User Reviews

It is Alfred Molina's great misfortune that, in portraying Hercule Poirot, he has been preceded by Peter Ustinov, Albert Finney, and David Suchet. Had this not been true, we might have been tempted to give his performance a higher rating than it is now possible to do.

The original novel by Agatha Christie (same title) is one of the greatest whodunits ever penned. For unknown reasons, Ustinov never did it. My guess is that, although his Poirot films were made after the timely death of the pernicious and much-despised Code, the prospect of a murderer getting away with the crime was still too daunting for Hollywood. Suchet has yet to make Orient, but then it was only last year ('07) that he finally did "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" (with, we hope, Ariadne Oliver). Suchet's voice is used for Poirot in the 2006 Orient Express video game.

So finally, in 2001 a TV version of Orient is made with Alfred Molina in the key role. Alas. Molina is a talented actor. His portrayal of Poirot, while not definitive nor even close, is passable – even pretty good in some ways. However, once we compare him with his predecessors (not to mention the literary original), the problems show up like fat, pendulous, juicy pimples (the kind we all loved to pop back in the day). We all know, for instance, that Poirot was fastidious to the point of school-marmish fussiness. Molina's Poirot is neat and that's about it. Molina's accent is a sort of generalized European, not the pointedly confrontational French that Poirot affected. Molina does use the catch-phrase "little grey cells", but he rattles them out because they're in the script, not because (as is the case) Poirot is obsessive about them. Indeed, Poirot's fundamentally obsessive character is de-emphasized to the point of vanishing. Molin'a Poirot seldom speaks of himself in the third person; Poirot does so rather a lot. His mustache is some short hair under his nose; Poirot's is a fashion statement and accessory that defines his dandified appearance. Molina doesn't wear gloves. Nor spats, but then the date of the mystery has been moved up to about the date the film was made. Anyone who by now believes I haven't made my case doesn't know Hercule.

While Suchet is the best Poirot overall, Ustinov bears away the palm for best actor. He inhabits the role so effectively that we become unconscious of his imposing height and bulk. Finney, who appears in the 1974 Orient, lacks for little in the Poirotishness of his portrayal. This is a competition that Molina simply can't win.

The plot of the 2001 film is, incidentally, pretty much the same as that of the novel and the 1974 film. Poirot is traveling from Istanbul on the famous Orient Express. He shares the first class car with a diverse set of individuals. One of them, a highly unpleasant person (Ratchett) is stabbed to death in the dead of night. There are plenty of clues … in fact, as Finney's Poirot observes and Molina's does not, there are too many of them. The train is stalled in its journey (snow slide in 1974, rock slide in 2001) and the railway's CEO commissions Poirot to find the killer. Through patient questioning and separating false clues from real ones, Poirot does so … twice. If you don't actually know the plot already, your cultural deprivation is truly unfortunate.

The problem with the 2001 production, however, runs deeper than merely the star. It's virtually the whole cast and what the update in time has done to their roles. The update from 1935 to c.2001 was apparently made because the producers figured that education has been so inadequate recently that viewers would never figure out what a White Russian (Princess Dragomirov) is, nor understand references to the Lindburgh kidnapping, nor fail to be puzzled by people going to Iraq for actual constructive purposes (archaeology), nor … well, you get the gist.

The result is that we have characters who are updated but far less interesting. As for the participating actors: recall that in 1974 we get Martin Balsam, Richard Widmark, Wendy Hiller, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud, … well, again you get the gist. Want a cast list of the 2001 film? Well, there's Leslie Caron, and Who? …and Whom? …and What? …and Which? …and …and …and … well, and a group of actors, most of whom are still working. They appear primarily in small roles in TV series episodes and in fairly little-known films. The upshot is that we get OK performances of a fairly uninspired script, and that's about it. The exception is from the one fine actor in the group, Leslie Caron. That's the upside. The downside is that her performance is deeply informed by that of Wendy Hiller as Princess Dragomirov. In this film the character becomes Señora Alvarado, the widow of a fairly nasty Latin American dictator. The problem here is that the character has way more social standing than would someone coming from such a sleazy background. She is in fact treated as the royalty Dragomirov was. That is, the character doesn't really compute … in order to keep character relationships as they were before the rewrite, Alvarado had to be accorded deference even Eva Peron didn't get in exile. Still, Caron manages to convince us of her bona fides. As I said, she's good.

