Mort sur le Nil

Just too much unnecessary stuff in this film. From unnecessary (or just contrived) scenes ... to unnecessarily overdone CGI imagery. And don't get me started about the unnecessary historical inaccuracies. It all just distracted me from the film itself...which I found to be overconfidently flashy and show-offish. Pretentious.

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 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.

Death on the Nile fails to meet the high standard of its predecessor Murder on the Orient Express. That being said the film is beautifully shot and the final act is an overall fun mystery ride. The film is generally well acted and directed. One negative is that the audience is just told things a little too much. Murder on the Orient Express had a little more set up and the audience felt more of a part of the mystery early on. That aspect of storytelling felt diminished in this sequel. The mystery does not really pick up until the final act and even then some things are just explained by Detective Poirot without any of the tantalizing intrigue that the first film possessed. Murder on the Orient Express had an amazing twist with good people doing a bad thing which made the audience seriously reflect on the right and wrong of the crime. Unfortunately, Death on the Nile's big twist of bad people doing a bad thing for money felt a little flat. Murder on the Orient Express was a work of art. Death on the Nile is a decent mystery movie.

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.