Snow White & the Huntsman

Snow White is the current princess du jour, enjoying quite the resurgence in popularity with no less than three wildly varied incarnations within the last year -- as a central character in the television show Once Upon a Time and in the family-friendly flick Mirror Mirror, the latter released just a scant three months ago. Snow White & the Huntsman is the latest big-screen incarnation, and from the previews it promised to be a dark and twisty take on the familiar story, with an epic feel more akin to Lord of the Rings than the classic Disney animated film. It succeeds...to a point. To be clear, I really liked this film, but that does not mean I was immune to its many (MANY) issues. So let's discuss. :) This is apt to be LONG...

The film opens with the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) as storyteller, sharing Snow White's story and how her kingdom fell under the power of a charismatic evil queen. (I COULD LISTEN TO CHRIS HEMSWORTH ALL DAY.) The opening scene promises a tale surprisingly in-step with the story's Brothers Grimm roots -- a beautiful queen (Liberty Ross), longing for a child, comes upon a brilliant red rose blooming in defiance of winter's cold. Pricking her finger on a thorn, three drops of blood fall to the snow, a stark visual contrast that prompts her to wish for a child with skin as white as snow, lips red as blood, and hair as black as a raven's wing -- and this is key -- a spirit akin to the rose's defiance and strength in blooming in the dead of winter.

In time a daughter is born to the queen and her husband, King Magnus (Noah Huntley -- the older Peter in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe!), and christened Snow White (Raffey Cassidy), as physically she embodies the beauty her mother wished for prior to her birth. But more than outward beauty, Snow's mother never fails to remind her daughter that true beauty comes from within, and that is her greatest strength. But Snow's happy childhood is doomed to fail, no more playing weird games with apples with William (Xavier Atkins), her best friend and son of Duke Hammond (Vincent Regan -- Wallander, Miss Marple, Inspector Lewis, ShakespeaRe-Told), her father's closest advisor. Snow's mother dies and her father goes COMPLETELY off the rails. Conveniently the king's resulting death wish coincides with an invasion of dark knights who happen to be MADE OF GLASS, and let me tell you watching them shatter is absolutely mesmerizing. Following his disturbing easy victory, Magnus comes upon a prison wagon holding a beautiful woman named Ravenna (Charlize Theron) and is instantly smitten. Her golden hair and clothes are the complete opposite of the dark knights, so OF COURSE SHE'S A VICTIM, right?! (Let's not think about why she would be the only human in a sea of glass warriors, whatevs...) Magnus carries her off to the castle and makes plans to marry her THE NEXT DAY, because WHY WAIT, that would make sense. Silly man.

The wedding night does not go well for Magnus, as to be expected. Ravenna is no victim, she's the sorceress who used the dark knights to gain entry to the castle -- and does she ever have issues with men and power. This dichotomy between Snow and Ravenna is one of the film's most interesting points -- Snow, raised with the understanding that true beauty and strength comes from purity of heart, while Ravenna (as it is revealed later in flashback) bears the mark of her mother's conviction that beauty is her only power, a weapon to be used to avenge her mother's death and to crush her enemies. But such a curse is not without  a failsafe -- by Ravenna's fairest (innocent) blood the spell was cast, but by fairest blood it can be undone.

On that fateful wedding night, Ravenna siezes control of the kingdom and imprisons Snow, the girl's only allies -- William and his father -- barely escaping with their lives. Now I'm not entirely sure how much time is supposed to have passed (if it's mentioned in the film I can't recall) -- in the novelization it's ten years, but on the film's Wikipedia page it's fifteen -- but either way, Snow is now of age and is played by Kristen Stewart, who is wisely given very little dialogue. And here's where things start to get interesting...

Charlize Theron as Ravenna OWNS this film. Her evil queen is by far the scariest, most intense, mesmerizing incarnation of the legendary villain to every grace the screen (or my imagination for that matter). Her icy blonde beauty is the perfect foil for Snow's darker looks, and the intensity she brings to bear on this role is just incredible -- screaming, bodily thrashing around, she throws herself into this role heart and soul. That said, I wish -- oh, how I wish -- the film gave Ravenna's character more context. It isn't revealed until over halfway through the picture the source of Ravenna's power, and that is only in a hazy flashback sequence. I wanted to see what brought Ravenna to Snow's kingdom, what set her on the course to become a power-hungry queen. And perhaps most ofa ll -- who was responsible for the attack on her family that led to her mother's "gift" of the spell that would ultimately become her daughter's destruction? The idea, the set-up, of physical beauty as a weapon versus beauty and strength of spirit is nicely meted out throughout the film, but I was left wanting -- there's a lot of promise in the "twists" this incarnation of the familiar story brings to life, but all too often the development of potentially fascinating plot points are left under-developed.

