Death on the Nile (2020)

[dmeets]

I hadn’t read the book but predicted the killer reveal, and I’m normally pretty bad at guessing. I assume Armie Hammer’s awful weeping was supposed to be a big clue but I find him to be such a mediocre actor that I just brushed it aside as indicative of his skill set.

The big shocker of the movie to me was Bouc 😥. Even though my understanding is he’s only a character in Orient Express, there have been enough changes to the secondary characters across the Branagh movies that I was hoping he was being elevated to officially become Poirot’s Watson but instead he was just a tragic lesson for Poirot in humility (even though it didn’t stop him from one final act of grandstanding).

Considering this was (I think) filmed shortly after Orient Express, it’s weird that they disregarded the teaser ending from the previous film, unless that was a different death on the Nile that he was informed of.

The ending felt like this is the last we’ll see of this Poirot.

Edited February 13, 2022 by dmeets

[methodwriter85]

8 hours ago, dmeets said:

The big shocker of the movie to me was Bouc 😥. Even though my understanding is he’s only a character in Orient Express, there have been enough changes to the secondary characters across the Branagh movies that I was hoping he was being elevated to officially become Poirot’s Watson but instead he was just a tragic lesson for Poirot in humility (even though it didn’t stop him from one final act of grandstanding).

That's where I thought it was going, too. I was really disappointed they killed his character off. Tom Bateman has "It", whatever it is, and I was enjoying getting to see him play a sympathetic character given that he largely plays villains. He did get to show off his acting chops more than he got to in the previous movie, so good for him? 

I did really enjoy this but I thought Bouc's death made this much sadder to me than the previous movie was. Mainly because I really like Tom Bateman. LOL. 

I totally thought Wonder Woman was faking her death and that's why the red ermine was missing. LOL.

[Suzn]

18 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

So you're saying he's perfect for Poirot?

For Poirot, it's earned.  😄

[GaT]

It's not enough that he ruined Poirot, he wants to do it to Miss Marple too

Kenneth Branagh Pitching a Filmverse Based on Agatha Christie's Miss Marple

Is he saying he wants to put both Poirot & Marple together to solve a crime????? I hate him

Quote

"When people ignore you, it's a terrific plus if you're solving a crime. That means you have an advantage and you can see them in ways that they don't even realize you're observing. So Marple, like, wouldn't it be great to put them together. I think that'd be, that'd be fun." Like Poirot, Miss Marple is one of Christie's more well-known characters. However, the author made sure the two detectives never crossed paths in any of her novels.

 

[Chyromaniac]

I’m not overly versed in Christie- I’ve only really read DotN, MotOE, and Murder at the Vicarage recently as airport books, and I believe we read And Then There Were None in school.  However, I think there’s potential in a Poirot/Marple crossover.  I think the key will be engineering circumstances so that they both solve the case simultaneously, without feeling redundant.  I don’t think it would work for either character to have the other point out something they’ve missed- their entire point as detectives is that they notice things that ordinary people don’t.

However I think Branagh is correct in his assessment of how Marple operates- at least in Vicarage.  Maybe things changed in subsequent books, but I was kind of astonished at how little she actually appears in the story.  She very much spends most of the novel observing things, being ignored along with the other old ladies of the village. and really just shows up at the end to work through the solution with the Vicar.  It’s certainly a contrast to Poirot, who by nature seems to take control of a situation once a murder has been uncovered.

As for this film, I thought it was enjoyable.  I think his Poirot is an interesting guy- again I’m not a huge fan, but I’m not sure what he’s doing wrong with the character.  I feel like it’s a more action oriented performance than the books.  Like, I don’t recall (or maybe I forgot) him holding the suspects at gunpoint for the climax.  Otherwise, some of the characters and story beats have changed from the novel- I think most of the alterations make sense.  It’s a pretty wild coincidence in the book that he just winds up on vacation with these people who he has seen once before socially.  The movie at least gives him reason to be where he was, and why they would be there as well.  Overall, there were a couple of moments, particularly with Poirot and Jackie, that felt either missing or underplayed compared to the book.  In general it was a good version of the story, and that the film looked amazing- especially considering how much of it seems to have been shot on sets.  I’m not sure what the bookend scenes mean for the future of the franchise, but I would continue seeing them if they make more (with it without Marple).

