Spoiled by Suchet - Murder on the Orient Express (1974) Discussion

[–] opiumandtea 16 years ago

I agree! Finney's Poirot was basically unbearable to watch (for the reasons you've already stated), whereas Suchet is perfect.

reply

[–] rcrckwd 13 years ago

Suchet nails Poirot perfectly. He plays him exactly as he is described in the books. Finney plays Poirot in the same manner as Margaret Rutherford portrayed Miss Marple in the films. (Oddly enough I remember reading that Agatha Christie was rather pleased with Rutherford's Marple, or maybe she was just too nice to criticize it.)
Ustinov was a better Poirot than Finney in films, but still not even close to Suchet.

reply

[–] evawatches 16 years ago

Same here. I didn't remember Finney's performance being quite so affected, nor his accent being quite so strange. I've been mainlining Suchet's Poirot recently and I just re-watched Ustinov in 'Death on the Nile', and I like them both better.

reply

[–] onthepipe90210 11 years ago

Suchet *****
Ustinov ***
Finney *

I would never belong to a club that would have someone
like me as a member
~G.Marx

reply

[–] jackmunro 16 years ago

I'm glad to see someone agree with my opinion. I saw this movie when it was released in 1974 and I remember thinking that Finney's performance was very poor. I had difficulty even understanding what he was saying and I thought he looked unlike my vision of Poirot.

I recently saw the movie again and my opinion stands. Ustinov, and especially Suchet, make far more convincing Poirots.

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 16 years ago

Finney was nominated for an Oscar for this precisely because he gave a magnificent portrayal of Poirot. He commands the screen and truly creates a character whereas Ustinov is just playing himself and Suchet is so irritating and boring. Even Christie herself approved of Finney's performance. He shows all of the arrogance and intelligence of Poirot while capturing the idiosyncracies. Now that Finney is about 70, it's time to make another quality Christie movie with him like the ABC Murders, not yet filmed well.

reply

[–] jackmunro 16 years ago

I know that Agatha Christie thought Finney was the best Poirot she had seen on screen. However, Agatha died in 1976, prior to the role being played by either Ustinov or Suchet.

Agatha had only Austin Trevor, Martin Gabel and Tony Randall with whom to compare Finney. The less said of Randall's performance, the better. I have not seen the others, but I expect that Gabel would have been good and that Trevor would have been a bit stilted, as it was in the 1930s.

reply

[–] jaybabb 16 years ago

When Agatha Christie adapted some of her novels for the stage, she has taken out Poirot altogether because she was convinnced that there wasn't an actor who could play him. Of couese, she died before David Suchet came on.

1+1=2****2+2=4****That is the truth your honor*****the truth for help me God

Jay

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 16 years ago

Suchet is just not Poirot...he plays him way to gay and there is no charisma. He dresses the part and has the moustache (but not really enough if you go by the descriptions in Agatha Christie) but the more important thing, is those telefilms are precisely that: television. They are badly directed and acted and written. I have read everything Christie wrote but hardly watch those Suchet films they are so bad. They were made around the same time as the Joan Hickson Miss Marples: they are a million times better and she is the definitive Miss Marple.

reply

[–] jackmunro 16 years ago

Other than the casting of Suchet, I agree with what you say. There was one episode in which Elliott Gould guest starred, and his acting was deplorable. This is the episode that the producers often use in promoting the show and telling us how it was made. Gould actually appears in this promo and carries on as though the show is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

reply

[–] awefrdsq 16 years ago

I also found Finney completely unconvincing. I did watch this film only recently so Suchet is maybe in my head too much, still him and Usimov are both far more convincing. Yes, Suchet is a bit too quiet and Usimov the opposite, but they both emit intelligence and Finney just doesen't. And his accent... At first I thought it's bad Russian-English, then there are some Italian sounding words in it, and there are some just awfully pronounced French words in the mix. That accent made me lower the volume of the tv, it's just to weird.

