Murder on the Orient Express (1974) User Reviews

"Can you give me your solemn oath - as a foreigner?"

[ackstasis · 8/10 · 5 December 2009]

I don't mind telling you that my head nearly exploded during the opening credits: Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Ingrid Bergman, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, Anthony Perkins, Martin Balsam, John Gielgud! Not to mention that 'Murder on the Orient Express (1974)' was directed by Sidney Lumet, one of my favourite filmmakers, and adapted from an Agatha Christie novel. It was only recently that I had my first encounter with noted Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, having enjoyed a few television episodes with David Suchet in the title role. Finney's Poirot is perhaps too much of a caricature, emphasising the cartoonish silliness of the character rather than the quiet superiority found in Suchet's portrayal (however, I'm not familiar with Christie's novel, and perhaps he was simply written that way). Nevertheless, the remainder of the ensemble cast provides stellar support.

Hercule Poirot is aboard a trans-European express train when a wealthy man (Widmark) is murdered in the neighbouring sleeping compartment. Poirot has a dozen suspicious suspects to choose from, and you'll never pick who did it. Such a large supporting cast may have proved difficult to depict without placing undue emphasis on any one character (and perhaps two hours is insufficient time to thoroughly explore everyone's motives), but Lumet does a good job of bringing together all the loose threads. Red herrings are scattered from right to left, and only Poirot himself can discern the real evidence from the decoys. Ingrid Bergman won her third Oscar for her role as shy missionary Greta, and I do love Ingrid, but the highlight for me was Lauren Bacall's insufferably loquacious Mrs Hubbard. For some high-class entertainment with some prestigious company, 'Murder on the Orient Express' is a surefire winner.

A Cast To Die For

[giorgiosurbani · 8/10 · 14 September 2007]

That Sidney Lumet knows how to frame an actor within his or her character is a very well known fact - "The Pawnbroker" "Network" "Dog Day Afternoon" and some other spectacular pieces of acting prove that point unquestionably. Here, there is a sort of "divertissment". Agatha Christie given a first class treatment (not that Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple wasn't first class, but the production value here is as impressive as the cast) in the hands of Sidney Lumet who knew how to put a bunch of sensational actors in a confined space - "12 Angry Men" for instance and make it riveting. There a 12 Angry people here too and (almost) each part is cast with relish and delight. Albert Finney, marvelous, manages, not only to survive, under the weight of his characterization but to create something bold, exquisitely structured, great fun to watch and to hear. Ingrid Bergman won her third Oscar for her missionary looking after little brown babies - I thought she was a highlight indeed but in my modest opinion, Valentina Cortese for "Day For Night" deserved it that year, Anthony Perkins plays Norman Bates's twin brother, also with a mother fixation and a compelling facial tic. Wendy Hiller was, clearly, having a ball and that, on the screen, is always contagious. Sean Connery and Vanessa Redgrave make a surprisingly hot pair, Lauren Bacall over does it of course but who cares, Jacqueline Bisset is breathtaking, Rachel Roberts a hoot. John Gielgud is John Gielgud and that in itself is a major plus. Colin Blakely does wonders with his moment and Dennis Quilley plays his Italian as if this was a silent movie. Martin Balsam is always fun to watch, no matter the accent. Richard Widmark is splendid in his villainy and Jean Pierre Cassel very moving indeed. The only weak spot in the cast is Michael York. Totally unbelievable. I suspect that "Murder in The Orient Express" 33 years old already, will continue delighting audiences for years to come.

Elegant, star studded whodunit aboard the legendary train

[roghache · 8/10 · 26 May 2006]

This is both a glamorous and entertaining adaptation of Agatha's Christie's mystery novel. There's certainly a star studded cast but perhaps the main star is the luxury train itself, the legendary Orient Express bound from Istanbul to Calais. Black with gold crests, it hisses steam as it streaks dramatically through the Balkans. Inside are opulent interiors, intriguing compartments, gourmet cuisine, fine wines & liqueurs, and elegantly costumed passengers. Of course there's the typical enclosed group of suspects with a murderer in their midst.

The setting is 1935 and Belgian detective Hercule Poirot boards the Orient Express along with an assortment of colourful, suspicious passengers. One of them ends up murdered in his compartment, a man discovered to be a fugitive responsible (but never prosecuted) for the kidnapping some years earlier of a child that resulted in five deaths. Poirot is called upon to solve the crime, discovering that some of these intriguing passengers may not be who they appear but instead have links to this past case of kidnapping and murder.

Albert Finney is convincing as the eccentric detective Poirot, with his slick black hair and elegant little curled mustache. He plays the role more seriously than Peter Ustinov in Death on the Nile, another film with a star studded cast. I enjoy both renditions of the detective, though my favourite may be A&E's David Suchet. I have heard that Christie herself approved of Albert Finney, but agree with her conclusion that Finney's mustache is too small! My only complaint is the scene in which Poirot is screaming quite abusively at Miss Debenham. It's out of character for this very cerebral detective.

Yes, as the tag line claims, it's definitely the who's who in the whodunit, with the passengers all portrayed by famous stars. These actors must have had fun with their roles. Richard Widmark portrays the obnoxious American businessman, Mr. Ratchett, with Sir John Gielgud his perfectly cast, reserved butler Beddoes, and Anthony Perkins his secretary MacQueen. Michael York and Jacqueline Bisset play the mysterious, foreign Count and Countess Andrenyi, who act guilty as all get out. Lauren Bacall is suitably irritating as the loud, outspoken Mrs. Hubbard, while Ingrid Bergman is a frightened Swedish missionary...or is she? Bergman was a magnificent actress in many roles, but I have to agree with some who question whether she deserved the Best Supporting Actress Oscar here for really, quite a minor part.

