Morte no Nilo

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.

The book is simple. The book is not a long book just short of a 300 pages, so why the unnecessary changes to the characters from the book? It either broke interesting characters or completely removed them. Some characters from the book are combined in a single character in the movie and not for the best. WHY??? These changes completely ruined the smooth structure of the book to "simplify" it for modern audiences I suppose but again, WHY? The book is not that difficult to follow. Another thing that ruined the movie is the horrendous CGI. The CGI looks like a cutscene from a Playstation 3 game. The green screen OMG looks like someone cutout the character from a green screen with his phone and then pasted on a badly drawn background. And lastly the acting. I'm sorry but most of the cast were bad, which is sad because most of them proved their talent in other projects (except Gal Gadot. All she has is a beautiful smile) Skip this movie. If you want a good detective story go read the book. It's not a long story. You'll probably finish the book a day. 3-4 days if english is not your first language. Yes it's that easy to read through and understand it.

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.

Did enjoy this, but having read the book by Agatha Christie I can say that you should read the book instead. For a 2 hour movie it does not develop the characters or story very well but cinematography and direction is spectacular.