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 16 years ago

Finney doesn't emit intelligence????? Did you watch the movie?

reply

[–] thiinkerca 14 years ago

It is interesting that the Marple films with Joan Hickson, are extremely faitful and fantastic companions to thte June Whitfield versions for BBC radio which are another treasure trove. Joan Hickson is truly excellent and the productions while for tv, are in most ways superior to anything regarding marple on the big screen before or on tv since.

reply

[–] matthew-reynolds2 16 years ago

The ABC Murders was done to perfection in 1992 with messars Suchet , Fraser and Jackson as Poirot , Hastings and Japp . It was a very faithful adaptation indeed that did justice to a superb book by being well cast , while being filmed in prime locations and a good script being produced . If any Poirot novel needs readapting it is Card's On The Table with Mr Finney as Poirot , Timothy Dalton as Col Race ( he was once Bond after all ) , Alan Davies as Supt Battle ( he played a Battle replacement rather well in Towards Zero ) and Prunella Scales as Mrs Oliver ( just read the book thinking of her saying the lines and it would work as she could play a batty author very well - no doubt !). By sticking to the plot of the novel and using the right actors Cards On The Table could be a great two hour cinematic production as Poirot solving a crime based on a persons Bridge playing habits is just to very clever indeed !

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett 14 years ago

I remember reading Cards on the table when I was younger. maybe 11 or 12. I thought it was so cool that the book included the hand written bridge bids. I loved how the numbers were written (typed) in that slanted ind of way, and I tried diligently to form my numbers like the publishers did in the book. I succeeded and I do write like that to this day. i realize it's off topic, but being reminded of Cards on the Table, I couldn't resist. I too liked the character of Adrianne (sp?) Oliver.

reply

[–] thiinkerca 14 years ago

I whole heartedly support your comments. My wife has a similar opinion to most of the posters favouring suchet. While Suchet and the telefilms have been wonderful to watch, if i had a desert island dvd of christie it would be the 1974 agatha christie version. As correctly stated in the bedside, bathtub, armchair companion to agatha christie, there a excellent article in there on this movie and which highlights some of the paintstaking effort that went into finney's portrayl of poirot and which only confirmed my own feelings of the exactness of the performance. Finney's poirot contains both lightness and sure touch of humour in the beginning when he is discussing the crossing with the army man escorting him for his services. He has his head a bit to the side as was described by christie and with the slight limp also described. The meticulousness and fastidious manner can be evidenced by the manner he drinks in the restaurant car or when preparing for bed his nets for his moustaches, and hair, and the elegant manner he examines his news paper. At the same time he knows when to charm and be nice with greta olsen or with fraulien hildegarde schmidt, and be curt and forceful with Mrs. Hubbard, Colonel Arbutnot and Mary Davenheim, The performance references both the now private investigator that he is with the notion that this man was once also a tough police inspector who was used get the truth from criminals using all psychological devices. The voice and accent as well I thought had a wonderful and unique cadence similar to the deep burnished but elegant tones of John Moffatt on radio who has done possibly the most faithful versions of all the christie stories and is simply brilliant. That aside, Finney's poirot speaking style has colours for when he seeing and old friend like M. Bouc but his style changes with someone such Mr. Cassetti and yet again the sensitivity vocally is there when he approaches Pierre Paul Michel. The production is both opulent but realstic in that the size and space is of a real train which can be confirmed on the dvd special features to the movie. The structure of the book is almost exactly identical to the book and yet contains a wit and charm thanks to Paul Dehn who had also wrote the wonderful adaptation for the spy who came in from the cold. Also Poirot at least when I have seen him described is not bald until Curtain, and has luxuriant hair that is meticuolous as stated in the stories, so again look and characterization for mind will always go to Finney. I love the casting and the overall stylized but coherent acting approches, so that never does an actor's acting style ruin the overall movie. thank you this may not convince anyone but Im glad I got to share my view as well.

Bon chance mes amis!!

reply

[–] BeatPoet1972 15 years ago

I wouldn't say that Finneys performance was Poor.. But I would love to see a version of "Murder on the Orient Express" with David Suchet as Poirot.. He's the most perfect Poirot of the lot, in my view.