So Ravenna's power is waning because Snow has finally "come of age." No longer content with consuming the youth of captured young women (I thought this was just a brilliant twist on the queen's desire to remain "the fairest one of all"), her mirror -- played by Christopher Obi (seriously, the molten mirror? AMAZING) -- advises her to consume the heart of Snow, her primary rival, and in doing so promises her immortality. Ravenna sends her brother Finn (Simon Spruell), a completely disgusting creep, to bring Snow's heart to her. (Was it just me, or did Ravenna and Finn's relationship have some disturbingly incestuous overtones? ICK.) When Finn enters her cell (and is COMPLETELY GROSS), Snow siezes her chance and slashes him with a nail, escaping her cell and barely escaping the castle with her life.

This is where Snow kind of goes off the rails a bit -- she shows little ill effects from her imprisonment. She has a surprising amount of stamina and apparently no negative psychological impact from being locked up by a psycho since she was a small child. Thanks to a conveniently available horse she makes it to the Dark Forest, a.k.a. the point of no return. Now the forest in the Disney film terrified me as a child, and I loved how the filmmakers took that concept and ran with it -- the menacing trees with their groping branches, the idea of hallucinogenic pollen increasing the terrifying visions, the concept of the forest feeding on one's fear -- all of that brilliantly played out on-screen. Indeed it is a mark of one of the film's greatest assests -- it's world-building and set design. This is a movie you can lose yourself in quite literally, and I was happy to do so for two hours. :)

With her prey loose in the forest, Ravenna requires a hunter with nothing to lose -- and enter the Huntsman, the other best part of this film when it comes to acting. I could write PAGES on Hemsworth's performance. It's riddled with angst (love me some angst!) and self-loathing -- the Huntsman is a man in need of redemption, in need of a cause, and as such he was responsible for the greatest part of my emotional investment in this film (really, this just should've been a movie about Ravenna and the Huntsman...who needs Snow? LOL). The Huntsman is all for delivering Snow to Ravenna until he meets Snow in the Dark Forest and is -- what? impressed by her desperation to live? Unaware of the value of his charge's identity, the Huntsman takes Snow to a nearby village, claiming all he wants is a monetary reward...but oh Chris, we know your type...you are not as far gone as you'd like everyone to think. *wink*

Now, prior to this film's release, thanks to the trailers and reading various summaries online, I fully expected a lot of screentime to be given to a teacher/student relationship between Snow and the Huntsman -- I was under the impression she would transform into a "warrior queen" under his tutelage. Well unless I missed something, the Huntsman teaches Snow one (1) defensive move, and by the end of the movie she is wearing armor and leading men into battle. *rollseyes* The script instead spends far too much time (especially once Snow meets the dwarves) developing this rather silly idea that she is some sort of healing, mystical savior -- there is NO context for this savior complex, it is just a given thanks to dwarf Muir's (Bob Hoskins) apparent power as a seer. I'm sorry but Kristen Stewart has the charisma of a two-by-four, I cannot buy her as a savior or warrior queen at all. She works fairly well as Snow White when she doesn't say anything, but even then that gets a bit nuts because she's mum when you expect dialogue (i.e. the concluding scene) and ridiculous when she talks (ie. the "rally the troops" speech).