[BlackberryJam]

I agree that the film looks gorgeous, it's just that...well...Poirot solves the mystery by sitting in his chair and thinking. He doesn't rush to and fro. He doesn't hold people at gunpoint. He gathers the facts in a calm, methodical manner, then sits down with a deck of cards, builds a house with them and thinks. 

By trying to make the story more cinematic, Branagh is taking away the key part of Poirot. He's a thinker, not a doer.

Marple is the same way. She busybodies around, peering through the bushes, stopping over for cups of tea, then she scootles over to the Vicar or Inspector Slack and explains everything and they are the ones who then act to capture the killer.

[Dr.OO7]

I finally caught this over the weekend.

I liked it. I saw the original, so when Bouc revealed that he'd witnessed Louise's murder, I winced, because I knew what was coming, and I was very sad, because I'd really gotten to like him.

 

[Suzn]

On 2/26/2022 at 12:37 AM, GaT said:

It's not enough that he ruined Poirot, he wants to do it to Miss Marple too

Kenneth Branagh Pitching a Filmverse Based on Agatha Christie's Miss Marple

Is he saying he wants to put both Poirot & Marple together to solve a crime????? I hate him

 

That is so disgusting!  Apparently people who haven't been fans of Agatha Christie for years/decades enjoy what appears to be a a travesty to me.  How about creating a new character for a change.  You could even do an homage to Poirot or Marple but don't ruin these characters with behaviors and looks that are nothing like they were written.

[tennisgurl]

As someone who grew up on the Poirot books and being very familiar with Death on the Nile, I went into this  just trying to think of it as its own thing different from the book. All I wanted was for the killer and the victim to be the same, and I was mostly satisfied that they stuck to those at least, except for killing poor Bouc instead of Mrs. Otterbourne, who is basically a different character. In fact, it was kind of fun for me to see what parts of what book characters they used for what characters, they combined a number of bits of backstory and plot relevance from several characters to make for a smaller cast. Its very different from the book, even more different than Murder on the Orient Express, but I still enjoyed it. The cinematography was amazing, lots of great shots around the boat and on the Nile, the changing of the Otterbournes have the movie a great blues-tastic soundtrack, and the cast was really solid, especially Emma Mackey as Jackie, who is one of my favorite characters in all of the Poirot books. I wish they had given her a few of her more contemplative moments, but she really nailed that extreme intensity, her intense glares looked like they could be the murder weapons themselves. 

It sucks that they killed Bouc, poor guy wasn't even supposed to be here! Really gave the ending a sad feel to it, even when the murder was solved.

I have a similar issue with this as I did with Murder on the Orient Express, it feels like Poirot sometimes doesn't really feel like Poirot. The books aren't action oriented or super dramatic, its all based around reason and deductive reasoning, which is why people love them. It feels like KB at times gets bored with his source material and wants to add more action and drama, when that just isn't what these books are. 

[Bruinsfan]

On 2/28/2022 at 9:09 AM, BlackberryJam said:

Marple is the same way. She busybodies around, peering through the bushes, stopping over for cups of tea, then she scootles over to the Vicar or Inspector Slack and explains everything and they are the ones who then act to capture the killer.

I must admit I'd be intrigued if Miss Marple got the same action hero treatment Branaugh is giving his Poirot. Just imagine the visual of Dame Maggie Smith chasing down a fleeing murder suspect and bringing him to the ground with a tackle!

[AimingforYoko]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

I must admit I'd be intrigued if Miss Marple got the same action hero treatment Branaugh is giving his Poirot. Just imagine the visual of Dame Maggie Smith chasing down a fleeing murder suspect and bringing him to the ground with a tackle!

I swear they were going to do a treatment with Jennifer Garner as a more action-oriented Miss Marple.

[krankydoodle]

I was on the fence about watching this, but gave it a shot when it popped up on HBO Max today and I'm glad I didn't see it in the theater. I would've resented spending the money on it because I wouldn't have made it past the melodramatic reveal behind Poirot's mustache. Why did we need this?

