Movie Review: "Muder On The Orient Express" (no spoilers)

One of the big movies of the season opening today is a new version of Agatha Christie's classic mystery thriller, "Murder On The Orient Express".  This version was was directed by and stars Kenneth Branagh as detective Hercule Poirot.

Before getting into the subject of remakes, let me concentrate on this movie.  As indicated in the title, there will be no spoilers.

The story, and there may be some of you out there who are not familiar is this:  Poirot finds himself boarding, at the last minute, the Istanbul-to-Calais Orient Express for a three day train ride across Europe.  Because of the last minute nature of his boarding, he is squeezed in among an assortment of passengers all brought together, seemingly at random, for this particular train ride.  During the second night of the trip two things occur.  An avalanche takes place and stalls the train in the somewhere middle of the Balkans, and one of the passengers is brutally murdered.  A railroad official implores Poirot to investigate and solve this mystery before the tracks are cleared so that the police officials can be presented both a victim and a perpetrator.  The killer had to be someone on the Calais Coach, but who  among them could have wanted this guy, Mr. Ratchett, dead? 

Such is the tale of one of Christie's most renowned novels, and Branagh tells the story in a stylish and very entertaining manner.  I'm not going to say any more about the mystery and its solution.  See the movie yourself and enjoy it.

Like the Sidney Lumet version of the story from 1974, this one has the requisite all-star cast that includes in addition to Branagh, Michelle Pfeiffer, Johnny Depp, Daisy Ridley, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Josh Gad, Leslie Odom, Jr., Willem Dafoe and others.  Going in, I wasn't sure that I was going to like Branagh as Poirot, but he was quite good as it turned out.  Also good in their roles were Depp (is he ever not good?) and Pfeiffer.  The movie is also beautifully filmed and  gorgeous to look at.  A very entertaining hour and fifty-four minutes, and it gets a solid Three Stars from The Grandstander.

Now, when I checked in on Facebook that I was seeing this movie today, I got a number of comments along the lines of "I saw the Albert Finney version in 1974, so I'm not going to bother with this one" or "Why bother remaking this one" or "Why should I see this one when I saw the other one. Isn't it the same story?"

The subject of remakes is one that I have written about before 

http://grandstander.blogspot.com/search?q=Magnificent+Seven

and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.  In the case of MOTOE, I had read that the Agatha Christie estate was in full support of the making of this movie because it might expose new generations of readers to Christie's works, generations of moviegoers and readers who would have no inclination to look up and watch a forty year old movie. Fair enough.

I grant you that a lot of remakes have been ill-advised and just plain bad (see what I had to say about that in the post linked above), but some of them can be quite good and can stand on their on merits alongside and even improve upon the originals.  As far as "Murder On The Orient Express" is concerned, I can say that I liked both this one and Lumet's 1974 version equally.  It's a good story, and the studios and the film makers did not skimp in making sure that they gave the public a quality production.  And isn't conversations of who was better, Albert Finney or Kenneth Branagh, Lauren Bacall or Michelle Pfeiffer, Richard Widmark or Johnny Depp, Ingrid Bergman or Penelope Cruz (for the record, I'll vote for Branagh, Depp and Bergman and call it a draw between Bacall and Pfeiffer) all part of the fun, kind of like arguing about Willie, Mickey, and The Duke?

Movie goers can decide how they want to spend their money, of course, but I hope that you not rule this version of "Murder On The Orient Express" out simply because you saw the same story done forty-three years ago.  That was a good movie, but so is this one. 

Oh, true Christie-philes will have noted that the door was left open just a crack at the end of this one for additional Branagh-as-Poirot films.  Not sure if that is what Branagh wants, but the opportunity is certainly there.

Again, Three Stars from The Grandstander.

Movie Thoughts..."Black Mass", "Psycho", "Casablanca" and the Price of Popcorn

Some movie thoughts and opinions....

Saw this movie this afternoon.