So, let's try to wrap this up. INTERESTING CAST MEMBERS -- the dwarves are brought to life by a score of familiar faces. There's the aforementioned Hoskins, joined by Ian McShane (Beith), Ray Winstone (Gort), Eddie Marsan (Duir), and Toby Jones (Coll), to name a few. I confess that after a single viewing I was left rather lukewarm by the dwarves' appearance -- I enjoyed seeing the familiar faces, but was annoyed by their use as a vehicle for driving home the idea of Snow-as-savior. I wish they'd (like all the characters in this film) had been a bit better realized script-wise. I was thrilled to see Rachael Stirling as Anna, one of the women Snow and the Huntsman encounter in the village at the edge of the forest. Anna is the one who reveals Snow's true identity to the Huntsman, and she brings this tragic sort of gravitas to the role - it was espeically heart-breaking to listen to her explain how the women of her village voluntarily scar themselves in order to escape Ravenna's search for "consumable" beauty and youth. I've been impressed by Stirling's appearances in The Young Victoria, Inspector Lewis, and Miss Marple, and look forward to seeing more of her work in the future.

The adult William is played by Sam Clafin, of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides fame, doing a lovely Robin Hood/Hawkeye impression with his bow & arrows (seriously, what IS it about archers on film lately? LOVE IT). I loved William's loyalty to Snow White, the way he goes undercover with Finn's men in order to find her, but oh how I wish he had a more charismatic leading lady to work with. OH WELL. *sigh* I was fascinated by the script's twist on the famous apple scene, and how it involved one of Snow's oldest friends -- seeing William offer Snow the apple, then realize Ravenna adopted his form, and watching her transform -- that was really well-done. Also of interest is the famous kiss, and that it is not William, whom we expect to wake Snow, that delivers it...

It is the Huntsman's kiss that wakes Snow White from the poison apple-induced slumber. From talking with a few friends I gather many viewers would prefer Snow to end up with William -- but the Huntsman's kiss certainly points in another direction (will be VERY interesting to see how these relationships play out in the sequel). Leaving aside the fact for the moment that I think both the Huntsman and William deserve other leading ladies -- working with what we're given I love the idea of Snow White and the Huntsman as a twist on the traditional princess ending up with a prince fairy tale trope. Hemsworth's delivery of the Huntsman's apology for not protecting Snow is just heart-rending, saturated in regret and "what-ifs." In principle, if not in execution, I loved the concept of Snow White making the Huntsman a better man, of two individuals from such disparate backgrounds complementing each other. I want my revised and refreshed fairy tales to have twists like this -- and having Hemsworth fill half of that equation, well that goes a long way in my book. :)

Lest you think I didn't like this film, rest assured that I did -- but there was so much unrealized potential that I couldn't help but over-analyze. *wink* (I'm actually thinking about seeing it in theaters again.) I'm not holding my breath, but if the planned sequel materializes, with more attention to story and character development, married with this film's stunning visuals and costume design (seriously, Colleen Atwood had BETTER get an Oscar nomination for her amazing work), there's a lot of potential here. I love the Huntsman character and the suggestion that he is perhaps the princess's best match -- and with the ambiguity of this film's ending, I'm VERY curious to see how this love triangle of sorts is further addressed in any sequel(s).

All things told, I'm pleased with Rupert Sanders' directorial debut. He's crafted a stunning world here, one that holds great promise for future projects. Composer James Newton Howard also delivers a score with some memorable cues -- it isn't my favorite work by the prolific composer, but it gets the job done. And if a stronger script is delivered for the sequel, I may be able to further overcome my antipathy towards Stewart as a leading lady. *wink* In any case, Hemsworth and Clafin win the day. :)

Let's end this with just ONE MORE Huntsman picture, because I really feel you can never have too many:

The Hunger Games

I took the afternoon off today and finally went to see The Hunger Games. After finishing the novel (my review), I wasn't quite ready to rush to the theater -- I needed to "sit" on the story for a few days. I'm glad I waited -- this movie was a powerful book-to-screen adaptation, probably one of the best -- in that it is so faithful to the source material -- adaptations that I've ever seen. I suppose that is what you get when the author has a background in screenwriting and helps craft the screenplay (WIN). I'm not interested in rehashing the plot -- if you're unfamiliar with that you can check out my review. But there are points that I want to discuss, so let's go...

First of all, I LOVED the look of District 12. It's described as what once was Appalachia, remote, mountain living -- but Collins's prose is so terse, so matter-of-fact not a lot of time is spent dwelling on Katniss's home (it's just taken as a matter of fact). In the world of the film, District 12 is very Depression-era Appalachia, a bleak, rough existence. Evoking the feel of 1930s-era history is brilliant, a perfect fit for the hardscrabble, coal-mining existence that Katniss hails from. And when we're introduced to the gaudy, colorful world of the Capitol, the differences are so stark as to be horribly jarring. The line of demarcation between the haves of the Capitol and the have nots of District 12 was almost nauseating in a way.