[Simon Boccanegra]

On 3/11/2022 at 1:47 PM, AimingforYoko said:

I swear they were going to do a treatment with Jennifer Garner as a more action-oriented Miss Marple.

Yes. That was announced as something Disney would be going into production with, and there were retractions almost immediately. Strange. 

There was a long period when it seemed someone influential really wanted Garner to happen as a beloved, above-the-title, A-list star, and was going to keep trying with wildly different vehicles until something clicked. I didn't get it. It seemed to peter out after the Arthur remake.

[shrewd.buddha]

On 3/29/2022 at 6:08 PM, krankydoodle said:

gave it a shot when it popped up on HBO Max today and I'm glad I didn't see it in the theater.

Same here.  Besides the extravagant display of obscene wealth, and a vanity project for Branagh, there did not seem to be much need for a newer version of this.

Poirot, the character, came off poorly.  There wasn't a murder until after an hour into the movie.  The world's greatest detective had spent quite some time with these people, but did not see anything coming  ... until after three people ended up dead. 
 
Poirot seemed to pull his conclusions out of his ass.  And the killer's plan relied on everyone else staying exactly were they were expected to be.
Is Poirot supposed to be really poor at reading people and only good at evaluating evidence and circumstance?

[BlackberryJam]

2 hours ago, shrewd.buddha said:

Is Poirot supposed to be really poor at reading people and only good at evaluating evidence and circumstance?

Saw it. Loved the visuals, hated the rest.

Poirot is very good at reading and manipulating people. In the book, 

Spoiler

He warns Jackie to stop. He recognizes that Simon's overtly affectionate behavior is off. He knows Louise is lying. 

Poirot often overemphasizes his accent, acts like he doesn't know English words, plays the fool and braggart, because it makes people let down their guard and reveal things.

One thing he never does is hold a gun on people. Ever. Nor does he chase them.

Branagh has tried to make Poirot this likable action character. It's all wrong.

At the same time, people can't be arrested for having murder on their minds. He warns killers. He warns victims.

Branagh has lost the essence of Poirot as a man who sits and thinks. In making Poirot more active, the plot begins to fall apart.

[DearEvette]

I spent a lazy Sunday watching random stuff on tv and caught this.  I have no great investment in the story or characters so I thought it was ok.

Visually it was gorgeous to look at.  That boat!  I'd've loved to sail along the Nile on that boat.  And all the filmy dresses and linen suits.  A lovely color palette. The display of early 20th century wealth.  So yeah visually it was a feast.

My big thing was... I just didn't like anyone, except maybe Bouc.  None of the actors felt like they really disappeared into their roles.  I just kept seeing Kenneth Branagh with a mustache, Gal Gadot, Armie Hammer, Letiticia Wright and Maeve from Sex Education. 

[Black Knight]

I streamed this today. Branagh's direction felt overly indulgent, but I did enjoy the movie. Mackey was perfect as Jackie, but unfortunately a little underwritten, particularly after the final reveal. The movie gave Linnet her moment to say something to Jackie before the murder; Jackie should have had more dialogue after the final reveal. It's not that it changes the motive or how Jackie was determined to be Simon's ride-or-die, but it would have fleshed everything out a bit more.

I wasn't crazy about the chase scene in Murder on the Orient Express, but the one here felt okay. It wasn't nearly as long and it does make sense to try to get a look at the murderer instead of just standing around gaping over the body. That works okay in a book but not in a visual medium. I also don't mind Poirot holding a gun on people. Even in Christie's books, as a young man Poirot was a police officer who once fatally shot someone. (And then of course there's Curtain.) It's entirely reasonable to me that even as a cerebral private detective he'd pull out a gun on occasion. Bouc was murdered in the middle of an interrogation!

I liked the changes from the book for the secondary characters, just to keep things a little fresh even for readers while sticking to the major elements of the book. Christie herself was never shy about changing things when adapting her own books into plays.

[ursula]

The part where Poirot dismisses Cousin (Andrew?) as a suspect because he has his own gun took me out! Why would he commit murder with his own weapon if there was another one he could use??? 

And the moustache got a back-story which I don't even know whether to laugh or to cry. 

The aesthetics of the movie was lovely, I'll give you that. It took me back to the first time I read the book and felt I was actually living through that experience. 