The cold, hard fact is that there are quite a few things on TV that are better than this remake. That's something we can't say about the 1974 original. The Poirot of the remake, Alfred Molina, is a pretty good actor – but for whatever reason he has seriously misconceived the part he plays and as Poirot he winds up in 4th place in a field of 4. The picture, alas, winds up in about 9th place in a field of 2.

A made-for-TV version of the famous Agatha Christie story of a murder committed on the famous Istanbul to Paris train.

What is the point of this film? There is already a big budget movie version that the world and his brother have seen: and having seen the ending half the fun of the film is over before it has started. This one updates the story to the modern day, but this adds nothing - or for that matter takes nothing away.

The one thing it proves is that the movie can be told in a shorter time than the big screen version. Alfred Molina tackles the central of Hercule Poirot without being showy. The rest of the cast come and go like the TV actors they no doubt are.

A very average product.

Too updated for my tastes. I really liked the version with Albert Finney from 1974. Who can argue with Sean Connery, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins and Richard Widmark? I also think their dropping four of the participants in this modernized version really reduced it and their use of the Internet rather cheapens it. Searching by Google tells rather than slowly reveals. It made detective work far too easy.

Don't think me a purist. I thoroughly enjoyed the David Suchet version. Actually I thought it was one of the better "Poirot" scripts. I look forward to the Branagh version in 2017.

I will give this version five stars. It wasn't bad but the script took far too many liberties with Poirot's character and with the story. I've seen decent modern age Poirot before, like the Thirteen For Dinner from 1985. They knew what to update and what to leave alone.

Having seen the theatrical film version of "Murder on the Orient Express" when it was first released back in the 1970's, and having thoroughly enjoyed it, I was very skeptical about a remake of it, especially knowing that this production was made for CBS-TV and being giving its first airing on commercial television, instead of being done on PBS's "Mystery".

My radar shot up the minute I heard John Leonard's favorable review of it on "CBS Sunday Morning". Leonard is an extremely articulate, pseudopoetic writer, and more often than not, a sardonic and harsh critic, and he does not endorse remakes of popular hits easily--except, perhaps, when they air on CBS, the network he just happens to work for.

My fears were fully justified. This film is the most crass retelling of an Agatha Christie novel I have ever seen. The story has been updated from 1934 to the present in order to give Hercule Poirot the oh-so-trendy oppotunity to work on the case by plugging into a laptop. The glamorous aspects of the original film, with its elegant, stylish, upper-class look, are totally gone.

So, instead of getting butlers and former army colonels as suspects, we get fitness experts and trainers who run around in T-shirts and sports coats, and who speak with Bronx accents. And Meredith Baxter, of all people, plays Mrs. Hubbard, the compulsive talker played so well in the original by the legendary Lauren Bacall. In fact, none of the performances here are memorable, especially when they have to compete against the likes of Ingrid Bergman, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Sean Connery, Richard Widmark (whose character is played here by Peter Strauss!), Martin Balsam, Jacqueline Bisset, Wendy Hiller, and Michael York. And Alfred Molina, while quite good as Hercule Poirot, still can't hold a candle to Albert Finney in the original, not to mention Peter Ustinov and David Suchet as later incarnations of the detective.

Worse yet, while some seemingly small details have been left the same, some vitally important ones have been changed, one of them being the number of passengers, an important element in the original. Some of Poirot's deductions, rather than being revealed as surprises toward the end, are explained about two-thirds of the way through.

But the vilest crime committed in this film, is the implication, at the end, that Poirot has been having, shall we say, a less-than-platonic relationship with a beautiful woman! (She appears out of nowhere in the final scene, smiling at him, and calling him "Hercule".) This, an utter desecration of the 'cold-fish" Poirot that we all know and love, is a betrayal as sacrilegeous as William Gillette having Sherlock Holmes fall in love in his 19th century stage play!

Avoid this, unless you are masohistic, have a relative in the cast, or think that TV remakes are always better than the original films.

This is a made for TV movie. Made for TV movies rarely match up to made for cinema movies. But yes, see it - if you've seen the Lumet original that is. It's better than nothing and the story is of course great.

About the story: actually it's better if you see the Lumet version first (and even read the book) because it's an amazing story and because you'll find the screenwriters for this version have done the unforgivable again.

The acting's OK, the direction is basically OK too (although there are some scenes that just die) but above and beyond anything else it's the screenplay which sends this one to the skip.

Why do these people take a winning formula and think they can make a classic like this better? The original had poetry. There was symmetry and symbolism which gave the audience warmth. This insensitive screenwriter seems to not have understood the small masterpiece he was commissioned to update.