Sean Connery is handsome as always portraying the indignant Scottish Colonel Arbuthnot, though I find him even more appealing now. Like a fine wine, he simply improves with age! Vanessa Redgrave plays his love interest, Miss Debenham. What are these two hiding? Obviously something! Of course there's an aristocratic and eccentric old dowager aboard, the proud and haughty Princess Dragomiroff, played to perfection by Wendy Hiller. You can just tell that this black clad and bejeweled lady is not telling the truth! Personally, I took a liking to the train's French conductor, though was previously unfamiliar with the actor, Jean-Pierre Cassel.

The famous locomotive is halted by a snow drift and meanwhile, Poirot is designated to solve the crime, interrogating each suspicious passenger in turn. The detective must summon his little gray cells to ferret it all out, though I find little humour in him here. No spoilers, but I think this is one of Christie's more clever twists. Personally, I would never have guessed the murderer if I hadn't read the novel first. However, one of the suspects being interrogated does give a clue, if you're really sharp!

Not my favorite Poirot film, but undeniably a classic and enjoyable to (re)watch

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 9 June 2009]

"Murder On The Orient Express" is arguably the most famous theatrically released film based on an Agatha Christie book, but there are two factors that keep me from rating it quite as high as its successors, "Death On The Nile" and "Evil Under The Sun": a) Albert Finney has his moments as Hercule Poirot, but sometimes his stuffy, mannered performance comes close to obnoxiousness (some people might claim that he's trying to be more accurate to the character as written by Christie, but I don't think the Poirot of the books would ever tear up the menu of a restaurant and throw the pieces up in the air), b) although the solution to the mystery is one of Christie's most daring and unusual, it is also pretty tough to translate from the page to the screen because it is necessary to introduce a remarkably high number of characters and explain the connection of all their backgrounds to the present events. The script does not succeed 100% at this task, and some of Poirot's conclusions seem to come from pure supposition. Besides all that, however, there's still a lot to like about "Murder On The Orient Express": the superb cast (though I don't know why Ingrid Bergman won an Oscar for this role, if anyone deserved such an award, it was probably John Gielgud or Wendy Hiller), the exhilarating music score, the nostalgic train setting, and some memorably atmospheric scenes (the opening, the re-construction of the crime, etc.). Definitely a film that can be watched multiple times. *** out of 4.

It Oozes Elegance

[Lechuguilla · 10/10 · 7 February 2005]

This whodunit story by Dame Agatha is excellent. She has always been my favorite writer of detective fiction. I keep returning to the film version, however, not because of the story but because of the film's sheer elegance and style. It is awash in elegance ... the majestic cinematography; the glamorous clothes; the delightfully eccentric aristocratic characters; the mysterious yet refined musical score. The film is so theatrically regal I'm surprised that it did not feature a representative of British royalty.

The setting is Europe in the 1930's. The pace is slow and relaxed. And while the dialogue is in English, the film has a deliciously international flavor, with a mix of interesting accents and word pronunciations. Heavy on dialogue, the film never seems overly talky, the result of a clever screenplay and lush visuals. Humor is included in the script usually in the form of tasteful put-downs. Example: an attractive Mrs. Hubbard comments: "Don't you agree the man must have entered my compartment to gain access to Mr. Ratchett?" The aging Princess Dragomiroff responds in a deadpan tone: "I can think of no other reason, madam."

In his portrayal of Hercule Poirot, Albert Finney almost literally disappears into the role, a tribute to convincing makeup and to Finney's adroit acting. His performance is appropriately idiosyncratic, deliciously hammy, and theatrical, every bit as entertaining in this film as Peter Ustinov is in subsequent Christie movies. The rest of the cast has ensemble parts, my favorite being Wendy Hiller whose Princess Dragomiroff comes across as royal, proud, and very eccentric.

With its snowy landscapes, ornate and cozy interiors, and subdued lighting, "Murder On The Orient Express" is an excellent movie to watch on a cold, winter night, snuggled under a blanket or next to a warm fireplace with a cup of cappuccino or a glass of cognac. Just be sure that all knives and daggers in your mansion are out of reach from your staff of servants.

Outstanding adaptation from Agatha Christie novel

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 30 September 2004]

The movie is an excellent whodunit and concerns upon one murder in the Orient Express train with Hercules Poirot (Albert Finney) as sleuth-man to solve it . There are many suspects , all support cast : Sean Connery , Ingrid Bergman , Anthony Perkins , Vanessa Redgrave , Jacqueline Bisset , Richard Widmark , Rachel Roberts , John Gielgud , Michael York , etc . Who's the killer? . Poirot is helped by a ¨Watson-alike¨ (Martin Balsam) and they will track down to culprit at the end .

At the beginning of the film talks about a kidnapping and killing a baby similarly to the Lindberg's son and which the murderer was condemned to death row , this one will be related with the death of the train.

The motion picture is only set on two scenarios : the station and train . However this doesn't make boring it.

The runtime movie is overlong : two hours and some but isn't slow-moving and is amount amusing for suspense and tension.

First-rate interpretation specially from Albert Finney and Ingrid Bergman , Oscar winner as best secondary actress .