 

I hear there's going to be a third one. I'm looking forward to the Next Adventures of Poirot's Moustache.

[starri]

Running the risk of having to hand over my Agatha Christie Fan Club card...I don't hate Branagh's Poirot.

I mean, David Suchet is going to be the yardstick performances are measured against until the heat death of the universe, and this is definitely nowhere near that.  But once you get past the quips (which don't bother me that much, because I do think Poirot and Marple are both pretty subtly sarcastic even in the novels), I think he actually is pretty good at the real detecting part.

I really enjoyed the movie.  No, it wasn't as good as the Ustinov or Suchet versions, but there was a lot to like about it.  It was certainly the best-looking version.  And I really liked most of the cast, particularly French & Saunders.  I have no idea how it took 40+ years for someone to cast them as a lesbian couple, but I honestly found it brilliant.

[Chyromaniac]

On 4/3/2022 at 8:28 AM, shrewd.buddha said:

the killer's plan relied on everyone else staying exactly were they were expected to be.

Forgive me, but can that not also be said of the book?  The murders, apart from a few details mostly resulting from replacing the Allertons with the Boucs, happen essentially the same way in both.  Honestly, from my limited experience this seems to be a hallmark (if not an appeal) of Christie's storytelling - elaborate murders that seem impossible due to the precise methods which which they are carried out.  Her detectives seem to be utterly baffled until the some essential clue or insight is uncovered, which causes them to rethink the entire events and allows everything to fall into place.  As for the comment about it taking an hour before the first murder - again, that's basically how it plays out in the novel as well.  I will admit that I felt Poirot and Jackie had a more developed relationship prior to the deaths in the book.  However, there's also a reason for this in the film - Poirot is more focused on his investigation of Rosalie for Mme Bouc.  On the one hand, I think it's a reasonable change that does a better job of explaining why he winds up with these people - in the book it kind of does feel like an incredible coincidence that he just happens to be at the club the night Linnet first meets Simon, and then is on vacation in Egypt with them all some time later.  For me it feels like a reasonable trade off - and if I hadn't read the book prior to watching, I don't know that I would have felt like anything was missing.

Ultimately this feels like the same discussion that comes up whenever an existing story gets adapted or remade, especially from one medium to another.  How much fidelity does the new version owe to the one(s) that came before?  Honestly, I don't know if there's a correct answer - or if it's even a fair question.  When I watch any film, I do my best to try and judge it for what it is, rather than what it's not - particularly if it's about a story or character I'm aware of from some other source.  Admittedly, sometimes I'm more successful at this than others (see above) - and the more invested I am with the original material, the harder it can be to determine whether my reactions are based on what's been presented, versus my preexisting expectations.

In this case, I feel like Branagh did a good job creating a stylish, exciting mystery, and I feel like his Poirot makes sense in the context of this film (or I suppose both of them), and his relationships with the other characters.  I feel like the story and mystery hold up well.  And actually, I think that's one area where I actually most appreciate the changes from the book.  This is a mystery - so what's the fun in watching if it's going to be word for word, precisement?

[SomeTameGazelle]

On 3/11/2022 at 1:47 PM, AimingforYoko said:

I swear they were going to do a treatment with Jennifer Garner as a more action-oriented Miss Marple.

Speaking of action Miss Marple, Margaret Rutherford's version in the 1960s was rather vigorous. I remember being shocked to see her climbing over a wall. 

On 4/3/2022 at 7:01 PM, ursula said:

And the moustache got a back-story which I don't even know whether to laugh or to cry. 

The disfigurement they showed was such that I cannot believe that even Poirot's sprawling moustaches could be concealing it.  Wouldn't that amount of scarring inhibit the hair growth?

[starri]

28 minutes ago, SomeTameGazelle said:

Speaking of action Miss Marple, Margaret Rutherford's version in the 1960s was rather vigorous. I remember being shocked to see her climbing over a wall. 

That's actually why Branagh doesn't bother me.  If Margaret Rutherford and Joan Hickson can both be Jane Marple, David Suchet and Kenneth Branagh can both be Hercule Poirot.

