In the Summer when I first heard about this film I was aghast. "Oh NO!", I thought. "Did this film really have to be re-made when Sidney Lumet made such a wonderful job of it in 1974?" And then finding out that it was Kenneth Branagh's brainchild to re-do Agatha Christie's classic novel, I dismissed it as being one of his 'vanity projects', though I knew I'd still have to see it.
It's clear that anybody who is not familiar with the original film version will enjoy this more by not automatically making mental comparisons which, I found, in virtually all respects, favour the earlier one. I do retain a particular affection for the Lumet, having seen that original at least three times on the cinema screen shortly after its release, and maybe half a dozen times since on video. In fact I'll declare more than that. When I last compiled a Top 50 list of my all-time favourite films (admittedly over 20 years ago), the 1974 version featured on it. I'm inclined to think that were I to update that list now it could yet maintain its place there.
That is not to say that this new version doesn't have its merits. Far from it. On the whole I was quite impressed by what Branagh's done, changing details - such as having more scenes enacted outside the train. However, the downside of that is that it loses the trapped-in, claustrophobic atmosphere which pervaded the earlier film.
Now a brief mention of the stars, too many to single out apart from Kenneth B. himself (director of this film, too) presiding over all with his circus-ringmaster (and scarcely believable) distractingly extravagant moustache. I felt Albert Finney as Poirot in 1974 was astonishing and remarkable, not adjectives I'd apply to Branagh in the same role, though he doesn't do at all badly either.
This new film has a galaxy mixture of big and middle-ranking stars, maybe not quite as many names of the then first rank that the 1974 film boasted, but nevertheless, this must be the most notable ensemble of big names appearing in one film since........well, since 1974. (Afterthought: Perhaps Branagh's own 'Hamlet' of 1997 runs it close for star-heavy appearances.)
I felt the screenplay was not as lucid as in the earlier film, the interviews which Poirot has with each of the suspects in turn being patchier and of unequal weight, and a bit more confusing too.
I simply cannot omit mentioning the soundtrack. The 1974's music is one of that film's true 'stars', tracks that have rightly become classics and occasionally feature in concert programmes, particularly the title credit music and waltz. When I hear them they still give me the goose-bumps. Written by the late (and gay) classical composer, Richard Rodney Bennett, I think it's one of the most truly marvellous film soundtracks of the last 50 years or more.
Now for this new version, Branagh has turned to his regular composer-collaborator, Patrick Doyle, whose music, I'm afraid, I've never thought that much of - and here what he's written is nothing like as memorable as is Bennett's.
Despite my qualified verdict I did like this film more than I thought I would. I'm sure it'll cause raised eyebrows when I award it a higher rating than I did for yesterday's 'Call Me by Your Name'. But so what? Too bad. I enjoyed it more...........7.
47 minutes ago
Well, I am a fan of the original, especially of Albert Finney's performance as Poirot, but I might give this one a try.
ReplyDeleteOh, you must see it, Kirk. As in my case, it in no way displaces my high opinion of the original, but you're sure to get enough from this to feel satisfied at having seen it.
DeleteI grew up with Ingrid Bergman' s " little brown babies" so I guess I know the twist so well ( the twist makes the film) but I will see it
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to fathom the connection between I.B.'s 'little brown babies' and the twist, J.G., which escapes me. Perhaps you're not implying a direct one.
DeleteSince I know that Johnny Depp plays the victim, and I've the '74 film as well as read the book, I'll probably go see it hoping they show him die over and over again.
ReplyDeleteI think you might be disappointed there, Dave, though a plus for you would be that I don't think J.D. gets quite as much on-screen time as Richard Widmark did, the latter being more interesting anyway in not having a "Look at me - I'm acting!" sign hanging round his neck as Depp tends to have.
DeleteAs always love your review. I thought as seeing this, but still not sure. Some classics need not be remade. I'm still sniffing my smelling salts over the reboot of the Women....and ready to faint with a remake of Auntie Mame....as much as I enjoy the acting of Tilda Swinton. Rozz Russel will always be my Auntie Mame.
ReplyDeleteYou've told me things I hadn't known, M.M. I don't follow news about upcoming productions in the way I once did. Sometimes I feel it's better not to know until one really HAS to.
