Murder on the Orient Express

Book, 1934

Movie, 2017, PG-13

Premise – There is a stalled train out in the middle of the snow, where no one could have possibly gotten on or off unnoticed. When a man is found dead in his cabin, the passengers quickly realize that this means the killer must still be among them. Famous detective Hercule Poirot happens to be a passenger himself, and tries to solve the case before the train gets moving again.

Review – This is one of the most famous mysteries of all time, written by one of the most famous mystery authors of all time, starring her most famous fictional detective of all time. Altogether, it’s one of the world’s great classics, which means it’s a pity that I had it spoiled before I had read the book or seen the film. A great value of mystery writing is that fantastic element of surprise. If a mystery is well-written, I shouldn’t be able to figure out who did it and why. If I am, I’m almost angry at the author for spoiling the ending too easily. I think what is most valuable about this story in particular is its clever twist, in addition to the unique circumstances provided by the premise. Keeping this in mind, I will not overtly state who the killer was, but this knowledge had a large impact on my enjoyment of the story. I HATE spoilers. (No hard feelings towards the person who spoiled it for me though, considering this book has been out since the 1930s and I expressed no desire to read it at the age I had it spoiled).

Without the joy of the end reveal, what else does this story have to offer? The book is still incredibly fascinating for its complexity in character motivation, and the overlap of how each of the clues presented connect with the different characters. As I have already mentioned, the unique restrictions to the mystery’s possible outcomes is incredibly effective. There are a limited number of possible suspects, a limited amount of space on the train, and a limited amount of time likely before the train would start again. The structure of the book is also effective in its intense organization. The book is broken down into the evidence provided by each of the characters, separately, and then the detective contemplates all of the information collectively. I have not read much other Hercule Poirot novels, so I am unaware if this is typical, but the organization made the book a very fast, enjoyable read.

This is a good segue into asking what the film has to offer, if one has already read the book. Unfortunately, not much. I am referring in this case to the 2017 film, and not any previous adaptation(s). Of course, as glad as I am that the movie did not venture wildly from the original story, it leaves much to be desired. I actually want the screenplay and the characters to stay faithful to the original. If a film is going to be inventive and feel new, it does not necessarily need to change the plot. What a great film adaptation needs is to feel fresh and creative in its aesthetic, pushing the dramatization of the story through editing, music, or cinematography techniques. In each of these disciplines, the film is solid, but not particularly inventive. The cast, however, is fantastic, and I definitely applaud the theatrical characterizations. However, the cast is about the only reason to seek out this particular adaptation of the book. (52/100)

Quote - "[A philosopher] implies a detached attitude. I think my attitude is more selfish. I have learned to save myself useless emotion."

What to watch for - Any favorite actors or actresses that might be in the 2017 cast.

If you liked this movie or book, I'd recommend How to Get Away with Murder!

Author: Agatha Christie
Publisher: Berkley Books

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Distributor: 20th Century Fox