MovieChat Forums > Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Discussion > what a stupid ass movie

what a stupid ass movie

posted 7 years ago by P3nnyw1se (2)
20 replies | jump to latest

First of all english is a second language to me so calm down with the spelling.

*spoiler*

I don't give a rats ass this movie is written many years ago, never have I seen such a stupid plot.

So a great detective discovers a murder on a train and has to figure out which passenger did it.
As he moves through the passenger list he learns that all had reasons to want the guy dead, they all knew the passenger somehow.

Now here is where it gets stupid, not for one damn second does that strike him as strange.
"HUH.. what are the odds of 10 different people all tied to the victim somehow being randomly on the same train'. Happens all the time right!

We are suppose to sit there for 30 minutes and guess 'whodunnit' untill the idiotic plot twist is revealed to baffle our minds. Cause in fact it wasn't random they were on the train, they were all in on it. *clap* *clap*

The only reason someone would have a hard time guessing this twist, might be cause the reveal about them all 10 taking turns with the knife, is equally if not more idiotic, and as such you might rule that out.

Anyways... have a nice day

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

I agree the movie brought nothing new to the book or the previous movie.

[–] atarofker (344) 6 years ago

It was huge back then. Now even CSI episodes have better plots

[–] RobPatelli (188) 6 years ago

Agree completely. Really bad movie. How the hell did he conclude that they *all* were involved in the murder? Yes, all may have a motive but there is no proof that they *all* are killers.

Stupid stupid stupid movie.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) 6 years ago

You don't understand the character.

Poirot is not interested in forensics, but rather uses his "little grey cells" and the power of deduction to look at the psychology of the crime and determine the killer. All the Poirot stories are this way.

[–] Satan2016 (25539) 6 years ago

He must lose in court alot.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) 6 years ago

He's so slick he always gets them to confess!

[–] Erland (30) 3 years ago

There was no trial in this case. He gave the local police a fake solution.

[–] RobPatelli (188) 6 years ago

That's fine PMX but I don't understand what *evidence* he had (apart from they all had a reason to kill) to doubt *all* of them? That's what I couldn't figure out.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) 6 years ago

Well like I said, Poirot prefers to focus on the psychology of the crime, but there was some physical evidence that helped him arrive at his conclusion.

He was able to establish the connection to Daisy Armstrong for every character as a motive, as you say, but there was a bit more than that as well. For instance, look at the stabbing. He was able to determine that there was a chaotic nature to the crime: Some of the wounds appeared to be delivered with the right hand, some with the left. Some appeared to be delivered with great force, while others did not seem to have much strength behind them. So that helped him to determine that the attack was not carried out by a single individual, but most likely several disparate individuals of varying physical traits.

[–] RobPatelli (188) 6 years ago

That's fine. As you say 'several' disparate individuals. Where does *all* of them come in?

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8719) 6 years ago

I think you may be asking too much. It's a detective story. How many detective stories don't rely on the character's powers of deduction to wrap the story up?

Perhaps the Poirot stories just aren't for you, because they are all this way. They don't play out like an episode of CSI. They are heavily reliant on Poirot's "little grey cells" and his exceptional ability to look at a situation, usually with only a handful of clues, and then brilliantly figure out the murder when everyone else has failed to do so.

[–] RobPatelli (188) 6 years ago

Thanks. I love these kind of movies/shows but an explanation would be nice. I watched couple of episodes of Miss Marple recently and again not much of an explanation as to how she got to her conclusions either.

Anyway, you keep enjoying them. :0)

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Exactly.

[–] FilmKnowItAll (8) 6 years ago

Yup, better stay away from it. It's something way over YOUR heads. Why even try??

[–] Ace_Spade (9552) 5 years ago

One of the charms of Christie (and often the detective genre in general) is the constant revelations of how many people in the house (or on the train, or wherever) have an extremely personal connection to the crime - "by coincidence".

Poirot clearly does turn over every detail in his mind as he comes across them, leaving every angle checked. He clearly does consider the obvious lack of coincidence, but he waits, considering his investigation thoroughly until he is sure. Then he makes his judgement. He doesn't rush. He employs his mind.

[–] Costumer (1822) 4 years ago

There are a couple of things you are missing.

First, this story is set in the latter 1920's to early 1930's (the exact date is not specified). Forensics was not a driving force in solving crimes. (It isn't as much even today as many TV shows would have you believe. It can do amazing things but there isn't always forensic evidence and it doesn't always pinpoint a crime.)

Other evidence was more important. But even here, Poirot makes use of some forensics: the differences in the many stab wounds being the main issue.

Fictional detectives often look for motive, especially in the first part of the mystery. While motive is not actually evidence, and people can be convicted without any motive being found, most prosecutors will tell you they like to have a provable motive. It helps tie the other evidence together for the jury.

In this story, though, while Poirot is certain of his conclusions, he readily admits he cannot prove any of it. No one is going to trial because there is no evidence against any of them. They all have motive, but that is all.

Sometimes that happens. A murder is not solved. Or it becomes quite certain who the killer is but nothing can be proven; especially in a court of law. Real life works that way, too.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 4 years ago

And fundamentally, if modern logic and common sense were introduced to the plot of the remake, then there would have to be major changes in the plot. And the whole point about this remake is that it sticks as close as possible to the original story. Thats what most fans of the movie and the books, TV shows expect and want.

[–] Costumer (1822) 4 years ago

You are suffering from the modern conceit that people are more intelligent now then they were in the past. That is a false concept. We have more scientific information now, true. But people are no more intelligent now then they were in the Roman Empire or ancient Egypt.

[–] SamNoyoun (5867) 2 years ago

(the exact date is not specified)

Sure it is, the first scene of the movie opens with onscreen titles that say "The Wailing Wall, Jerusalem 1934"

[–] Popcorngal (4804) 2 years ago

It was lame at the end.