I'm pretty sure Poirot's apparent sanctimony in the Suchet version was actually him trying to justify the theatrics that led to the soldier's suicide in the prologue. He's trying to convince himself that he was not at fault for what happened. His entire arc in that adaptation is about how far he can go in the pursuit of justice before it ceases to be justice.

I love to see the 1970's Albert Finney version getting the love it deserves

Me before even watching the video: *THE BRANAGH ONE! HANDS DOWN THE WORSE!*

With the TV show, I feel like in the later part of series they were putting Poirot through a character progression where all the evil and deception he had experienced over the years was making his mind darker and causing him pain, and he was holding on tighter to his religion to get him through it. I don't mind them wanting to give him development rather than always being the same but I think they took it too far. It was also affected by the fact that murder mysteries in the early 2000s had become darker and more dramatic in general. Miss Marple got the same treatment, adding in new elements just for sensationalism.

Suchett version is superior in every way. Beautifully portrayed, acted and expressed. Beautiful work in general.

So, the Albert Finley version is disqualified from judgement because it is ‘Cinematic Gold’; the Molina version is silly but still disqualified and you haven’t seen the Japanese one so is also disqualified. Then there were two ( see what I did then?). You don’t like either but will reluctantly settle on the 2017 version as being the worst of 2! Reminds me of a friend who didn’t drink coffee but insisted she liked it. Her explanation was that she just hadn’t found one she liked.

One other thing I'd like to bring up that you only addressed briefly with these two adaptations: the setting. The Finney version is masterful at presenting the tension *OF* the space. The Orient Express is luxurious, but it's cramped. As anyone who has travelled by train or airplane knows, this is always the case. There's a claustrophobia as passengers push past each other in the narrow corridors, as the camera pushes in tightly on them during interrogations, even this shot at 9:51 in the more spacious dining car shows the characters practically huddled in on each other. 11:08 This aspect is maintained in the Suchet adaptation but the addition of the utilities failing ups the stakes. When the train gets halted by the snow drift, there's a lingering shot right after in the dining car: the plates and glasses (neatly made up for tomorrow's breakfast) are turned over and smashed. It's the first instance of the "breaking" of the comfort and glamour of the Orient Express. Throughout the rest of the movie as the lights go dark, the heat dissipates, and the faucets freeze, the opulent train becomes a frozen hell a la the deepest pit of Dante's Inferno. This is an *incredibly* impactful piece of visual storytelling as it adds to the episode's religious theming and its figurative cold tone. But the Branagh version... just look at this shot at 21:21. The passageways seem wider on this train set (11:51 & 15:50), the framing during interrogations is rarely tight enough to create a sense of foreboding, and they just can't wait to get off the train, huh? Ignoring the stupid scene of Poirot on top of the train or all the overblown action shots around the trellis, the camera keeps showing or moving to the outside (12:24, 12:50, 13:02, 13:37). These make for a more airy, open feel to the film directly overruling any attempts at creating a sense of claustrophobic tension or paranoia of being in close proximity to the killer. Lastly, there's Poirot's denouement with the suspects which takes place OUTSIDE THE TRAIN in front of a tunnel. It comes complete with a pointless and hackneyed reference to The Last Supper with the 12 laid out like Jesus and the apostles. If the Suchet version makes masterful use of the elements, the Branagh one is the most flaccid in its use. They're surrounded by snow and ice, but I get no sense that its cold. Poirot's words are harsh, but the environment isn't and these people may as well just be waiting for a bus. This is a set. And that's a consistent problem throughout the Branagh version: the train is pristine, the furniture is freshly lacquered, the glass is spotless. You'd expect the first class accommodations to be tidy, sure, but the kitchen car, the baggage car, the train exterior as well?! This isn't Titanic, we're not on the Express' maiden voyage. And yet everything is immaculate; of course it is, it's freshly arrived from the Props Department. This is such a film set, that it takes you out of the mystery. And that is my overly long rant in praise of Suchet adaptation's use of set dressing.

For me, this is pretty simple, actually. 1974's Murder on the Orient Express is undoubtedly the best and the garbage fire made my Kenneth Brannagh in 2017 is the worst (and also one of the worst Poirot adaptations of all time). It's a perfect demonstration of why you don't mess with the classic when you don't know what you're doing 🤷‍♀️ While the David Suchet version is far from perfect, I disagree on one point. I don't perceive his Poirot as harsh and judgemental, but rather someone who is struggling very hard with existential crisis and grappling with the questions of morality, justice and revenge, and ultimately losing a war against himself. It's a divergence from the source material, no doubt, but you can see the intent of filmmakers beyond just making a quick buck off the back of the original while relying heavily on the new generation of movie goers ignorant of the 1974's masterpiece.

Because I am a fan of David Suchet’s Poirot, I have rationalized Suchet’s Poirot becoming more religious and beliefs of right and wrong to the fact that he is aging and changing attitude toward life. I dislike Branagh’s interpretation and find his Poirot movies overdone and ridiculous.

Agatha Christie great grandson James Prichard said that he wanted to take her books in a new direction. Which at time I find a little disheartening.