"I rather have a bottle in front of me than have to have a frontal lobotomy"

reply

[–] ragoode1 14 years ago

Eck! Up until now I would have agreed with you. But that awful 2010 adaptation that I was SO looking forward to is just AWFUL! Splechk!

reply

[–] Rick-34 10 years ago

Disagree with this.

The Suchet version of Orient Express is very different from the film. It spends a good amount of time concerning itself with Poirot's conscience. It's not an easy choice for him to let murderers walk free. The cast is, of course, not filled with all-star actors as the '74 film was.

There are aspects of the Suchet version that I prefer, most notably the performance of Suchet himself. Finney doesn't come across as remotely Belgian. Suchet does the accent very well. I just don't like the Finney version. Finney seems to be happiest shouting, and that's just not how I want Poirot to be played.

Suchet, of course, has had the advantage of playing Poirot for decades, while Finney just did the one film. At this point being Poirot is second nature for him.

But aside from that, the Suchet version had the tough challenge of not simply repeating the '74 film. Also, I think we should give Sidney Lumet a lot of credit for his direction.

reply

[–] TheManInOil 16 years ago

"Be wary of Wenk -- I want to warn you!"

reply

[–] bham_man34 16 years ago

I agree with you almost completely and was surprised to hear that Agatha Christie thought highly of Finney's portrayal. The performance did work within the stylized context of the film but Finney definitely did not evoke the character of Poirot from the novels, at least not for me. But we have to remember that most people who see these films have never read the books.

What I didn't like about Finney in this movie was how loud and aggressive he was in many scenes-- the raucaus laughter, the back slapping, the shouting accusations at the Redgrave character. Poirot wasn't like that at all-- if anything, he needled people into tripping up with a calm explanation of the facts and clever questions. I can't imagine Poirot in a shouting match. Also, the growl Finney used for Poirot was a mistake. He sounds like a German butcher, not a fastidious Belgian detective. One scene I did like was where Finney drinks one of Poirot's famous tisanes. That was nicely done.

Suchet is much better, but definitely not perfect. He needs to show more energy and excitement. To me the most memorable thing about Poirot from the novels is the flash of excitement his green eyes betray when he has figured out a clue, and no one has really captured that yet on film.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] velcronewsletter 15 years ago

i have to say that i agree with the OP. i much prefer suchet, finney was too shouty for my liking. if you think that suchet is playing poirot a bit gay, then read the books. he was portrayed as a rather feline man whose dapper appearance was of great importance to him. i think suchet plays poirot to a tee

------------------------
'Little monkey down! LITTLE MONKEY DOWN!' (Julia Murney in Wicked)

reply

[–] man14 15 years ago

I first saw this film when I was 17,back in the 80's.I had already read the novel,so I knew the story and thought this was a rather faithfull adaptation of the book.Some changes had been made,but nothing too drastic(like turning the belgian Monsieur Bouc into the italian Signor Bianchi that Martin Balsam played).
I enjoyed this film very much,with only one exception:Albert Finney.He was not the Poirot I knew from the books - wasn't Poirot at all,period.I had read a great number of AC's Poirot novels,was a huge fan of the character(stil am)so I knew him rather well(not as much as I do now,that I've read all the Poirot novels more than once,but still well enough)and Finney just wasn't him.He admited himself that he never read a Poirot novel,simply read the script and created the character as he went along.Now,how can you play Poirot without reading the novels?!You simply can't.The result?Finney,who is a wonderfull actor,ended up playing a detective who's only resemblance to Poirot is the name.He is to loud,too lacking of finesse and subtlety(can you realy see Poirot in the middle of a restaurant picking up a menu and tearing it in two and then soaking it on the frappé with the champagne,as he does in this film when he and signor Bianchi meet for the first time?!I don't),not at all the rather feline man whose dapper appearance was of great importance to him, to quote from magilune68.He was also too tall for the character,that being the reason why he spent the whole film with his neck buried in his shoulders,as if he had been hit in the head with something heavy - he was realy trying to look shorter.
Well,after all these years,I bought the DVD and saw the film again - only to find that my opinion hadn't changed at all.The film is rather good,but Finney was just the wrong actor to play Poirot.
For a time I thought Peter Ustinov was going to be the definitive Poirot - I rather liked him in Death on the Nile, Evil Under the Sun, Appointment with Death,and even in the 3 tv films he made.But then I saw David Suchet in 1990 playing Poirot,and became one of the many millions who belive him to be THE Poirot.The man is absolutely perfect,he manages to make Poirot leap from the pages of the books into the screen.He looks the part,he sounds and acts the part to perfection in every litle detail - I'm repeating myself,I know,but perfection is the only word that comes to my mind when describing Suchet as Poirot.I say this because I have read all the novels and short stories of Poirot more than once (again, repeating myself) - and Suchet matches everything Christie ever wrote about Poirot,from the way he looks to the way he portrays all of the complexities of the character.
So,I'm sorry for those who don't like Suchet as Poirot,who think he's too boring and plays the character a bit gay - all I can say is that you don't know Poirot at all,either because you never read the stories or,wich is worst,you read the novels but completely missunderstood the character.Either way,you dont know what a treat you're missing by not watching Suchet's Poirot movies.Like magilune68 says,he plays the belgian detective to a tee!

