paid in full Considering how old the tale is, this is a perfect example of the genius of Agatha Christie. But I will be very quick to add that with the casting can make or break such a gem. And this version is very well played. Poirot(Suchet) has now earned his reputation as a great actor and it allows the viewer to really enjoy the tale. So about the tale...without giving away too much, I will say that this movie is worth the watch...every bit of it. Enjoy.

grandmabrat I have enjoyed the Poirots immensely but this and the few surrounding it have puzzled me. Poirot seems so much more angrier in these episodes than I remember him being before. Instead of charmingly uncovering the murderer he has been yelling at them and judging them. Not what I remember. This made the movie difficult to watch and the ending done badly, if you ask me. Otherwise, I recommend David Suchet in the role of Poirot highly, view all of the earlier seasons and enjoy them, but I think I will skip this one next time around.

Prismark10 In the Agatha Christie books, Poirot starts off as a middle aged detective trying to makes his way as a private investigator and ends up being famous and wealthy, also living to a very old age.The Poirot television series has remained stuck in the 1930s but I could not help noticing how old David Suchet looks here compared to the first series which started back in 1989.Not only is the actor looking older, he seems to have had a personality change. Gone is the quirky humour and sidekicks such as Hastings and Inspector Japp. This Poirot is embittered and angry as well as developing deep religious convictions.Despite the feature length running time and a relatively all star cast, this has a young Jessica Chastain in it. I also noted that the detailed sets and art direction that the earlier series had is absent here. Yes the Orient Express is recreated, there is overseas location feeling but it lacks art deco sumptuousness.Murder in the Orient Express has been adapted before, the most famous being the Albert Finney version directed by Sidney Lumet.Poirot after an assignment in Palestine boards the Orient Express after encountering his friend who owns the line and is asked to investigate the murder of a dubious American business tycoon aboard. The other passengers who are from far and wide seemed to be all connected to each other in some way and had a grudge against the victim.A disappointing film given that there is a famous all star movie version about. In some ways it felt rushed as the characters did not feel sketched out.

albrechtcm I can't imagine a replacement for David Suchet as Hercule Poirot. Mr. Suchet brings us the very essence of Hercule Poirot. His appearance, his every move, every gesture, is Hercule Poirot. And he is for all that, so human. When absolutely necessary, he can let his hair down (figuratively) and enjoy some good old fish and chips with his associate and friend, Hastings (Who makes an excellent Watson every time.) I haven't seen all the actors who have portrayed Poirot over the years, but of those I have seen: Albert Finney, a powerful actor, came across as too boisterously vain and aggressive, while the wonderful Peter Ustinov was simply too "English", too self-effacing despite his capabilities and accent, and he never appeared to be fussy enough about his appearance to be the true Poirot. Mr. Suchet on the other hand is vain but modestly so. He is fussy, neat and methodical to the point of appearing almost effeminate, yet without going too far. For all his vanity and his acuity, he is always understanding, kind and thoughtful. He cannot be blamed for the scripts he is sometimes handed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't his idea to have to mention his little grey cells at least once in every episode. I don't recall the Poirot of the novels harping on his little grey cells on every other page. I love Tony Randall, but Poirot? You must be joking. He was no more like Hercule Poirot than Margaret Rutherford was like Jane Marple.