The set design and costumes are riveting , the flick is magnificently set by that time . Evocative musical score by Richard Rodney Bennett . Geoffrey Unsworth's cinematography is atmospheric and colorful.

Sidney Lumet's direction is fascinating such as ¨12 angry men¨ .

The movie will appeal to suspense enthusiasts and thriller lovers.

Rating: 7,5/10 . Very good

Opulent, Elegant and lavish production.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 9/10 · 25 November 2015]

One of the most famous of Dame Agatha Christie's novels. This is a glorious, beautifully directed, star studded production. I will be honest and say it took me a long time to appreciate just how good a film this actually is.

The format and layout of the film works tremendously well, the dark and twisted kidnap and killing story at the beginning sets the tone well, it hits hard, and makes the end of the film all the more engaging and believable.

The film looks sensational, it is a beautiful production (especially in HD) the scenery throughout is lavish, a true feast for the eyes. From the bright sunny beginning, to the dark, bleak and snowy scene of the murder. The film seems to get intentionally darker as it progresses. The costumes are glorious, Jacqueline Bisset especially gets to wear some wonderful outfits.

Albert Finney is good in the part, he certainly looks the part, when I read the book he is exactly how I visualise him. He is wonderfully theatrical, and as Ustinov definitely suits the flavour of Death on the Nile, so does Finney here.

The characterisations aside from Poirot are expertly brought to life, some glorious performances, Lauren Bacall and Wendy Hillier are sensational in their roles, how well the cast bring to life the class system of 1930, it really was a different world. Sir John Gielgud is tremendous as stiff upper lipped Beddoes, and plaudits also to Richard Widmark who makes Mr Ratchett as vile as possible.

9/10 you can almost smell the gourmet cooking and hear the clink of Champagne flutes. A glorious film. Kenneth Branagh's new adaptation has a lot to live up to.

elegant

[Kirpianuscus · 25 June 2018]

Impressive cast, admirable performances, the right mark of Sydney Lumet, giving elegance to a well known story. and proposing not only a good adaptation but a sort of refined delight. because it is a remarkable show of nuances and convincing translation of the traits of characters in a sort of large puzzle of splendid roles. a film impressive scene by scene. maybe not the best adaptation of Agatha Christie novel. but a memorable one. and that is real enough.

Fun

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 25 November 2002]

Spoilers. There is a delicious score, an elegant and whimsical 1936 waltz, on which during moments of suspense a bassoon plays comic variations. Nothing is to be taken seriously. Certainly not the story. The plot gives us incidents which are evidently red herrings designed to mislead Inspector Poirot but mislead the viewer as well. Why should "the clumsy cliché" of the smashed watch telling us the time of the murder be necessary? Because, says Poirot, it is supposed to lead him to believe the murder took place at an earlier hour than it did, an hour in which all the suspects had unshakable alibis. But if the suspects were in cahoots, couldn't they have improvised the same alibis for a later hour as well? After all, Poirot was asleep in his compartment, or at least trying to sleep, all night. And the lady in the white nightgown with the red dragons -- what was that about? It complicated the plot with an added detail but couldn't have confused Poirot much since it was of no relevance to his perception of what was going on.

The acting isn't meant to be taken seriously either. First, there is Albert Finney as Poirot, who looks absolutely great with every visible hair waxed to perfection, and an indefinable accent that wavers a bit from scene to scene, as if he were, as John Simon put it, "sending up trial Walloons." Everyone else overacts hammily (and enjoyably) too. Especially enjoyable is Sir John Gielgud as the batman or butler or valet or whatever he is, explaining away a "contusion" on the back of his head with, "The result of a fracas in the mess, concerning the quality of a pudding, sir, know as 'spotted dick'."

There were one or two other things in the script that Agatha Christie (played by Vanessa Redgrave in "Agatha") could not have gotten away with. Guilgud also does a marvelous job with the simple act of stabbing his employer, wriggling the dagger from side to side in the unconscious man's chest, and yanking it out with a theatrical flourish and an expression not of rage but of utter contempt. Likewise impressive is Sean Connery as Colonel Arbuthnot, that mess hall accent and demeanor, that mustache more firmly established than the Empire itself, snapping at Poirot that he would not have been stupid enough to use his "peep cleaner" and leave it in the murdered man's ash tray.

The least interesting performances probably include Jacqueline Bissett, Peter York, and some minor characters, but this is partly because their roles require less of them. (How can you be a hammy wagon-lit conductor?) I haven't read the novel in years but my impression is that this movie, with its additional wit, is an improvement.

The elegance of first-class travel on a train whose very name is suggestive of mystery and romance is nicely conveyed. It's snowy and scenic and bitterly cold outside, but in these beautifully appointed compartments we are well and snug and can order fresh oysters and fruit and poached sole with one new potato and a green salad with no dressing. It's cramped of course, but that merely adds to the impression of coziness.

The Orient Express as I experienced it in third class isn't really very elegant. The only space I could find was on the metal floor in front of a bathroom, whose door kept swinging open and shut. Everyone on board seemed to have a digestive disorder. After buying a bottle of home-made chianti from a vendor at one of the stops, for twenty-five cents, so did I. I suppose you have to be well-to, British, and middle class, as Christie was. All her views of the world, gathered in the wake of her archaeologist husband, are tourist's views, which is just fine.