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 15 years ago

I've read everything written by and about Christie...Suchet is boring whether or not he matches the descriptions from the books. Poirot might be described as a bit feminine but not as a flaming queen like Suchet plays him! In that sense, Finney got it much better...

reply

[–] man14 15 years ago

Mon ami saltandpepper66,
First of all,Suchet doesn't play Poirot "as a flaming queen".He plays him with finesse and subtlety,with inteligence and genius - as he should be played.Second of all,if you've realy read "everything written by and about Christie" and still think that "Finney got it much better",then all I have to say to you is: read it again.You've obviously not payed any atention to what you've read.
That said,you have as much right to loathe (I believe that's the word you used in one of your previous posts) Suchet's Poirot, as I have to hate Finney's - as I do.And since neither of us is likely to change his mind,to further continue this debate would be pointless and fruitless.That's why,for me,it ends here.A bien tôt!

reply

[–] sluido 15 years ago

Albert Finney seemed to be playing this role as a drunk, he ruined the movie.

reply

[–] franzkabuki 15 years ago

I like this Finney´s version quite well, actually it´s one the most interesting aspects of the film - Finney was unpredictible & lotsa fun. Good change of pace from the Suchet´s Poirot (there´s nothing wrong with Suchet of course, quite the contrary, but it´s been seen so many times over that a fresh interpretation of the detective spiced things up aplenty).

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] chester-copperpot-1 15 years ago

It will be very interesting to see what Suchet will make of it, when his turn comes to do Orient Express. Though, I have never liked Finneys version of Poirot. In this film, his speech is unbearable, his manners grotesque, his whole statute more of something from Batman than the pages of Christie. I would almost say that Albert Finney makes this film unwatchable. It seems like all the involved thought they played in another film. Albert finney thought he made "The Ladykillers", while all the rest thought they made "Silver Streak".
It really feels like a tv-movie, though it actually was Oscars-worthy when it came. One Oscar and an additional five nominees. The board must have been drunk...

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 14 years ago

Or the people watching it must be drunk who think Finney gave a bad performance!

reply

[–] pablo-taylor 14 years ago

Agatha Christie is the most overrated author of the 20th century; her novels have dreary prose, flat one dimensional characters and most have the same recycled plot that she used again and again - to give credit where it's due early on she did write half a dozen or so novels with (for their time) genuinely original plot twists but that doesn't excuse what she churned out for the remainder of her life. The original ITV Poirot episodes (the ones made before it was re-launched, badly in 2000) are a vast improvement over their source material being witty, stylish and elegant productions with a note-perfect performance from Suchet - anyone who thinks Finney's monstrously hammy, unintelligible Poirot is better is severely delusional I'm afraid (good film in most other respects though it is) and it's no coincidence that for the following films he was replaced with the arguably less authentic but more user-friendly Ustinov.

reply

[–] shadow_priest_x 14 years ago

. . . and it's no coincidence that for the following films he was replaced with the arguably less authentic but more user-friendly Ustinov.

