User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.♥

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.

I hope a genius like Kenneth Branagh can find another outlet for his directorial style and leave Dame Christie alone. I guess he fancies himself Poirot and wants that role. Like with Orient Express, he is not all that interesting. If anything, he gets a little too flamboyant at times. The story is great in the book. Here it plods along, taking nearly the first half for anything to happen. It's more than exposition. In one scene there is a menu of characters presented to the viewer. Show them. Don't tell them. I have to say I was disappointed because I was told by a friend that this was really an excellent movie. Live and learn.

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.

The whole first hour of the movie was completely useless. It doesn't serve the plot, the drama or the character development. It should have been a one hour movie. And the French accent was exaggerated!

Kenneth Branagh must not have liked the original story or characters much, given all the changes he made. This is a terrible movie on many levels.

Poirot is a different character. He is now a former war hero with a lost love and a romantic side. Unforgivably, Branagh creates a major departure involving Poirot's signature moustache. There is an obligatory nod to Poirot's obsession with order and symmetry, but overall this is not the character in the Christie novels. Why didn't Kenneth Branagh just create a new detective named Branagh rather than rewriting Poirot? Agatha Christie herself found her most popular character insufferable, but she never changed him to make him more "normal."

Then there is the miscasting. Gal Gadot, who is always appealing but who has neither a British nor American accent, is not even remotely believable as British heiress Lynette Ridgeway. In addition, her backstory includes an instance in which she summers in Kennebunkbort, Maine. Perhaps visiting the Bush family? So she's a New Englander too!

In the novel, Ridgeway's lawyer is a childhood playmate and cousin named Pennington. In this movie, he is from India and named Katdhadorian. He's supposed to be family!? An elderly woman and her caretaker on board the ship (a spinster with her nurse in Christie's original), are in a lesbian relationship.

A white character in the original novel, a British writer of terrible romance novels, is transformed into a great black blues singer, Salome Otterborne, whose daughter, Rosalie, we are told, is the irresistible love interest of a British toff. It's a good thing the script tells us this, because there is no evidence of sexual attraction or infatuation on screen. Poirot delivers a paean to here, filled with white guilt, and she replies with scorn. Both of their speeches are straight out of the woke wars of the present and have nothing to do with an Agatha Christie murder mystery.

Rosalie also talks about racism she one experienced at a whites-only swimming pool in the US. So it's not just Death on the Nile. It's Death on the Mississippi Burning.

Does any of this sound like Agatha Christie? Or is Branagh just using her name to get moviegoers to watch a different film? None of these problems are helped by the excessive length, slow pacing and bad CGI . A new remake should be an improvement over previous remakes, but so much of the scenery in this film is digitally created, it feels like animation.

Avoid this. Look for an earlier TV or film version or read the book.

I am the first to tell anyone: watch the original version. Most of the times it is better anyway - but even if not, watching the original after you've seen the remake might have already spoiled things for you. Now when I say Original in this case, I am talking about the movie with Peter Ustinov as Poirot and not the version that was made for TV (which I have not watched yet).

Ustinov was a great Poirot - but Branagh really excels and relishes in this role too. He captures the essence of that weird character and seems really fond of him - making movies worth your while. And in this case a coherent one at that.

Not only do we get a visual upgrade (there are some very stunning scenes in this, which would make great postcards), but we get a theme: love. Now I have not read the novel, so I don't know what this movie leaves out - or what it depicts better or worse than the Ustinov version. What I do know is, that while both versions have the same conclusion, there are enough differences to make anyone watching be thoroughly interested to say the least.

The cast cannot be compared to the original movie (as in the original had way more heavyweights than this has), but even someone like Gal Gadot is able to convince. Although to be fair, she mostly has to look good. She does have an emotional encounter with Branagh - I am assuming she draws from personal experience and stardom/fame - the way she plays that.

