If you haven't read or watched the David Suchet adaptation of "Murder on the Orient Express", then I'd skip this blog entry, if I were you. (I discuss the minor differences between the novel and this televised episode.) Spoilers continue:

Let's start about the ending of the episode: Oh! The drama! Please...we had some 12 minutes of Poirot ranting and screaming at the passengers of the train, locking them up, him praying, then meeting with the police and looking like he was about to cry. Sheesh...the drama! This does not coincide with Poirot's idea of justice from earlier in the episode (more on that below).

I was looking at the clock, and said to myself: we've already had the two solutions proposed by Poirot? What's going to happen now? Filmmakers want to make their productions so dramatic. Now, I will admit that the novel--in my opinion--ends abruptly. But the filmmakers could've added more to the story that's in the book instead of the--cough cough-- lengthy ending. Things were missing.

What was omitted from the book? Four things come to mind: the scarlet kimono, Mr. Hardman's absence, finding the pipe cleaner in Cassetti's cabin, and Hubbard's sponge bag not covering the door bolt. We could dismiss the pipe cleaner, really. That was just more confusion added in Cassetti's cabin. Leaving out the kimono was a disappointment: it was to be an important red herring for Poirot, and later for him to find it in his own luggage is hilarious. Poirot is dumbfounded and responds to this saying: "It is like that. A defiances. Very welll. I take it up." The clue with the sponge bag covering the door bolt was important because it pointed to Poirot that Mrs. Hubbard wasn't being truthful about the strange man in her cabin. She didn't take into account that the bag didn't cover the bolt of the connecting door to Cassetti's cabin--the bolt changes places from an even cabin number to an odd one. The most strange omission from the TV episode was Mr. Hardman--the police officer part of the investigation of the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping case. It was he who was in love with Pierre Michel's daughter (the nurse-maid), not Foscarelli, the Italian chauffeur. He was counted among the passengers who stabbed Cassetti (along with Count Andrenyi, as substitution for his wife).

The biggest change (other than Hardman missing) was the character of Dr. Constantine. He's not Greek, he sounds American in the episode. Not only that, but was acting like the detective. So, I thought: he's in so OUT OF PLACE, he's got to be in on the plot with the rest of the passengers. I was right! He was the obstetrician involved with the Armstrong family. I really thought something was funny when Bouc said to Poirot, "Oh! We got a doctor right here. Um, well, actually just an obstetrician!" Now I know why he was acting like a detective--he was trying to lead Poirot astray. Tricky tricky! So, Constantine was already in the Calais coach on the train? It wasn't made clear, that point. With Constantine being an accomplice, he takes the place of both the Andrenyi couple and Mr. Hardman.

I have two more complaints and I'm done. 1): I thought it was silly of Hubbard--or Dragomiroff--sitting next to Cassetti almost as if reading him a bedtime story while one by one the passengers came in and gave him a stab. It's like: "Next! Hurry up, we don't have all night. [stabbing sounds] OK, were was I? Oh, yes. Well, you're being punished for your crimes against the Armstrongs [blood squishing with knife] and we wanted you to feel the pain. OK, Masterman--it's your turn. Hurry it up. Next!"

2) I thought a great opportunity of doing some flashbacks was sorely missed. I loved the way the Albert Finney film introduces you to the Daisy Armstrong kidnapping right at the beginning, complete with the music and all. In the Suchet adaptation, we get few glances of newspaper headlines of the crime, all in red. One could barely read or see anything with the deep red! Extremely disappointing, especially when the Poirot episodes do a fantastic job of recreating the scene of the crime for us viewers.

There is some contradiction in the character of Poirot--this philosophical mumbo-jumbo of justice greatly bothers me. We see an earlier scene where he and Mary Debenham witness a stoning of a woman who is accused of adultery and Mary says that's "wrong and savage". Poirot's response is "well, she deserves it. She knew the consequences, and justice is being served." But, Poirot does a huge turnaround at the end saying to the passengers that--although Cassetti was an evil man--they had no right to murder him and that they're the savages. "Time to lock you up, for the animals that you are!" He gets all high and mighty and religious on them. This scene/dialogue was I think inappropriate. The producers are rewriting the character of Poirot. Yes, we know he's Catholic--that's been mentioned in the books before. He doesn't have to be pious and in your face; he's quoted in the short story "Problem at Sea" saying: " I do not approve of murder." I think we should leave it at that. Huge spoiler here! This has to do with an entirely different Poirot novel, so you best skip this! How do you explain Poirot's plan with "X" in the final novel "Curtain"? He murders a man--yes, the villain of the story who deserves it. Is what he did in that novel "right"? Having seen "Orient Express" now, I'd think that Poirot is a hypocrite. He says "you--savages for killing a man", and yet he does it in another story. Then, according to the producers, Poirot has a very strange sense of justice. I don't think so. In the ending of the "Orient Express" novel, he has pity for the passengers and sees that justice has been served--and doesn't criticize. As Colonel Arbuthnot says, "Trial by jury is a sound system", but Cassetti didn't get that. Poirot understands that justice was served, and he leaves it like that.



Like the computer game by The Adventure Game (of the same name), the new adaptation was presenting a story that's so famous that they had to make it fresh and a little different. I will admit, it's difficult. There's already the radio play, the wonderful Albert Finney film, and the bad Alfred Molina TV movie. The music here was very very good. This was a really worthy effort--excellent acting and the production value is extremely high.