I was incredibly impressed with Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. I've only seen her previously in X-Men: First Class (where she played the young Mystique). At only twenty-one, Lawrence has an assurance and screen presence far beyond her years. In the novel we have the luxury of being completely immersed in Katniss's thoughts and feelings, thanks to the first-person narration. I found Lawrence to be more than up for the challenge of conveying the full scope of Katniss's emotions -- her determination, fear, uncertainty, and anger. And I love the fact that she isn't your typical stick-thin starlet. Physically she was completely believe able for me -- this was a girl at home in the woods, a huntress. Lawrence can be a very expressive actress, and at her age, with the screen presence she has now -- wow, talk about a bright future.

I should probably mention Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Now I've only read the first book, so I don't even understand how there can be such a thing as "Team Gale." So for a character I was already relatively ambiguous about, Hemsworth got the job done. Though I have to say it was rather jarring seeing him without his trademark blonde hair. Oh, one development I did like as far as Gale goes in this film is that we see his troubled reaction to watching the Katniss/Peeta relationship play out during the games, something not possible in the novel.

Now that I've got that Gale person out of the way, I can talk about Peeta. I was a little concerned based on the brief glimpses of Peeta in the previews that Josh Hutcherson would come across as a little too...wooden, I think is the word I'm looking for. I was pleasantly surprised to have my fears proven groundless. Through his performance, Hutcherson grows Peeta from the baker's son, almost shell-shocked at being chosen during the Reaping, to a charismatic, engaging and most importantly, in love, youth on the verge of losing the girl he loves to the Games. I've read several reviews that feel the Katniss/Peeta screen relationship was lacking. Now while I would've always loved to see more of their slow-burning relationship, what we're given on-screen worked extraordinarily well for me. The film allows us to see Katniss's gradually dawning realization that for some reason beyond her comprehension, particularly in the context of the horrible situation they're in, Peeta matters. And Peeta quite frankly adores her, a fact that Hutcherson conveys extraordinarily well.

District 12's Games organizer is the garish Effie Banks, and Elizabeth Banks does a terrific job portraying all of her absurd extremes. And her clothes -- oh they were fantastically realized. I love love loved Lenny Kravitz as the designer Cinna (gold eyeliner and all). He was grounded, as compassionate as can be given the situation -- I was quite happy with the film's delivery of the Cinna/Katniss friendship. And his costumes were extraordinary -- girl on fire, indeed. But even more interesting to me, though, was Woody Harrelson's performance as 12's sole previous victor, the drunken Haymitch. I really liked Harrelson's performance -- in the novel, Katniss is frustrated or hostile to Haymitch much of the time, so I had a hard time getting a good sense of his character, his thoughts and perspective. And Harrelson riddles Haymitch with self-loathing, a quality he gradually puts aside as the realization that he might actually be able to save Katniss and Peeta penetrates his alcohol-clouded brain. At least that's how it hit me.

EDIT: I can't believe I forgot to mention Stanley Tucci's performance as Caesar Flickerman, the interviewer and Games commentator. His mannerisms, his blue hair -- oh he was hilarious, and pretty much pitch-perfect for the role. The periodic commentary he shared with Toby Jones as Claudius Templesmith was yet another way the filmmakers took the narrative outside of Katniss's head and let us see the Games from the outside in, as it were.

Witnessing Haymitch's behind-the-scenes efforts on behalf of his tributes was one of the "added" scenes in the film, things Katniss could never know because she was locked in the arena. Frankly I thought peeking "behind the curtain" into the making and running of the Games was really pretty fascinating, and for me it succeeded in making the awful horror of the event more impactful, because of the clinical, calculated manner in which the Games are staged. Since I have yet to read Catching Fire, without giving away too many spoilers is the Gamemaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley -- WHAT A BEARD) introduced? I can't remember him being mentioned by name at all. Anyways -- I thought Crane's added scenes with President Snow (Donald Sutherland) were really well-done, particularly his realization at the end of the film that he isn't above being a pawn in the Capitol's plans any more than tributes. I also assume that Snow becomes a much bigger player in the second and third novels -- thanks to Sutherland's performance I already hate him. Sutherland was chilling.

