woosterek100
Whoever controlled the rights to Agatha Christie's work and permitted this awful movie to be produced should be flogged. Updating a Christie classic and setting it in the present could have worked really well. However, instead of sharp plotting and good dialogue, the writers chose to do this by endlessly beating us over the head with pop culture references such as the Popiel Pocket Fisherman and Elton John. Alfred Molina is a decent Poirot except for his constant musing over his problems with his hot girlfriend. And lest we momentarily forget that this is a SUPER MODERN take on the story, the clues have been updated as well: notes are replaced with VHS tapes and diaries with Palm Pilots. All of these innovations don't actually do anything to advance the plot in any way. The cast is largely unknown save for a few recognizable faces such as Meredith Baxter who hysterically chews through the scenery, and Leslie Caron who just looks embarrassed to be there. Stick with the Oscar winning 1974 version, or better yet, read the book.
catuus
It is Alfred Molina's great misfortune that, in portraying Hercule Poirot, he has been preceded by Peter Ustinov, Albert Finney, and David Suchet. Had this not been true, we might have been tempted to give his performance a higher rating than it is now possible to do.The original novel by Agatha Christie (same title) is one of the greatest whodunits ever penned. For unknown reasons, Ustinov never did it. My guess is that, although his Poirot films were made after the timely death of the pernicious and much-despised Code, the prospect of a murderer getting away with the crime was still too daunting for Hollywood. Suchet has yet to make Orient, but then it was only last year ('07) that he finally did "Mrs. McGinty's Dead" (with, we hope, Ariadne Oliver). Suchet's voice is used for Poirot in the 2006 Orient Express video game.So finally, in 2001 a TV version of Orient is made with Alfred Molina in the key role. Alas. Molina is a talented actor. His portrayal of Poirot, while not definitive nor even close, is passable – even pretty good in some ways. However, once we compare him with his predecessors (not to mention the literary original), the problems show up like fat, pendulous, juicy pimples (the kind we all loved to pop back in the day). We all know, for instance, that Poirot was fastidious to the point of school-marmish fussiness. Molina's Poirot is neat and that's about it. Molina's accent is a sort of generalized European, not the pointedly confrontational French that Poirot affected. Molina does use the catch-phrase "little grey cells", but he rattles them out because they're in the script, not because (as is the case) Poirot is obsessive about them. Indeed, Poirot's fundamentally obsessive character is de-emphasized to the point of vanishing. Molin'a Poirot seldom speaks of himself in the third person; Poirot does so rather a lot. His mustache is some short hair under his nose; Poirot's is a fashion statement and accessory that defines his dandified appearance. Molina doesn't wear gloves. Nor spats, but then the date of the mystery has been moved up to about the date the film was made. Anyone who by now believes I haven't made my case doesn't know Hercule.While Suchet is the best Poirot overall, Ustinov bears away the palm for best actor. He inhabits the role so effectively that we become unconscious of his imposing height and bulk. Finney, who appears in the 1974 Orient, lacks for little in the Poirotishness of his portrayal. This is a competition that Molina simply can't win.The plot of the 2001 film is, incidentally, pretty much the same as that of the novel and the 1974 film. Poirot is traveling from Istanbul on the famous Orient Express. He shares the first class car with a diverse set of individuals. One of them, a highly unpleasant person (Ratchett) is stabbed to death in the dead of night. There are plenty of clues … in fact, as Finney's Poirot observes and Molina's does not, there are too many of them. The train is stalled in its journey (snow slide in 1974, rock slide in 2001) and the railway's CEO commissions Poirot to find the killer. Through patient questioning and separating false clues from real ones, Poirot does so … twice. If you don't actually know the plot already, your cultural deprivation is truly unfortunate.The problem with the 2001 production, however, runs deeper than merely the star. It's virtually the whole cast and what the update in time has done to their roles. The update from 1935 to c.2001 was apparently made because the producers figured that education has been so inadequate recently that viewers would never figure out what a White Russian (Princess Dragomirov) is, nor understand references to the Lindburgh kidnapping, nor fail to be puzzled by people going to Iraq for actual constructive purposes (archaeology), nor … well, you get the gist.The result is that we have characters who are updated but far less interesting. As for the participating actors: recall that in 1974 we get Martin Balsam, Richard Widmark, Wendy Hiller, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, John Gielgud, … well, again you get the gist. Want a cast list of the 2001 film? Well, there's Leslie Caron, and Who? …and Whom? …and What? …and Which? …and …and …and … well, and a group of actors, most of whom are still working. They appear primarily in small roles in TV series episodes and in fairly little-known films. The upshot is that we get OK performances of a fairly uninspired script, and that's about it. The exception is from the one fine actor in the group, Leslie Caron. That's the upside. The downside is that her performance is deeply informed by that of Wendy Hiller as Princess Dragomirov. In this film the character becomes Señora Alvarado, the widow of a fairly nasty Latin American dictator. The problem here is that the character has way more social standing than would someone coming from such a sleazy background. She is in fact treated as the royalty Dragomirov was. That is, the character doesn't really compute … in order to keep character relationships as they were before the rewrite, Alvarado had to be accorded deference even Eva Peron didn't get in exile. Still, Caron manages to convince us of her bona fides. As I said, she's good.The cold, hard fact is that there are quite a few things on TV that are better than this remake. That's something we can't say about the 1974 original. The Poirot of the remake, Alfred Molina, is a pretty good actor – but for whatever reason he has seriously misconceived the part he plays and as Poirot he winds up in 4th place in a field of 4. The picture, alas, winds up in about 9th place in a field of 2.
