Jesus, look at it, Hercule Poirot lets these people go, for what? becouse killing a man is sometime right? Hell no, During the film i thought the only reason he let them go were, well becouse is was out number, they were 12, he was on, not countint the doctor and the train owner.
What does this tale of mruder incounter tells us? That murder is O.K.
SPOILERS...Morally, it's not the best, but best not to get your morals from Agatha Christie anyway! She makes muder seem such fun! I objected less to the fact that all 12 of these passengers stabbed Mr. Ratchett and got away with it than to the rather bizarre way they were all toasting their champagne glasses at the end. Rather like a little party and all quite proud of their accomplishment. Kind of a wee bit too much gloating over getting away with murder. I did read the novel years ago but can't recall whether they were toasting in that or not. I don't think they were, but am not sure.
shareThe book ends with Bianci (Bouc in the book) deciding to say it was a member of the mafia who did it and Poirot saying, "I have the honour to withdraw from the case" or something like that. The clinking of the glasses is a superb scene giving each actor the chance to sum up their character in a wordless moment.
shareThe "toasts" were added by Lumet so that members of the cast could take a sort of "curtain call" - it was very effective and when I watched it again recently it got the tear-ducts going, because several members of the cast are gone and we'll never see the like of stars like Bergman and Gielgud again, or Finney, Bacall, Redgrave, Widmark and Connery...
Those of you who think you know everything should politely defer to those of us who actually do!
Well, having then thought that I knew everything, I'm now definitely going to defer to someone who actually does! Now that you've mentioned the curtain call aspects for all these wonderful stars, I'm going to get off my moral high horse and agree with you that the clinking of the champagne glasses made a memorable ending!
shareIt's an audience participation movie - like Rocky Horror - you're supposed to yell stuff all the way through it. By the end, when the toast happens, you're raging blazing drunk and you toast as many in the audience as you can get to before the end without breaking your glass. Quite fun.
shareI liked the ending. Poirot solved the crime, which was his appointed job. He did not relish the role of explaining to the Yugoslavian police the actual story (would they even believe it?), so the ''First Explanation'' came in handy for a variety of reasons.
shareI personally think this was an awesome ending.
=============
"I'm soooo ugly, but that's OK 'coz so are you!" :p
[deleted]
I just read that Raymond Chandler had once expressed the opinion that this ending of MOTOE was a total cheat. And I guess I kinda agree with that - although it´s not that it bothers me too much. But yes it´s an interesting on an idea level, but as far as Christie´s mysteries go, it´s an underwhelming one. And the way it´s presented in the film at least (it´s too long since I read the book to remember my reaction to that), it´s also a bit too obvious.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I htink the real quesiotn isn't whether the enidng is happy or sad, but whether the conspirators are written as heroes or villains. What bothered me was not a sad ending, btu the fact that what I perceived as villains were in my opinion presented as heroes.
myspace.com/bankrupteuropeans
Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib
For those who have reservations about this ending, I suggest you'll check out the 2010 David Suchet version of Murder on the Orient Express. That movie delves deeper into the argument of whether or not Casetti's killing was justified, as well as Poirot's inner struggle as he grapples with his decision.
The ending in that movie is very bittersweet compared to this version, and the book. Poirot decides in the end to let them go free, but the decision obviously disturbs him deeply as it is at odds with his overwhelming belief in the rule of law. Likewise the murderers too don't exactly walk away in a celebratory mood-while they are glad they were able to make Casetti pay and thus get justice for the Armstrong family, they themselves are deeply troubled by their actions. As Miss Debenhem tells Poirot, she believes that getting justice for Daisy would make her whole again, but it hasn't.
[deleted]
Wow, I disagree. This was one cool ending. Poirot lets the suspects go free because 1) if my memory serves me right, he has determined they killed the guy but does not have substantial proof, only speculations. 2) even though dying stabbed twelve times is a terrible death indeed, the victim had once done far worst, and to someone all the suspects knew. So I doubt he approves their action, but at least he can sympathize with their motive.
I have read many Poirot stories and I think this is the only time he lets the murderers get away with it.
Great film. Classy and suave...and yet chilly.
" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris
The end of the movie is somewhat muddled; in the novel, Christie not only allowed for the family's loss, but very typically (and accurately) pointed out that the way the murder had been carried out, no one could ever say for certain which of the twelve stab wounds actually killed Ratchett and it was highly unlikely that the police would be able to sort through the tales they would tell. It is the only novel in which Hercule Poirot is actually faced with a solution to a crime that even he might not be able to sell to the police.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
roflol ><
As I saw it, Poirot realized that proving his solution in a court of law would be nearly impossible. He thus put forward his two solutions. The first, simple one, was the one he realized that the Yugoslavian police would believe. He came forward with his actual solution almost to let them know that he'd solved the mystery...I believe that from the start he knew he would never reveal it to the police.
In the book, Mrs. Hubbard says that if Poirot feels he has to tell the police it was someone in the Calais Coach, she wants him to tell them it was all her doing and she'll take all the responsibility.
In the Suchet version, it was definitely more about his conscience and his belief in the law versus the fact that Ratchett was indeed a loathsome man who deserved to die. (Although Poirot felt he should've died in the electric chair as the law took its course.) Perhaps the producers of the 2010 version felt that everyone was so familiar with the ending from the 1974 film they decided to go a different route.
More like one of the best endings ever, and one which separates it from the standard whodunnit, including most of Dame Agatha's other Poirot stories. Almost all of them are the same: a bunch of suspects all seemingly having reasons to murder the victim, until Poirot or whoever discards the red herrings that most of them are and picks one as the actual murderer, whose motives are almost always selfish (greed, ambition, covering of their own dark secrets...). Tiring, boring. Most of the time Dame Agatha just wrote the same thing over and over again, only the specific details changing. In fact you do forget the identity of the killer a while after you have read or watched. But, who can ever forget this ending?
As for letting them go: Completely understandable. Having them arrested would have been an empty, cold "cuz the law sez so" act. Keep in mind Ratchett was a completely despicable human being, and his unspeakably horrible crime (child murder, is there anything more hideous?) would have gone unpunished forever if not for this act. None of the killers are actually bad people, they're not acting out of greed or personal gain, it's just that after the law failed to punish Ratchett this was the only thing left to do for them. Also, none of them would present any further danger for society, it's highly unlikely they'd ever kill again.
And please be aware that I would not advocate taking justice into one's hands in real life. This is a work of fiction we're speaking of, and as such it makes perfect sense the way it is.
This is not my signature. This is IMDb's automatic translation of my signature.
There is however one problem with the film version that puts a wrinkle in this discussion of the morality of the killing of Ratchett etc. In the novel and the Suchet version it is established that Ratchett "beat the rap" legally. Therefore, the reason for this execution is to make up for the fact that the justice system failed to do its job. But in the film we learn that Ratchett never stood trial and got off the hook on a technicality (or by blackmailing the DA as in the Suchet version) but simply escaped. So therefore, what the film unwittingly serves up (since this never comes up once) is that theoretically, Ratchett *could* have been arrested, extradited and tried. Perhaps the family thought it would have been impossible to achieve but this is a plothole the film script needlessly created that takes out some of the moral sting behind their own motives because here we don't have that subtext of outrage over the law having let them down.
shareNever thought of that, and you're right.
share