[Jillibean]

I will echo others in saying the movie was beautiful, and also that I can't stand Branagh's Poirot. I feel like it's just a complete misunderstanding of who Poirot is, and maybe that's intentional because Branagh sort of wants to play his own detective that just happens to be wrapped up in some of the most famous murder mysteries of all time. But as a devoted Agatha Christie fan, it really annoys me. It's not that he's not David Suchet, though I love David Suchet and that show is proof of concept that you don't have to turn the books into action thrillers to make them work. It's that Branagh basically appears to be playing Poirot by way of Shakespearean tragedy, like if Poirot were also King Lear (I'd say Hamlet, but I've seen Branagh's Hamlet and it actually manages to be even more over the top than this). His Poirot is so melodramatic, like he's solving a telenovela. Huge dramatic tragic backstory that is constantly referenced. So much yelling and gnashing and even a bit of flailing. And he's so angry all the time. Book Poirot seems to me to have so much more empathy and curiosity; he tends to build personal relationships with the suspects and is almost viewed as a confidant at times. I'm just not that into Branagh's Poirot. 

Death on the Nile is probably my favorite Christie book, and I don't think they quite did it justice. Poirot's reveal right after Louise's death that she was hinting to the killer made it completely obvious who the killer was, and from there the rest is pretty apparent. I also thought the fact that they tied Bouc in and then killed him off was just sort of odd and unnecessary.

However, I thought the actor who played Jacqeline was fantastic. She was exactly who I imagined the character to be while reading the books. In my opinion, a truly perfect performance. I thought Letitia Wright was good also, and Tom Bateman. It took me half the movie to recognize Russell Brand. Annette Bening seemed to be on a crusade to leave no scenery unchewed, but I guess she's earned that right. 

[AgathaC]

21 minutes ago, Jillibean said:

I will echo others in saying the movie was beautiful, and also that I can't stand Branagh's Poirot. I feel like it's just a complete misunderstanding of who Poirot is, and maybe that's intentional because Branagh sort of wants to play his own detective that just happens to be wrapped up in some of the most famous murder mysteries of all time. But as a devoted Agatha Christie fan, it really annoys me. It's not that he's not David Suchet, though I love David Suchet and that show is proof of concept that you don't have to turn the books into action thrillers to make them work. It's that Branagh basically appears to be playing Poirot by way of Shakespearean tragedy, like if Poirot were also King Lear (I'd say Hamlet, but I've seen Branagh's Hamlet and it actually manages to be even more over the top than this). His Poirot is so melodramatic, like he's solving a telenovela. Huge dramatic tragic backstory that is constantly referenced. So much yelling and gnashing and even a bit of flailing. And he's so angry all the time. Book Poirot seems to me to have so much more empathy and curiosity; he tends to build personal relationships with the suspects and is almost viewed as a confidant at times. I'm just not that into Branagh's Poirot. 

This is why I was hesitant about Branagh taking up the mustache, so to speak. More often than not, it seems like over-the-top and melodramatic is his MO. I actually like some of his movies (Dead Again was a big favorite of mine a while back.) But his style just doesn’t suit Poirot, who, I think, works best when he’s more understated.

[Mulva]

There was a reference to the Murder of Roger Ackroyd when Poirot said he wanted to retire the country and raise vegetables.  Does Branagh plan to make a third Poirot movie?

[SlovakPrincess]

This was gorgeous to look at, well acted, and all in all pretty enjoyable.  I vaguely remember disliking the Orient Express remake, and not liking Branagh's Poirot in that film, but this movie worked much better for me.  

I grew up reading the books and watching all the re-runs on PBS -- so David Suchet will always be my default Poirot (just like Jeremy Brett will always be Sherlock Holmes to me).   But I can now accept Branagh as a version of Poirot, and I liked him much better in this than Orient Express -- Branagh can be a bit of an over-actor sometimes, but here he struck just the right note, even in the scenes where Poirot gets emotional (over his lost love and Bouc's murder) and in the subtly funny scenes.  Even the mustache backstory was an interesting re-imagining of the character, and I didn't mind it.   

Standouts for me were the actors playing Jackie (I wanted more of her in the second half of the film!),  Bouc and Salome.  I really enjoyed Jennifer Saunders, too.

