Film Reviews & Movie Analysis

Kenneth Branagh stars as Agatha Christie’s legendary detective Hercule Poirot. On-board the Orient Express lies a chamber of secrets and there is no one better to uncover the truth than our moustached man.

Having solved a crime in Jerusalem involving a Rabbi, a Priest, and the makings of a very rude joke, notable Belgian Detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) is ready for a vacation – even if it’s only three days on-board the Orient Express, en route to London.

The carriage is full, with an array of characters all heading their separate ways forced to share the space. That space gets even smaller when an avalanche literally stops the train in its tracks and all the passengers are stranded.

When one of the more unlikable travellers is found murdered in his locked room, Poirot’s vacation too stops in its tracks as he races against the clock to find the murderer on-board the Orient Express.

The humour laced throughout made the movie a lot of fun to watch and helped offset Hercule Poirot’s frankness – because lets face it, in this day and age with that much candor, he would pretty much be considered an ass.

Witticisms weren’t restricted to the script but was also in shot set-ups and cinematography which made you feel very clever when you noted them.

A story set solely on train – and not a very room one at that – can quickly get boring and so the adaptation did I good job of finding a way to expand the setting by giving the audience a change of scenery, even if it was only briefly.

Okay so my favourite thing about Murder on the Orient Express was the mix of actors that they managed to rope into starring in it. Seriously I never would have imagined an instance where Josh Gad (Frozen, The Wedding Ringer) was acting along side Olivia Colman (Broadchurch, The Night Manager) or even seeing Tom Bateman (The Tunnel, Jekyll and Hyde) and Michelle Pfeiffer (dude it’s Michelle Pfeiffer you don’t need examples) in the same frame.

Most of the American reviews don’t name drop the British actors but the audience will still be exposed to them which will be great for helping the actors expand across the pond….if they want – it’s good to have options.

Before I started this film review I made sure I wasn’t subconsciously being influenced by the book – which I read like last week or something (#SeeReviewHere).

Sure that I wasn’t, I came to the conclusion that no one really ever felt like a suspect in the movie. There was never a person despite evidence and heavy hinting that the audience could hold on to and say – I bet he/she did it! – which is part of the fun of a whodunit storyline.

The movie plodded along from one scene to another which left it dragging in places. Funnily enough this was one of the factors I enjoyed most about the book, as Hurcule has a meticulous approach to his methods of deduction. Sadly it fell flat on its face in the movie as it meant there wasn’t any build up of tension as Hercule investigated.

Finally the ending was a little meh, especially after Hercule had made such a dramatic speech. There was no sense of completion, even though events had been rounded up which was nice moralistically, but mainly just annoying.

Hercule Poirot is not Sherlock Holmes. There is no running around city streets and back alleys chasing villains and using disguises to get into places he shouldn’t be. Which is fine – we can have more than one type of a thing.

However that means other devices need to be overemphasised to make up for the lack of action, and as I found in this movie, a complete lack of interest in the mystery of the case. The humour and Poirot’s general countenance helped but honestly, it wasn’t enough.

A sequel was organically hinted at, but as to whether or not there should be one…

TWITTER: @JUSTJEN_02