Mrs. Hubbard, now exposed as Linda Arden. He says they must kill him, because he will not be able to lie for them. It is at this point that Arden turns the gun on herself, but it is not loaded. Poirot takes this as punishment enough, and he gives his first solution of the killer escaping to the authorities.
I truly enjoyed this adaptation. Though there were several changes, I found most of them to be beneficial or to have little influence on the story. The overall plot remained the same, the underlying racial issues presented in the novel were still addressed, and the film offered fantastic cinematography. If you are a fan of Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express, you will not be disappointed in the newest film adaptation.
