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.
I actually really liked the ending precisely because it was so morally complicated. It makes you think, and realize that not everything is always black and white.
And besides, I wonder how many of the people here who are so convinced that murder is wrong in all circumstances, at the same time support wars that kill millions of people. Who think that vigilante justice against a known child-murderer by the relatives of the destroyed family is wrong, but who at the same time would defend something like, say, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, men, women and children, that just happened to live in a country that was at war. Even if they wouldn't defend such mass killing as a principle (though many would), a lot would likely defend it as a "necessary evil" in the context of the war. So right there they acknowledge the existence of gray areas. It's just that they pick and choose which situations are gray and which are black and white, likely based on their own personal biases (political, racial, a blind allegiance to the law for its own sake [in which it's ok to kill people, including innocent people, when your government legally sanctions it, but not otherwise], or what have you).
Anyway, personally I felt the guy deserved it, the action of the perpetrators was entirely understandable, and Poirot was right to take the conclusion he did. I also felt this was a really good and interesting story.
The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of history.
-Mao Zedong
It shouldn't matter what people think someone deserves. In that case they wouldn't be a limit to who could end up dead.
shareSomething that has to be remembered - lewis6162 made the point already, maybe others did too - is that in the book it is stated that Ratchett/Casetti had killed others, and would continue to do so. The law had not stopped him, and there was a good chance he'd continue to get away with it.
So it wasn't just that justice had been denied for this family - it was that there would be future deaths, other little children. They didn't want yet another family to go through what they'd been through, and killing Ratchett was the only way they saw to stop it.
It's still a morally grey area, but I think that's an important point. The film skips it, but the book makes it clear.
What an incredibly simplistic view of the ending by the O.P. Absolutely no insight to the film whatsoever.
Screws fall out all of the time. The world's an imperfect place.
What an incredibly simplistic view of the ending by the O.P. Absolutely no insight to the film whatsoever.
What an incredibly simplistic counter argument.
shareMurder is always wrong.
shareYeah, I think I can agree with you on that, for the most part. Killing is another story.
shareWell they did murder the guy in the movie.
shareYes, that's definitely one way of looking at it. The book was written with the intent of getting everyone talking about this exact subject. From my personal point of view, murdering is something that is generally done to a human being. This is just a generality, as I don't consider the hunting of animals, for example be "murder" but more "killing". Of course there may be people who beg to differ and there are several situations where I would agree that the "killing" of an animal is more along the lines of murder, but I digress.
As far as I'm concerned, Cassetti was an animal. When someone does things so morally reprehensible like starting and participating in a criminal organization thag kidnaps babies for ransom and then ruthlessly murders them, that person ceases to be human. Therefore, I have no moral objection to seeing the likes of that individual being killed.
But a lot of things can be sen as morally reprehensible, and many people will disagree at which point they can decide someone stops being "human". It shouldn't justify killing them. It's doing the same thing but with a "moral" excuse.
shareWell yes. But that's the beauty of the orginal book and the film. Agatha Christie wanted to get her readers thinking and talking about whether or not a trial by jury and the death penalty equate to anything more than a variation of vengeance. Twelve men on a jury; twelve "avengers" in the book. What really separates the two?
The story is also an indictment of the inadaquecies of the criminal justice system...innocent men are sometimes put to death, guilty ones go free.
Of course it's all subjective. Good literature, art, music, film, etc., evokes reactions from every point of the spectrum, and these reactions are directly correlated to our own belief systems and experiences. No two people are going to habe identical reactions, and the value in this type of film is that it should get people thinking about things.
This is why the OP's commentary is so ridiculous; because he/she insinuates that things are so OBVIOUSLY black and white (duh), and anyone who takes something different away from the story is OBVIOUSLY wrong.
It's okay for a piece of fiction, but the line between fiction and reality can be quite thin, since despite not being real, it does or at least can, draw out genuine feeling from people. So if it could be implied that someone "deserves" to be killed in a narrative, they might have an issue if people take it seriously from the viewers perspective. In real life, there's never any objective reason to condone something like capital punishment, yet many places still practice it, with many people believing in it.
shareI'm sorry, but any viewer who watches a fictional movie and is thus inspired to go out and commit murder is mentally unhinged. I know it happens from time to time, but that can't be justification for censorship. People were committing heinous acts long before film existed, and Murder on the Orient Express isn't going to make a sane person go plan, plot, and commit a revenge killing with a group of people any more than Ocean's Eleven will make any sane individual rob a casino.
Murder on the Orient Express isn't even a particularly violent film, nor was it a violent book. I understand your objection to the application of the ending to a real-world setting, but it is just a fictional story. I loved the book and have read it many times over; I quite like the film and have no issue whatsoever with the ending. The book gives a slightly more detailed explanation as to why Poirot allows, the only time during his long career, for the murderer to go free. Also, at the time it was written, the story took inspiration from the real-life kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby, so the book appealed to the public's sense of "justice" and "right and wrong" by incorporating a crime that was familiar.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that another of Agatha Christie's stories titled And Then There Were None (or Ten Little Indians) also tackles the subjects of the criminal justice system and justifiable homicide. However, this story acts sort of as a counter-argument to Murder on the Orient Express. There is a decent film adaptation: 1945's And Then There Were None, but the book is much better.
Okay, thanks for proving you're a moron.
shareYeah I agree Gypsy. Pre meditated murder and excessive violence can never be justified.
shareI guess IMDb was simplistic 3 years ago because I never got a notification.
"Counter-argument"? Uhm, what argument were YOU trying to make? I didn't see any.
Killing is not right. But sometimes the so-called 'justice' system is not fair either. They let this guilty man, who committed a horrendous crime and destroyed a happy family, go free.
They wanted justice done to their lost loved ones. It's not fair that they lie dead and this man walks away free.
"We all go a little mad sometimes..." - Norman Bates
There were 13 killers, not 12.
Figuring it out and proving it are two different things and even if he did you are probably looking a jury nullification.
If your familiar with "The Chocolate Box" it is not out of character.
I sincerely hope the OP is joking. He didn't let them go because he was outnumbered, he let them go because he believed that justice had already been served; and he was right.
Ratchett/Casetti murdered a 3-year-old girl in cold blood, and in doing so, caused the deaths of 4 other people! In the novel, Casetti was caught and arrested about 6 months Daisy's murder, but thanks to his wealth and connections, he was acquitted on some technicality and fled the country. The novel also states that Daisy was not the only child he'd kidnapped and killed.
How can any decent human being not think that that monster deserved what he got and more?
Please replyshare
"caused the deaths of 4 other people!"
Why do people keep saying this? Yeah, murder ruins other people's lives, but the guy did not force any of them to off themselves. He could never be convicted of that.
It's annoying because it goes against the portrayal of Poirot in other stories where he strongly believes in justice, no matter how much he sympathizes with the killer. Not sure why Christie decided to go with such a change in character, the chance of any of them being convicted of murder was low anyway.
shareRemember this was written in like 1920 and it was not a movie choice.
share