The plot, as always in a Christie story, is as finely tuned as a watch and follows its format as closely as any episode of "Columbo." Poirot meets an old friend in some unusual place. A murder takes place. Poirot interviews everyone and pieces the whole thing together, no matter how improbable the feat. The last chapter (or reel) has the guests gathered together silently while Poirot strides around, or in Finney's case, shuffles around, and explains what has happened and why. The solutions are usually a surprise when they are finally revealed, but repeated viewings don't hurt. In fact, knowing ahead of time what the end will look like gives us a chance to appreciate better the display and character and the planting of clues, real and false. This is nothing more than a divertimento but it is a highly likable one, without pretense, and neatly done.

A well executed murder in every sense of the word.

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 31 December 2005]

Murder on the Orient Express started a nice trend in filming some of the most stylish of Agatha Christie novels by producer John Brabourne. Although Albert Finney who does a fine job as the Belgian Sleuth Hercule Poirot declined to do further films with Poirot, Peter Ustinov more than amply took up the slack in later productions.

Richard Widmark is an American expatriate traveling on the famous Orient Express train and he's been receiving mysterious death threats. As it happens Poirot is on the train also and refuses Widmark's offer to be a bodyguard.

Widmark is later stabbed to death in his compartment and while the train is stranded somewhere in Yugoslavia due to snow drifts, Poirot investigates the murder in the best Agatha Christie tradition. Of course in that same tradition the plotters would have gotten away with it more than likely had Poirot and his little gray cells not been present.

Widmark as it also turns out was a gangster who had to flee America because he was named as the mastermind of a horrific crime that shocked the nation. There are a whole lot of people who had reason to want him dead.

Poirot conducts his inquiry of the other passengers and they are quite a crew consisting of among others, Lauren Bacall, Michael York, Sean Connery, Ingrid Bergman, Wendy Hiller, Rachel Roberts, Vanessa Redgrave, Jacqueline Bissett, etc.

Of course I won't tell you the solution, but here's a hint. Note what Sean Connery says while he's being grilled.

It's a great ensemble cast of course with a bunch of seasoned players doing their thing. Ingrid Bergman got a Best Supporting Actress award for her portrayal of a simple soul who is a missionary. I'm betting the critics noted that her part was offbeat casting for her which she pulled off. In any event she was surprised as all get out when her name was read at the Oscars in 1975. In accepting the award she got up and said quite matter-of-factly that fellow nominee Valentina Cortese deserved it. Of course she didn't turn it down.

As I said, this was one elaborately planned murder and I think you will enjoy seeing Poirot unravel it and what happens later.

Uneven, but a good one...

[Panamint · 7/10 · 12 December 2006]

BEST ACTING PERFORMANCE: Ingrid Bergman in an interesting role for her. Pure acting, not a caricature as are many of the performances in this movie. Gives her "mousy" role some edginess by adding fervent religious undertones.

MOST BELIEVABLE AND NATURAL: Jean-Pierre Cassel. Don't know him but would search out other movies he is in.

MOST NOTICEABLE: Sean Connery (Honorable mention: Vanessa Redgrave).

MOST DISAPPOINTING: Albert Finney. Appears to be working far too hard, to the point of straining. I think his speaking style is too bombastic for this role. An actor can say "he killed five people" multiple times and get the point across without shrieking the line. I didn't really notice his acting because he only looked like someone trying to be a high-powered actor, rather than actually being one.

PERFECTLY CAST: Anthony Perkins.

MISCAST: Martin Balsam (looks like a very American, New York stage actor who has been inserted into this European role for some reason known only to the producers.)

Lavishly produced, beautiful to look at, well-paced. To its everlasting credit (thank you Mr.Lumet) this movie manages to deliver an aura of exciting train travel. Nostalgic, somewhat corny 1930's-tribute musical score.

Very strong plot- almost too strong for movies but good for a book. Makes you nostalgic for the 1930's but not necessarily for the 1970's or 1970's movie-making.

A Good Famous Mystery

[Rainey-Dawn · 9/10 · 18 October 2014]

The film is in fact based on the 1934 novel Murder on the Orient Express by Agatha Christie. It is a wonderful film - I have never read the book to compare to the movie - but I can say the film is worth watching if you love a good mystery movie.

An all-star, well seasoned, cast does help to make the film more intriguing, more appealing because all gave outstanding performances in this film. The story itself will easily pull you in even if you are unfamiliar with the cast - the story (mystery) is that good.

If you like this movie then you may enjoy similar types of films like "Sleuth", "Deathtrap" or "Murder By Death".

9/10

impeccably made

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 17 December 2016]

In 1930 Long Island, the Armstrong girl Daisy is kidnapped. During the media circus, the family pays the ransom but the girl is found dead. Five years later in Istanbul, various people board the Orient Express. Famed detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) encounters his friend Signor Bianchi (Martin Balsam), a director of the line. Other passengers include American widow Mrs. Harriet Hubbard (Lauren Bacall); American businessman Samuel Ratchett (Richard Widmark), his translator Hector McQueen (Anthony Perkins) and English manservant Beddoes (John Gielgud); Russian Princess Natalia Dragomiroff (Wendy Hiller) and her German maid Hildegarde Schmidt (Rachel Roberts); Hungarian diplomat Count Rudolf Andrenyi (Michael York) and his wife Elena (Jacqueline Bisset); British Indian Army officer Col. John Arbuthnott (Sean Connery); teacher Mary Debenham (Vanessa Redgrave); timid Swedish missionary Greta Ohlsson (Ingrid Bergman); car salesman Antonio Foscarelli (Denis Quilley); and American theater agent Cyrus B. Hardman (Colin Blakely). Ratchett tries to hire Poirot claiming to be in danger. Later, he's found stabbed to death.