The Suchet version is IMHO by far, beyond any doubt at all, the BEST adaptation so far of this novel. 01:34 Oh come on! That version is an utterly ridiculous adaptation! 04:10 Well, yes. Because they seem human. It would be different if Poirot went around hitting people, but he sometimes loses his tempter under some circumstances. Not a necessary choice, but an absolutely valid one. 04:34 Unperterbed? I do not agree. He seems to me a man who is trying to deal with parts of life he does not like. He is a bit twitchy, somewhat nonplussed even in subtle ways. I would go so far as to say brittle. For that matter, I would also point out Poirot has a somewhat ruthless streak, at times almost a little cruel. 05:00 YOu see, I think Suchet's Poirot changes over time. Which is hardly surprising. It makes him more human. 11:18 Making the Calais coach as physically uncomfortable as it was emotionally and intellectually was one of my favorite aspects of this version. 18:43 And he sees that. One of the favorite aspects of this version is that the murderers seem themselves traumatized by what they have done. And THAT is what cracks Poirot's shell. 19:05 This is a bete noir of your own. This extreme rejection of characters being religious, specifically Christian. Poirot of the books IS religious. Sorry, but he is. And he is a dynamic character, changing with age. Trying to pretend people in the 1930s were not quite a bit more overtly Christian than now, is simply being inaccurate. This is your personal issue. YOu have plenty of valid points about religion, especially organized religion, but this reflex reaction that it is always forever BAD and including it in a story is always forever BAD is flat out formulaic and even reactionary. 20:41 Making a story more dramatic, more compelling, more disturbing is rarely a bad thing. This version is an IMPROVEMENT on the novel in that regards. Although I think it is left up more to the reader precisely how each individual is responding to events. Something you can do in the literary media far more easily than a dramatic one. (and may I say the earlier version's ending of everyone cheerfully toasting each other always made my blood crawl...these people committed MURDER, the murder of a vicious human being, but a human being none the less, and that is NOTHING to celebrate). 21:25 I will also note Branaugh is not playing a human being but a collection of quirks. I see no heart in his Poirot, no passion. I am not rooting for him or much care what happens.

I appreciate this discussion. I think the Suchet version is in keeping with the character of Poirot, in spite of the injection of religiosity. I think you have missed some key characteristics of Poirot. There are hints through all the books of his moral absolutism, underpinned by orthodox Catholicism, actually often harsh, but also tempered with compassion. (He often says "Nom d'un Nom" which means "name of God".) I think the producers emphasized that internal conflict, which seems incongruous, because of the character arc of Poirot and also because they realized that modern viewers would/should have had the dilemma of: what is justice? The book glosses over that dilemma, which seems typical of Christie's style. So the adapters added it back in. It would have sufficed to have Poirot agonizing/cogitating/stressing -- he's being the jury, considering each perpetrator and their motives and whether judicial action would be just to each individual. The religious aspect is Not Out of character, but it is so buried throughout the books that it feels awkward to modern viewers. It was also excessive in the movie. One last point: David Suchet so carefully embodied the personality of Poirot that I don't think he would have agreed to the prayer scene if it had been out of character. Unlike Branagh's action-hero idiocy.

Ooof. Poor Suchet adaptation. I love it personally XD Poirot IS Catholic in the books though. It's mentioned in more than one story. The Chocolate Box is one that comes to mind

I think you missed the fact that Suchet's Poirot is clearly going through a crisis of faith, not so much faith in God but faith in justice. That's why he acts so callous toward the friend of the soldier who committed suicide and toward the stoned woman. Internally he is in turmoil but he is trying to convince himself that ultimately justice is always righteous. Later during the reveal he breaks down saying that if 'justice falls then you pick it back up and hold it even higher'. That otherwise we become 'savages'. This encapsulates his moral conflict. He feels like he has become part of a system of justice that is divorced from humanity, from God, but as he has always lived his life according to a perfect order and now his heart is in conflict with itself. After his ultimate decision to show mercy, he walks away crying unsure of his choice. His faith has been shaken but it has not broken him.

Please PLEASE do a video on the mysterious Affair at Styles 🙏

The BBC Radio adaptation is great, probably the closest to the book.

The Suchet 'Murder on the Orient Express' is my favorite. I have enjoyed the short stories but confess I haven't read many of the novels. I love the Albert Finney version, but it was definitely of its time. The Branagh movies can all die in a fire. I made it three minutes into the video and knew this was not for me. Suchet's MOE begins an arc toward the final season's adaptation of Curtain: Poirot's Last Case. [Short story] Poirot on numerous occasions has come across as rigid and self-righteous. He rarely operated in morally gray spaces. This version of MOE, at least for me, is the fracturing of the Poirot's morally rigidity. If anything, the more he protests of the higher judgment of God, Suchet deftly portrays Poirot's doubts and fears. Ultimately, Curtain decimates Poirot's crumbling belief in a final and just punishment for evil doing. IYKYK.

I wish the Suchet version was made earlier in the series when the tone wasn’t so grim. As much as I cherish that series, I rarely revisit this version, there’s just something very off-putting about it.

I would be curious to know which of the films in the Poirot series Suchet liked the best: the first years that were light and humorous with Miss Lemon and Captain Hastings, or the later years which were much darker, edgier, added unnecessary sexual elements, and tampered much more with the source material. (I know which ones I liked best.)

