If Agatha Christie had not written the mystery novel by this same name, this TV movie, "Murder on the Orient Express" might have seemed like a good movie to many. Or, if no other films had ever been made of Christie's novel, this TV movie might have seemed to be fair. But Christie did write the book, and other movies have been made of the story. So, one can't forget those when watching this poor rendition. Thus, it's not even a fair story as presented here. Hollywood and its counterparts in England and other countries have always copied earlier successes to remake films. Sometimes they keep the titles and most of the plots, but a whole new cast tackles the story. At other times, the stories are updated in time or changed in place. And sometimes, the same titles are changed so drastically that there is little resemblance between the films. Many more times, Hollywood will make an all new film and plot that copies an earlier successful one. CBS and the makers of this film would have done better by completely changing the title, characters, etc., and just enough plot details to have this stand alone as a copy of a film, but a different one. That would have been much more palatable to a huge array of movie followers who just couldn't see such a modernistic change of a classic that is unchangeable. The cast gave it a shot, but this is one story that should not be remade outside its original time, setting and plot.

I was first introduced to this material with the star-studded 1975 version. Despite what I felt was outrageous overacting by Albert Finney (and sort of tawdry performance by Anthony Hopkins) that version will always be my benchmark.Others prefer the David Suchet version which has interesting aspects as well. Yet, some find it too religious.This version manages to capture most of the elements of Christie's story and yet updates it to the new millennium. Not sure why that update was done as part of the original's appeal (for me at least) has always been the recreation of the pre-WWII era.Yet here we have a production that somehow manages to struggle by on only nine murders. We lose a butler, a cook, and a lady's maid. Guess it's just hard to find good domestic help these days.We have a trashed VHS tape substituted for a burnt note, a PDA stylus substituted for a pipe cleaner & some matches. We still have the fine handkerchief with an embroidered H. We have a software billionaire for substituted for the famous pilot and we get a mention of OJ to make up for the Diesel for rather than the classic steam train. We have a rock-slide substituted for a Snowdrift. We have No kimono, No Greek Doctor (not even a vet) We have tech savvy Poirot who uses a laptop, we still have grease stained Passport and a broken watch (Thank God it wasn't digital!) And we have the English American translation issues with Attorney/Solicitor but also Vacation/Holiday As with many adaptations, I wonder why the changes were made. Some work, some don't. While this is never going to be my preferred (or even second best) version of the story, it is still watchable and merits a single viewing.Let's hope that the new Johnny Depp version does as well.

I swear I really tried to watch this version of Murder on the Orient Express without comparing it to the 1974 Sidney Lumet film, but like this movie, I failed miserably. This made-for-TV movie lacks much of the class, style, and glamour of the '74 version (and the book for that matter). Talk of VCRs, fitness trainers, and computer styluses seem cheap in comparison to dragon kimonos, pipe cleaners, and butlers. The acting also lacks the class of the '74 film. With the exception of Leslie Caron, none of the other actors are worth mentioning in the same breath with Ingrid Bergman, John Gielgud, or Richard Widmark. The worst offender has to be Meredith Baxter. I couldn't watch a single second of her performance and not be reminded of the great Lauren Bacall. Plot points have been changed that really hurt the story. As Col. Arbuthnot so emphatically put it in the first, "Trial by twelve good men and true... is a sound system." Why change it to nine? This is just one example, I could go on and on about plot changes that I couldn't get past. Finally, Alfred Molina is no doubt a fine actor, but he's not Poirot (and I'm sure the screenwriters are as much to blame for this). I've read a lot of criticisms of Albert Finney's portrayal of Poirot, but to me, he nailed most of the idiosyncrasies that made Agatha Christie's character so unique. Sure, he went overboard at times, but Molina's character never even seems to try to be Poirot. And, what's with the love story involving Poirot? Like the rest of this movie, it's all wrong.In summary, if you want to watch Murder on the Orient Express, skip this one and check out the 1974 film. Or better yet, read the book.

At the time of first watching this version of Murder on the Orient Express, I had not yet read the book. Nor had I seen the "amazing" other films. Indeed, the only reason I picked it up was to complete my Peter Strauss collection!! Having since become familiar with other versions, I feel somewhat better qualified now to write a review. I have to say that the 1974 version with the star-studded cast is probably only so highly regarded because of its star-studded cast. Some have even suggested watching the '74 film *instead* of reading the book. First off - Nothing will ever compare to the book. Secondly - This is a 'made for TV' version and doesn't try to be anything more. It does make a few attempts to be unique and interesting, or at least different, by attempting to modernise the tale. It does so because many of the original references are no longer relevant and will not generally be understood by audiences younger than about 50. But alas, herein lies it's very downfall. Many reviewers have already ranted about the 'crimes' against Christie's original. Personally, I can see where they were trying to go with this version, but still regret the omission of characters and the changing of certain key plot details - The most glaring is the reduction of the Twelve persons involved down to Nine. The reason 12 were included was to be the same number as that of a jury. Without this I feel the story is too far compromised. What I will mention is that, while Alfred Molina's performance does not begin to compare to David Suchet, he does offer a very unique interpretation of the character. The performance was enjoyable enough, but Molina is no Suchet. In my mind, Suchet is the ONLY Poirot and indeed, Christie's grandson himself has expressed how Suchet is the most convincing Poirot. I can very easily accept Molina as a 'young' Poirot, perhaps fairly early on in his career. I would call this a 'pocket-money' role - Something an actor does for a bit of cash on the side. With that in mind, the rest is standard TV movie faire, with two exceptions...Peter Strauss, the very reason I bought the DVD, always impresses me when he plays a 'bad guy'. Strauss is often cast as a neat, suave, smooth sort of 'nice guy', well suited to wearing a suit. However, he happens to do 'nasty piece of work' exceptionally well and I fear that his impressive performance here is utterly buried beneath the sludge of the movie itself. The second is the makeup department. A lot of their work is subtle, so much so that those not very familiar with members of the cast might not notice just how much of a transformation has been worked on these actors. Strauss in particular looks so different when portraying Cassetti ... truly evil!!The good news is that David Suchet has now filmed a proper version of Murder on the Orient Express, which is slated for screening later this month (July 2010). Overall - This 2001 version is good watch if you have never encountered Poirot before. It also stands up just as well if you have never read the books or seen a Suchet portrayal. Perhaps something I would recommend as an introduction, or for a young audience.