"You are the most ludicrous man I've ever seen." "Not the first time I have heard this."  Ha!  

Edited April 12, 2022 by SlovakPrincess

[Columbo]

On 4/12/2022 at 4:41 AM, Mulva said:

There was a reference to the Murder of Roger Ackroyd when Poirot said he wanted to retire the country and raise vegetables.  Does Branagh plan to make a third Poirot movie?

I'd love it if they made a Murder Of Roger Ackroyd movie because I wasn't a fan of the Suchet version. Because I think it's a rather fascinating character study psychologically. And if they work it out how to film it effectively then it could be awesome.

 

However that will never happen because they'll look for novels set in international settings like Murder in Mesopotamia so it looks great on the big screen. Plus I'm not sure Kenneth's Poirot will be able to do justice to The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

 

Anyway I haven't seen this version of Death on the Nile yet. Saw the Ustinov and Suchet versions. I liked the Suchet adaptation but I loved the Ustinov film. It looked so glamorous. 

 

 

[Spartan Girl]

Moral of the story: always be wary of a guy who will go from your best friend to you. Huh, this kind of plot would have made Something Borrowed a lot more interesting.

I kid, I kid.

I have never read the Poirot books, so I don’t have the emotional investment to judge Branaugh’s Poirot. That being said, this was way better than Murder on the Orient, or at least more entertaining. I’ll echo the love on the visuals and costumes—although let’s be real, Gal Gadot could be wearing Molly Ringwald’s pink prom dress abomination and still look immaculate. 

Poor Buoc.

Edited April 16, 2022 by Spartan Girl

[Camera One]

After all the negative press and reviews, I ended up finding this movie to be a decent adaptation.  The visuals were nice, and set a nice mood.  I don't mind Kenneth Branagh as Poirot.  Like "Murder on the Orient Express" (though less so), his adaptations feel a tad dreary and depressing.  I just watched the 1978 version for the first time afterwards, and the injection of humor just made it more fun to watch.  

Nevertheless, I think this 2020s version had a good cast.  Linette was too likeable, so it was a bit sad when she was murdered.  I didn't feel like I knew her that well in the 1978 one.  The sudden shooting of the person who saw the maid's murderer was quite shocking in the 1978, as it was when Bouc was shot in this one.  That really was very sad since he was probably my favorite character.  I'm not sure why Poirot insisted on Simon Doyle being there, nor how Jacqueline knew to be hiding with a gun.  

I like murder mysteries but I also find them sad when victims get killed, so it's hard to get the balance right for me.  With the murder-suicide at the end, this story just seems to be quite heavy on the violence.

Comparing different versions of the same story is interesting for me, so I hope Kenneth Branagh make more of these.  I've read more Miss Marple books than Poirot books, but I think a team-up would be fun.  As long as the characters aren't just "in name only".  Compared to so many reboots these days, this 2020s Poirot still resembles the character enough for me.  Not a huge fan of the "he's opening himself to love" ending, though.  I didn't mind the WWI flashback, but I also didn't find it added anything to the movie, either.

[ursula]

On 4/15/2022 at 6:29 AM, Columbo said:

I'd love it if they made a Murder Of Roger Ackroyd movie because I wasn't a fan of the Suchet version. Because I think it's a rather fascinating character study psychologically. And if they work it out how to film it effectively then it could be awesome.

However that will never happen because they'll look for novels set in international settings like Murder in Mesopotamia so it looks great on the big screen. Plus I'm not sure Kenneth's Poirot will be able to do justice to The Murder of Roger Ackroyd.

Anyway I haven't seen this version of Death on the Nile yet. Saw the Ustinov and Suchet versions. I liked the Suchet adaptation but I loved the Ustinov film. It looked so glamorous. 

A running series would be the best way to adapt TMO Roger Ackroyd. They introduce Sheppard in the next movie as Bouc 2.0 - Poirot's "Watson". 