I think you make all great points here, Suchet’s Poirot becoming increasingly religious and irrationally angry made him more and more unlikeable but Branagh’s filmmaking from start to finish is overblown and not suitable to the subtleties of the novel, or of any Christie novels. They are all train wrecks in my opinion.

Hardly surprising that we agree, but I like Suchet's version A LOT more than you did. Having not seen Branagh's version, my worst would've been the Alfred Molina version, but obviously not covered here. But anyway, I hope you're doing well and have a Merry Christmas. By the way, any thought to doing a video on the new Christie books written by someone authorized by her estate? I seem to remember there's 3 or 4 novels out right now.

I love your style of analysis. I have seen some of the movies, some over a decade ago and some of the stories mangled into American TV shows that have nothing to do with Christie. Having the novels and different adaptation at the same table is - don't want so sound over the top, but can't find better words - kind of enlightening and eyeopening. Getting to see all the strengths and flaws taught me a lot about storytelling and working with a specific medium (screen vs. book). So thank you for sharing your knowledge, analysis and opinion and helping me to be a better writer!

A great and powerful video as usual. I hope you watched the Albert Finney version as a palette cleanser afterwards. That film imho is still the best Poirot adaptation ever and maybe even the best adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, though I have still not watched A Haunting in Venice, which maybe a masterpiece but I'm not holding my breath.

I think the thing with the 2010 version that I appreciate most, is that it has the most accurate depiction of the Simplon Orient Express' operation during that period. It is something that the 1974 gets kind of wrong (understandably so from a budgetary concern) and something that that the 2017 version throws completely out the window. If you watch the 2010 version carefully, you can clearly see coaches added or subtracted as it makes its journey westward, a practice that Christie even mentions in the original novel.

Hi Miles, I liked your video. David Suchet once said that in Orient Express Poirot is tiered of all the deaths and is chronologically his last major case. Because he could not see white and black anymore he was losing his sens of justice hence the shouting. I have many opinions about both movies, but , 2017 Why is he asked to go to Egypt for a case when death on the Nile was pure happenstance for him being on that boat.

I loathe Kenneth Branagh's versions of Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, mainly because of Branagh himself. In general, I like Branagh as an actor, but the character he is portraying has nothing in common with Poirot but the name. I didn't particularly care for David Suchet's version, but I still like it better.

I had been looking forward to a version of MotOE with David Suchet for years, and I was so disappointed when it happened. I think the fact that is was Suchet playing Poirot like that made it feel like a betrayal in a way that Branagh's similar ethical dilema didn't, because Branagh was never really Poirot. But in the end, I agree with the ranking and points made here.

very well said. the Sidney Lumet version is one of my all time favorite movies. you did justice to all versions

Yeah, it's a very weird thing for Poirot to have no compassion for a woman stoned to death for adultery. Unless of course he were trying to provoke a reaction, but that's a stretch.

Great synopsis. I remember watching the David Suchet TV episide. Couldn't believe the end. So ridiculous and depressing.

The later Suchet Poirot episode lose a great deal of the elegant British himour.of the earlier ones, with both Mis Lemon and the Colonel much missed.

I too was astounded by the rigid actions of Poirot. In the books Poirot always made clear that he was more interested in finding out who the murderer was than what happens to the murderer. And, I'm sorry but the ending was just too much. Throwing aways his rosary???? How stupid; he might as well killed himself than than waiting for Curtain.

Please do The Crooked House! It's such a unique mystery with some of the best written characters + it was Agatha's favourite! The adaptation is..decent, it has Glen Close 😊 It'd be great to see your thoughts on this underrated masterpiece ❤ pleeeeaaaaseeeee😊

2017 - I love the melodramatic ending of 2017 version and the overall feel of the film. But am influenced by the fact that this was the 1'st adaptation I watched, and as I have not read the book yet by that time the reveal was real reveal for me. 2010 - I do like this version (because of David Suchet 🤣) . I like that the passengers were told Poirot decision after he spoke to the police - it did add to the tension. I agree that that they made Poirot unlikable in this movie, and too much of serious religious berk that does contradicts his overall cheerful and slightly humorous portrayal that I know from books and other parts of TV series. I do love the scene were Casetti and Poirot pray in the evening - the contrast of what we know about them and what their prayer is about is startling. Japanese version - well, it has a specific acting style known from their dramas. Most people will not like it but I found it humorous and a little charming. Fact to note is that this version has a second part that shows whole action from planning of the crime to what was happening in background after Casetti was murdered by guilty party. Overall it is not a bad adaptation. I'd like you to watch it and give your opinion. I have not watched other adaptations, I'd be correcting it asap. My verdict is - I actually like all versions the same, because none is actually truly following the book but I found sth to like in each of them. I read the book after watching 2017 version and although I enjoyed it, I think that more dramatic reveal from movies is more suitable. I actually found it rather abrupt and lacklustre how book Poirot delivered the resolution of the case and agreed to deliver assassin version to the police.

Today was my birthday so I'm considering this a gift. Thanks!

I loathe both David Suchet’s and Kenneth Branagh’s versions of Murder on the Orient Express. As far as I’m concerned the 1974 version starring Albert Finney is super…..!!! And I’ve watched it over a dozen times…!