There is also a bit of greater emotional attachment and grip on Poirot. As viewers we are as close to him as possible. Some of the other characters are therefor not as richly painted as in the original. But the core is stronger - and the emotional impact ... especially towards the end and if you invested yourself in Poirot ... is quite amazing to say the least.

Very well done - and it shows that Branagh takes these adaptations seriously. Which should leave you satisfied as a viewer. Unless you are hung up in the past ... which if you see this movie, might find ironic ... and even worth a pun.

The famous Karnak, the murder boat sets sail for a third time, I have really waited for this, it has a lot to live up to, Ustinov's adaptation being one of my all time favourite films.

Was it worth the wait?

For the most part, I'd say yes, plenty of positives to focus on, first off, the visuals, Oscar worthy in my opinion, this was breathtakingly beautiful, landscapes, clothes, buildings, people of course, a real feast for the eyes.

The acting was fabulous, several names to make you raise an eyebrow for one reason and another. First off, Russell Brand, I honestly thought he was excellent here, as were Sophie Okonedo, Tom Bateman and Emma Mackey.

Branagh is terrific here, a superb performance, and dare I say more accomplished than in the first film.

A few elements I didn't like quite so much, some of the characters had perhaps wandered a little too far from the original source material, I say that not as an Agatha Christie purist, I just enjoy the eccentricities from the likes of Bowers, Salome Otterborne and van Schuyler.

The film's focus was a little frustrating at times, it could have perhaps gone a little heavier on the whodunnit element, rather than the drama of the relationships.

It remains a thrill seeing Agatha Christie on the big screen, now that we've had the two big blockbusters, what's next for Branagh, will his Poirot hang up his (in)famous moustaches, or will we get Evil under the sun?

Overall, I enjoyed it, 7/10.

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.

Great production quality, wasted by a total snooze-fest of a movie. Story is predictable, performances are sub-par... all of the above muddled with the effort to try and keep Gal Gadot relevant. You can miss this one, boys!

I really rather enjoyed Murder on the Orient Express, and so was looking forward to this follow up, however was left altogether disappointed.

After a wholly unnecessary first 10 minutes, we finally get going with the movie proper, which is torturously slow for its first hour. There is far too long to wait until we actually get a death on the Nile. I'm all for a slow build up and scene setting, but it just felt very pedestrian and strained in this film.

The final act leading up to the reveal is rather more exciting, but unfortunately the reveal itself is rather predictable and not overly complex or satisfying, meaning the film ends on a bit of an underwhelming note.

The ensemble cast is hit and miss, with so many dodgy accents and ultimately a rather bland collection of characters.

What this film does have going for it is a pretty well executed tone. It strikes plenty of the right notes in creating a satisfying murder mystery vibe at its core, its just a shame that this couldn't be built on.

Disappointing, but just about fun enough when it does get going to make a watch somewhat worthwhile.

I wasn't anxious to see Kenneth Branagh's version of DEATH ON THE NILE. I thought his remake of MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS was a poor imitation of Sidney Lumet's masterpiece, and his mustache awful. Previews of this movie made it apparent that he had changed mustaches, by gluing one on top of another; this made him look like Eddie Izzard. When the movie started with the Belgians going over the top against the Germans during an anachronistic gas attack in World War One, I felt even worse. Did Branagh think that stretching out the movie with Poirot's back story would make something out of a collection of tics that Agatha Christie used in place of learning how to write a character? Was this supposed to add depth to the stereotypes and make of this more than another of her perfectly plotted impossible murder mysteries? Was I going to care about any of these waxwork figures?

And by the end I did. Whether this is simply a matter of having my expectations set so very low, or Branagh's understanding of Shakespearean drama and how to supervise a flawless Nilotic location shoot, I cannot tell. Some star casting was wasted, although it's nice to see French & Saunders back together again. Gal Gadot's native Sabra accent comes and goes; Letitia Wright gets to score some points, and by the end we regret every murder, victims of their own weaknesses. And despite the awkward ending, Poirot comes off as someone more than a collection of little grey cells who wants to retire and raise vegetable marrows.

