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.

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 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.

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 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.

Wow. Beautifully shot. The mustache is ridiculous. The vanity comes with political correctness and thinking that you can improve on Agatha Christie........

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!

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 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.

Greetings again from the darkness. For us Agatha Christie fans, a certain amount of trepidation exists every time a new movie or TV version of her work hits. Stress level was reduced a bit this time since director-actor Kenneth Branagh and screenwriter Michael Green are back following their collaboration on Christie's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS (2017). Although the star power this time isn't quite at the level of 'Orient', it seems Mr. Branagh has grown quite fond and confident of his own Hercule Poirot, the Belgian super-sleuth.

Director Branagh takes an unusual approach with a black and white Prologue from 1914 as a young Poirot shows flashes of his intellect as a soldier in WWI. The real purpose of this segment is to show Poirot was once a young man in love, and then a wounded soldier in love, and then a broken-hearted wounded man who would go on to become the world's greatest detective. The prologue also provides backstory on the infamous mustache that is so much a part of Poirot.

We then flash forward to a 1937 London speakeasy where a fastidious Poirot fusses over dessert while watching the formation of a shaky love triangle unfold on the dance floor as Salome Otterbourne (Sophie Okonedo, with singing vocals from Sister Rosetta Tharpe) belts out her bluesy tunes on stage. Initially it's Jacqueline de Bellefort (relative newcomer Emma Mackey) in the throes of lustful dance moves with her fiancé Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer in the last gasp of a once skyrocketing career). Things change quickly when Jacqui's former schoolmate, Linnete Ridgeway (Gal Gadot), makes her show-stopping appearance in a glittery metallic gown. Flash forward again, this time 6 weeks, and its Linnete and Simon tying the knot at the picturesque Cataract Hotel in Aswan on the River Nile. See, Linnete is an heiress to her less-than-scrupulous father's fortune, and Simon had no trouble trading up. Jacqui, on the other hand, doesn't take it so well.

Of course the fun part of Agatha Christie's murder mysteries involves getting to know the players and watching as the clues reveal themselves, and then how Poirot handles the big reveal. This film's only real weakness is the character development of everyone not named Hercule Poirot. We only skim the surface of Euphemia Buoc (Annette Bening) as Buoc's (a returning Tom Bateman) disapproving mother, Dr. Windlesham (an unusually reserved Russell Brand), Linnete's chambermaid Louise (Rose Leslie), Linette's Godmother and her "nurse" (Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French, respectively), family attorney Andrew (Ali Fazal), and Salome's niece and manager, Rosalie (Letitia Wright), the proverbial sharpest knife in the drawer.

So what do we get? Well, first and foremost, a fully formed Poirot. Branagh seems to have embraced the character and the mustache, having a blast with his scenes. We also get stunning work from cinematographer Harris Zambarloukos, as he films the beautiful people, the beautiful wardrobes, and such sites as the Pyramids of Giza, the Sphinx, Ramses statues of Abu Simbel, and the excellent set piece known as the Karnak luxury steamer. There are some metaphorical effects inserted that periodically startle us, and seem unnecessary, but then over-the-top moments are not unusual in film presentations of Christie's writing. She passed away in 1976, and now there are almost 200 film and TV projects associated with her work.

Love and betrayal are key elements here, and for fans of the original book and the 1978 film version, comparisons are unavoidable. Ms. Mackey's jilted lover stalker is a marked improvement over Mia Farrow's character, while Salome and Rosalie and terrific additions. Ms. Saunders and Ms. French follow in the footsteps of cinematic heavyweights Bette Davis and Maggie Smith, and your choice of Branagh or Peter Ustinov as Poirot is one left up to you. It's tough to beat 'whodunnit escapism', though it's a personal choice on which of Christie's stories serve up the best puzzle pieces on the big screen.

Opens in theaters on February 11, 2022.

Well, I can't really claim that the 2022 movie "Death on the Nile" is one that I was particularly excited to watch. Why? Well, it is a remake and haven't the Agatha Christie 1937 murder mystery been put to the screen enough times already? I mean, 1978 and again in 2004, wasn't that enough?

But still, I got the opportunity to sit down and watch this 2022 version from director Kenneth Branagh, so I opted to watch what he had to offer.

