Tod auf dem Nil

I don't really like the first "Murder On The Orient Express" so I watch this with little expectations. And as expected, this movie is a let down.

The acting is average. CGI is mediocre. And the story is weak. When the murder happens I can already tell who's the killer, and how the murderer did it.

I don't understand why they add the war scene. Just to tell audience why Poirot grow magnificent moustache? That totally unnecessary.

I've read a lot of Poirot novel, this is a different way to depict him. And in a bad way.

Hercule Piorot is holidaying in Egypt when he is invited aboard a cruise down the Nile. The host is the extremely wealthy, recently married, heiress Linnet Ridgeway. The journey is soured by the appearance of Jacqueline de Bellefort, the ex-flame of Ridgeway's husband. Ridgeway stole him away from her and she seems intent on extracting some sort of retribution. When Ridgeway is murdered suspicion naturally falls on de Bellefort but she has a cast iron alibi.

I should have known better than to watch this having watched Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express. Everything about it seemed flat and listless: paint-by-numbers adaptation, minimal intrigue (especially for a murder-drama), subdued, uninspired performances (despite an all-star cast), mindless action scenes.

Where Branagh did dial things up was on the cinematography and effects but even there it falls flat: all the effects just make everything seem fake. You can tell it's being filmed in a studio in front of green screen rather than out in the snow with a real train.

Having watched the excellent 1974 version it was a definite sub-standard effort. It felt like the classic Christie tale had been dumbed-down for modern audiences and substance sacrificed for style.

Murder on the Nile is largely more of the same: weak, dumbed-down adaptation, listless performances, style over substance. The graphics and cinematography at least feel less fake here and are in fact the only positive as they do provide a richness of colour and a vibrance to proceedings.

The screenplay is cringy at times with all the unnecessary add-ons to the novel to accommodate modern viewers. Performances are shrill and irritating. Casting is off: so many dud choices. I assume Branagh only wanted French and Saunders in the film because he's a fan of them as a comedy duo, not because they were ideal for their roles (as they're not).

Similar to how I ended my review of Murder on the Orient Express, watch the excellent 1978 Peter Ustinov version instead. Or watch the relevant episode in the brilliant David Suchet Poirot series. With those already in existence I don't know why this film was made.

What is it with Branagh and Poirot? Why does he feel the need to modernize Agatha Christie's work so? If he has no respect for the original, or no faith that it can succeed with modern audiences, why not adapt instead a modern novel? Because this adaptation is thoroughly fake.

Poirot feels the need to be running around after suspects and waving (even shooting) guns. Instead of grey cells, Branagh gives him plenty of emotions, a tragic love story, even a motivation for his moustache. He sure is not Poirot. And why? Just adapt a modern detective story, with their traumatized detectives.

The strength to this story, apart from the clever trick the killer used and the setting, is in the characters. And what do we have? Instead of 1930s characters, we get a collection of 21st century identity politics talking points, lecturing about racism, sexism and lesbophobia. Seriously, if that's what you want, why not adapt a modern story instead of one written and set in the early 20th century? Are they unable to do a period piece now?

The CGI-fest cinematography looks expensive but also fake. Not as fake as the previous Poirot movie by Branagh (Murder on the Orient Express), but still fake.

All in all a missed opportunity. Watchable, but try to forget that it's supposed to be a Poirot story, and when it is supposed to be set.

I love Agatha Christie novels and want so badly to enjoy big screen interpretations of her stories. I think her writing is what makes Death on the Nile work better than it would otherwise. It's a solid mystery that has plenty of good twists and turns because there are multiple layers of mystery beyond just the murders. Thankfully, it has been long enough since I read the book so I didn't totally remember the actual solution to the whodunit. However, I figured things out relatively early because Branagh struggles to deliver these type of mysteries with any subtlety, and that's a shame. You'd think it would be obvious that you don't want someone almost literally shouting "Pay attention, this is a clue!" but that's what we have here. Also, while I said I guessed the truth early, I just mean early in relation to when the first murder occurred. Because it takes almost half the runtime for things to truly get going.

Some of the character work in Death on the Nile was solid, and I appreciated seeing a couple people play against type. They take a lot of time to establish the relationships between all these characters which I would ordinarily appreciate. It's too bad Branagh (or the studio) thought we were too dumb to follow all the groundwork they were laying out, so they literally had a character painstakingly explain to Poirot everything all over again. He might as well have broken the fourth wall and just spoken straight to the audience since it's so clearly all for our benefit. The ending was also corny and handled poorly, plus some of the green-screen of Nile scenery in the background was horribly shoddy. All that being said, I still appreciated aspects of Death on the Nile. It's a genre I love, written by an author I love, and starring a detective I love. Considering all that, it's no wonder I managed to have a good time with a film that really isn't put together all that well.

I don't always agree with the professional critics, but I have to say that I do agree this adaption, is, without a doubt, the most turgid and poorly executed Christie adaption that there has been.

There is over an hour of the film before the mystery even begins and that interminable hour consists of exposition that leave the characters as two dimensional as when it started. And half of the characters seem shoveled in with no purpose whatsoever. E.g. Sophie Okonedo. She is a great actress. Perhaps the best in this cast. I strongly recommend people see her Hollow Crown and Hotel Rwanda. But her character (or that of the character's niece) in Death on the Nile is what? Serves what plot purpose? (Answer: none)

The actual "solving" of the mystery has to be the most predictable Christie adaption ever. It is a outright "Cui bono?" It makes it clear this is written for very low brow audience.