This production is overflowing with acting masters. It can be overwhelming to keep track of the numerous characters and the various clues. It is a master class of acting and mannerisms. It is a little slow and old-fashion considering its over two hours running time. It is classic whodunit. Overall, it is impeccably made by director Sidney Lumet.

Disappointing and forgettable.

[Rockwell_Cronenberg · 4/10 · 14 March 2012]

I want to start this by saying that I absolutely love movies set on trains. The closed, claustrophobic setting, the ensemble cast of characters confined to one location, it all has the potential for so much drama. Set it within a cold winter snow drift (my favorite season), and assemble an outrageously good cast featuring the likes of Albert Finney, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave and more, and Murder on the Orient Express had the potential to be some kind of masterpiece. Throw in Sidney Lumet behind the camera and the fact that it's based on an Agatha Christie novel and it sounds too good to be true.

Turns out that it was, as the film is an undercooked and instantly forgettable waste of a lot of extraordinary talent. There are so many great actors here and aside from Finney they all get about ten minutes to do the best they can with thin and unmemorable characters. Thin is probably the best word to describe the whole thing, as the mystery is essentially just a long series of red herrings deliberately thrown at the audience so that Finney's Hercule Poirot can look like a genius when he puts it all together at the end, but it's not like any of that really matters if it's impossible to engage in the mystery in the first place.

The actors all do their best and some of them, particularly Bacall, are able to leave at least some impression, but they have next to nothing to work with and even the greatest actors need something from the page. I'd put most of my blame for why this was a failure on the shoulders of screenwriter Paul Dehn, who adapted Christie's novel into something cheap and frustratingly pedestrian. I found it all to be a trying experience, with this weird attempt at a slightly comedic tone that never worked, making the comedic take on Poirot stick out like a sore thumb.

* * * * out of 4.

[brandonsites1981 · 3 October 2001]

An all star cast aboard a luxuary train are questioned and suspected of a murder when one of the passengers who was already fearing for his life is found dead and all this seems to be releated to a child that was kidnapped and murdered years earlier.

Exceptionally done thriller is a homage to the mysteries of Hollywood's golden age with fun and brilliantly done performances from a seasoned cast, but Ingrid Bergman, Lauren Bacall, and an unreconizable Albert Finney really stand out. Magnaficent score, sets, costumes, color schemes, dialogue, and a fine eye for detail just add to the fun. Never a dull or boring moment; the finale is really, really good. I just love everything about this film. Very highly recommanded film is in my top 10 films of the 70's and is in my top 100 films of all time.

About as good as it gets for Agatha Christie

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 21 February 2017]

I have to admit that Agatha Christie isn't one of my favourite authors. I do like the detective and whodunit genres quite extensively but Christie always approaches them from an angle that doesn't really interest me so much. I enjoy stories dotted with clues that give the viewer a chance to work out the murderer for themselves but in Christie adaptations you often don't get the opportunity because the motivations are only revealed later on.

In addition, the exposition always feels quite clunky and heavy handed; an approach that works better on the written page, I should imagine, than on the screen. So I approached MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS with some trepidation. I needn't have worried too much, because in the hands of famed director Sidney Lumet this is solid stuff, enlivened by an incredible all star cast and slick production values. The setting is brought to life in a vivid way and the train setting is appropriately claustrophobia. Albert Finney's lead is a bit of a distraction in a caricaturish kind of way but the likes of Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Richard Widmark, and George Coulouris are quite excellent. Anthony Perkins has a role that hilariously references PSYCHO and Lauren Bacall is memorably icy. Fans of the author will be in their element.

When Agatha Christie Finally Came Into Her Own Cinematically

[theowinthrop · 9/10 · 1 January 2006]

Agatha Christie lived long enough to enjoy something few of her contemporaries could claim.

Movies based on Christie's novels and stories were being made back to the 1930s. One early one with Charles Laughton as Hercule Poiret so turned her off that she was hesitant about future productions of her work. But they were made - like the two versions of LOVE FROM A STRANGER. There were two high points: Rene Clair's AND THEN THERE WERE NONE and Billy Wilder's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (oddly enough with Laughton again, but in a better fitting performance). Then came the popular series of Miss Marple films with Margaret Rutherford, which were rewritten to emphasize Rutherford's comic abilities (and to give Miss Marple a companion - Mr. Stringer, played by Rutherford's husband Stringer Davis). Another attempt at Poirot was made, again as a comic film, THE A.B.C.MURDERS (with Tony Randall as Poirot). Christie was not amused. But in 1974 she saw her vision of Hercule Poirot as a character put properly on screen by Albert Finney in MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS.

It gave her a satisfaction that few mystery novelists of her age ever had. Dorothy Sayers did live to see Lord Peter Wimsey played by Robert Montgomery in BUSMAN'S HONEYMOON, but while entertaining it was not the Wimsey that she created - she died before she could see Ian Carmichael play the role on a series of television multi-episodes shows based on her novels. While Josephine Tey's novels occasionally were made into films, her Inspector Grant was not turned into a good running series character.