Actually, if the trivia here on IMDB is accurate, Finney was offered to reprise the role for Death on the Nile but turned it down because the makeup was too uncomfortable for him and he didn't want to have to endure it in searing Egyptian tempratures.

reply

[–] chester-copperpot-1 14 years ago

Albert Finney made a really good performance in this film. Of The Penguin, from Batman. Case Closed.

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 14 years ago

Finney didn't repeat because he didn't want to. If you are going to say something like he "was replaced", get your facts straight. It's well documented that he turned down Death on the Nile...he was nominated for an Oscar MOTOE. Ustinov certainly never was....

reply

[–] avenger-16 14 years ago

To me, David Suchet is the only actor who has ever captured the character of Poirot; he is also the only actor who has ever bothered to take the character seriously and it shows - I thought that Albert Finney's performance was dreadful, over the top and quite hammy. Also all of that padding showed - his speech was affected because of the cheek pads which he wore, his hair was over- oiled and quite repulsive, and his manner was abrasive, quite unlike the descriptions of Poirot who uses 'the little grey cells' to arrive at a solution, and behaves at all times with the utmost Gaelic courtesy. Ustinov is better, but at times parodies the character, although he does it in such an amusing way that he gets away with it. I think that Agatha Christie would have been absolutely delighted with David Suchet's performances and it is a pity that she did not live to see either Suchet's Poirot or Joan Hickson's Miss Marple. Both gave definitive performances, and I cannot see any way upon which either of them could be bettered.

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 14 years ago

well she did live to see Finney and thought it perfectly captured her idea of Poirot....

reply

[–] streetlegal 14 years ago

Agree with you Suchet is perfect as Poirot. Finney's portayal is confusing-I can't believe that it was unintentionally over the top because he is too good an actor to accidentally come up with an absurd performance so it has to have been a conscious decision to play Poirot so flamboyantly. The same applies to the make-up, it must have been deliberately unrealistic so the only explanation I can think of is Finney and Sidney Lumet decided to go for a wildly OTT depiction of Poirot-perhaps that was a wise decision for the film because it is rather slow paced and Finney is certainly entertaining. It is an absurd performance but a deliberately absurd one. A lesser actor and director could accidentally have made fools of themselves but Finney and Lumet must have known what they were doing.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] opsbooks 14 years ago

Suchet IS Poirot, but although I found Finney strange to start with, he is actually good in the part, and by the time the movie came to an end, I considered him just as convincing, but different :).

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Monkey-D-Luffy 14 years ago

Suchet is much better, but definitely not perfect. He needs to show more energy and excitement. To me the most memorable thing about Poirot from the novels is the flash of excitement his green eyes betray when he has figured out a clue, and no one has really captured that yet on film.

But then I saw David Suchet in 1990 playing Poirot,and became one of the many millions who belive him to be THE Poirot.The man is absolutely perfect,he manages to make Poirot leap from the pages of the books into the screen.He looks the part,he sounds and acts the part to perfection in every litle detail - I'm repeating myself,I know,but perfection is the only word that comes to my mind when describing Suchet as Poirot.I say this because I have read all the novels and short stories of Poirot,more than once,and got to know him very well - and Suchet matches everything Christie ever wrote about Poirot,from the way he looks to the way he portrays all of the complexities of the character.

Agreed. This thread makes for a very interesting reading.

Tiocfaidh ár Lá!

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 14 years ago

I find it bizarre that all these people say that Suchet matches the Poirot of the novels better when Christie herself said Finney was perfect. Wouldn't she know?????? The real problem with comparing them is that MOTOE is a WAY better movie than any of the TV films...there is no comparing them.

reply

[–] chester-copperpot-1 14 years ago

It could be because Agatha Christie had been dead for almost fifteen years before David Suchet made his debut as Poirot. But I don't know, perhaps you have connections down under?

As I have stated before, had Agatha Christie been shown Suchet's performance, she would have claimed him a genius, and all other actors simply not near enough of her expectations. No matter how you see it or bend it, David Suchet will forever be the actor who comes nearest, it's almost a true impersonation, it's like his second skin.