For that matter, why remake it at all? Dare we speculate? Someone's nephew wanted a chance at screen writing? Someone with clout in a studio decided to back this one?

It's not all negative. There are good moments too. And unlike others here, we thought Molina was good.

But you don't go corrupting a winning formula. See it - but only after you've seen the Lumet original (and preferably read the book). Only then will any enjoyment be guaranteed.

Then prepare to be flattered. This film has long since been shunted aside as the dubious and inferior version of the 1974 classic. And while it's true that the 'made-for-tv' label lacks the star-studded ensemble which had Lauren Bacall leading a troupe that would be virtually impossible to recast today, especially given the salary and artistic 'demands' of current leading performers; what's completely overlooked is that this film *works*.

I first saw this when it was broadcast on a local CBS affiliate in 2001, not out of interest but curiosity. How would Alfred Molina interpret the role so memorably and indelibly created by Albert Finney? How would the writers craft the isolation needed for the plot to work - given this takes place in modern times and deals with the virtual impossibility of escaping the information world? And most importantly, how would the director and writers create enough drama for this, one of the best loved "murder-mysteries" in filmdom, when everyone even remotely familiar with the original film production knows in advance how it all ends?

Despite all those hurdles, I was impressed. Molina delivers a wonderful performance as the dandified private detective. Even going so far as to give us a wonderful (and accurate) character revelation - seen early in the film when he must deal with the loss of a beautiful and vivacious woman. And speaking of which - when did it become okay to accept implied homosexuality in character where Christie herself had Poirot of the novels hopelessly in love with a woman? (Countess Vera Rossakoff) How and when does his sexuality even become Poirot's most important character trait to comment on? The amount of reviewers here suggesting that very thing is STUNNING. Read the books before making assumptions! I'd like to quote TV character Frasier Crane here (another metrosexual like Poirot) and say, "I've never seen anyone 'in' themselves before."

And to the "reviewer" who points to the inaccuracy of the real Orient Express' existence. Well, duh, it's *explained in the film*. Guess you wouldn't know that if you had watched the film in the first place. And if you had, why point out the "inaccuracy"? Don't try to ply your con here you pretentious fop. (this reviewer actually has the nerve to claim humility in his post - incredible)

Still, I do agree that Meredith Baxter was terribly miscast. Never an actress of great ability, her portrayal in the key role of Caroline Hubbard was far beyond her reach. And her screeching voice does tend to wear on you. However, I'd like to offer up cheers to Dylan Smith, who did an absolutely outstanding job as the gimmick entrepreneur and freshly born capitalist Tony Foscarelli - he was hilarious!

I can recall early in 2001, when hearing about this production, speaking with a fellow film fan about how shocking it was that David Suchet was not cast in the role he had been steadily doing for more than ten years in the ongoing BBC series. But after seeing this film - I have to tell you that Molina does a fantastic job. Within ten minutes he was Hercule Poirot. Admittedly a touch more gregarious and less coiffed-n-dandified than you would expect. And quite a bit taller than imagined by Christie, but still a worthy interpretation.

There are far too many reviewers here who seem to be extremely priggish themselves. Frothing over the '74 version as if it we were talking 'Casablanca' or 'Gone With The Wind' where recreation or reinterpretation is truly impossible. Relativity. Everything is relative and should be placed in its proper context. It's been nearly *thirty years* since the Lumet version. My God, an entire human generation has been born, grown up, and had kids of their own since 1974. Are you so entrenched in your own wistful memories of youth to deny another generation Poirot and Christie? That's well-aged hubris and denial talking. "No, it's *our* story", "No, *ours* is better!" Can you hear the creaking bones of the baby boomers? (I'm one myself so don't go pointing your cane at me)

I would encourage you to find your own path and not be deterred by doddering old codgers who won't give up the torch. Sometimes you have to TAKE it from their decrepit clutches. Especially the Boomers - who are obviously not going to do so gracefully.

Is this as good as the 1974 version? No. But, is it as good as the story it wants to tell? Yes, very much so. Check out both films and enjoy the subtle variations of a new storyteller.

The 1974 movie of this book was a mixed bag. Obligations to the all-star cast caused most of the problems, as the writers and editors jockeyed to give everyone an equitable amount of screen time, an actorly moment and some close-ups. This prevented it from being a very deep film, and Sidney Lumet is really only a workmanlike filmmaker. But still, despite those limitations, there is much pleasure in the earlier version; the wordless flashback prologue of a kidnapping is beautifully done. Rare for a murder mystery, the unfolding of the solution provides a startling, satisfying emotional payload.

