(Possible Spoilers)
I could not simply confine myself to a finite number
of words for this review. Murder on the
Orient Express was my most anticipated
film of year and, therefore, required room. Lots of room…
*
I think the only way to
properly set the stage when discussing Kenneth Branagh’s new adaptation of
Agatha Christie’s game-changing mystery is to briefly discuss my relationship
with the two most notable screen iterations of the tale. The 1974 adaptation
starring Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, and a host of others under the direction
of Sidney Lumet, is a brilliant film. It’s presentation of the central mystery
is engaging; the film’s suspects are beautifully-characterized; and it feels
lavish and opulent in the best way possible. The 2010 TV adaptation for Agatha Christie’s Poirot, on the other
hand, is a grave disappointment. Despite featuring a moving performance from
David Suchet as Hercule Poirot, the made-for-television movie feels incredibly
rushed, and its focus on the moral implications of Christie’s mystery feels
lackluster.
With all of these
thoughts firmly in mind, I went into this latest outing perhaps more excited
than I ought to have been. But, why shouldn’t I be excited? Kenneth Branagh is
one of my favorite actors. He’s also one of my favorite directors. Agatha
Christie is my favorite author and Murder
on the Orient Express I consider one of her best. The assembled cast –
Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Leslie Odom Jr., Judi Dench, et. al. – was the very definition of
top-notch. Despite these things, the final product did not match my
preconceived notions nor did it match the brilliance of the ’74 original.
HOWEVER, Murder on the Orient Express
still emerges as both an entertaining and engaging mystery and a finely-crafted
film.
Arguably the weakest part
of Murder on the Orient Express is
its screenplay. While parts of it shine – which I’ll come back to in a minute –
its handling of the mystery felt half-baked. I understand that a more
swiftly-moving storyline is just the way movies are told nowadays, but the
script gave few of the characters the chance to really shine. Whereas in the ’74
original, each suspect had the opportunity to tackle a scene themselves. There
were characters in this version who we barely got to meet or interact with at
all. Even the handful of pointless changes to the narrative did not bother me
as much as the lack of connection the script had with its characters.
Conversely, the screenplay
created a beautiful character arc for Branagh’s Poirot. At the outset of the
film, Poirot tells us that he sees the world only in black and white; moral
ambiguity simply does not exist to him. By the end of the film, however, Poirot
is forced to reconsider his stringent worldview. The 2010 adaptation attempted
something very similar but the writing herein feels much more genuine. And, as
a result, Hercule Poirot feels much more like an actual human being.
The acting across the
board was excellent. Michelle Pfeiffer was perfect as the loud American widow
accused of husband-hunting abroad. Josh Gad blew me away as the alcoholic
Macqueen, secretary to Johnny Depp’s former gangster. Depp himself turned in an
intriguing performance making the most of his limited screen-time. Whenever
Depp was on screen, I couldn’t help but have my eye drawn to him.
Without doubt, though,
the finest performance in the film was delivered by Kenneth Branagh. While
David Suchet had 13 seasons to flesh out his portrayal of the Belgian sleuth
and I am endeared to Albert Finney from years of watching his performance in
the 1974 original, I can objectively say that Branagh turned in one of his best
performances, and certainly one of the best as Christie’s detective. Branagh
was simply a powerhouse in the film – his Poirot starting out as little more
than a caricature and slowing being endowed with more and more humility and
depth. Poirot’s transformation, therefore, could perhaps be viewed as the real
heart of the movie.
Branagh proved himself
just as adept behind the camera too. Of course, confined to the train itself for
much of the movie’s runtime called for innovative camerawork, and the use of
overhead shots, POV shots, and long-takes made for an incredibly visually
stimulating movie. Having chosen to shoot on 65mm and utilizing the most select
tools from a cinematographer’s bag of tricks, Branagh made his claustrophobic
story feel grand.
Despite what I may have
hoped going in, Kenneth Branagh’s Murder
on the Orient Express is not a perfect film. It did not usurp the hallowed
1974 version in my mind, but then again, I probably never thought it would.
Branagh’s movie emerges as an engaging mystery/thriller of a kind which movie
audiences probably have not seen much of in many years. In a movie market which
is today flooded with cookie-cutter action films and superhero knock-offs, one
can only hope that Murder on the Orient
Express can prove that this type of storytelling is not dead: a movie which
challenges its audience and encourages them to put their own little grey cells to work.