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 14 years ago

You certainly can't make a claim of what Christie might have thought if she'd been alive....just because Suchet has done more Poirot doesn't make him a better Poirot. But as I've said before, the real problem is the quality...the Suchet's tv films just aren't as good as MOTOE.

reply

[–] chester-copperpot-1 14 years ago

Are you for real? David Suchet has been universally acclaimed to be the best Poirot bar none. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't make it true. And yes, I can certainly claim what Christie might have thought. Albert Finney isn't even in the same ballpark, he's not even in the same country as said ballpark. Albert Finney is a joke, and a bad joke I might add. And had Christie been able to see the comparison, she would have said so also. This is not even up for discussion, I can claim it a universal belief. Only a die hard Finney or MOTOE proselyte would disagree.

reply

[–] saltandpepper66 14 years ago

You're reply is just silly. Are you 10 years old?

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shadow_priest_x 14 years ago

I personally like both portrayals, and Ustinov's too, but we all know it's silly to say that you can claim what a dead woman would think or believe if she were alive and it's also clearly fallacious to say that an actor has been "universally acclaimed" as the best Poirot when there are clearly people out there who disagree. That in and of itself proves it's not a universal belief.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ipman128 14 years ago

I'm not sure about either of them, but Finney's accent was a bit much. I've read a lot of the books, but can't remember how much Hastings features- is this another ITV device or is he only in some books? Suchet is a bit camp and Finney was a bit OTT- a mix of the two may have achieved the right balance?

reply

[–] crowbar20 14 years ago

I enjoyed Finney, I really thought he portrayed a great character. Now I have never read the books nor have I seen any other films utilizing this character, so I have no way to compare him vs. others. But I found his performance really great and it was good enough to get me interested in the character(actually right now I'm trying to order the Mysterious Affair at Styles on Amazon). I wouldn't mind seeing Suchet's portrayal but as far as I know being in the US I'm kinda out of luck seeing it on tv and I'm not sure I would be willing to order it. Regardless if Finney's acting was so horrible I would likely not have been so intrigued by the character of Poirot and probably would have not looked into the books or other films. So sure maybe he is inferior to the others (I couldnt say) but that does not mean that the movie was ruined by his performance. And apparently I was wrong but when I noticed his hunched over posture, and because I had no previous experience with the character, I assumed he had some physical deformity and he over compensated for it by his extreme devotion to his appearance(so his apparent vanity was based on insecurity).

anyway this was a rather roundabout way for simply stating I liked it...

reply

[–] RichN36 14 years ago

My problem with David Suchet Poirot is when ever I read one of the books he is the only one I am able to see in the Theater of my Mind. There is a Hint of James CoCo from Murder By Death in that Theater. Havn't seen Finney yet play Poirot might pop the DVD in this week to watch the Movie.

Q: How does Soylent Soda taste?
A: It varies from person to person.
"Futurama"

reply

[–] CountessGaviota 14 years ago

I acknowledge up front that I am a diehard Finney fan. Nevertheless, I have tried on a number of occasions to watch David Suchet playing Poirot on television, and the fact is I find the programs so tedious and boring I have yet been able to sit through an entire episode. I don't know if it's Suchet or the stories or the presentation overall. I usually greatly enjoy BBC type mysteries. Poirot makes me want to run from the room.

At least Albert Finney's portrayal was interesting. And apparently not only a few people thought he was good because he was nominated for an academy award. People sometimes get a set ideal or picture of a character and cannot abide anything that deviates from that cherished image. Just because his performance didn't meet every Christie fan's image of the "perfect" Poirot, doesn't mean it wasn't brilliant.