Yeah, the 2017 version is the worst. KB’s Poirot bears no resemblance except for the exaggerated mustache. And that the filmmaker chose to make Poirot more of an action hero than one who primarily used his little grey cells really ruined it for me. I do love the Finney version because of its lavish art direction and lush portrayal of traveling wealthy people. It was just fun and the casting of so many stars made it great for film buffs. Wendy Hiller as the Countess?? Thank you!

Thank you so much for making this video! When the Suchet version was first released, I was so appalled by what they did to my beloved character that I took the whole thing as a personal offense. However, mine wasn't a popular opinion at the time. I feel validated now. Also - kudos to your principles, the final conclusion must have been difficult, but based on the odds of me rewatching either of these films, I would have chosen differently. You know, with a beer and a pizza.

I wonder if Poirot's religious turn has to do with Suchet's own devoutness.

Poirot was in shock when the soldier killed himself. He never saw that coming. He hardens his heart to keep himself safe from his self and is nonchalant about the stoning, trying to justify himself. He is so messed up because he feels guilt about the suicide he believes he caused. So as he goes along in the movie he continues to become angrier that he feels guilt and it shows. After all, he does not want to doubt himself because if he does then everything he has always believed comes into question. He is shaken to the core because he now doesn't know if he has been wrong all along and his faith comes into question also. No he is not more religious. He feels more and more guilty and he knows he has a God to answer to. He begins to feel he is not infalable and could be wrong so he is stressed to the limit, which shows up regularly in his actions. In the end he felt he had to make a choice and break his code of justice. It's a hard pill to swallow, but if he had went the other way there were others who would die and he doesn't think he can take any more guilt. -- ok that is my take on it. I tried to watch the Brannagh version but it was too stupid for words and had to give up. David Suchet will always be Poirot. So far no one else has even came close. #DavidSuchetisPoroitforever Goodnight all! -your friend, Mindy

All I had to do was see Kenneth Branaugh’s mustache to know that it wasn’t going to be any good

Your videos are so good!

I'm so shocked that an overweight middle-aged divorced man would take offense, at Christian themes

Christie was actually a believing Christian, but a protestant Christian. Poirot, as a Walloon, would likely have been a Catholic, and Catholics of that era -- and a lot of this era -- actually WERE moral absolutists. In one episode of the TV series, for instance, Poirot is seen in an Anglican church watching the suspects. If he really was a believing Catholic of that period, he would never have entered any protestant church. The absolutism is actually more historically accurate than most people today understand.

Well made! I totally agree with your decision.

"The protagonist's final action was not meant to be deeply personal or crushing moral dilemma". I read all the Poirot's in chronological order some years back. The ending to MOE is meant to be personal. It is alluded to in later novels, in other morally fraught situations. It doesn't "crush" Poirot, but it does seem to haunt him. For Poirot, the worst kind and most dangerous kind of murderers are those who think that the victim "deserved it" or "would be better off": The ones who think they have the right to play God. The culprits in MOE don't merit mercy because Ratchett had it coming. They merit mercy because they gave Ratchett a sort of due process, a "trial by jury". Not one of them believes that s/he alone has the right to kill. That is why Poirot feels it is safe to spare them. By this same token, Poirot does not feel he has the right to just let them go on his own. He also cannot "play God". That is why he shares both solutions with Bouc and Constantine, and lets them choose. It is not an easy decision and is supposed to have psychological consequences. Poirot's religion does play a significant role in his beliefs, and is relevant to his overall character arc. So it is understandable that the showrunners wanted to put a bit more emphasis on it in latter entries. Ironically, what ruined MOE and later entries is that the showrunners evidently hold the exact same views on Catholicism/Christianity as Miles does. Like Miles, they could not imagine a person possessing deep faith and also empathy and humanity. Even when Christie took the trouble to imagine such a character for them, their narrow little minds couldn't grasp it. That is why we got the Poirot we did.

Fair as usual, Miles. I *really* appreciate how you approached this. 23:44 this one minute explanation encapsulates my feelings when these two films are compared against each other. We all know the Finney adaptation is excellent, and the Molina version barely constitutes as a blip on the radar in most fan discussions (I wasn't even aware there was a Japanese adaptation before today to be honest), so placing these two side by side was effective. I'm glad you opted for the ending you did instead of the humorous one, perhaps that's a video for itself? Or maybe a Miles Ledoux Let's Play?! 🙏 I'll admit it, I'd forgotten some of the stoic/callous moments Poirot displayed earlier in the Suchet adaptation with regards to the suicide and stoning. I still think the combination Parlour Scene, last chat with Mary, and walking away resolution in the Suchet version makes for a powerful character interpretation... but, upon hearing your argument, I can now be more sensitive to the detractors of this adaptation and recognize this is not merely protestations from book purists or simple religious intolerance. This is more than a bit of a departure, although I still think the context with regards to the assassination of Ratchett plays a part, but that's just opinion at this point. But dumb really is the right word for the Branagh version. It felt disrespectful to the characters and the audience in equal measures as if we're squirming children whose attention couldn't be held without action spectacle pieces and melodrama.