IslandMadMacs
Then prepare to be flattered. This film has long since been shunted aside as the dubious and inferior version of the 1974 classic. And while it's true that the 'made-for-tv' label lacks the star-studded ensemble which had Lauren Bacall leading a troupe that would be virtually impossible to recast today, especially given the salary and artistic 'demands' of current leading performers; what's completely overlooked is that this film *works*. I first saw this when it was broadcast on a local CBS affiliate in 2001, not out of interest but curiosity. How would Alfred Molina interpret the role so memorably and indelibly created by Albert Finney? How would the writers craft the isolation needed for the plot to work - given this takes place in modern times and deals with the virtual impossibility of escaping the information world? And most importantly, how would the director and writers create enough drama for this, one of the best loved "murder-mysteries" in filmdom, when everyone even remotely familiar with the original film production knows in advance how it all ends?Despite all those hurdles, I was impressed. Molina delivers a wonderful performance as the dandified private detective. Even going so far as to give us a wonderful (and accurate) character revelation - seen early in the film when he must deal with the loss of a beautiful and vivacious woman. And speaking of which - when did it become okay to accept implied homosexuality in character where Christie herself had Poirot of the novels hopelessly in love with a woman? (Countess Vera Rossakoff) How and when does his sexuality even become Poirot's most important character trait to comment on? The amount of reviewers here suggesting that very thing is STUNNING. Read the books before making assumptions! I'd like to quote TV character Frasier Crane here (another metrosexual like Poirot) and say, "I've never seen anyone 'in' themselves before." And to the "reviewer" who points to the inaccuracy of the real Orient Express' existence. Well, duh, it's *explained in the film*. Guess you wouldn't know that if you had watched the film in the first place. And if you had, why point out the "inaccuracy"? Don't try to ply your con here you pretentious fop. (this reviewer actually has the nerve to claim humility in his post - incredible)Still, I do agree that Meredith Baxter was terribly miscast. Never an actress of great ability, her portrayal in the key role of Caroline Hubbard was far beyond her reach. And her screeching voice does tend to wear on you. However, I'd like to offer up cheers to Dylan Smith, who did an absolutely outstanding job as the gimmick entrepreneur and freshly born capitalist Tony Foscarelli - he was hilarious!I can recall early in 2001, when hearing about this production, speaking with a fellow film fan about how shocking it was that David Suchet was not cast in the role he had been steadily doing for more than ten years in the ongoing BBC series. But after seeing this film - I have to tell you that Molina does a fantastic job. Within ten minutes he was Hercule Poirot. Admittedly a touch more gregarious and less coiffed-n-dandified than you would expect. And quite a bit taller than imagined by Christie, but still a worthy interpretation.There are far too many reviewers here who seem to be extremely priggish themselves. Frothing over the '74 version as if it we were talking 'Casablanca' or 'Gone With The Wind' where recreation or reinterpretation is truly impossible. Relativity. Everything is relative and should be placed in its proper context. It's been nearly *thirty years* since the Lumet version. My God, an entire human generation has been born, grown up, and had kids of their own since 1974. Are you so entrenched in your own wistful memories of youth to deny another generation Poirot and Christie? That's well-aged hubris and denial talking. "No, it's *our* story", "No, *ours* is better!" Can you hear the creaking bones of the baby boomers? (I'm one myself so don't go pointing your cane at me)I would encourage you to find your own path and not be deterred by doddering old codgers who won't give up the torch. Sometimes you have to TAKE it from their decrepit clutches. Especially the Boomers - who are obviously not going to do so gracefully.Is this as good as the 1974 version? No. But, is it as good as the story it wants to tell? Yes, very much so. Check out both films and enjoy the subtle variations of a new storyteller.
