It’s an admirable attempt, though it didn't quite achieve greatness. Kenneth Branagh is one of those actors and directors who isn't afraid to take on difficult projects, and I respect him for that, even when his choices don't always seem ideal. Adapting Agatha Christie's most significant work for the big screen presents a considerable challenge, not just because of the richness of the story and its characters, but also considering how important her writing is to devoted readers—and I count myself among them. For me, she stands as one of the greatest writers of the 20th century; she significantly contributed to and advanced the detective narrative. Therefore, I must strongly object to the recent news about revising her books, removing any potentially offensive language or terms from new editions. It echoes historical book burnings—we’ve simply refined our methods while maintaining a similar mindset toward works that might cause offense. "Orient Express" has been adapted for film several times before. The 1974 version was truly spectacular and featured an impressive cast. However, one can't overlook the television series starring David Suchet, who delivered a remarkable portrayal of Poirot over many years—a performance difficult to surpass. The movie does have its strengths, primarily in the visuals. The cinematography makes clever use of lighting, the stunning snowy landscapes, and the vintage elegance of the train itself, which is a faithful recreation of the real Orient Express, a train that still exists despite various financial difficulties. The costumes and props are also wonderful and help to recreate the 1930s era. It’s particularly effective in conveying the feeling of cramped spaces. Another positive aspect is the cast's performances; I wouldn't be unfair to say everyone did well with what they were given. As expected, Branagh leads the film and gives us a Poirot who gradually becomes more relatable. He begins as an almost mechanical deduction machine focused on solving crimes, but ultimately gains a different perspective on truth and justice—a central theme of the book. The performances by Judi Dench and Michelle Pfeiffer also deserve recognition. The others – and it’s impressive to have such a large cast involved – seem largely present simply to say they worked with the director and were part of the project. These are all good things! However, the film has serious flaws as well. The action sequences are the most significant and obvious problem. Poirot was never an action hero or someone who engaged in physical confrontations. In the books, he leaves that to the police or trusted allies like Captain Hastings or Chief Inspector Japp. Seeing him involved in action scenes feels out of character. Branagh made a mistake here, just as he did with that unkempt and unattractive mustache. The books provide numerous descriptions of Poirot’s mustache, none of which resemble the one used in this film, which looks more like a dead rodent. Furthermore, the character's many quirks are minimized, focusing solely on an obsession with boiled eggs—it’s absurd! Branagh, who didn't seem to consider how dissimilar he is to the character, ignored descriptions of Poirot’s "ovoid" head shape and failed to replicate his distinctive gait, which involved small steps. Considering Poirot’s elegance and refinement, the clothes Branagh wears and the near absence of a hat are regrettable details. The film—which centers on Poirot—also makes superficial use of each character's backstory. Some characters who have significant interactions with the detective in the book, like Debenham, are almost entirely absent here. Finally, Johnny Depp’s casting feels wrong; he turns Rachett into a kind of unpleasant amateur gangster.

Source on TMDB