I think that the reason that Agatha Christie was satisfied was the care that Sidney Lumet took with MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS. Not only the all star cast involved, but keeping the story in the late 1920s to early 1930s style, with clothing, vehicles, and class snobbery maintained. It actually helped preserve the novel's effectiveness.

The casting is quite good. Poirot is ably played by Finney, who is fussy but also serious and sharp when going over the clues and interrogations. Martin Balsam as his friend, the railroad official, is properly "watsonish", constantly jumping at conclusions as to who the killer is. Interestingly forgotten in the background is the only other passenger we learn of that is not under suspicion, the Greek doctor who assists Poirot (George Coulouris). In the 1940s Coulouris would have been a red herring at least.

The suspects (led by Lauren Bacall and Wendy Hiller) are properly snobbish (especially Sean Connery). They are even snobbish towards each other. But the question of who killed the victim is handled to constantly throw off the viewers. It is one of the most perfectly balanced whodunits.

I only have one minor criticism. The murder centers on a "Lindbergh" kidnap-murder tragedy of the past, and the killer has to be someone after the real brains behind the tragedy. So all the suspects happen to be connected to the victim(s). But as it turns out there was one victim who was overlooked - the patsy killer (based on Hauptmann?) who was frightened into committing the crime and was hanged. It would have been interesting if the family of this criminal also had been represented among the suspects.

The stars are out

[Prismark10 · 7/10 · 22 April 2019]

Agatha Christie was alive to see this all star version of Murder on the Orient Express. She apparently did not like Albert Finney's moustache.

Finney was Oscar nominated for his Hercule Poirot. It is a shame he did not play the role again.

The film starts with the kidnapping of the infant Daisy Armstrong in Long Island in 1930. Although the family pay the ransom, she is found dead. The event had devastating consequences for the Armstrong family which contributed to the deaths of several more people.

Five years later, various people board the Orient Express in Istanbul. Among them is Hercule Poirot who meets the director of the train service, Signor Bianchi (Martin Balsam) and old friend. As the journey begins a nervous American businessman called Samuel Ratchett (Richard Widmark) tells Poirot that he thinks his life is in danger. He offers a large sum of money for Poirot to protect him. Poirot declines and later that night, Ratchett is killed. There are 12 stab wounds.

All evidence leads to a mafia gangster who got on the train with a fake uniform and he killed Ratchett before fleeing from the train. Poirot thinks there is a more complex solution to the murder.

There are several Oscar winners in this film. Butler Beddoes (John Gielgud), Russian Princess Natalia Dragomiroff (Wendy Hiller), Army officer Colonel John Arbuthnott (Sean Connery), English teacher Mary Debenham (Vanessa Redgrave), Missionary Greta Ohlsson (Ingrid Bergman).

There is an energetic performance from Finney who wisely does not overdo the humour and keeps some of the character's fussiness. The film itself is pacy, charming and has some nice music. Sidney Lumet made an old fashioned film with a modern sheen.

Skip the 2017 Kenneth Branagh version and see this well-made production!

[junkmail-48566 · 10/10 · 26 July 2018]

This review comes on the heels of having just viewed the 2017 abortion directed by and starring Kenneth Branaugh and is more a comparison of the two cinematic versions than a simple review of the 1974 Sidney Lumet version. First of all, Agatha Christie's novel takes place in the 1930s. Lumet acknowledges this is a "period piece" and treats it as such. Glamour was a big thing in films set before the end of the studio system in Hollywood, and Lumet gives us plenty of it here (Branagh gives us little). The dramatic score for Lumet's 1974 film was composed by Richard Rodney Bennett, who is also the pianist on the soundtrack, which is lushly orchestrated and fits this production quite nicely. The all-star cast here is composed of well-known, proven actors, beginning with Albert Finney as Christie's sleuth, Hercule Poirot. It's unnecessary to list the entire star-studded cast here, as it's on the main page for the film, but the whole cast gives exemplary performances. The cinematography is exquisite, with Geoffrey Unsworth's excellent use of Panavision cameras and lenses. In fact, there's nothing bad to be said about the film. This was followed by several other Brabourne-Goodwin productions of Agatha Christie novels ("Death on the Nile," and "Evil Under the Sun," both with all-star casts with Peter Ustinov as Poirot and "The Mirror Crack'd" with Angela Lansbury as Christie's female sleuth, Miss Jane Marple), but none of the successors were as well-done as this one. The Kenneth Branaugh remake tells us that Branaugh's portrayal of Poirot was more important to him than the development of any of the other characters. The viewer gets the impression that Branaugh focused more on Poirot's obsessive-compulsive side than any other characterization in his film. In one word each, here's a description of the two versions: Lumet, 1974: magnificent; Branaugh, 2017: pedestrian.

Engaging murder mystery

[anselmdaniel · 7/10 · 22 August 2020]

This review contains spoilers.

Murder on the Orient Express follows a detective on a vacation as a murder unfolds. The detective becomes interested after investigating and realizes something is amiss in the case. The suspects are passengers from all backgrounds and the detective interviews all of them to uncover any clues.

The movie a great murder mystery. There is not any massive chases or action scenes. The movie relies on the audience being engaged with the story. By the final act, I was very interested in the story and how things would play out. All of the characters will become known to the audience and they are all distinct. There are a staggering number of characters here and all of which feel different. The movie has many scenes where the detective interviews the passenger. These scenes were fun to watch and added a lot to the story.

