An often breathtakingly-beautiful movie

Rating: 8/10 (10 November 2017)

"An often breathtakingly-beautiful movie" is not a common description of a murder mystery, but for me, while this movie had other remarkable features, it was first and foremost often breathtaking beautiful. I'm glad I opted to see it in a theater, with a huge HD screen at that, because it certainly added to the pleasure. Some of what we see is computer graphics, but I don't know when I've seen them used so well.
The cinematography in general is wonderful and often very creative here. Close-ups of faces that make them look just astonishingly beautiful and at the same time full of character. Interesting camera angles. This movie is certainly a joy to watch.
And then there is the acting. I thought Branaugh, a great actor, made Poirot too much of a caricature, but the rest of the actors do a great job with their roles. The camera often shoots their faces close-up, as in older movies, but it can, because these actors all know how to act with their faces.
At times the script seemed too full of clues that we weren't allowed enough time to think about. Perhaps, now that I know the end - which certainly comes as a surprise! - the clues would make more sense on a second viewing.
Still, a wonderful movie, and one that should definitely be seen in a theater. So much of it would be lost on a small screen.
-----------------------------
Since seeing the movie and writing the above, I read the book. The differences between it and the movie are telling.
The end of the movie, the unraveling of the mystery, seemed too abrupt. It was as if the director had run out of time presenting the mystery, and so, rather than letting Poirot solve it a step at a time, he just dumped the solution on us when Poirot calls for a meeting of all the passengers outside the train.
That in fact is evidently what happened. In the book, Poirot works things out one step at a time after he has interviewed all the passengers a first time. Some of his deductions are, at best, far- fetched, but others make sense and are based on clues that we have sometimes had dangling in front of us for some time.
That working out, which takes 100 of the book's 260 pages, is basically discarded for the joint confession in front of the tunnel entrance.
Looked at in retrospect, I can see now that the long episode at the beginning of the movie, not in the book, where Poirot solves a different crime in front of the walls of Jerusalem, and then all the business in Istanbul, should have been tossed out or pared way down. I can imagine it would have been painful to throw away so much footage, but keeping it left no time for Poirot to solve the case a step at a time after he had met all the passengers in the sleeping car.
As I wrote above, before reading Christie's book, what we have looks great. I could understand, however, if Christie fans felt short- changed.