Murder on the Orient Express 2017 123movies

Watch: Murder on the Orient Express 2017 123movies, Full Movie Online – Hercule Poirot, the best detective in the world, decides to travel on the Orient Express. The train accidentally gets stopped because of a small avalanche. Little did he know that a murder was planned and that a person on this train was capable of committing such crime..
Plot: Genius Belgian detective Hercule Poirot investigates the murder of an American tycoon aboard the Orient Express train.
Smart Tags: #whodunit #based_on_novel #hercule_poirot_character #train #private_detective #1930s #murder_mystery #detective #orient_express #train_derailment #investigation #murder #title_same_as_book #train_compartment #surprise_ending #little_grey_cells #ocd #solving_a_mystery #suspect #snow #interracial_love

Find Alternative – Murder on the Orient Express 2017, Streaming Links:

123movies | FMmovies | Putlocker | GoMovies | SolarMovie | Soap2day

Ratings:

	6.5/10 Votes: 258,372
	61% | RottenTomatoes
	52/100 | MetaCritic
	N/A Votes: 8714 Popularity: 29.226 | TMDB

Reviews:

I have always loved this story and was looking forward to seeing this adaptation but afraid it was going to be Branagh’d, especially when finding out he was playing Poirot himself and cast Johnny Depp as Ratchett.

When a director wants to put their own stamp on something, they usually screw it up. Branagh dipped both of his shoes in poop (symmetrical, yes?) before stamping Christie’s work. Let the story take the film where it needs to be. CGI is not where it wants to be. There’s nothing wrong with a dialogue-heavy movie no matter what the studio thinks.

Casting Grade: D

* When I heard Depp was going to be in it, I assumed he’d be Poirot and Branagh as Ratchet. Depp would have been a terrible choice too but would have made more sense then Henry V himself. Depp did not fit the Ratchett part at all. Richard Widmark’s portrayal in the 1974 film was dead-on. This time an Ed Harris would have been perfect. If he weren’t available, Charles Dance. Dance may be too British rather than Italian/American but he still can shoot daggers with his eyes. JK Simmons would work and potentially Sean Bean or Viggo.
* Poirot – This is a tough role to cast, no doubt. Suchet IS Poirot and Finney, though exaggerated was entertaining. Branagh is not tall but this movie seems to film him as larger than his character is. He’s supposed to look like a “funny-looking little Frenchman.” Yes I know he’s Belgian. But also little and funny-looking. All the upward angles make Branagh look bigger, not smaller. Not quite the star power and I wouldn’t buy a ticket just to see Daniel Bruhl, he might work.
* Michele Pheifer as Ms. Hubbard was great. The best of the casting, so points here.
* I think Cruz and Dench were fine, as was Dafoe. Only problem here is that even as a red-blooded American male I don’t remember much about Cruz’s performance. That is criminal underuse. Bergman won an Oscar in this role! It’s tough to live up to but still, Ken.
* Josh Gad? Fine as an actor, awful in this role. Eddie Marsan maybe? Martin Freeman? Perkins was perfect so let’s go more in that direction.
* Bouc? Bouc is not and should not be 28. Yes they said he’s the son of the director of the line but that’s dumb. Make him a bit more of a Poirot contemporary so the chemistry is there as if they’d been friends for years.
* Ridley and Odom. This problem is more with the story “updates”. Daisy’s fine and Odom’s acting is fine though.
* The rest of the cast is ok- meh and nothing more. The Suchet one wasn’t super star-studded, but with an ensemble cast, more of the cast should have been better known.

Story itself – Here’s the fun –

1. Why does the opening sequence in Syria take 20 minutes? The first question here though is “is Branagh trying to introduce Poirot to a new audience?” I would venture to guess that the vast majority of the audience knows Poirot, at least somewhat. The Syrian intro is roughly half of a chapter in the book, a quick few minutes in Suchet’s version and not even really dealt with in Finney’s. You can also do the egg thing on the train when he orders breakfast. That’s enough.
2. Shootout? What? Why?
3. Arbuthnot. Why combine the Col and Doc characters? The 2 should be separate, either because the doc is completely removed from the subjects (book and 1974) or is a separate suspect himself (Suchet). Having them combined just seems pointless especially when you add sharpshooting to his repertoire and the inter-racial reasoning for the quiet romance with Mary. That’s a lot, especially since it’s 1935.
4. Moustache. Ridiculous but not in the good Poirot-image sort of way. In fact he looks more like Wyatt Earp. HP is vain and his hair would not be shown as gray – it would be dyed black and a fantastic shape, not a ridiculous rug. Again, Suchet has it beat.
5. Hanging outside. Huh? It’s a snow drift in the mountains and they’re outside hanging out in clothes they were wearing on the train. Winter clothes but not warm enough to have a picnic in. The Suchet version definitely got it right – the passengers were COLD. They showed that with the bundling up, the atmosphere, etc. Also, people from other coaches could be mingling. Whole point was to not let people come in or go out of the Calais coach and dining car.
6. The train tunnel ending roundup. No. Bad Kenneth, bad. Dining car, keep it there. Don’t try to be clever, it didn’t work nor should it. Cramped in the dining car, trapped with HP’s monologue. It works.
7. Gun. Again, what’s with the guns? The one under Ratchet’s pillow is the only one necessary. His reasoning doesn’t make sense either – Bouc is still there and he knows about the plot so they’d have to kill him too, not just HP.
8. CGI – just stop. Video trains. Not hard.
9. The Daisy note – neat trick being able to see the ENTIRE note clear as day and not just a few letters or a word or two.