I've touched on the development of the Peeta/Katniss relationship in the arena. The second most important event, to my mind anyway, is Katniss's friendship with the District 11 girl tribute Rue (Amandla Stenberg). Stenberg was SO GOOD, the ideal actress to bring Rue's vulnerability to life. Stenberg and Lawrence's scenes broke my heart, particularly her death and Katniss's reaction -- Lawrence's grief was wholly believable and gut-wrenching. Question, to those who've read the books -- is it revealed that Katniss's care for Rue after her death sparks a riot in District 11? Irregardless I thought that was a powerful scene to include in the film, in how it suggests that Katniss (and later Peeta) fan the flames of discontent in the districts.

At the moment I really can't think of another film that was guaranteed blockbuster status that was filmed without much of the gloss and glamour you expect from Hollywood. Director Gary Ross and his team have imbued every aspect of this film with a sense of gritty realism and authenticity, helped by a lot of handheld camera work that adds urgency and energy to sequences, visually mimicking Collins's high-energy prose. Even the film's score (provided by James Newton Howard) eschews the tendency of blockbusters-in-the-making to go for loud and bombastic. The cues evoking the mountainous, folk music traditions of Katniss's home are gorgeous, a stark contrast to the dangers facing her and Peeta in the arena. Like the novel, watching The Hunger Games is an unsettling experience -- I think the film hit me even a tick harder than the  book did, which I thought was an interesting and honestly somewhat unexpected reaction. It isn't the level of violence -- that's certainly there, but honestly there could have been more, all things considered. I think being outside of Katniss's head, seeing her in this unfathomable situation, seeing the people gleefully betting on a tribute's odds in the Capitol, seeing the Gamemaker's employees clinically raining horror down on the heads of survivors in the arena -- seeing all of this drove home the novel's ripping condemnation of our voyeuristic, desensitized society in a fresh, powerful manner.

The Hunger Games is really an extraordinarily well-done adaptation, a prime example, I think, of thoughtful filmmaking. This is a team that cares about the source material, and I dearly hope they carry this passion through to the sequels. I feel like this post only touches on what I could say about this film, what worked, what was changed -- but that would require more thought (and most likely additional viewings). However, if there's anything I haven't touched on (I try so hard to be thorough, ha!) that you'd like to try and discuss please feel free to mention that in the comments.

Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express

Masterpiece Mystery kicked off its 2011 season with an encore presentation of last year's Murder on the Orient Express, based on the novel by Agatha Christie. Orient Express is perhaps one of Christie's best-known novels, and with good reason. It's a terrific introduction to one of her most famous sleuths, the inimitable Hercule Poirot, and thanks to a sprawling cast it lends itself to colorful adaptations (it's been filmed two times prior to this). Since I did a terrible job keeping up with Mystery reviews last year, I'm hoping that PBS's decision to air encore presentations of Poirot and Marple episodes will afford me the chance (and the incentive) to bring my Masterpiece Mystery page up-to-date. Here's the story summary from the PBS website:

Hercule Poirot is visiting Istanbul, but is called back to London to work on a case. Poirot's old acquaintance Xavier Bouc, who is director of the Orient Express, secures him a last-minute ticket on the impressive train. The train is completely booked, carrying an eclectic group of passengers such as Princess Dragomiroff and her nervous maid, Hildegarde Schmidt, English governess Mary Debenham and Swedish missionary Greta Ohlsson.

During the journey, ruthless American businessman Samuel Ratchett approaches Poirot. Ratchett cryptically explains to Poirot that he needs to give something back before he can be forgiven, but fears he'll be murdered in the meantime. He asks Poirot for protection, offering a large sum of money, but Poirot refuses. The next morning, Poirot awakens to find the train stuck in a snowdrift and Ratchett dead.

Aided by Dr. Constantine, Poirot examines the murder scene and finds a variety of confusing clues. He interviews those who last saw Ratchett alive: his manservant Edward Masterman, personal assistant Hector MacQueen, and conductor Pierre Michel before making a striking realization about Ratchett. The evidence points towards a particular explanation for the murder, but Poirot also considers a darker, alternative theory. Isolated by the snow and potentially on the train with a killer, Poirot is embroiled in one of the most vexing cases of career, and will soon be forced to make one of the hardest decisions of his life.

