This TV movie was clearly meant to be the pilot for a US version of David Suchet's classic UK Poirot show. Hulking Alfred Molina joyously replaces Suchet here and that's where the hilarity begins. Poirot is physically a small man, and that's one of the key points of his character - a completely unassuming man with larger than life intellect. Molina is not bad as Poirot but looks nothing like him. Even Albert Finney, who played Poirot in the first and best adaptation of the Orient Express story in the 1974 theatrical film, and is also a pretty big man, had to pretend to be tinier than he is to sell himself as Poirot better.Other things that make Poirot Poirot like his trademark mustache, love of Belgium and asexuality are also gone. Molina's mustache is more of a tribute to Poirot's than an actual eccentrically unique facial hair. He has a hot foreign girlfriend now (no joke), and ss for his amusing patriotic bravado (he's Belgian, not French, you see) you won't find it here, other than as a throwaway line spoken by another character.However, despite all of this, Melina actually really is one of the rare good things about this adaptation. The TV cast of characters who play his suspects range, on the other hand, from forgettable to passable, but they aren't the worst thing about this movie either. No, the worst thing about this film is the attempt to modernize the story by setting it in present day IT savvy world, which (un)intentionally brings in so many plot and logic holes that you can build a tunnel out of them. This had to be done carefully and thoughtfully but it wasn't. It was done bluntly and carelessly. As a result there are so many ridiculous and (un)intentionally hilarious moments, and they aren't even all related to the fetishistic use of technology in the movie.For instance, Poirot touches every piece of evidence with his bare hands because he's sure "that the killer didn't leave any fingerprints" on them. The police of any country would have immediately arrested him on the spot just for this. Maybe in 1934, when the book and almost all other adaptations of the story are set, they actually could have gotten away with this (although in most adaptations, Poirot actually uses a handkerchief to hold and inspect evidence, never his bare hands), but in 2001, with DNA evidence and fingerprints technology being a crucial part of any serious investigation, what Poirot does here is the dictionary definition of the term 'contaminating the crime scene'. Also, the murder plan as is doesn't really work in modern times either because of this, since any proper forensic investigation of the dead man's cabin would have easily uncovered inconsistencies in the killer's story. Another silly thing about the movie is that it's not set in winter. It's actually set in what appears to be autumn and the train doesn't end up being snowed in, but a cave in causes the train to stop. The fact that they are not really stranded in the middle of nowhere, and that the passengers could easily simply leave the train, walk around the pile of rocks on the tracks and get on another train, possibly the one that brought the workers to clear the road, which could then take them to their destination, comes to no one's mind at any point.Finally, the way they use technology in the movie may be the most blunt way of doing this in a mystery ever. You see, Poirot simply googles the passengers to try and uncover the culprit. It is as stupidly funny as it sounds. Also, some of the suspects are now a software engineer, a fitness instructor and the widow of a deposed and killed South American dictator!And then there's the hilarious happy-go-lucky epilogue that completely ruins any dramatic effect that the mostly fateful ending may have had on the audience. Seriously, this epilogue feels like the script originally truly was suppose to be for a parody.The odd thing about all this is that the movie does actually have some fan service and in-joke bits. For instance, the fitness instructor is a fan of Poirot's work and actually references some of his old cases from the books. So, whoever wrote this mess clearly did read Poirot's books.In conclusion, watch the 1974 version for the full dramatic and emotional effect of this ingenious story (it's no false praise to say that this Agatha Christie tale is one of the most uniquely original crime mysteries ever written), and only then see this US TV version, especially if you're looking to have a good laugh (this is genuinely a so-bad-it's-good movie, and often (un)intentionally funnier than most comedies) or simply enjoy Molina as an actor (he really could have had a good Poirot run on TV, like the equally hulky Peter Ustinov before him in the 1980's, and it's truly sad that this inept adaptation had to be the pilot for this project and immediately and effectively kill off any chance for a further Molina Poirot series) or you simply wish to see every Murder on the Orient Express adaptation out there (the plot itself is mostly the same as the one in the book, so you should get at least something out of it then).As an (un)intentional comedy and because of Molina, I give it a 6 (although, if judged realistically for what it's meant to be, it's closer to a 3 or a 4).

I saw this on TV and thought: Yeah its alright. Then I looked deeper into it. The story is pretty much as the book and the 1974 film. Horrible man gets bumped off during the night. Differences are this is set in 2001 instead of 1934. Bringing Poirot and technology together is a worse move than bringing mankind and dinosaurs together. Poirot using a VCR? A Laptop computer? Falling for a beautiful woman? Come on please??? this is Hercule Poirot not James Bond. Characters are missing - I wont list them as it spoils it. The technology as I mentioned and an EWS loco pulling it??? where does this train run from? Birmingham to Bristol? EWS stands for English, Welsh and Scottish Railways Ltd and is a freight carrier. I will add, although its nothing as the great Dame Agatha envisaged, its worth a watch on a wet Sunday afternoon even just out of pure curiosity for die hard Poirot fans.

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.

One of the most exhilarating things is to see a remake or another version of a film where at least one of the films or the source book is excellent.That way, when you see even a poor version, you recall in your mind the excellent one, plus perhaps a number of metanarratives about previous experiences. And the meta-meta about the relationships among them, each one a puzzle.In this case, we have a remarkable book, truly tricky. We have no good film versions among the three I have seen. Lumet's is the most famous; it is entertaining, lush and has some rudimentary notion of the importance of the space. It also has the finest performance of Ingrid Bergman's career, just a few minutes, but truly remarkable.But it was not good. The book depends on the arrangement of the cars, the compartments and the doors between. There's a spatial logic to the thing that the puzzle is based on, and Lumet ignores it completely. So too here. And of course, we don't have recognizable actors, and what we have aren't encouraged to perform to excess. They are simply there, and fewer than in the book. The number is significant.So it is not particularly good mystery, but neither were the Finney (Lumet) and Suchet (Blue Train) versions. What's interesting here is how the thing is now set in the modern era. Actually in 2001 before 9-11. Some mechanics are modernized and the writer somehow thought computer technology could do the job alone. The big change is in Poirot. He isn't an officious penguin, He isn't obsessed with the mechanics of evil. And — surely the most interesting — he isn't celibate and in fact is involved with an incredibly sexy woman. Her scenes are the most well done and effective, actually, and the notion is so shocking that it jars the whole metastructure we balance on top of this production.She's a not quite reformed jewel thief. At the end, it is obvious that the two as lovers and codetectives were to be a team in further adventures. These never happened of course. But its a great idea: old and young, both geniuses, he emotionally inept but cerebral and she emotionally damaged (a prior murder) and overflowing with an understanding of how life works.I would have watched it.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.