The movie's weakness is its slow pace. The beginning of the movie can be slow with each of the characters boarding the Orient Express. The main mystery is introduced when a man confronts Hercule Poirot in an effort to stop his murder. I liked the slow pace as it sets the tone of the rest of the movie, but to some the movie's beginning can feel pointless.

Overall, I would recommend Murder on the Orient Express. The movie is a great murder mystery.

On a side note, I watched this movie using Amazon prime and suffered a lot of skipping in its video and audio. Customers looking to watch this on the Amazon stream are warned.

Grade: B

Superb acting lifts this superb film!

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 1 May 2009]

I also really like And Then There Were None and Witness For the Prosecution, but this is a superb film nonetheless. It manages to be better than most of the Peter Ustinov films, though I liked Death On The Nile and Evil Under The Sun, not so much Appointment With Death.

The acting was superb, as is nearly always the case with Agatha Christies. Albert Finney makes the role of Hercule Poirot his own in an Oscar-nominated performance. I do prefer David Suchet's portrayal as Poirot, as I am more familiar with him, but that doesn't mean Finney didn't do a splendid job, because he did. He was well-supported by actors such as Lauren Bacall, Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud and Ingrid Bergman, among others.

The plot is a little complicated, about the disappearance and death of a young girl, and then a man in connection with her death is found murdered on the train. Typical Christie fashion. The final solution, ranks along Miss Christie's best, if you hadn't read the book beforehand, like me, you wouldn't have guessed it.

The cinematography is beautiful, the costumes are glamorous, the music is atmospheric. the film goes at a fast pace, and the acting and Sidney Lumet's direction are great. Young viewers will find it very complicated upon first viewing, but this film deserves a 9/10. Bethany Cox

Lots of pomp and prestige, elegant old Hollywood glamour, but no suspense...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 31 August 2007]

Sidney Lumet directed this film-version of Agatha Christie's book "Murder on the Calais Coach", and his penchant for letting his actors carry on at length is tempered quite a bit by the setting here (a snowbound train) and by the large collection of characters (posers, as it turns out, all pretending to be something they are not). Albert Finney gives an exhaustingly busy performance as detective Hercule Poirot, piecing together the murder of a disreputable lout on a train after the victim was found stabbed multiple times in the cabin right next to Poirot's. The foreboding preamble to much of the discontent (centering around the kidnapping and subsequent killing of a high society infant) is jagged and eerie, yet the sweeping cast of glamorous stars who collect on the screen soon after do not quite fit into this terse introduction--nor the subsequent flashbacks--which Lumet has so vividly set up (it's rather like "In Cold Blood" as staged by Hitchcock). Poirot's interrogations of the passengers are jaunty and lively, and each of the actors gets a quick opportunity to have a little fun, but Poirot's summation is laid out for us in a didactic fashion which leaves no room for surprise, suspense or intrigue. The movie certainly looks handsome, and Finney does have some fine moments, but the final tally seems a bit staid. Best of the supporting performances would be Rachel Roberts' glinty-eyed turn as a German maid and Wendy Hiller in heavy makeup as a Russian dowager. Anthony Perkins, as another of his Nervous Nellies (this time a male secretary with the surname McQueen!) is fun to watch, as is Ingrid Bergman in her Oscar-winning turn as an overemotional missionary. Martin Balsam is amusing if miscast as an Italian travel logistics director for the train-line, while Richard Widmark, John Gielgud, Michael York, Jacqueline Bisset, Jean Pierre Cassel, Vanessa Redgrave and Sean Connery are unable to bring much to the table. **1/2 from ****

Grand Old Hollywood Entertainment

[dpandlisa · 10/10 · 14 January 2015]

If you want to introduce your children to the murder-mystery genre without scaring them or boring them, then show them this terrific film, which made instant Poirot fans of my 10 and 13 year-old kids. Albert Finney is so over-the-top that he towers over an excellent ensemble cast, and his performance became the standard that I'm sure David Suchet aspired to for many years. The opening sequence, showing the back-story of the 'Baby Armstrong' case, is very creepy and engages the viewer immediately. The sets and costumes (and even the opening credits) remind one of the grand Hollywood spectacles of the past. Sidney Lumet's direction is outstanding, as are the performances throughout. Definitely worth an annual viewing.

Humorless and overrated, but lovely to see that cast together

[kira02bit · 6/10 · 5 November 2022]

I am a huge Agatha Christie fan and adore the majority of her film/TV adaptations. Even the least of them have something to offer the viewer. The 1974 adaptation of her most notable novel, Murder on the Orient Express, is no exception. Anyone unfamiliar with the novel or the conclusion will without a doubt fail to guess it, which makes it a nice watch with a group so one can gauge their reactions. To my surprise, almost no one in the current generation knows a thing about it.

It is December 1935 and Christie's master detective Hercule Poirot is stunned to find the title train booked in the off season, but is able to finagle a berth thanks to connections. The train is filled with an eclectic cast of characters, but the one to initially occupy Poirot's (and our) attention is enigmatic, rough-hewn Richard Widmark, who wants to enlist Poirot's assistance as he is certain someone on the train is trying to kill him. Predictably Widmark does meet his maker during a rather busy night prior to the train running into a snow block, and everyone on board is a suspect.

Christie's novel uses the backdrop of a child kidnapping as the motivation for the murder on the train. It is a thinly veiled reworking of the actual Lindbergh kidnapping. It is interesting that Christie suffered very little blow back for taking a real event that the participants were still reeling over and using it for her fiction, but I digress. Apparently readers of the 1930s were more liberal towards such things.