Sorry for grammar issues here. Norwegian guy writing on a phone. I enjoy your videos a lot. You are truly an Agatha Christie fan to the core. But I am most admit that I actually loved the Suchet version of The Orient Express. I am not religious in any way, but have never had any issue with Poirot being portrayed as a catholic. For me it makes sense. The year is 1936, and you have grown up in an home that shapes your value and believes. I also enjoy that you can directly make a comparrison between Poirot and Ratchet. Both being religious for two very different reasons. It also portrays a traumatized victim, finding some relief in her faith, and motivation to seek revenge. Showing religious belives in many different forms. For me it is a debate of our morality. From our believes to our laws. Where Poirot stands on the hill of anarchy being worse, and we have to sacrifice for maintaing a sociaty. Infact the stoning scene fits perfectly in with what is gonna happend to Ratchet soon, and ironicaly one of the murderers finding that wrong, but feels justified to take on Ratchet later. Poirot making the comparrison to the death penalty in England, seems rather tolerant to me actually. We are doing a lot of the same thing at this time, based on our believes and laws. We are against homesexuality at this time, and not that far away from stoning them. Once more showing he is the outsider that sees the cultures from their perspectives, and being honest that the concept of "justice" it not pretty. You want to see this episode as being a seperate version to the show. But I honestly think that is a mistake. For it is by comparrison that we see a Poirot that is visible shaken by the suicide of the man in the begining. His words and actions are to very different things. He had passion in the first scene, and now he looks empty. Justice didn't happend, and he is now directly responsebal for a tragedy. He listens to the people around him, but look how David plays him now, versus is usually stick. He is absent minded, can't recollect where has seen the trainline director before. He can't even say no to come on the train. The fight is out of him. For me it is a broken man we see, who feels reponsebal. Infact it almost makes him not want to take the case of Ratchet. He argues the local goverment should do it instead. He doesn't wanna be there, and is drawn into the case against his will. Everytime someone calls him a genius, he feels enoyed. insteand of proud. He mocks his own name once, feeling he didn't really got to express himself the way he wanted to the upset woman on the train. Dealing with his personal issues, which is gonna tie in excellent with Poirot's lase case. This story seems to tie in with moralty, and death aswell. Everyone on that train, including Poirot is a broken person. Hoping that they can continue to go on, if justice can happend. They don't get that ending. Justice becomes artifcial. The individual becomes more important. A Poirot that has believed equally in god and law, is now torn. This man makes now sense for me to comit his final act in Curtain. Now only hoping for mercy, for what he still believes is a horrid act. But feels now justified to do, in order to protect others. I like it, and could go on and on how much I love Suchet as Poirot. The small touches, and the sadness and emptiness they have made that train feel. The usually arrogant, and egosentric Poirot, wouldn't have worked if u didn't take him down a notch in the begining. I have seens so many different versions of the Orient Express before, and it was nice to see a more raw and bare version of it. I also love that it points a mirror to us in western civilization. We find that stoning disturbing, but we are gonna feel these 12 people did the right thing, in murdering that scared criminal in his bed. A man so scared that he seeks redemption, hoping that giving the money back, and making him not profiting from his crimes, is gonna spare him. When is killing right, and when is it wrong? Are we justified ever to kill. "You shall not kill", is one of the ten commands, that probably is a very basic thing for Poirot. Yet me and you both now he is gonna break that soon. This episodes answers for me, why he can.

For me, and maybe as an Orient Express history buff, I am biased. But neither the 2010 or 2017 version were able to capture the Grandeur of the opulent train. I get there were logistical issues like the 74 film being able to actually get cars from the train, plus a working engine. But the interiors were still recreated on sound stages in the Uk with marvelous attention to detail. The latter versions just feel like an impression of the train, just doing generic art deco motifs you'd find at pier 1 imports. Plus the score by Sir Richard Rodney Bennett was so great they actually cut out the sound of the steam train just to let it set the mood of the glamor of Europe's most celebrated train.

Great points, but the Branagh mustache is so ludicrous that I can’t take his Poirot films seriously…..

My enjoyment of the in depth analysis was repeatedly and quite rudely interrupted by the presenter's relentless yelling into the microphone. So off-putting were these overblown exclamations and after adjusting my volume three times in four minutes, I resigned to ending the playback. It's a shame that Miles seems to think that shouting will help to make his point.

The Suchet one feels like a Poirot from a parrallel universe. My guess is that the director or screenwriter wanted something to make this feel personal or character driven for Poirot, but it really missed the mark.

Oh, Miles, so sorry your marriage didn’t work out!

Absolutely cackling at your (very legitimate) anger with the Suchet film I do like it (not as an adaptation) because I find the conflict of Poirot's religious conviction and bourgeois attitude murder vs the 13's sense of natural justice fascinating. But Poirot defending the stoning as 'justice' and his ruthless attitude to the suicide drive me spare. And I really dislike making the doctor one of the killers. However, Branagh turning Poirot into an action-hero who walks along a snowy train roof for no damned reason and turning Arbuthnot, who's most obsessed with the jury parallel in the book, into someone who tries to murder Poirot is so much dumber.

Its hard to say, both are so bad I would fast forward through them because they were hard to tolerate. Very cringy.

