A Slightly Different Tale

Rating: 3/10 (17 November 2017)

Fans of Agatha Christie are rightfully disappointed in Branagh's film because the screenplay changed so much as to make the film a mockery of the novel. I'm surprised the Christie estate supported it. Comparisons are naturally being made with the 1974 Lumet film which closely followed the novel and was a much superior production to this one. There are only a few positives in Branagh's film. The cinematography is outstanding and the set design demonstrated attention to detail. Branagh made the train car interiors wider than actual to accommodate camera angles, a major challenge to the 1974 production which used actual train cars. Also, the much-maligned mustache is closer to the Poirot of the novels than the Suchet- mustache. The actors did the best they could with a bad script, although I think Ridley with her quirky grin was miscast as Miss Debenham, and Depp's portrayal of Ratchett was weird.
Branagh's film makes many changes to the novel. The film opens in Jerusalem with Poirot stepping in a pile of manure (why?) and then shifts to a scene in front of the wailing wall. Poirot has a Muslim imam, a Jewish rabbi and a Catholic priest standing in front of the wailing wall, giving the appearance of an acted out joke. Maybe the screenwriter was trying to inject humor into a serious story, but in my view made Poirot look silly and showed a lack of sensitivity to the holiest site in Judaism. The producer and director deserve to be censured by the Israeli government.
The Arbuthnot character is a black doctor rather than a British Colonel. Perhaps Branagh wanted to preempt criticism from the PC crowd as experienced by the film "Dunkirk" for not including black soldiers in the British Army. But, the PC crowd is not concerned about accuracy. Then tension was added to the story with other elements not in the book: the train being stopped on a trestle over a gorge, omitting Dr. Constantine, Arbuthnot examining the body of Ratchett and giving a medical opinion, Mrs. Hubbard being stabbed, Poirot chasing McQueen onto the trestle, Poirot being shot, and Poirot offering Mrs. Hubbard to shoot him since he couldn't live with the knowledge of accommodating murderers.
The final summing up of the case takes place outdoors rather than in the dining car as in the book. Branagh no doubt wanted to avoid the difficulties encountered in the making of the 1974 film. In that film Albert Finney as Poirot had to repeat the dining car summation multiple times in order to get the camera shots of the various characters that Poirot was addressing.
Branagh's film (as well as the 2010 made-for-TV movie starring David Suchet), has Poirot struggling on the horns of a dilemma: bring charges against the 12 people who conspired to kill Ratchett, or say nothing and become an accessory to murder after the fact. Both Suchet and Branagh want Poirot to act as judge and declare the conspirators morally wrong, which Christie does not do.
In the novel Poirot accurately deduces those responsible for Ratchett's death, but remains neutral. He proposes two solutions to the crime, one in which the crime was committed by an outside assassin and the other in which twelve persons on the train killed Ratchett. He leaves it to the owner of the railroad to decide what to tell the authorities. The owner with agreement by Dr. Constantine decide on the assassin. Christie essentially leaves the moral dilemma to the reader.
Liberal film-makers, of course, don't believe murderers should die for their crimes and confuse justice with revenge. In my view the actions of the passengers to kill Ratchett was justifiable homicide. Ratchett was a serial murderer who had not been held to account for any of his crimes. Christie's choice of 12 victims meting out justice is actually based on the Bible since God decreed that those whose testimony condemned a man were to participate in his execution (Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7).
As an adaptation of Christie, I give the film a "3." If the novel did not exist, I would give the film a "6." The religious insensitivity of the first act seriously detracts from an otherwise quality product, the poor performances of Depp and Ridley notwithstanding.