I must disagree with my fellow reviewers. I liked adding the Catholic aspect to Poirot's persona as portrayed by the brilliant David Suchet, who is far more real than Finney, Ustinov, Randall or Molina ever were. A case such as this would trouble a man like him, and surely he would have to answer the arguments of a "higher law." As a middle-aged French Belgian man in the 1930s, he would most likely be a Roman Catholic, and Christie did mention it. He would not be ultra-religious because he had rosary beads, at least not by the standards of the day. Most Roman Catholics did then. Just because his faith never came into play in his other cases doesn't mean this case would not challenge it.When did any of his other cases have a victim who deserved to die so much? When was he ever called upon to denounce so many killers at once,most of whom were basically decent people whose actions were understandable, if not justifiable. I have read the book. Christie's words, brilliant as they are, are not carved in stone. I believe the ending of this version improved upon the book. Poirot's tears gave the story the most powerful ending any writer could devise. Sometimes, the "little gray cells" don't have all the answers. There could not be a more moving and thought-provoking end.
Review of Murder on the Orient Express