And I will say that "Death on the Nile" definitely is a stylish feature. There are so much attention to detail in the sets, props, costumes and such, and that spruced up the movie quite a lot, especially if you have an eye for detail.

With that being said, then I will admit that "Death on the Nile" certainly was watchable. It wasn't a great movie, mind you, but it was watchable and enjoyable enough for what it turned out to be. The movie isn't, however, a movie that you will watch more than once, as it usually goes for murder mysteries.

Something that "Death on the Nile" had working for it was the rather amazing cast ensemble. I was rather impressed with the sheer amount of talented performers that were on the cast list. So at least you get to watch this movie brought to the screen by people whom have their art down to near perfection.

Of course there is an audience out there for murder mysteries, be it in book form, TV series form, or even movie form, so yeah "Death on the Nile" is definitely going to have a fan base out there. Maybe even among those that enjoyed the previous movie versions as well.

My rating of "Death on the Nile" lands on a six out of ten stars. It was watchable and fairly enjoyable, I will say that much. But I know that I will never return to watch "Death on the Nile" a second time.

This film is good and okay all in one. A mix of great and pointless.

As a film writer and maker myself I noticed many things that went wrong but also things that were just incredible so let's begin.

1. The development: This was the slowest developing movie. The film took it time and we didn't get to see a murder until after an hour had already passed. Me and my partner were practically begging for a murder to happen by minute 30.

2. The characters: partial add on to the development, this film seemed to use majority of the beginning of the film to indroduce and explain the characters...poorly. By the end of the movie we hadn't really known what the names were of most of them or even how they were fully connected.

3. The Story: I feel like the story was good for the final 40 minutes. The love story, I think fully it was truly fun and enticing to watch. I feel like the big miss of this film was when the hook came along. We didn't feel hooked until so late into the story because most of the beginning had not much that really connected to the main story line it was just unneeded things that made the story just longer.

With a lot of the negative I do recommend watching. It is a very good story line that is diverse and does keep you on your toes.

While there are a few things wrong with this film, the main issue for me was the music that was used.

The blues music in this film is not a good fit. In the scene toward the beginning of the movie it didn't match well with the club, dancing, and actions taking place. While in some other setting in some other movie it might be ok- this was a terrible choice for the film. Just google popular music in the late 1930's and you'll see many songs that would be a better choice.

Each time the music is playing subsequently in the film it's cringeworthy and distracting. It makes me wonder who made the choice to include it. Maybe the music was free to use and the budget was too tight with this film?

The 1978 movie is a lot better, maybe just watch that one.

In my defence, I don't know the story, so had no idea what to expect. It's a decent film, the earlier Murder on The Orient was much better, this was very stylish, but the story, maybe just didn't quite work so well. Wonder woman Gal Gadot definitely looked incredible, but I'm not sure she was the right casting, I wasnt sure if I liked or loathed that character. It looked nice, wonderful locations, and the club scenes looked great. My main issue, was the ending, aside from being underwhelming, I just didn't really understand it, was it different in the book? That moustache though, that was cool.

Watched 12.25.22.

It was a little too easy to solve. I knew who the murderer(s) were just a little sooner than I'd hoped -maybe 20-30 minutes in I knew for sure. I unfortunately was bored after that and fell asleep. Only waking up for gun shots. I also don't think that Gal Gadot could act very well.

As an agatha christie fan who has read most of agatha christie books multiple times i wish kenneth branagh would adapt one of the many other wonderful poirot books: the abc murders, five little pigs, dumb witness, cat among the pigeons, etc. Instead of trying to modernize an existing (and fine) movie.

No way to replicate those ensembles: sean conneey, bette davis, ingrid bergman, etc. Might as well have a fresh start to avoid comparison.

We had a good time watching the last movie without needing to skip scenes, but this one is filled with adult scenes which we were not able to really enjoy as a family, so we ended up just stopping it. Mystery detective movies do not need adult rated scenes, instead use that time to make things more exiting with mysteries, clues and better story line. Are there people that are so desperate for adult scenes in mystery detective movies?

The detective character is ofcourse absolutely fantastic, so hopefully there is more sequels to come that is more catered to audiences that just love detective mystery movies, instead of needing to please some adults that has personal needs that can be fulfilled elsewhere.