I have only been an occasional follower of the TV movies with Suchet, but have seen enough to know that he delivers an excellent Poirot. Nonetheless, this episode had to follow in the rather large footsteps of an all-star classic predecessor, and I was curious on how it would accomplish it.
The main twist here is that unlike most Poirot-themed works, this really isn't a whodunnit by any stretch of the imagination. While the 1974 version keeps the viewer in the dark about at least Poirot's own reasoning until the big triumphant showdown, the 2010 adaptation gradually let's the viewer in on the solution, and really does not make much of a mystery about it. Originally I thought it was a bit of a let-down, which it is if you expect the usual Orient Express arc of confusion about the various clues and statements and suspects followed by Poirot's Grand Revelation.
However, the point of this Orient Express adventure is not to solve a murder, but to explore much deeper notions of justice and the law, revenge, multiculturalism, and doing what is right. The theme is introduced right at the opening scene, when Poirot's genius at solving a crime proves to have disastrous consequences. We then see him react to a stoning of a woman in Istanbul, and these two events frame his own path as he solves the mystery of what happens in the Orient Express.
In the course of this, Suchet shows some of the finest acting I have seen from him (and that says a lot), thinking about it still sends chills down my spine. He is a remarkable actor, and he shows us some sides of Poirot that are fresh and new and interesting (Christie purists might say that they are also not authentic, but it would seem reasonable to frame the wrestling with morality of a Belgian gentleman of the time in the context of Catholicism, which helpfully provides visuals and props for it, too, so I find it excusable).
In summary, the whodunnit crime bit is being handled mostly perfunctorily, the focus of this piece is on the morality surrounding this crime, and here it relies heavily on the enormous breadth and depth of Suchet to make the point. Eminently watchable, not just for fans.
The main twist here is that unlike most Poirot-themed works, this really isn't a whodunnit by any stretch of the imagination. While the 1974 version keeps the viewer in the dark about at least Poirot's own reasoning until the big triumphant showdown, the 2010 adaptation gradually let's the viewer in on the solution, and really does not make much of a mystery about it. Originally I thought it was a bit of a let-down, which it is if you expect the usual Orient Express arc of confusion about the various clues and statements and suspects followed by Poirot's Grand Revelation.
However, the point of this Orient Express adventure is not to solve a murder, but to explore much deeper notions of justice and the law, revenge, multiculturalism, and doing what is right. The theme is introduced right at the opening scene, when Poirot's genius at solving a crime proves to have disastrous consequences. We then see him react to a stoning of a woman in Istanbul, and these two events frame his own path as he solves the mystery of what happens in the Orient Express.
In the course of this, Suchet shows some of the finest acting I have seen from him (and that says a lot), thinking about it still sends chills down my spine. He is a remarkable actor, and he shows us some sides of Poirot that are fresh and new and interesting (Christie purists might say that they are also not authentic, but it would seem reasonable to frame the wrestling with morality of a Belgian gentleman of the time in the context of Catholicism, which helpfully provides visuals and props for it, too, so I find it excusable).
In summary, the whodunnit crime bit is being handled mostly perfunctorily, the focus of this piece is on the morality surrounding this crime, and here it relies heavily on the enormous breadth and depth of Suchet to make the point. Eminently watchable, not just for fans.