With "Death on the Nile" finally coming out this week, it's time that I look back on the first film. While the marketing and pre-release was a big deal with the various big names and slick production, the remake of this classic story got mixed reviews when first released, but earned enough money to have a franchise. So, five years later, is it worth going back to? Short answer: Not really. Detective Hercule Poirot is invited to take the luxurious Orient Express back to London for a three-day expedition. When a con-artist named Edward Ratchett asks Poirot to be his bodyguard, the detective refuses, resulting in Ratchett to be murdered in the first night. Poirot now must discover the truth behind Ratchett's murder and learn who's the culprit leading to a shocking reveal. While the premise alone sounds interesting the problem is the conclusion, which many found disappointing. It's revealed that all of the suspects admitted to killing Ratchett due to him causing so much pain and misery in their lives. Poirot then decides that he will let everyone go as there will be no justice for the case. This ending is one of the most infuriating I've ever seen as it not makes the mystery not worthwhile, but having everyone get away with it just makes Poirot a spineless person as a detective. The only positive thing I can say about this ending is that I doubt that the sequel will use it again, because that would be dumbfounding. The tone of the film takes it seriously for the most part up to the ending as well, as the reveal makes it cheesy and childish, not just for the depiction of the murder, but for everyone to be let go. You can't make a film that takes itself pretty seriously and have an ending that is ripped from a children's movie.
The cast and characters is where things get complicated, because the actors are all highly talented and commendable, but the characters themselves are underdeveloped or cookie-cutter. Kenneth Branagh as Poirot is by far the only charismatic performer of the film, since Poirot is a very expressive and cunning man who knows how to put the pieces together. The problem with the character is that he lets everyone go off the hook at the end, which is just dumb. As for everyone else, I'm not going to go in depth for every character, but they all carry the issue of a talented actor over a bland character. Johnny Depp as Ratchett is underused and is just treated as a filthy criminal, Josh Gad is a devoted assistant, Judi Dench is just the old family relative of a crucial character, Willem Dafoe is a European professor that's hiding a secret, Michelle Pfeiffer is the aging femme fetale, so on and so forth. The problem with ensemble casts like this is that everyone ends up being underdeveloped, so you don't really get attached to any of them. It sucks, because the actors and actresses do a fantastic job with the limited material. At the end of the day, every character aside from Poirot is meaningless, only a directive to uncover the full underwhelming mystery.
If there's one thing that Kenneth Branagh can do, it's to direct a slick-looking movie. The 1930's is depicted with elegance and luxury and every detail and set is carefully made to feel welcoming with the set design and ominous with the grand Alp Mountain landscape. Branagh also knows how to carry an intense and suspenseful mood with the more enclosed personal scenes. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is excellently handled with methodical movement and wide shots of the environment and subtle tracking in the interior scenes. Close-ups of various actions and objects are also shot with perfection. The score by Patrick Doyle is pretty generic though as nothing really resonates or stayed with my memory. The effects are also standard for the most part with the train and landscape being the notable elements. They aren't the most convincing effects ever made, but they are acceptable for the modest budget and production values. Overall, Branagh always does his best when he makes a film. Even if the material isn't the best, he tries to throw eye candy whenever possible to distract you.
"Murder on the Orient Express" is a frustrating experience. On the one hand, the majority of the story is given a great tone and suspense, the character of Poirot is charismatic, the acting all around is superb, the camerawork by Zambarloukos is exceptional, the effects are decent, and Branagh's directing continues to show just how much of a visionary he is in the art of cinema. However, the film is botched from an awful ending that ruins the credibility of the mystery, tone and characters, the extensive ensemble cast is underdeveloped and never grow to be fleshed-out or endearing, and the score by Doyle is rather forgettable. The film is so close to being considered good or even decent, but the third act practically ruins what could have been a great mystery film.
Verdict: 5.5/10. Just above average, but not really worth a watch if you want a great murder mystery. Hopefully "Death on the Nile" can stick the landing?
No comments:
Post a Comment