For this retelling, a decision was made to update the material to the contemporary era. The topical references that acknowledge the world has changed since the thirties really achieve naught, except perhaps alleviating some writers fear that the material is passé... There's too many of these self-conscious references (to air travel, the internet, VCRs, taking the Express out of mothballs, Ross Perot) and they become annoying. Other changes are there simply because filmmakers thought it would make it more conventional (Hercule Poirot has a ridiculous romantic interest, "Vera"). The biggest bummer is the substitution of a utilitarian diesel engine for the original stylish steam locomotive. Thud.

Ultimately these revisions add nothing to the movie and seem to have taken the focus off producing a tight, compelling, methodical script.

The highlight of the previous movie was the cross-cutting between the temporal time-frame and the crime. This movie lifts that technique, but doesn't really come up with any contribution of it's own. The color palette, the research and the envisioning of the crime were all more vivid in the earlier version.

Alfred Molina is pretty bad in this. It just isn't interesting.

Normally, I am not the kind of critic who tears some film to pieces only because it tries to modernize a material already known. But in this case, I really don't know where to start with my complaints.

What good is there in modernizing a crime novel by Agatha Christie whose main character is liked by many mainly because of his slightly old-fashioned style? In this film, Poirot uses the internet to support his grey cells; the characters he interrogates are software tycoons and personal trainers; and, worst of all, he is shown terribly in love with a sexy Russian woman (who, moreover, is given the name of the original old lady on the train, who is here unnecessarily replaced by the widow of a South American dictator!). This is not Hercule Poirot, this is not Agatha Christie, and therefore, the whole movie itself doesn't make any sense. Sidney Lumet's brilliant 1974 film version starring Albert Finney, was perfectly all right.

Although they wanted to put as many fashionable modernisms into the story as possible, the filmmakers tried to retain as many elements of the original structure as possible – and suffered an embarrassing failure. A lot of logical problems arise out of this frantic `adaptation': In the year 2001, why does a business man whose life is under threat, awkwardly travel by train rather than by plane? Why can't, in a period of cell phones and internet (the availability of which is quite frequently demonstrated), police be at the scene of the crime in less than an hour? And watch out for the ridiculous pile of stones that is supposed to prevent the Orient Express from proceeding for more than a whole day!

The list of idiotic features is long. The essence of it is: Friends of Poirot, do not watch this TV movie! It is the most awful literary adaptation one can imagine. By the way, it is the first movie ever I have ranked 1 out of possible 10 points.

...and this is on its own merits(which I consider a fairer way of judging a book adaptation) as well as an adaptation. This version of Murder on the Orient Express does have brownie points for its sumptuous settings and a good performance from Leslie Caron. Of the cast though, only Caron makes an impression. Alfred Molina is a fine actor, but is too impersonal and lacking in energy as Poirot (how he's written is a large part of the problem though), with an accent that is never consistent(though not as bad as Tony Randall's in The Alphabet Murders). Apart from Meredith Baxter, who's unbearably shrill, annoying and just wrong, the supporting roles are not disastrous, just not very memorable.

They are not entirely to blame though. The characters are nowhere near as interesting and are pale shadows of their book characters. Poirot in particular is written to the extent that he doesn't seem like Poirot with little here that makes him so unique as a character. The dialogue is stilted and could have been more intelligent and subtly humorous like Agatha Christie's prose, again apart from the title and without the knowledge of who wrote it you wouldn't know if it was Christie who wrote the story. Poirot's deductions are introduced too quickly and too soon for example. The story also suffers. It is an ingenious mystery, but feels rushed and lacking in mystery and suspense(two essential ingredients to Christie and any crime-mystery drama). Some may find it more solidly paced than the Albert Finney version, but actually for me the pacing of Finney's was wholly appropriate for the development of the characters and how the story unfolded, and also preferable.

Murder on the Orient Express(2001) does try to stick to the spirit of the original story, but also makes the decision to update it to the present day. Having a story set in the 30s(?) with modern references and products just didn't gel, especially as Christie's settings and writing were always so specific, and perhaps dates the story. And this was a similar problem I had with the Oliver Ford-Davies version of Sparkling Cyanide. The way the film was shot was not too bad, but at the same time there was nothing remarkable, competent but never above good TV quality. The music fits more with the present day setting and didn't come across as memorable to me.