Now, I've been a fan of David Suchet's portrayal of Poirot almost from the time he started bringing Christie's Belgian sleuth to life (in 1989, can you believe it?). I've also read the novel Murder on the Orient Express two or three times at least. So I feel like I have a fairly good handle on Poirot's character and the source material (although admittedly it's been a couple of years since I've re-read the book). That's why the tonal shift, established with the opening scenes of this film, is somewhat inexplicable to me. The script (penned by Stewart Harcourt, a veteran of the Marple series) adds two scenes not found in the novel that set a darker tone for the story and Poirot's character than is warranted, in my opinion. The first scene sees Poirot drive an army officer in Palestine to suicide when he is caught lying after Poirot's investigation. This tragedy is followed by another, when Poirot witnesses mob mentality take over the streets of Istanbul when a woman is stoned to death for committing adultery. The senselessness of both situations - and perhaps a niggling sense of guilt for failing to stop the tragedies - puts Poirot in an extremely foul, introspective mood and leads him to ruminate on the nature of justice. It is perhaps not as black and white as he would like to think.

Most of the time I really don't mind when scripts add scenes or rework Christie's novels if the essence of the main characters I love (i.e. Poirot or Miss Marple) remain essentially true to themselves (notable exceptions being the completely unnecessary incest subplot in Marple's Murder is Easy). The opening scenes of Orient Express are, in my estimation, completely unnecessary additions to the story and set a darker tone than I'd prefer for one of my favorite Christie mysteries, finally starring my favorite incarnation of Poirot. Poirot comes across as so depressed, moody, and angry by turns at various times throughout this adaptation that I felt as though my beloved sleuth had aged at least twenty years, completely unnecessarily to boot. That said, I didn't hate this adaptation - anything starring Suchet as Poirot is worth watching at least once in my opinion, and a stellar cast and glorious period detail make this production a feast for the eyes. However, when "ranking" film adaptations of Orient Express, this one sadly has to fall a tick below the 1974 Albert Finney-as-Poirot film version (believe it or not...).

Christie created one of her most memorable, colorful casts of characters when she penned Orient Express, and any film version is a prime opportunity to gather a slew of famous faces to take part in the famous whodunit. As the director of the line Xavier Bouc (Serge Hazanavicius), an old Poirot acquaintance, tells the detective, the Orient Express is one of the few places on Earth that serves as a "great equalizer," where commoners can mingle with royalty, all taking advantage of the line's cross-country transportation abilities. Where else would such unlikely companions find themselves sharing the same dining car - except, perhaps, in an open republic of  a society like America.

The linchpin of the piece is the abrasive American businessman Samuel Rachett (Toby Jones), who attempts to hire Poirot for protection since he's convinced he's the target of a murderous plot. Poirot takes an instant dislike to Rachett and refuses the man's proffered offer of an exorbitantly high fee. I'm hard-pressed to imagine a better choice than Jones to portray the slimy Ratchett. I'm sure he's a perfectly lovely individual in person, but to be blunt he looks so...odd, I guess you could say...that when he's playing the villain it's completely believable. The only positive role of Jones's that comes to mind is his turn as the voice of Dobby the elf in the Harry Potter films. The day after Poirot's refusal, the occupants of the coach wake up to find the train stuck in a snowdrift, and Ratchett brutally murdered in his cabin.

Ratchett's murder forces Poirot to take a closer look at his fellow passengers, since as the only remotely qualified investigator on board he's recruited to apply "his little grey cells" to the problem of who killed the businessman. The clues don't seem to add up - twelve knife wounds were inflicted, all at varying angles and with different degrees of force, a burnt paper fragment with the letters "AISY ARMS," a monogrammed woman's handkerchief, a button from a conductor's uniform, Ratchett's missing cash, and the confusing accounts of the night's activities from the passengers combine to make a puzzling snarl for Poirot to unravel. Poirot being Poirot, he quickly draws the conclusion that Ratchett was in fact none other than Cassetti, a notorious gangster responsible for the kidnap and murder of the American Daisy Armstrong. The shocking crime - and Cassetti's subsequent, and sickening, acquittal - destroyed the Armstrong family. And if you went into this film unfamiliar with the story, that mess of unlikely suspects and confusing clues is the genius of Christie's novel. In an enclosed, defined space, how can Poirot divine the killer when nothing adds up and everything seems unrelated?

