Mort sur le Nil

I beg Mr. Branagh to direct and/or produce films based on Agatha Christie's novels but NOT TO PERFORM as Hercule Poirot, anymore. Please...Not even his moustache is credible.

After having watched Peter Ustinov's and David Suchet's WONDERFUL Poirots...there is no way I can like this current Hercule.

Neither in this movie nor in the previous one.

Besides,as a Christie's fan, I watched the 1978 version of her novel and that was a beautiful piece of art. Actually located in Egypt and full of great famous actors (who were absolutely absent at this time).

This is my humble advice to Kenneth ...knowing he won't read it,of course.

I hope the other people here (at IMDB) will join my wish.

Regards from Argentina.♥

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.

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.

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.