Honestly, I think the 2017 version is far better than the 2010 version. The 2010 version was far too dark and dismal. But the 1974 version is the best of the bunch.

I just got finished rewatching the 2010 film before watching this, sorry but i still love it and yes i think its better than the 70s film. Please do not drug my tea and stab me in my cabin!

I was born in 1988 but honestly eveything my generation filmmakers touch is turned to shit… or even a bit older filmmakers. It’s all about Marvel or Fast and Furious-ation of cinema today, you cannot just tell a story, you need turn the characters up to 11… you need Poirot on the roof of a train, you need kung fu and choreographed knife fights etc.

The David Suchet MotOE was SO BAD I couldn't get past the first few minutes. He played Poirot so *terribly* in that film. It was so dark and awful. Watching your review here I am *so* glad I didn't stick with it. From what I can tell it just gets worse and worse. "The 2010 version is disturbing and offensive." Yep. The Brannagh one drove me potty. JUST STICK TO THE STORY, MAN! Didn't like it at all. "It's dumb. It's so dumb!" Yep! Finney's was the best, even though I don't like Albert Finney at all. The worst? I disagree with you here. I could at least watch the Brannagh one. I absolutely could not watch the Suchet one. Therefore it's the worst.

Okay so a few things... You pointed out Poirot's explosion at the end of Three Act Tragedy, but I hold THAT is exceedingly well done. It actually makes sense for Poirot's character at that point and feels really powerful. His FRIEND just betrayed him, committing a truly heinous crime in the process, and that friend just blamed HIM for ruining his life. I actually really like that moment. Secondly, I appreciate the indirect shout-out mentioning the Computer Game, I keep saying the ending is dumber than anyone is thinking, and if I were to tell you you wouldn't believe me. I'll drop the ending at the end of this comment, but you ARE NOT READY my dude. Thirdly, for worst adaptation of the book? MAYBE 2017 wins out. For worst MOVIE? 2010 and it's not even close. You had basically everything right but there is one factor I feel you didn't take into account. Out of the two movies, which one would you rather watch again? 2017 Orient is an INCREDIBLY watchable movie. A Star Studded Cast, a fun Poirot, a generally Christie Esque atmosphere, 2010 is just a CHORE to get through. I'm giving the mantle to the one that makes me FEEL WORSE. And now for the grand reveal. *******SPOILER ALERT****** Daisy Armstrong... Is ALIVE.... And has been Hiding in the Luggage compartment the whole. Time. I told you you weren't ready.

the 2017 version completely lost me at the point when the nazi guy was being racist and then the girl mixes the drinks and says i like a good rosè and then it is revealed that the guy was faking being a racist nazi for no reason and that scene was some weird show for poirot obviously only included because they wanted a strong female to totally destroy racism with a reddit tier quip

Branagh one = HORRIBLE. The only worst movie is his Death on the Nile !!! WHY ?

I am so glad that you mentioned that in the book, it is up to the Doctor and Bouc to decide which theory to accept. Poirot does not make that decision himself and that is essential to his character. I am not a fan of many of the later Suchet Poirot movies. Thanks for mentioning the version with Alfred Molina, I will check it out.

The first adaptation is the better one even if they change a little but it is still better than the others 😂😂😂💔it was nonsense specifically the new adaptation of 2017 I remember when I saw it I was surprised why this novel took all of this fuss the movie was too boring but then when I read the novel it was completely a different experience I like it it is my favourite novel now I don’t know why they spoil the novels in the adaptation you have incredible transcript written by Agatha why they change it

Miles, I have never felt such kinship with you as your passion about the Suchet Murder on the Orient Express (MOE). I LOVE David Suchet but that MOE is oppressive and sanctimonious in such an odd way for the series, Suchet's legacy, et al. I remember thinking, did one of the powers that be have a tragedy they felt penance for or something dramatic that oozed into the production? It was odd and unwatchable. PS: REALLY like your note on both Suchet and Branagh MOE that it is NOT about convincing Poirot---he already knows. In the book it is clear. He is empathetic to the "jury" and as you expertly said, he is convincing Bouc et al. Merci for another awesome video! Starts my day of technical editing with inspiration. 🌹

I agree with you 100%.

The Branagh Poirots are... out there, but it was an fun romp that didn't take itself too seriously. Which unfortunately is exactly the problem with the Suchet version. While he'll always be my Poirot, the Orient Express is one of few episodes in the series I outright dislike.

I am yet to see an adaptation I really enjoy (though I believe I own at least three of them). Finney is a bit too silly for my taste, the Suchet one is sooo dark (I think the series works best when it embraces the lighthearted exchange between the characters) and the Branagh version is just… meh. I’m beginning to wonder if the novel just doesn’t lend itself to adaptation? Or maybe, despite its amazing twist… it’s not that great a story? 😮 I don’t know, but I do know I’m still waiting for a version that really convinces me otherwise.

If you love overacting to the max Branagh is what you are looking for and that applies to every role he ever had

Beg to pardon, but I think David Suchet’s Piorot is struggling with his history of serving the law and not, necessarily, serving justice. In the end of the Orient Express, he chooses justice, which heightens his religious needs further to forgive himself for doing so. I appreciate all the versions of this story...except the Alfred Molina portrayal...couldn’t even finish watching it!