Several beloved, familiar faces make up the cast of suspects, and I just want to spotlight some favorites. David Morrissey, most recently seen in South Riding, plays Colonel Arbuthnot, Daisy's father's best friend in the service. In a huge ensemble cast like this, Morrissey doesn't get a great deal of screentime, but it's refreshing to see him play a more noble, driven character - as opposed to the mess he plays in South Riding. I do adore his voice, and he looks quite dashing in the late 1930s-era suits. It was also a treat to see another Masterpiece vet, Hugh Bonneville, make an appearance as Edward Masterman, Ratchett's butler and previously Daisy's father's orderly in the army. Bonneville, of course, made a big splash on Masterpiece earlier this year anchoring Downton Abbey as Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham.

I was thrilled to see this production cast an old favorite of mine, actor Samuel West, as Dr. Constantine, the Armstrong family doctor and the conspirators' first line of defense in attempting to divert Poirot's line of investigation. I developed a huge crush on West when he played the young Caspian in the old made-for-TV production of Prince Caspian and the Voyage of the Dawn Treader. Following that turn, he played the ill-fated Leonard Best in Howard's End, Mr. Elliot in some people's favorite version of Persuasion, St. John Rivers in the 1996 version of Jane Eyre, as well as appearances in Hornblower and Foyle's War. Sadly, the man has never achieved the kind of on-screen success and exposure that I think he deserves, so it's always a treat to spot him in a new role.

Eileen Atkins is another cast standout, playing Princess Dragomiroff, godmother to the ill-fated Daisy's mother. Atkins is one of a handful of grand British actresses who own the screen just by showing up. As Princess Dragomiroff, Atkins is mesmerizing - regal, cold, and calculating, she knows she's taken a calculated risk by traveling on the Orient Express and is prepared to accept the consequences of her actions. If anyone is going to carry off the whole Russian princess thing, it's Atkins. She most recently appeared on Masterpiece as Lady Maud in the highly enjoyable "re-boot" of Upstairs Downstairs, and is a veteran of Cranford and the Marple series, to name just a few of the credits in her illustrious career.

This may not be a favorite Poirot episode, but it is certainly one of the most visually stunning. Everything about this production is top-notch, from the clothing to the detail in the train compartments. This film truly brings a glittering, lost era to vibrant life, and makes me desperately wish I'd been around to travel the Orient Express in its heyday. While Christie's story, and Poirot's ultimate decision regarding the fate of the train passengers, raises some interesting questions about the nature of justice, I do feel like the ultimate tone of this film is "off" when compared to the book and Suchet's previous performances as Poirot. However, the concluding scene, with its stark, snowy-white backdrop, is stunningly well-filmed.

Whether you're an old-time Christie fan or a newbie, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this film if you caught its rebroadcast last night!

• Watch behind-the-scenes videos on the making of Murder on the Orient Express
• Watch Murder on the Orient Express online through 6/5/11
• Purchase the DVD from Amazon as part of Poirot Collection 5.

Tomorrow on Masterpiece Mystery...

Tomorrow on Masterpiece Mystery we get the premiere of Murder on the Orient Express. While this story may feel overly familiar since it's one of Agatha Christie's most famous (and often adapted tales), this is the first time David Suchet has played Hercule Poirot in this story. And since in my view Suchet IS Poirot, well, this is long overdue. Here's some info about the broadcast:

Hercule Poirot solves the greatest case of his career aboard the world's most glamorous train in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, premiering Sunday, July 11, 2010, on MASTERPIECE MYSTERY! Star David Suchet is joined by a first-class rail car full of great actors, including Eileen Atkins, Barbara Hershey and Hugh Bonneville.

This is truly an all-star adaptation. In addition to Atkins, Hershey, and Bonneville, this version also features performances from Toby Jones, David Morrissey, and SAMUEL WEST! Excuse the excitement on the latter, but I've loved Sam West for years. :)