Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Havan_IronOak I was first introduced to this material with the star-studded 1975 version. Despite what I felt was outrageous overacting by Albert Finney (and sort of tawdry performance by Anthony Hopkins) that version will always be my benchmark.Others prefer the David Suchet version which has interesting aspects as well. Yet, some find it too religious.This version manages to capture most of the elements of Christie's story and yet updates it to the new millennium. Not sure why that update was done as part of the original's appeal (for me at least) has always been the recreation of the pre-WWII era.Yet here we have a production that somehow manages to struggle by on only nine murders. We lose a butler, a cook, and a lady's maid. Guess it's just hard to find good domestic help these days.We have a trashed VHS tape substituted for a burnt note, a PDA stylus substituted for a pipe cleaner & some matches. We still have the fine handkerchief with an embroidered H. We have a software billionaire for substituted for the famous pilot and we get a mention of OJ to make up for the Diesel for rather than the classic steam train. We have a rock-slide substituted for a Snowdrift. We have No kimono, No Greek Doctor (not even a vet) We have tech savvy Poirot who uses a laptop, we still have grease stained Passport and a broken watch (Thank God it wasn't digital!) And we have the English American translation issues with Attorney/Solicitor but also Vacation/Holiday As with many adaptations, I wonder why the changes were made. Some work, some don't. While this is never going to be my preferred (or even second best) version of the story, it is still watchable and merits a single viewing.Let's hope that the new Johnny Depp version does as well.

bkoganbing Alfred Molina stars as the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot who even in a modern age of computers still prefers his little gray cells even though one of the suspects in this modernized 21st century remake of Murder On The Orient Express is a dot com millionaire. The little gray cells still work pretty well and as we know Molina comes up with two solutions for the murder.Which is of Peter Strauss a rather crass and wealthy American who is getting death threats and he wants to know the source. When Molina turns him down later that night on the train Strauss is stabbed several times in his sleep. The officials on the Orient Express ask Molina to take charge of the investigation while a landslide blocks their path.For anyone who has seen the big screen version which contained an all star cast I won't go into details. But that version is set at a time when traveling on the Orient Express was a matter of class and elegance and you got performances of the cast reflecting that. Agatha Christie stories be they Miss Jane Marple, Hercule Poirot, or Tommy&Tuppence should always stay in the period they are written in. They lose so much when they are not.Standing out among the passengers are Meredith Baxter as a minor American TV actress and Leslie Caron as the widow of a South American dictator.Compared to the big screen version this one is good root beer as opposed to elegant champagne.

asssstrokeable I am a very very big fan of the Agatha Christie novels made into films especially when David Suchet is Hercule Poirot (the best by far!).Although I have recently come across this copy of Murder on the Orient Express and to tell you the truth I am very sorry that I did!!!!It is bad, bad, bad, bad!!!!!I know it is made for television viewing, but please you can not even use this as an excuse. It is too modern. Yes you can do re-makes with different actors/actresses but still have the feel of the time period in which the story is set. This doesn't. There are so many cross references to present time (Hercule using a laptop with access to the internet! get real!).I will not even start into Alfred Molina as Hercule because it would be unprintable.Did the director, producer or anyone involved in making this debacle even read the book???? This is SO awful, please stay clear.If you appreciate the correct adaptation of this classic, I beg you, make a point of watching the 1974 version.

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.