It is the story about Boston mobster James "Whitey" Bulger.  I love mob movies, and while this one is no "Goodfellas", and certainly no "Godfather", it's a pretty good one.  I was somewhat familiar with the Bulger story, but wasn't totally aware of the "deal with the devil" that the local Boston FBI office made with Bulger, nor was I aware of the prominence of Bulger's younger brother in Boston politics.  The best part of this movie is the performance of Johnny Depp.  There was a school of thought that Depp's career had descended into a series of parodies of his Capt. Jack Sparrow character, but not in this case.  He's dynamite as Whitey Bulger

One minor quibble.  I suppose that when you make a movie that takes place in Boston, everybody has to speak in over-exaggerated Boston accents (there were a few points where I wish there had been sub-titles).  It adds to the authenticity, I suppose, but sometimes it just seems so forced.

********

Earlier in the week we had seen the TCM/Fathom Events presentation of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" on the big screen at the Cinemark North Hills.

It was terrific experience to see this in such a setting, and it prompted my mind to wander in the following direction:  With a movie that has been parodied so many times, and is so ingrained in our culture, was there anyone in the theater that night who was seeing "Psycho" for the first time?  Similarly, is there anyone out there who is unfamiliar with what "Psycho" is about?  Could there possibly be anyone to whom viewing this movie would be a completely blank page, and if so, what would they think viewing it for the first time in 2015?  

After seeing this movie on Sunday, I went on line and searched for reviews of this movie that were given at the time of its 1960 release.  The Internet makes it possible to find such things, and they make for interesting reading with fifty-five years of hindsight.

********

In conjunction with its current exhibit on World War II, the Heinz History Center is offering a "World War II Film Festival" this Saturday and Sunday in its Mueller Education Center this coming weekend.  I will be working as a Volunteer on Saturday afternoon when "Casablanca" will be shown.  Talk about being able to see a Classic on the Big Screen!

If you aren't doing anything this Saturday afternoon, think about stopping by.  Not sure what my volunteer role will be, but I just might be the guy to sell you a candy bar....or offer to procure a Letter of Transit for you!

********

Finally, when I went to see "Black Mass" this afternoon, I thought I'd treat myself to a bag of popcorn.  A small bag.  Note that I said a SMALL bag.  The price was $6.05.  Putting aside the outrageous price for something that probably cost less than a dime for the theater to produce, I had to laugh at the cost of six dollars and FIVE cents.  As I said to the young kid at the cash register, they must just LOVE having to count out ninety-five cents in change all the time.  I mean, really, how was it determined that this commodity should cost $6.05?

It just struck me as odd.

Movie Review: "The Lone Ranger"

I went to see "The Lone Ranger" today with low expectations.  I knew if was two-and-a-half hours long, way too long for almost any movie, and after experiencing the over the top yet underwhelming and almost depressing "Man of Steel" a few weeks back, I was expecting another big-budget summer popcorn movie that would be pretty much a piece of junk.  Why did I go then, you may ask?  Well, I wanted to see Johnny Depp playing Tonto.  From the trailers I'd seen, I figured he would make the movie worth seeing.

Well, maybe it's good to have low expectations because it turns out that I really liked the movie.  Depp was quite good, as expected, and the action sequences were amazing.  The story, with which most of you may already be familiar, was a rousing one.  A good western can still be pretty stirring.  Armie Hammer (what kind of name is that, anyway?) played the Lone Ranger.  He wasn't bad in the role, but he's no Johnny Depp, and the movie ended up being as much about Tonto as the Lone Ranger.  Chalk that up to political correctness in the 21st century and the star power of Depp.

The movie was directed by a guy named Gore Verbinsky who also directed several of Depp's
Pirates of the Carribean franchise movies.  Much of the movie had a tongue-in-cheek quality to it, which prompted one of the guys I was in the ticket line to call it "The Lone Ranger of the Carribean."  That was not a bad thing, and it made this movie something that all movies should be - a fun experience, something that "Man of Steel" definitely was not.

This movie probably won't score any Oscar nominations except maybe for Special Effects or Cinematography (scenes filmed in Utah's Monument Valley - think classic John Ford westerns - were absolutely gorgeous), but it was entertaining and, as I said, fun to watch.  So put it on your summer "To See" list, but be aware that it is worthy of its PG-13 rating.  Quite violent at times, so send the little kiddos to see "Despicable Me 2" while you watch this one.

Oh, and by the way, Silver, the horse, was great in this one!