Oh, and by the way, the reason he was tucking his head into his shoulders was because he stood about 5' 11" tall when he played Poirot, who was apparently supposed to be short, middle-aged and plump? Finney was about 38 years old at the time, fair complected, and not overweight. Hence the padding and heavy makeup. As for the accent? He was coached by his wife at the time, French actress Anouk Aimee.

reply

[–] jconn426 14 years ago

I just caught Suchet's version of Murder On The Orient Express on PBS. In a word: awful! The no-name cast (Barbara Hershey was the only other one I've ever heard of) was as bland as the snow piling up outside the train, including Suchet. Contrast that with the strong all-star cast of the movie which included such greats as Sean Connery, Sir John Gielgud, Lauren Bacall, and Ingrid Bergman. Finney and Ustinov brought out Poirot's wonderful eccentricities and had great fun mispronouncing English words with their over-the-top French (excuse me, Belgian) accents. Suchet came off like he was tired, annoyed, and disinterested. (Of course, one should probably cut him a bit of slack as Poirot witnesses both a suicide and a stoning prior to boarding the train.)

The only thing wrong with the original movie was the casting of Richard Widmark as a member of the Mafia. Sorry, the man did not make a convincing Italian. James Caan, who several years earlier played Sonny Corleone in The Godfather with great success, would have been better and much more convincing. In fact, he once remarked that for his performance in that role he was named as an upcoming Italian-American actor by someone who did not know he is Jewish. Also, Widmark's character was loosely based on Bruno Hauptmann, the man convicted of kidnapping Charles Limbergh's infant son. Widmark looked too old to have pulled off such a physically demanding crime whereas Caan was young and very fit. (Baby Lindbergh's second floor room was reached by a homemade ladder.)

The 2010 TV version made an even worse choice: the actor who played that role (I did not catch his name) literally had the map of Ireland on his face. If he's not a son of Erin I'd be shocked. (I'm half Irish.) The writers should have changed the script and had him as a member of the Irish-American mob, not the Mafia.

reply

[–] jconn426 14 years ago

I just caught Suchet's version of Murder On The Orient Express on PBS. In a word: awful! The no-name cast (Barbara Hershey was the only other one I've ever heard of) was as bland as the snow piling up outside the train, including Suchet. Contrast that with the strong all-star cast of the movie which included such greats as Sean Connery, Sir John Gielgud, Lauren Bacall, and Ingrid Bergman. Finney and Ustinov brought out Poirot's wonderful eccentricities and had great fun mispronouncing English words with their over-the-top French (excuse me, Belgian) accents. Suchet came off like he was tired, annoyed, and disinterested. (Of course, one should probably cut him a bit of slack as Poirot witnesses both a suicide and a stoning prior to boarding the train.)

The only thing wrong with the original movie was the casting of Richard Widmark as a member of the Mafia. Sorry, the man did not make a convincing Italian. James Caan, who several years earlier played Sonny Corleone in The Godfather with great success, would have been better and much more convincing. In fact, he once remarked that for his performance in that role he was named as an upcoming Italian-American actor by someone who did not know he is Jewish. Also, Widmark's character was loosely based on Bruno Hauptmann, the man convicted of kidnapping Charles Limbergh's infant son. Widmark looked too old to have pulled off such a physically demanding crime whereas Caan was young and very fit. (Baby Lindbergh's second floor room was reached by a homemade ladder.)

The 2010 TV version made an even worse choice: the actor who played that role (I did not catch his name) literally had the map of Ireland on his face. If he's not a son of Erin I'd be shocked. (I'm half Irish.) The writers should have changed the script and had him as a member of the Irish-American mob, not the Mafia.

reply

[–] deerwalkby 14 years ago

I have read all of the Poirot books and Albert Finney's portrayal of Poirot comes the closest to the book character's personality of any of the actors who have played Poirot. Ustinov and Suchet have usually played a much more appealing, approachable Poirot.

I have enjoyed all of their portrayals, until recently. I did not like the Suchet version of Death on the Nile, or Murder on the Orient Express. They were both extremely dark with quite vicious characters; a lot of yelling and condescension. Plus the story was butchered in an attempt to make it seem different, and the dialogue was trite. I don't know why Suchet played his Poirot so very differently in these two stories as opposed to the way he usually played him in the other series stories.

I still find the 70s film versions of Death on the Nile and Murder on the Orient Express to be wonderful in every way.

reply