Overall, a mess on its own merits and a poor adaptation of one of the Queen of Crime's best ever mysteries. See Finney's version instead, still one of my favourite Agatha Christie adaptations to this day, and while it has its problems the David Suchet(the definitive Poirot) was also better than this. 2/10 Bethany Cox

Although I was disappointed that Granada Television never did a version of this story with David Suchet, the definitive Poirot, none the less I did enjoy this updated version of the story of a murder on the world famous luxury train. While, like many I was partial to the star studded cast of the 1974 version with Albert Finny, I have always felt that Finny's Poirot was a way overblown Charicture of Poirot, as were all of those Peter Ustinov portrayals. But Molina's essay of the Belgian sleuth, was in the best possible tradition. By the way, if anyone wants to see a perfectly disgusting rape of a Poirot story don't miss the 1966 Tony Randall film "The Alphabet Murders." That film is absolutely the worst Poirot film in history. Randall is not bad in the part, but the script and direction was a direct slap in the face of Christie. But back to this film. Given that almost everyone who knows Poirot is already familiar with this story, I found it to be a very entertaining 100 minutes.

As this is the first adaptation of Mrs. Christie's book I've seen, I thought it was quite interesting. Kudos to Alfred Molina for his portrayal of Poirot and kudos to the other actors. I never knew how well a movie adaptation could be!

I swear I really tried to watch this version of Murder on the Orient Express without comparing it to the 1974 Sidney Lumet film, but like this movie, I failed miserably. This made-for-TV movie lacks much of the class, style, and glamour of the '74 version (and the book for that matter). Talk of VCRs, fitness trainers, and computer styluses seem cheap in comparison to dragon kimonos, pipe cleaners, and butlers. The acting also lacks the class of the '74 film. With the exception of Leslie Caron, none of the other actors are worth mentioning in the same breath with Ingrid Bergman, John Gielgud, or Richard Widmark. The worst offender has to be Meredith Baxter. I couldn't watch a single second of her performance and not be reminded of the great Lauren Bacall. Plot points have been changed that really hurt the story. As Col. Arbuthnot so emphatically put it in the first, "Trial by twelve good men and true... is a sound system." Why change it to nine? This is just one example, I could go on and on about plot changes that I couldn't get past. Finally, Alfred Molina is no doubt a fine actor, but he's not Poirot (and I'm sure the screenwriters are as much to blame for this). I've read a lot of criticisms of Albert Finney's portrayal of Poirot, but to me, he nailed most of the idiosyncrasies that made Agatha Christie's character so unique. Sure, he went overboard at times, but Molina's character never even seems to try to be Poirot. And, what's with the love story involving Poirot? Like the rest of this movie, it's all wrong.

In summary, if you want to watch Murder on the Orient Express, skip this one and check out the 1974 film. Or better yet, read the book.

This isn't any good.

It's too modernized.

Get it?

No, seriously, they would have been better off sticking to Christie's original source and making it more like the 1974 film starring Albert Finney. (Which is what my TV guide had listed in place of this atrocity.) This made-for-TV version is with Alfred Molina, who lacks energy and umph. No wonder. The material is rather dire and the film is a complete mess. Someone references O.J. Simpson. Please.

Don't see this.

See the 1974 version.

This so thoroughly pales in comparison to the stylish 1974 outing that it is hard to see any purpose in doing it. Moving it to a contemporary setting not only deletes the glamor and style, it means that modern methods of criminal investigation make Poirot-style detection obsolete, and modern methods of travel make Orient Express- style travel a sentimental curiosity rather than the fastest way to go.

The real question is why movie people so often remake films that were excellent in their original. If you can't improve on the earlier film, why do it? Maybe the effort to remake old movies would be better concentrated on originals that weren't very good in the first place. There are plenty of those to go around.

If you like the Agatha Christie films to be faithful to the book or view them as period movies then forget this one. However ! If you like whodunit movies no matter what, then this one is OK. It's not the best of it's kind but you'll have a nice 90 (or so ) minutes. Yes it's updated ( computers, mobiles) and yes Poirot has a love interest. But that does not mean that it's a bad movie. I liked the 1974 one better and the book even more so but i can see that this movie is entertaining as well, just not as good as the 1974 one. As for Poirot i have to say that i did not care much for Finney's portrayal and Molino does not do it any better. Suchett and Ustinov are my favorites. For those who would like to have the DVD : it's for sale in The Netherlands. Together with the TV movie The Pale Horse it has been released as the DVD box "Agatha Christie Mystery Box ".