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree on your last judgment call. Mainly because the 2010 version is very much a film you endure rather than enjoy, especially when compared to the 2017 version, that is very enjoyable even if uneven. While on the subject of Branagh's Poirot, I had a thought about what I'd like to see as the next one: following from Haunting in Venice being a patchwork of several stories: an adaptation of Cards on the Table where the 4 "killers" all come from other Agatha Christie stories instead of being originals. And to be very twisty, have Dr. Roberts' replacement be Dr. Sheppard from The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. :)

I despise the David Suchet adaptation. That was not Hercule Poirot. However well done it was, it was not the story it was supposed to depict. It was too different. It might have been inspired by, but was not based on the book.

David Suchet is a born again Christian (so am I) and I believe that's why there is more religion in the series.

I admit, I remembered not liking the Suchet version at all, but apparently I blocked out WHY I hated it, but you've now reminded me, Miles. Thanks? But more seriously, for whatever reason Murder on the Orient Express has never been one of my favorite Christies, despite its towering reputation. I can't really say why, either. Just doesn't do it for me. Which is why, actually, I'd go with the dumber Branagh version winning; at least it's dumbness can provide some laughter. It cannot be taken seriously. The Suchet version is just kinda gross. The... almost betrayal of Poirot's characterization by some of the latter-day Suchets, the making him an intolerant prick, really just gets my ire up. Poirot is a character with a very strong morality, but not the scolding, judgmental prude some of the latter Suchets make him. He was always empathetic and decent.

As a Christian and a fan of the series, I know that Suchet the actor is also a Christian, and perhaps that the reason for the religion.

1974 was held together by a number of strands, including setting the benchmark after decades of generally flimsy adaptations, all characters played by stars in their own right, Richard Rodney Bennett's masterful score. Nevertheless, there are creaks where too much is obviously shovelled into too short a (single-sitting) period and there is the inevitable rush towards the denouement. I saw the 2017 once but won't again of my own volition. Silly is the word that comes to mind, despite again having a fair number of great actors in it. 2010 is where I could not disagree with you more. The angle taken here is the supremacy of Justice, Equality and Morality, which enshrine Liberty, where everything fails around them. The suicide of the soldier is there because it exemplifies the consequences of a collapse in Justice and Morality. The stoning of the adulterous woman draws, in fact, a very unexpected but Equality-driven response from Poirot, that is may not be our system but it is their system. This is at odds with the hypocrites among the protagonists, who are mortified at the apparent brutality of the act and the detective's response. These two events cleverly set the scene for the mirror-system, which is ours and not theirs. Western Society, the rule of law and morality at large, in 1934 as in 2024, are founded on the Christian ethic. As Poirot himself says, When Justice falls, you pick it up and hold it even higher. Equality before the Law is there to protect us from ourselves as much as each other. Your damning comment is, This isn't about Christianity, it's about humanity. And, right there, everything you say falls flat on its face. Humanity is subjective, abstract and permits a breakdown; whereas the Law is objective, precise with the framework of Justice, Equality and Morality, the sum of which is Liberty. In summary, Christianity is all about humanity, starting with God Himself. Far from being a weak link in the long chain of Suchet productions, this one delves deeper to put meat on the bones of the fussy little Belgian and helps us understand clearly not only his mannerisms and words, but his decisive actions.

David Suchet is everything.

The Japanese version is my favorite version by far, even with the exaggerated acting ! It is definitely something to be seen.

To me, I just can't get on with Albert Finney as Poirot. I feel like he was reading the script to play Poirot and Gomez Addams at the same time, and he got confused and fused the two. Why is he hunched over so much and basically lurching around the screen? If you don't believe me, watch it again and count how many times you see his neck or his shoulders aren't up at his ears!!

actually the Suchet version is the best of all of them.. He´s the only one to truly show the inner turmoil that such a case would spark and force one´s mind to delve into.. the solemn ending was precisely what made it believable. I´ve all versions and 2010 version is the only one worth..

THANK YOU. This will be my favorite video of yours. David Suchet is so WEIRD and my only thoughts are they were afraid they would be unfairly compared to the Albert Finney version and wanted to differ. In David Suchet's book he says he is proud of this version and believes it is an accurate retelling of the book. As for KB's movie, out of his 3 ones, I like the Orient Express the best. And while his spectacle does get on my nerves, the thing that annoys me the most is the point you made where modern storytelling only knows to showcase detectives rattling off observations like Sherlock Holmes.

Lumet, Finney and Co. for the win! There can be only one! Lol. Great video, thank you.

Yes, yes, yes! I was so excited when I saw the first commercial for the Suchet version. I literally gasped and was excitedly saying to my partner "Suchet in Murder in Orient Express!" while he looked on amused. Then I saw it and was so bitterly disappointed. I've never rewatched it. Personally, I would rewatch the 2017 version before it, though I agree with your reasons for why it's the worst. If you can get ahold of the Japanese version, I actually quite like that one, and would say that it my favourite. Sure they make Poirot kinda goofy, I recall it being said at the time that that was the fashion, to make the lead detective a kooky character, but I really liked it overall, and what they added. Certainly preferable to the dour Poirot.