Full disclosure - David Suchet fan. I even liked the Peter Ustinov version and really wanted to like this version too. But this was dragged version relying on star power to drive the movie.

The characters were a deviation from the book, but that is okay - every version needs to adapt as they see fit. However, the crux of all Agatha Christie/Hercule Poirot stories is the meticulous unraveling of the plot by Poirot - with explanations of events that leads to the deduction(s). And of course a dramatic build up.

Here the plot/mystery is revealed in less than a minute rather dismissively as if they were tired of making the movie and wanted to end it all.

I actually really enjoyed this movie it's not as good as murder On the express it's really good I thought that I really enjoyed it the trailer look really good and I wasn't disappointed with it I thought they was really good I don't know why it gets very low ratings I thought that it was very storyline was very exciting really good movie one of the best movies I've watched of 2022 I really enjoyed it from start to finish really enjoyed watching this movie it's not as good as I thought it would be but it's not bad it's not average I think it's just a decent movie interesting story Great movie....

"Death on the Nile" is a Mystery - Drama movie which is based upon the novel of Agatha Christie. Hercule Poirot's vacation being interrupted by a terrifying search of a murderer while on a river cruise on the Nile.

Since I had already read the book of Agatha Christie, I knew the story behind the movie and I had some expectations from it. I enjoyed the movie because it had a lot of mystery that was combined very well with suspense and made the movie interesting and captivating. The direction which was made by Kenneth Branagh was very good and he did an excellent job on the way of presenting both the plot of the movie and his main characters. The interpretations of Gal Gadot who played as Linnet Ridgeway, Emma Mackey who played as Jacqueline de Bellefort, Armie Hammer who played as Simon Doyle and of course Kenneth Branagh who played for one more time as Hercule Poirot. To sum up, I have to say that if you have already watched and enjoyed "Murder on the Orient Express" of 2017 then I am sure you will enjoy "Death on the Nile", too.

I was ten when I saw the original movie. It had such an impact on me that I dreamed of being an archaeologist and I booked a honeymoon to Egypt with a cruise down the Nile. I am a huge Christie fan...and although the original movie was not an exact duplicate of the book, it kept to the overall mood of the book and to the character of Poirot. Did Branagh have to make Poirot into a ladies' man, really? Could his ego really not allow him to play the awkward, but clever sleuth? Why oh why did he have to go so Woke and change the supporting characters. I have to say it...I hated the new Salome Otterbourne...the music besides being anachronistic was just plain awful. Couldn't she have remained an author? The Bouc characters were unnecessary and where was Colonel Race? I could go on and on... what perhaps was the biggest issue was the CGI scenery. Just a terrible, terrible remake.

I am generally a sucker for any murder mystery movie or tv show, and this movie is no exception. I had a lot of fun with it, despite some flaws.

Kenneth Branagh makes for a great Poirot. Most of the cast is excellent, often in underwritten roles. The standout performance is from newcomer Emma Mackey, who is tragic as the heartbroken lover turned stalker. The eventual solution was clever, yet plausible.

There were, however, a few flaws with the movie. The main one was the overuse of CGI/ green screen. It was rather obvious we were nowhere near Egypt, and it took away from some of the immersion. Secondly, while I absolutely adore Gal Gadot, I do feel her acting limitations were slightly exposed here.

The opening scene tells all you need to know. Twerking dance in 1936!!! That is a sure sign of desperation which is obvious in the rest of the movie. No authenticity, horrible acting, atrocious directing. Full of horrible CGI scenery that a 10 year old can tell its fake.

Save yourself money and time and watch the 1978 version with Peter Ustinov as Poirot. Or better yet see TV series played by David Suchet. Both are 100 times better and sensible that this absolute garbage of movie.