What works in the film is quite simple. The sets, costumes, etc., are lavish. And that cast is flawless. We would certainly have to work hard to conspire to unite so many Hollywood luminaries on screen at one time (although films like Knives Out and Kenneth Branagh's version of this film certainly try hard to come close). Around every corner there lurks a legendary actor or actress from the Hollywood sky to illuminate the proceedings. It is a sheer joy to watch these professionals share the screen.

Christie's story is a like a Swiss watch, so it is fascinating to see it putter along on screen as we follow Poirot's investigation.

That said, the film falls short in several areas. It was undoubtedly a landmark in 1974 when such star-studded mysteries and serious Christie adaptions were novelties. Previously Christie had been adapted into a wonderful series with Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple, but the prior attempt to do something with Poirot was a disastrous misfire with a seriously miscast Tony Randall in The ABC Murders. However, since 1974 we have had several Poirot films (featuring the redoubtable Peter Ustinov), the popular TV series with David Suchet, and the recent remakes with Kenneth Branagh. All of them have elements to recommend them and give us a contrast to this film that did not exist at the time. As such, they allow us to now see what a slow-moving and humorless film this is in actuality. The next sequel, Death on the Nile, would find just the right balance of humor, thrills and seriousness that are woefully in short supply here.

Albert Finney hams it up as Poirot - nearly unrecognizable under prostheses and make-up, but he is surprisingly unpleasant and despite garnering an Oscar nomination for this part, I find him less successful then Ustinov in the later films or Suchet in the TV series. Even Branagh brings liveliness to his interpretation that is sorely missed here. Finney's Poirot comes across as a rather a self-impressed dullard.

The supporting cast is incredible, but predictably some have more to do than others. Ingrid Bergman snagged a third Oscar in the supporting category as a nervous missionary. She is fine, but it is pretty inconceivable how she got a nomination much less the award for this part. By no stretch is she even the strongest supporting performance on hand and given her prior Oscars there should have been no compulsion to award her an honorary one for this role. Lauren Bacall is aces (and my pick from the cast for the best supporting work) as a brash American widow, who always manages to be the loudest person in the room. Widmark makes the most of his limited screen time as the victim, who is shady enough never to enlist our sympathy. Jacqueline Bisset is luminous as a countess and Michael York is solid as her husband. Anthony Perkins is predictably nervy as the dead man's secretary. I quite like Vanessa Redgrave and Sean Connery, but they have less to do here than others. Wendy Hiller enjoyably chews scenery as a Russian princess, as does Rachel Roberts as her German maid.

The score for the film is a puzzle. There is literally little to no music to imply that we are watching a mystery or a thriller. In fact, when listening to it, I kept envisioning women from the 1920s strutting down the catwalk to model their fashions rather than a particularly dramatic film. So a complete miss there for me.

The pace to the film can best be described as stagnant. I can understand and appreciate a deliberate pace, but there is literally no urgency in this film at all. When one considers that a murder was planned and committed, and an investigation is under way to unmask the culprit before they ostensibly strike again, the ho-hum shuffling along that this film indulges in goes from a curiosity to maddening to just plain dull. As much as I loved this cast and seeing them assembled, there is something really odd with the way the film presents them and the story on screen. The motivating factor here is the kidnapping and murder of a defenseless child. Justice has been thwarted, vengeance is in the air, lives have been forever altered for the worse, and yet the emotional impact of this film is nil. No one seems especially impacted and they are all directed as though they gathered to play dress up for an evening out at the club. Even after Poirot has outlined what happened, who was involved, and why, the characters on screen all seem strangely unemotional and muted. This is something I think that the Branagh adaptation handled better - you got far more than impression of lives that were destroyed and the emotional toll and loss that murder had taken on those in its orbit. Here, not so much.

I also would say that the immediate sequel to this film, Death on the Nile, is actually a much better effort, yet mysteriously failed to garner much Oscar acclaim in a weaker year, despite having extraordinary supporting performances from Bette Davis, Mia Farrow and Angela Lansbury, and Ustinov's much more accessible Poirot.

So while I enjoy watching Christie's plot unfold and this wonderful cast interact with each other, I think the impact that this film had in 1974 has worn off over the years and allowed us to appreciate more fully some of the adaptations that followed, so I don't place this as high on my Christie adaptation list as others.

Watchable but......oh Albert!

[bloodgrss · 4/10 · 1 March 2012]

I enjoyed this when it first came out-having now seen it again I must take myself to task! It has all the superficiality of movies historical of the 1970's---and it's money came from its star power. But poor accents from the non Europeans and Finney combined with, as has been pointed out, his absurd 'constipated' look and nonstop barking and harsh throaty voice makes this hard to finish-particularly the last 20 minutes. Have you ever been able to listen to someone shout for any period of time? Strange choice Finney-but at this time he was trying many different roles on stage-and his Hamlet and Macbeth were similarly afflicted with vocal worries and brusk and "busy" movement.

Stylish and fairly true to the story-but in the end rather a bore.The new 'movie, from 2010 with Suchet is far too obsessed with dark and cold and 'what IS justice" --so that it makes Poirot seem small minded and angry---and its limited budget shows. Yet he is a wonderful Poirot-the best so far-and- outside of the homophobic who misread his feyness---it is somewhat more watchable than this despite its foolish additions and too severe Poriot portrait......