woosterek100 Whoever controlled the rights to Agatha Christie's work and permitted this awful movie to be produced should be flogged. Updating a Christie classic and setting it in the present could have worked really well. However, instead of sharp plotting and good dialogue, the writers chose to do this by endlessly beating us over the head with pop culture references such as the Popiel Pocket Fisherman and Elton John. Alfred Molina is a decent Poirot except for his constant musing over his problems with his hot girlfriend. And lest we momentarily forget that this is a SUPER MODERN take on the story, the clues have been updated as well: notes are replaced with VHS tapes and diaries with Palm Pilots. All of these innovations don't actually do anything to advance the plot in any way. The cast is largely unknown save for a few recognizable faces such as Meredith Baxter who hysterically chews through the scenery, and Leslie Caron who just looks embarrassed to be there. Stick with the Oscar winning 1974 version, or better yet, read the book.

Dylan Keyne At the time of first watching this version of Murder on the Orient Express, I had not yet read the book. Nor had I seen the "amazing" other films. Indeed, the only reason I picked it up was to complete my Peter Strauss collection!! Having since become familiar with other versions, I feel somewhat better qualified now to write a review. I have to say that the 1974 version with the star-studded cast is probably only so highly regarded because of its star-studded cast. Some have even suggested watching the '74 film *instead* of reading the book. First off - Nothing will ever compare to the book. Secondly - This is a 'made for TV' version and doesn't try to be anything more. It does make a few attempts to be unique and interesting, or at least different, by attempting to modernise the tale. It does so because many of the original references are no longer relevant and will not generally be understood by audiences younger than about 50. But alas, herein lies it's very downfall. Many reviewers have already ranted about the 'crimes' against Christie's original. Personally, I can see where they were trying to go with this version, but still regret the omission of characters and the changing of certain key plot details - The most glaring is the reduction of the Twelve persons involved down to Nine. The reason 12 were included was to be the same number as that of a jury. Without this I feel the story is too far compromised. What I will mention is that, while Alfred Molina's performance does not begin to compare to David Suchet, he does offer a very unique interpretation of the character. The performance was enjoyable enough, but Molina is no Suchet. In my mind, Suchet is the ONLY Poirot and indeed, Christie's grandson himself has expressed how Suchet is the most convincing Poirot. I can very easily accept Molina as a 'young' Poirot, perhaps fairly early on in his career. I would call this a 'pocket-money' role - Something an actor does for a bit of cash on the side. With that in mind, the rest is standard TV movie faire, with two exceptions...Peter Strauss, the very reason I bought the DVD, always impresses me when he plays a 'bad guy'. Strauss is often cast as a neat, suave, smooth sort of 'nice guy', well suited to wearing a suit. However, he happens to do 'nasty piece of work' exceptionally well and I fear that his impressive performance here is utterly buried beneath the sludge of the movie itself. The second is the makeup department. A lot of their work is subtle, so much so that those not very familiar with members of the cast might not notice just how much of a transformation has been worked on these actors. Strauss in particular looks so different when portraying Cassetti ... truly evil!!The good news is that David Suchet has now filmed a proper version of Murder on the Orient Express, which is slated for screening later this month (July 2010). Overall - This 2001 version is good watch if you have never encountered Poirot before. It also stands up just as well if you have never read the books or seen a Suchet portrayal. Perhaps something I would recommend as an introduction, or for a young audience.

BeafyBear This is an awful adaptation. It's so obvious that CBS just dragged this out again to maximize the popularity of Alfred Molina these days (Spiderman 2, Fiddler on the Roof). The only aspect of this production that held my interest was the set design/art direction. The acting was totally "Movie of the Week", as was the script. This really did not need to be udpated. Who was it updated for? Those that enjoyed the original will be disappointed. It's just dreadful.Avoid it.

T Y 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.