[MissAlmond]

On 4/16/2022 at 8:15 AM, Spartan Girl said:

I have never read the Poirot books, so I don’t have the emotional investment to judge Branaugh’s Poirot. That being said, this was way better than Murder on the Orient, or at least more entertaining. I’ll echo the love on the visuals and costumes

I enjoyed Braugh's Death on the Nile way more than his Murder on the Orient Express too.  The costumes and visuals were excellent, although (IMO) certainly not at the level of Anthony Powell's Oscar winning costumes or Jack Cardiff's cinematography filmed in Egypt.  Also, my sister - who had never seen or read any version of DOTN  - immediately knew Jacqueline was guilty.  According to sis there was no subtly to Emma Mackey's acting; the contempt for Linnet was there from the beginning and never wavered.  Still, while I wouldn't purchase it, I would have no problem occasionally re-watching this DOTN on cable or streaming service, unlike Braugh's MOTOE.  

On 4/20/2022 at 2:19 AM, ursula said:

A running series would be the best way to adapt TMO Roger Ackroyd. They introduce Sheppard in the next movie as Bouc 2.0 - Poirot's "Watson". 

Wait. If Braugh adapts Roger Ackroyd and continues down a series path, isn't it

Spoiler

Hastings, not Sheppard,

who needs to be added and introduced as Bouc 2.0, Poirot's new Watson?  

Edited April 25, 2022 by MissAlmond

[ursula]

On 4/24/2022 at 7:21 AM, MissAlmond said:

If Braugh adapts Roger Ackroyd and continues down a series path, isn't it

  Reveal spoiler

Hastings, not Sheppard,

who needs to be added and introduced as Bouc 2.0, Poirot's new Watson?  

Hastings will be Bouc 3.0. Third time lucky, as it were. 

[MissAlmond]

8 hours ago, ursula said:

Hastings will be Bouc 3.0. Third time lucky, as it were. 

Hastings as Bouc 3.0. Interesting.  Of course, that should mean an adaptation of The Mysterious Affair at Styles but I don't see the Braugh's Poirot films bringing in the box office returns to justify all these sequels. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by MissAlmond

[blackwing]

On 4/4/2022 at 10:00 AM, starri said:

Running the risk of having to hand over my Agatha Christie Fan Club card...I don't hate Branagh's Poirot.

I mean, David Suchet is going to be the yardstick performances are measured against until the heat death of the universe, and this is definitely nowhere near that.  But once you get past the quips (which don't bother me that much, because I do think Poirot and Marple are both pretty subtly sarcastic even in the novels), I think he actually is pretty good at the real detecting part.

I really enjoyed the movie.  No, it wasn't as good as the Ustinov or Suchet versions, but there was a lot to like about it.  It was certainly the best-looking version.  And I really liked most of the cast, particularly French & Saunders.  I have no idea how it took 40+ years for someone to cast them as a lesbian couple, but I honestly found it brilliant.

I enjoyed it as well.  The visuals were amazing, I loved the scenes of the boat floating along the Nile, I loved the boat itself.  I don't hate Branagh's Poirot either, although the part in the beginning explaining the origin of the moustache and the ending showing he isn't afraid to show his scars seemed a bit odd.  I did think it was nice to get some kind of backstory on Poirot's love life (I don't think the books ever mention anything, but I could be wrong).

On 4/4/2022 at 10:09 AM, Chyromaniac said:

Ultimately this feels like the same discussion that comes up whenever an existing story gets adapted or remade, especially from one medium to another.  How much fidelity does the new version owe to the one(s) that came before?  Honestly, I don't know if there's a correct answer - or if it's even a fair question.  When I watch any film, I do my best to try and judge it for what it is, rather than what it's not - particularly if it's about a story or character I'm aware of from some other source.  Admittedly, sometimes I'm more successful at this than others (see above) - and the more invested I am with the original material, the harder it can be to determine whether my reactions are based on what's been presented, versus my preexisting expectations.

In this case, I feel like Branagh did a good job creating a stylish, exciting mystery, and I feel like his Poirot makes sense in the context of this film (or I suppose both of them), and his relationships with the other characters.  I feel like the story and mystery hold up well.  And actually, I think that's one area where I actually most appreciate the changes from the book.  This is a mystery - so what's the fun in watching if it's going to be word for word, precisement?

I tried not to dwell too much on what I could identify as changes from the book (missing characters, Bouc, the secret lesbians, Rosalie and Bouc, Salome being a jazz singer, etc) and instead was just happy that the major elements of the plot and the murder mystery didn't change.  So many of the PBS adaptations of Poirot and Marple completely changed the plot.

