Kenneth Branagh's semi-serious, welcomed alternative to Sydney Lumet's frolic version

Rating: Null/10 (30 November 2017)

Although there had been several renditions of this Agatha Christie's all-time classic (on both movie and TV screens), Sydney Lumet's 1974 star-studded work is the best known. Branagh, in his ever-soaring undauntable spirit for adventure, after tackling such varieties as Sleuth, Thor, Jack Ryan and Cinderella, now turns to Christie. While he hasn't exactly attempt a stunt of Christie-to-Shakespeare conversion, his MOTOE comes with a moody, philosophical edge that is a welcomed alternative to Lumet's pure fun version. Well, maybe not.
Two of Christie's best-known work, "And then there were none" and MOTOE, have similar settings: predetermined large number of suspects (10 and 12 respectively), enclosed environment (island and stranded train) where the murder(s) occurred. There are also marked differences. In the former, characters are murdered one after another. Here, there is only one murder, and a detective happens to be on hand.
Illustrious private investigator Hercules Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), while taking a well-earned rest on the opulent Orient Express from Istanbul to the French coast, is approached by fellow-passenger Edward Ratchett (Johnny Depp) who offers a princely sum to hire him as bodyguard. Ratchett has made many enemies in his shady business dealings and has recently received threatening notes. Poirot flatly declines. Overnight, two unrelated events occur. First. the train derails but no one was hurt. Ratchett, however, is found dead in his cabin, with multiple stabbed wounds. Reluctantly, Poirot accepts the case. Ratchett's secret identity is soon unveiled: a notorious criminal at large, who kidnapped and murdered a little girl Daisy Armstrong in a sensational case some years back. That one crime set off tragic chain events and several other deaths (victim's pregnant mother, father, initially wrongly accused party) and ruined more lives. Then, one by one, fellow passengers are traced back to someone who had suffered from the Armstrong case. Everyone had motive and opportunity.
As mentioned, Director Lumet took a light approach, aptly matched by Albert Finney's slightly caricatural portrayal of Poirot. Branagh, the director as well as the actor, takes a different (more serious, for want of a better word) approach. The fun is still there, but there are shades of melancholic as well as dark moods and emotions.
First, we have a very different Poirot here, Belgian accent notwithstanding. At the beginning, his eccentric insistence on "balancing" is depicted humorously, even farcically. His breakfast eggs must be identical twins. After stepping accidentally on a pile of animal manure, he cheerfully steps on it again, with the other foot! But "balancing" takes on a different shade towards the end, culminating in his agonizing struggle between legal justice and human compassion. And then, the biggest difference: poignancy is palpable every time he stares at the pocket portrait of deceased wife Catherine, murmuring her name.
Throughout the movie, Branagh's endeavor to give this familiar classic is new look, both visually and substantially, is evident. There are things he has done that clearly had not been contemplated by Christie, or Lumet, for that matter. Here are a few examples.
The murder scene is first introduced from OUTSIDE the victim's cabin: the audience see nothing, only hear the characters' description. Later, a bloody (but not necessarily gory) visual is shown as a direct overhead shot of the victim lying on his bed in the chamber. Variety is introduced to the scenes on questioning the various suspects. There is one sequence with three of them covered in parallel, quick inter-cutting short scenes. Another one takes place in the snowbound outdoors, on two facing chairs across a table, set up in front of a train tunnel some distance from the derailed train. Still another one is in the private car of an aristocratic couple who, with diplomatic immunity, never appear in public, until the very end. Most impressive is the "final solution" scene, where the suspects sit behind a long table set up at the entrance of the said tunnel. Just a fraction of a second after encountering this visual, you can't help but have the Last Supper conjured up in your mind. Personally speaking, all of the above have their appeal. On the minus said (yes, Mr. Poirot, balance) I find the two action sequences (kung-fu at the beginning and gun-shot/melee in the end) tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie, hence quite irritating.
There is a huge temptation to compare the two star-studded casts, in 1974 and 2017. But then, it would not mean much to those who have not seen both. Those who have would have plenty of their own observations and opinions. So, I'll stay mum.