I've read every Poirot novel and short story. I have to say, I'm not at all bothered by the television show's sometimes far afield versions of Christie's stories, as often happens when adapting book to film. I feel Suchet was the best at faithfully capturing the spirit of the Poirot character and loved watching him do so. Furthermore, I loved the Suchet version of MotOE and always felt that as the series went on and Poirot aged, he became sadder and clung more to his religion as he bent under the weight of being alone in life and that intimately involved in so many brutal murders. It made him more human to me. Poirot has always been one of my favorite fictional characters and I'm very grateful to Agatha Christie for creating this wonderful little man and to David Suchet for bringing him to life so accurately (at least to me and, by the way, millions of others). No other actor has come close. Of course, that's only my opinion.

Excited about the next one coming up - I confess I haven't seen it: "Hercule Poirot's Christmas" was my very first Christie book: my parents bought it for me when I was about 9 years old; we were in Spain visiting the family and I was feeling out of place. Immediately I fell in love with the story and the characters, and something about even the very start of the Suchet adaptation turned me off, though at this distance, I don't remember what it was. I do remember that they eliminate a character who is important in the book, and condense the family members in a way I didn't like.

Yeah, I was disappointed with the David Suchet version. But then, I don't care for adaptations from original books because most of them don't make the story better. Why change it if there's nothing wrong with it in the first place? Make a film with different storyline, don't use the original title.

Okay, not even half a minute in, but I gotta say that I agree when it comes to the David Suchet adaptation. Later episodes with him as Poirot in general had this overly dark and bleak vibe that made them pretty universally unenjoyable to me, but this one was especially disappointing since it's such an iconic book and always been one of my favourites. And, since I think this is the first time I comment on your video - I'm really happy to have stumbled upon your channel in my recommendations. I've watched all of your videos (except those about stuff I haven't read/watched yet and plan to do so) and it's always great to see a new one.

I haven't warched this yet but the Kenneth Branagh would be my pick...I tried watching it but it was pathetic. I agree with Agatha Christie who said that the Albert Finney version was the best adaptation of one of her books. She was hesitant to allow them to make it because every film adaptation was disappointing because they strayed far afield from the novels; however, the 1974 version stayed true to the book. I have to say, though, that I haven't seen all of the Suchet version, so I can't comment on it. but since Christie declared the Finney version the definitive version, I have a feeling it missed the mark.

I will never understand why the creators always change so much. I can't think of one example where it worked and made the adaptation better tbh

I love Suchet as Poirot - but I have to agree with this - the adaptation was terrible. I love the Finney version. Do not like Molina - and although I like Kenneth Brannagh and also his Poirot, this one is not so good.

No

While the Branaugh films aren’t the most accurate they are fun watches that you do need to turn your brain off for. I hadn’t read, or watched, Murder on the Orient Express before seeing his version so I didn’t even know about the plot twist and thought it was done well. Since then I’ve actually read a couple of the Poirot books and can say his version is weird, especially with the OCD tendencies added in, but he is compassionate and understanding of the reasons for the murder which does feel right for Poirot. In any case I’ll take book Poirot over any adaptation any day.

I love David Suchet's portrayal of Poirot and think he's hands down the best incarnation of the detective, but you're right - this adaptation of Murder ... does not do the novel justice, and Poirot's behavior in it is just weirdly emotional, considering this is the same detective who SPOILERS!!!! (basically suggests to "the murderer" in The Murder of Roger Ackroyd to just unalive-himself)

You really are hilarious - watching Albert Finney as we speak. My favourite review. Fantastic argument about religion

It was Bouc and the doctor 👨‍⚕ 🥼 🥼 not Hardman the PI 🕵‍♂ .

Branagh is the worst ever!

So interesting. I also despise the Suchet MotOE, his rage and his lack of humor, sympathy, and understanding are all truly anathema to his character. (Also, in the books he does call himself a "bon catholique" but he never ever ONCE evangelizes. So I find that deeply anti-Poirot as well.) Me, I find that the Branaugh Orient is actually the better film. At least it takes its style choices all the way to the wall. It is very dumb, but at least it really committed - and I could watch it and maybe enjoy it if I was able to not think of it as a Poirot. Do I like it? No. But there is something to be said for just leaning in to the crazy. (I think by the second fight scene I was just like "this might as well happen". While for me, the 2010 is too similar to the book in certain ways so I cannot divorce myself from the drastic changes that were made, and the blatant character assassination of Poirot. But I found your video really interesting and well done!

Loved Suchet as Poirot. Still can't believe how badly they butchered Orient Express. It's the only episode I refuse to watch.

Both versions push the actual story/mystery aside in favor of the moral dilemma. Both appropriate the discussions that the viewers might have after the movie, and have the characters do it for them. This is basically a way of telling viewers what to think, which is really annoying.

Nice video. Both versions are atrocious, but the 2010 version left me physically ill. The self righteousness, the religious hollier than thou attitude of Poirot felt incredibly off. Kenneth's version is just Hollywood silliness: the chases, the fights, the cringe and hyperbolic portrait of Poirot's traits are the director's/actor's typical ego trips. While the first left a sour taste in my mouth, the latter just made me shrug.