The Murder on the Orient Express twist ending explained that this is not just an Agatha Christie murder mystery but quite possibly her very best. The film is a twisted take on the genre she owned that pushes iconic detective Hercule Poirot to the limits of his morals. Kenneth Branagh's 2017 movie, which he both directed and starred in, is a glossy, star-studded, but mostly faithful take. The first film of the new Agatha Christie franchise brought Hercule Poirot back into the public eye.

Murder of the Orient Express introduces viewers to Poirot in Jerusalem, where he's solving a crime with typically Sherlockian logic, but that's all preamble to the real case. Forced to travel back to England to help with a previous investigation, he takes the Orient Express along with a surprisingly large group of other engers, considering it's in the height of winter. Things immediately feel off, and shortly after an avalanche derails the train, a body is discovered.

There Are Twelve Killers, All Connected To The Victim

The Victim Was Murderer John Cassetti

The victim is Samuel Ratchett (Johnny Depp). With an ominous scar over his right eye, clues point to his prior crimes of selling fake rugs to gangsters, but the truth quickly emerges after his death. He's John Cassetti, who a few years prior kidnapped baby Daisy Armstrong from her parent's house and, after getting paid the ransom, murdered her, causing mother Sonia to miscarry and pushing the father to suicide. However, he got away with it. A maid was wrongfully convicted of the crime.

What results is the film's intense form of vigilante justice; thirteen people with some connection to the Armstrong family and the ensuing investigation band together to get their revenge. They each have a part to play, ensnaring Cassetti in an elaborate trap that culminates with them all together on the isolated Orient Express. Before getting into how they executed the murder, though, here is how they're all connected:

As Poirot investigates, he discovers these connections and, in light of the high level of contradictory evidence from the suspects, forms two possible solutions: the first is that one of Ratchett's mob enemies snuck on the train and killed him; the second is that they're all guilty. He correctly rationalizes that the more horrifying latter is correct and reveals his conclusion to the Last Supper-arranged murderers (standing in for the classic parlor).

How They Actually Did The Murder

The Group Plotted A Way To Commit The Murder With Reasonable Doubt

Pfeiffer's Arden is the mastermind behind the plan, bringing together the others in a bid for revenge. They know they need somewhere remote and isolated for the murder where they can't be interrupted, and the Orient Express is decided as the ideal staging ground. MacQueen and Masterman pose as Ratchett's underlings, ensuring he ends up on the train while the rest prepare to spring. The basic plan is to drug Ratchett's coffee and then have all twelve stab him once - to both enact justice and keep the true killing blow a mystery.

Things only really get complicated with the entrance of Hercule Poirot. When he's put on the train at the last minute right next to Ratchett's cabin, the murderers must construct an alternate narrative to distract the detective. After a false commotion to distract Poirot and disorient him to the murder specifics, most of this involves simple lies when he interrogates them - they craft a fake series of events that creates the mystery of the short, high-pitched conductor on the train.

They also drop plentiful false clues like the adjusted time on the stopwatch, the rogue guardsman's button, and hiding evidence in his luggage while allowing him to glimpse Debenham in the red dressing gown. They, of course, had to have been secretive even without Hercule Poirot next door due to the train's crew, but only his involvement led to them having to so intricately act out and frame the evening's events.

He rationalizes it could only happen in America, alluding to a prior meeting.

Some key aspects of the case from the book aren't in the film. Poirot is clued in that something is wrong with the smelting pot of backgrounds that make up the train's inhabitants - it's so diverse he rationalizes it could only happen in America, alluding to a prior meeting - while the express changing time zones lead to confusion over when the murder took place. There are other subtle changes (the guardsman is one of the killers originally), but the ethos of the killing is the same. What differs a little is the resolution.

Why Poirot Decides To Let Them Go

Hercule Poirot Chooses To Ignore The Crime

Perhaps a bigger shocker than the dozen killers is that Poirot lets them get away with it. He tells the first false story of a stowaway to the authorities, who buy it because of who he is. This feels like a major betrayal of everything he stands for - especially Branagh's fastidious take - but represents an evolution of his character and a greater appreciation of the moral gray of his chosen area of expertise. The group killed a man, but Cassetti's acts also left them damaged and emotionally scarred.

Near the start, Poirot says to Ratchett he's of an age where he knows what he likes and what he doesn't.

This isn't a simple act of vigilante justice - an eye for an eye - but rather a way for them to get over the damage he wrought. When Arden attempts suicide rather than silence the man who feels compelled to reveal the truth, he realizes the full scope of the blame. Near the start, Poirot says to Ratchett that he's of an age where he knows what he likes and what he doesn't; the twist challenges that, showing it's never too late to change and grow.

While at first, this seems to irreversibly break the detective's resolve and make him want to step away from his profession—he initially ignores a call for help—after a pause for recollection, he's right back in it, ready for a new adventure. This version of Murder On The Orient Express feels like it wants to be a dissection of Poirot, exploring what makes such a unique individual tick. Doing so with this particular mystery is a very smart entrance to that as it intrinsically undermines his ideals and then sees him come out stronger.

The Real Meaning Of Murder On The Orient Express' Ending

Murder on the Orient Express is a subversion of the murder mystery—a whodunnit where everyone did it—that uses the tropes you expect against you. Most of the "evidence" is a distraction by the victims. Branagh has taken that and used it to explore the detective. At the movie's end, Poirot realizes who the murderers are and chooses to do nothing about it. This is because he knows what they did was wrong, but they did it for a reason he fully understands.

It also says a lot that Hercule chose to turn his head.

This is also a huge twist as it shows that this wasn't a whodunnit that led the detective to one person he could have arrested. The fact that everyone on the train was responsible for the murder shows that proving anyone guilty will prove to be practically impossible. It also says a lot that Hercule chose to turn his head, but it also shows that he understands that pushing the case further would serve no purpose and hurt people already victimized even more. Murder is wrong, but in this case, it was justified.

How The Murder On The Orient Express Ending Compares To Other Hercule Poirot Movies

Hercule Poirot Is More Human In The Branagh Movie

Hercule Poirot is a brilliant, observant, and meticulous detective who has ensured throughout his career that he always gets the killer. That is a big reason the detectives believe everything he says at the end of Murder on the Orient Express, even though he is lying about everything. This was the first movie in Kenneth Branagh's run as Hercule Poirot, which continued in Death on the Nile and A Haunting in Venice. The Murder on the Orient Express shows how different his version is.

In previous versions of the Agatha Christie stories, Hercule is mostly analytical and solely determined to solve crimes with little to no backstory. However, in Branagh's version, he has a tragic backstory with almost a lover and a sensitive side that he doesn't possess in previous versions. He rarely wants to take a case here, and the Murder on the Orient Express ending shows that Hercule is also willing to turn his back on a case when he realizes the circumstances warrant the crime.