Compared with the novel, I feel that the film version weakens the reasoning process, and intensifies the discussion between legal theory and rationality.
In the novel, the detective has gone through layers of deconstruction, conducted two rounds of conversations with each passenger, and obtained the truth of the matter after repeated overthrow and assumption in the face of various evidences. The process is iterative and tortuous.
Then, in the movie, all of this is reduced to a straight-line process. Find clues, ask questions, draw conclusions. Even, if I hadn't read the novel, I shouldn't even know how the case was solved. This makes me think that the film has lost a bit of the fun of reasoning.
But at the same time, the film adds more ink between law and love. After the detective told the truth, all the passengers discussed with him on "whether we should respect, believe, and rely on the law"; when the colonel was about to kill the detective, everyone's persuasion; the conversation between the tutor and the detective; and finally, the detective chose to hide the facts A series of long shots after the truth. These are all discussions between reasoning and jurisprudence.
Perhaps this is the purpose of the film, not to present an ingenious and stunning reasoning; Don't know what the answer is, but at least think.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