DeleteYes, I thought this film was a needless remake and it had to be really something special to vie with the original. Given that many of today's audience won't be familiar with the 1974 film it has to be said that Branagh makes a fair stab at it, though not coming within miles of superceding the Lumet.
I am so on the fence about this one, and it seems like they're trying to shove it down our throats with the constant ads. That only makes me less desirous of seeing it.
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what you mean, Bob. I very often get the same feeling of a film being over-exposed, though I think that this is one of the cases where it would pay you to fight past the turned-off weariness and go see.
DeleteYou and I discussed this several months ago. I still stand by my statement that a classic (and this is a classic) should not be touched. The performers in the original were actors and had star power. Just look at the arrival of each one as they prepare to climb on board. The remake has actors, most of them lacking star power. Btw, how does Dench compare with Hiller?
ReplyDeleteInstead of seeing this, I am going to pull out the DVD, snuggle up on the couch and once again treat myself to The Orient Express.
Judi D. holds up well as compared to the wonderful Wendy H., Paul. She's one of the few in the ensemble, perhaps the only one, whose presence doesn't make one yearn for the character as previously portrayed, though of course Wendy herself was irreplaceable.
DeleteMichelle Pfeiffer has the formidable Lauren Bacall's shoes to fill, and I must say that she also achieves it well. But I did so miss Rachel Roberts, Ingrid B., Vanessa R, Gielgud and Perkins - all of the others, in fact.
If I were to watch this one again, though I'd not be rushing to, I'd only be seeing it to make further comparisons, all of them unfavourable which only emphasises what a treasure the original film is.
And yet....and yet, despite that the new one does have a curiosity value and the knowing that it's out there should be intriguing enough to capture an audience. However, I doubt if it has the staying power for repeat viewing that the Lumet so magnificently does have.
This only makes me want to see the original and perhaps I'll see this version on television when it appears in a few months.
ReplyDeleteYou're not familiar with the 1974 film, TGA? Or is it that you want to see it again? If you've never seen it you really must, though I must warn you that the 'solution' of the crime is more than many people can take for its implausibility. (A friend of mine at the time called it "The WORST film" he'd seen in his entire life! I think that this was a reference to the unlikelihood of the unmasking of the killer's identity rather than to the film itself, which remains a lovely one, in my opinion.)
DeleteSee the first one as a 'must' - the picture-vignettes by a clutch of A-list stars is extraordinary. Then see this new one just the once, which would be adequate on the TV screen, I suppose, though it would lose the scale of the quite spectacular snowscapes.
I don't think I ever saw the film, but have seen parts, which is the worst way to see any film. Unfortunately, I do know "who done it" and I think that is a large part of my lack of interest. It always seemed like such a cop out of an ending. I will watch it now though... trusting your recommendation.
DeleteIt's easily one of Christie's most absurd 'solutions', TGA, though I've read not much more than a dozen or so of her books. But I think it can be forgiven by all the enthralling character-sketches leading up to it. I don't a single one of the actors hits a wrong or jarring note. All superbly done. However, if you've already seen some of it (they possibly being the 'best bits') I can understand why you may now be lacking in enthusiasm.
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteI've seen the trailers for this film and I am intrigued. I never saw the 1974 version. I don't like Kenneth Branagh, and his scenery chewing antics and that wold dissuade me from seeing this movie but I will see it now based on your very excellent review. Thank you!
Ron
I did remember your dismal view of Branagh, Ron, and I've been hoping that despite it you were going to comment on this. If you're going to see just one of the two versions of 'Orient' it simply has to be the 1974 film - and I am most surprised that you haven't encountered it before. It's where your curiosity ought to be aimed at being satisfied, and you would be satisfied big-time I'm sure. This new version I see as an add-on 'extra'. Interesting enough, maybe, but might have been moreso if it hadn't had such an illustrious predecessor inviting comparisons with it. But see the new version too by all means.
DeleteI'm chewing on this one. There's a review in today's paper. 4 stars out of 5. And now your score. But for some strange reason I can't fathom I'm still not convinced. I'll have a look at the trailer. Maybe I can yet be persuaded.
ReplyDeleteA lot will depend on whether you've seen the 1974, Gwil. If you haven't then that makes a stronger case for seeing this, but you really must seek out the original. Otherwise I really can't see you, or anyone else, preferring this over the earlier. But in any case, you still won't be wasting your time and money on this newie, I reckon.
Delete