Overall – 5/10 is generous. More of a 4. I really wish we could start over here but with Death on the Nile out now I hope 2 is all Branagh does. At least Nile is not one of AC’s better stories. Lets wait 10 years and start again. Works for superheroes, why not one with just brains but no braun? Evil Under the Sun perhaps??

Beginning with Kenneth Branagh’s second decade as a filmmaker, I suggest he became an industry workhorse. He acted in many films and directed several, all with varying results in quality. Most pointedly, few felt like they were personal projects for 15 years. For example, his direction of **THOR** is at the pleasure of Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel Films. I argue that **MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS is personal**. I believe that the “Shakespeare” guy believed he could create the “Agatha Christie” equivalent of the Marvel Universe. As of this writing, he has returned a second film, **DEATH ON THE NILE**. There are at least 30 more Hercule Poirot novels remaining for potential sequels. Likely, we won’t see a third unless the second proves to be successful.

_ORIENT EXPRESS_ received a lukewarm reception – a tepid selection of both audience and critics who find the film neither superior or horrible. But I am committed. I find this classic story delivered through modern technology is beautiful, fun and entertaining. It remains quaint and intimate even as computer generated matte paintings create the stunning atmospheric vistas. I even find the film quite open to repeated viewings.

The beautiful color and imagery is supported by a score by Branagh’s friend and musical voice, Patrick Doyle. The two feed off each other – Doyle’s assertive and aggressive compositions uniquely mimic Branagh’s earnest storytelling. In other words, it is rarely quiet.

Starting with **MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING**, Branagh does a lot of stunt casting. This time may just take the cake. Every performer is an A-player and each is given at least one scene to chew a bit of the scenery. Make no mistake about it, this story is a tour de force for the role of Hercule Poirot. Branagh’s performance of the Belgian super-sleuth is quite fun, beginning on one of the greatest character introductions in the decade.

If critical and box office is a good reflection, its a fifty fifty shot whether you will enjoy Branagh’s **MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS**. To be fair, most of the negative reviews I see are written by someone who is comparing this film to the 1974 star-studded telling. Those would rather you look up that version (where you will likely not know many of that _star studded_ cast)

Visually stunning, fairly decent film.
I must admit as an Agatha Christie obsessed fan, my initial thoughts were of pure joy, it’s been a while since Agatha Christie was on the big screen, appealing to new fans, and how magnificent that such a stellar cast was assembled. Then I thought, of all the titles, why go for such an obvious choice, which has been done several times.

Firstly, the film is undeniably beautiful, the costumes, sets, filming etc, the film will undoubtedly win an Oscar for the visuals. You can see big money was put into the look of the film.

My major irritation throughout, was his moustache, just absurdly over the top, when Depp and Pfeiffer should have been dominating scenes, all I could look at was that moustache. That apart Branagh was excellent, I never thought he’d carry it off, but he did.

I am intrigued as to whether this is a one off film, or if there’ll be the odd appearance on the big screen. Only time will tell.

All in all, it was good, I wanted and hoped to absolutely love it, unfortunately I didn’t, but no way is it as bad as some say, too much quality for that.

7/10 (hoped for a perfect 10!)

Difficult to Review
Difficult Kenneth Branagh makes, produces, and stars in good movies, and this version of Murder on the Orient Express features impressive sets, beautiful scenery, and lovely period clothes. An impressive case features Penélope Cruz, Johnny Depp, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, and Kennth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. I think those who are not familiar with Agatha Christie, Poirot, or the story may very well like this movie.

I, on the other hand, was massively disappointed, especially by Branagh as a sort of English upper-class colonel with a stick-on cavalry moustache and by the needless addition of an introductory scene at the Wailing Wall. But I am prejudiced. I read the 1934 novel decades ago and again more recently. I liked the 1974 star-studded version with Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Jacqueline Bisset, Sean Connery, John Gielgud, Wendy Hiller, Anthony Perkins, Vanessa Redgrave, Richard Widmark, and Michael York—despite the fact that Albert Finney was a very poor version of Christie’s Hercule Poirot.

In my opinion, the 2010 television version of the story starred David Suchet as the definitive Poirot, and the ending was far and away the best of all the versions with which I am familiar. So I think Christie fans may want to skip this edition of the classic.

Other Information:

Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 54 min (114 min)
Budget 55000000
Revenue 352794081
Status Released
Rated PG-13
Genre Crime, Drama, Mystery
Director Kenneth Branagh
Writer Michael Green, Agatha Christie
Actors Kenneth Branagh, Penélope Cruz, Willem Dafoe
Country United States, United Kingdom, Malta
Awards 1 win & 25 nominations
Production Company N/A
Website N/A

Technical Information:

Sound Mix Dolby Atmos, DTS 70 mm (70 mm prints)
Aspect Ratio 2.39 : 1
Camera Arri Alexa 65, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses, Panavision 65 HR Camera, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses, Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision Sphero 65 Lenses
Laboratory Cinelab, London, UK, Digital Orchard (digital and film dailies), FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA (film lab), FotoKem nextLAB (digital dailies), Goldcrest Post, London, UK (digital intermediate) (as Goldcrest Post Production)
Film Length (7 reels)
Negative Format 65 mm (Kodak Vision3 500T 5219), Codex
Cinematographic Process ARRIRAW (6.5K) (source format) (some scenes), Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format), Dolby Vision, Panavision Super 70 (source format)
Printed Film Format 70 mm (Kodak Vision 2383), D-Cinema