Let me talk about my thoughts first. This is a movie that shows humanity.
Murderers who kill wicked people must be wicked people? (Evil in my opinion, kills people after all).
How to define good and evil? Good and evil are not black and white. As the movie says, the existence of gray areas blurs the definition of human nature. I tend to think that human nature is a blank slate. Whether it is good behavior or bad behavior, we can accept it, treat it rationally, and try our best to be good).
There are still some questions to consider. Which is more important, procedural justice or behavioral justice? As a famous detective, is it fair that he buryes the truth? I think it's humane, but unfair.
The evil deeds of one person have caused the souls of more than ten people to fall apart. It is really nothing but a sigh. Hey, this is the evil side of people, hurting each other. After killing people, the soul is broken (think of Voldemort's Horcruxes).
More than a dozen people collectively planned to kill one person but ended up in vain, even if that person was a wicked person, wouldn’t this be a form of violence of the majority? Hey, it's not really, after all, it's an act of revenge.
Let's talk about some arrangements of the film
One star is deducted for the arrangement and narrative of the film. It was a bit procrastinated at the beginning, and the introduction of the characters took too much ink. It is better to spend this time talking about Poirot's reasoning in detail (the reasoning is not clear is a common problem in reasoning works). Also, the appearance of the detective really starts with "God reasoning" or character reasoning (laughs), which is very similar to "Sherlock Holmes". The scene is still beautiful, especially the sunset/morning sunset at the end (but this is also a common routine in movies), I tend to understand it as the sunrise, which seems to symbolize the recovery of human nature.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