Somebody has said the film is very good but one should read the book. I believe tue film is bad and, instead of reading the book, one should see the previous version by Sidney Lumet. What a film!!!! This TV version is weak: with the modernization of the plot it has lost credibility, and the setting in tue Orient Express has lost its magic, Poirot looks ridiculous, Leslie Caron is pathetic in her impassivity, the others do their best but the final result is very poor.

It is not to be recomended to people who have already seen Lumet's version: the most fabulous group of fine actresses and actors, dressed in magnificent clothes and set in a fabulous reconstruction of what had been the most luxurious means of transport in the first half of the XXth. century.

Based on a well-read Agatha Christie novel, this movie has been made several times. Of course, everyone has a different impression of Hercule Poirot. Because this was a movie and follows a screenplay it does not have to be the book. However, the teleplay play by Stephen Harrigan seemed a tad contrived and Molina seems to be sleepwalking through it. The real problem comes in trying to adapt it to a different era. So far every attempt to bring Christie into the modern age has met with the problem that it is the era that adds the charm and mystery to the story, not the plot.

Only the quality of the incredible story by Agatha Christie keeps this "film"'s head above water.

Molina's interpretation of Poirot is misguided and entirely inaccurate. He certainly is not embroiled in a love affair either.

Poirot is far less obvious in his methods and a whole lot more eccentric, not forgetting that Poirot is a short, bald overweight man - surely more of an effort could have been made with the moustaches!!!!!!!!!!

Just when you thought it could not be any worse the epilogue is the worse kind of trash imaginable - fingers down throat ensues.

Maybe you have to be American to get it??!?!?!?!?!

This is a perfect example how casting can spoil a good script.

I have just finished reading 12 works of Hercules Poirot and somewhere in the middle I have realized why most of the books and stories have been filmed. The answer is simple - Agatha Christie uses very few words to describe her characters. So you as a director or cast responsible person have full freedom to choose and build. However Poirot is always a small tiny man with mustache...

Molina is big..... big man..... Dr Octavius.... and other very good roles.

Peter Strauss is very good as a villain since he is simply a very good actor able to be good and bad - just like Johnny Depp in other adaptation what probably lead him to Fantastic Beasts bad guy - very good performance unfortunately destroyed by personal scandals.

The rest - so so.

Anyway - it is rather a theater school attempt to film this book. I enjoyed Keneth Brannagh version too. But this one is simply someone's idea and someone's version. It proves how versatile Agatha's writing is.

My low rating comes out of Molina yet I love him as an actor.

Alfred Molina stars as the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot who even in a modern age of computers still prefers his little gray cells even though one of the suspects in this modernized 21st century remake of Murder On The Orient Express is a dot com millionaire. The little gray cells still work pretty well and as we know Molina comes up with two solutions for the murder.

Which is of Peter Strauss a rather crass and wealthy American who is getting death threats and he wants to know the source. When Molina turns him down later that night on the train Strauss is stabbed several times in his sleep. The officials on the Orient Express ask Molina to take charge of the investigation while a landslide blocks their path.

For anyone who has seen the big screen version which contained an all star cast I won't go into details. But that version is set at a time when traveling on the Orient Express was a matter of class and elegance and you got performances of the cast reflecting that. Agatha Christie stories be they Miss Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot, or Tommy&Tuppence should always stay in the period they are written in. They lose so much when they are not.

Standing out among the passengers are Meredith Baxter as a minor American TV actress and Leslie Caron as the widow of a South American dictator.

Compared to the big screen version this one is good root beer as opposed to elegant champagne.

Murder on the Orient Express is a 2001 made-for-television mystery film directed by Carl Schenkel based on the 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie, featuring Hercule Poirot. This version is set in the present day and has a smaller cast than the novel. The screenplay was written by Stephen Harrigan and the original music score was composed by Christopher Franke.

I am no cinephile, so I rarely comment here. However, I am an aficionado of Dame Agatha Christie, and have read everything she has written (as Agatha). I think I am correct in quoting her as having said, "I do know something about character and plot development," and I really hate and detest Hollywoodizing a novel which has sold millions of copies.

I like equally the Albert Finney and the David Suchet versions, but abominate most other attempts to define the character who David Suchet does so well. Please don't do any more updates like this. I nearly barfed.