Ever since I watched Kenneth Branagh's mediocre Murder on the Orient Express, I've been meaning to check out Sidney Lumet's version of Agatha Christie's famous novel and now that I have, I have to say that I was a bit disappointed. Not that Lumet's film isn't good, it is, but it just isn't as good as 12 Angry Men or Dog Day Afternoon.
I think it's kind of pointless to tell you what the movie is about, but just in case you don't, it is set in the 1930s and follows the famous Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Albert Finney) as he finds himself travelling on the Orient Express. One of the passengers, Mr Ratchett (Richard Widmark), asks Poirot for protection but he declines. The next morning, Mr Ratchett is found dead in his compartment and Poirot is asked to solve the murder before the train arrives at the next station.
Being Lumet's film an incredibly faithful adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel, having read the book takes away all the mystery from the story. The thing here is that Lumet is a masterful storyteller and he is able to deliver the complex story Christie wrote, a story that gets thicker and thicker as it develops, in such an intriguing and gripping way that will keep you glued to the screen from the beginning until the very end. Also, the several plot twists I knew were coming are pulled off beautifully. Which is something Branagh's version kind of did too.
The characters are the biggest difference between this version and Branagh's. Although most of them have very little screen time, their introduction is handled very well, and their characterization is quite impressive.
And the credits go to the cast for it. With the exception of Albert Finney whose performance as Hercule Poirot didn't really convince me as he tries to be very accurate to the character that Christie wrote delivering a quite obnoxious Poirot but ends up exaggerating a little --I highly doubt that the Poirot from the novel would tear up a menu of a restaurant and throw the pieces up in the air--, the all-star supporting cast, including Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, Sean Connery, and more, is fantastic. Each of the actors delivers an unforgettable character and each one of them makes the film more intriguing as they all add a sense of mystery and suspense with their performances.
 |
| EMI Films |
At last but not least, there's the visual aspect of the film. The cinematography by Geoffrey Unsworth is very atmospheric and colourful; the locations and sets are great and so are the costumes and makeup. The musical score too is mysterious and fits the film very well.
I love this film and found it a great adaptation to Christie’s novel. I actually liked Finney’s performance who got the Poirot character down ( I read a ton of Heistie novels). I think Lauren Bacall deserved the Oscar over Ingrid Bergman but the characters a4e nicely developed. It s an interesting take on the actual Lindbergh kidnaping case.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on Bacall deserving the Oscar over Bergman.
DeleteThe new version is on TV right now as I saw some of it and I don't have a reaction to it at all. Plus, I want to see this version first as I heard it's much better.
ReplyDeleteIt is! The new one has a better Poirot though.
DeleteIt's hard to compare Lumet's work on Dog Day & 12 Angry Men with this. Those first two are hard hitting explorations of angst and desperation where this one is geared to be escapist entertainment with all the trimmings.
ReplyDeleteOn that level it's a winner with a lush feeling rare in film today because the opulence is real and looks it. I agree the way the characters are introduced is very cleverly done. Since there are so many of them there isn't a great deal of time for depth but Lumet and the performers give us more or less everything pertinent for us to know about each on that first glance. The same holds true with the reenactment of the crime which if you pay close attention spells out so much of what follows.
The star power Lumet gathered for this is just incredible and proving he had a great eye for character every performer was the original one he envisioned for their role except Wendy Hiller as the Princess Dragomiroff. Hiller is absolutely wonderful in the role but I think Hiller's first choice, Marlene Dietrich would have been fascinating. The producers nixed the idea thinking that she would be too campy and then Lumet turned to Ingrid Bergman offering her choice of roles between the Princess and the mousey missionary. Bergman felt the missionary was more of a challenge and while I don't think it's Oscar worthy I like her performance which is often reviled for the simple fact that it won over better work. That's hardly Ingrid's fault and she was never shy about saying she felt the same way basically handing her award to Valentina Cortese on the podium. If you've never seen her speech here it is a study in grace and class:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky5sW4no_cg
While I don't think she should have won, the award definitely should have gone to Cortese, I think Betty Bacall should have snagged the supporting nomination over Bergman. She's brash and loud but doesn't settle for making that all that Mrs. Hubbard is. I like Finney's interpretation of "the fussy Belgium fart" Poirot. Peter Ustinov remains my favorite, I didn't think much of Branagh's take and though many feel David Suchet's TV Poirot was definitive it didn't do much for me.
The costuming is wonderful. Not just the rich elegant fabrics that Jacqueline Bissett, who looks the best she ever did on screen-a high bar considering how ravishing she is-but all the clothes. Vanessa Redgrave's sensible tailored suits look as right on her as Jackie's or the Princess's do on them and the same holds true for the men.
The recent remake was an adequate version of the story but a mere shadow of this missing the splendor, humor and joy of filmmaking on display here replacing it with a dour tone and too much CGI.
Yeah, you're right, it's not fair to compare Lumet's important work with this.
Delete