Re-Oriented

It was not so long ago that I reviewed the film Murder on the Orient Express. But I was recently intrigued enough to revisit the story again. Not that same 1974 film, nor the original book on which it is based. Rather, the new film made this year as part of the "Poirot" TV movie series.

Actor David Suchet has been playing the role of Agatha Christie's detective Hercule Poirot on this ongoing series for over 20 years. He aims to complete Christie's entire collected writings on the character before he's through. I was curious to see how a more modern (though, of course, not modernized) take on the same story might come across.

Aside from Suchet himself, the only other actor in this production you're likely to know is Barbara Hershey. (Though if you watch Stargate: Universe, you'll recognize that show's Brian J. Smith.) It's not a star-driven affair like the original film. But I actually found the acting to be stronger here, by and large. Part of that is the change of styles in acting over time, with a move toward more subtle and natural acting even since the mid-1970s. But some of it is also a more finely tuned script.

Once again, I'll try to tiptoe around the solution to the murder mystery in this story, on the off chance that (famous though it is) you haven't heard it. This new adaptation does a much better job of making the pieces lead up to that ending in an organic way. Specific lines of dialogue, certain behaviors of characters, and exchanged glances here and there, all play better than the 1974 film, in which the ending felt like it came more unearned. Here, knowledge of the ending actually lent another level of enjoyment to the proceedings; I found I could watch it and spot dozens of little moments along the way that very clearly "tracked" with the destination.

I noted that the original film dragged a bit in its first act, taking an uncomfortably long time to even begin the journey by train. Here, the movie gets right to it -- while still making time for a little vignette of invented material at the beginning in which we see a woman stoned on the street by an unruly mob. (A thematically important scene that, while not from the mind of Agatha Christie, adds a nice texture to the piece.)

Poirot is a far more eccentric character here than he was in the 1974 film. He speaks of himself by name (a crime-solving Elmo, if you will), has unusual tics, and is generally much more disdainful of people. I suppose this sort of characterization wouldn't have flown in a one-off film, but is much more appropriate to an ongoing series. It's more interesting, for sure, and David Suchet plays it well.

But where the 1974 film started slow and eventually built up steam, this adaptation starts strong, and then slows down. The story itself has an unfortunately necessary bit of exposition about why the victim is murdered. It slows down the action, but there's no real way around having to tell it. The 1974 film did this up front; this film places it in the middle. It's no surprise that both movies drag when this element of the plot bubbles up.

Also, while this film takes more liberties in the beginning and very end of the tales (making more of a moral dilemma about Poirot's solving of the case), the middle chunk is a pretty slavish mirroring of the 1974 film. (And, one assumes, the book.) Here, the movie suffers a bit if you know where it's going, as opposed to that fun opening act that tantalizes viewers in the know. You can't have it both ways the whole time, I suppose.

In the end, I'd call this version on par with the first film. Both have strengths and weaknesses, and both work out to about a B- in my book. I'm not sure I'd suggest you do as I did and watch both. If you've seen neither, I'd probably recommend this one, but if you've seen the other, there's probably no need to catch it... unless you, like me, have some interest in comparing and contrasting.