On 4/20/2022 at 2:19 AM, ursula said:

A running series would be the best way to adapt TMO Roger Ackroyd. They introduce Sheppard in the next movie as Bouc 2.0 - Poirot's "Watson". 

I want to say I read somewhere that the next adaptation is going to be an adaptation of one of the "lesser known" Christies, so if that is true, probably won't be Roger Ackroyd.

[proserpina65]

On 4/4/2022 at 11:00 AM, starri said:

Running the risk of having to hand over my Agatha Christie Fan Club card...I don't hate Branagh's Poirot.

I mean, David Suchet is going to be the yardstick performances are measured against until the heat death of the universe, and this is definitely nowhere near that.  But once you get past the quips (which don't bother me that much, because I do think Poirot and Marple are both pretty subtly sarcastic even in the novels), I think he actually is pretty good at the real detecting part.

I really enjoyed the movie.  No, it wasn't as good as the Ustinov or Suchet versions, but there was a lot to like about it.  It was certainly the best-looking version.  And I really liked most of the cast, particularly French & Saunders.  I have no idea how it took 40+ years for someone to cast them as a lesbian couple, but I honestly found it brilliant.

I have to say, while this was not a patch on the Ustinov film, I actually thought it was better than the Suchet version.  And I love David Suchet as Poirot.  Just not that adaptation.

[Fool to cry]

I already knew the solution from the '78 DOTN so I just watched this one to see how they handled the love triangle drama. Jackie, the "bitter ex" is always enjoyable to me. The Bouc death was a surprise.

I never feel like going on a train after seeing an adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express but seeing any version of Death of the Nile always makes me want to go on a riverboat!

[BetterButter]

Kenneth Branagh to Return for New Hercule Poirot Film ‘A Haunting in Venice’ With Tina Fey, Jamie Dornan, Michelle Yeoh to Star

[Chyromaniac]

Given what the article says about the cast,

Spoiler

or perhaps who isn’t mentioned,

and Poirot’s circumstances- I wonder where this might fit into the continuity they’ve established.

[MissAlmond]

On 10/10/2022 at 6:39 PM, BetterButter said:

Kenneth Branagh to Return for New Hercule Poirot Film ‘A Haunting in Venice’ With Tina Fey, Jamie Dornan, Michelle Yeoh to Star

IMO, this is a smart move. However . . . 

On 10/11/2022 at 10:08 AM, Chyromaniac said:

I wonder where this might fit into the continuity they’ve established.

IF we're on the same page, I wonder about this too. I unexpectedly liked where they were going with Poirot in this latest DOTN and would be rather sad if it's just dropped.  

Edited October 12, 2022 by MissAlmond

[blackwing]

On 10/10/2022 at 6:39 PM, BetterButter said:

Kenneth Branagh to Return for New Hercule Poirot Film ‘A Haunting in Venice’ With Tina Fey, Jamie Dornan, Michelle Yeoh to Star

On 10/11/2022 at 10:08 AM, Chyromaniac said:

Given what the article says about the cast,

  Hide contents

or perhaps who isn’t mentioned,

and Poirot’s circumstances- I wonder where this might fit into the continuity they’ve established.

On 10/12/2022 at 7:35 AM, MissAlmond said:

IMO, this is a smart move. However . . . 

IF we're on the same page, I wonder about this too. I unexpectedly liked where they were going with Poirot in this latest DOTN and would be rather sad if it's just dropped.  

I liked the book Hallowe'en Party, I'm assuming since this movie is set in Venice that it's only a loose adaptation.  I assume that Ariadne Oliver will still feature, and it's likely that she is played by Tina Fey.  I'm all in for Jamie Dornan and Michelle Yeoh, two of my absolute favourite actors.  Jamie Dornan has great range, I'm glad to see that Branagh is reuniting him and Jude Hill together.  The luminiscent Michelle Yeoh is always fantastic in whatever she does.  I hope when this movie is released that they will be able to call her "Academy Award Nominee" (or maybe even Winner!) Michelle Yeoh on the promotional materials.

The synopsis says that Poirot is retired, so I'm assuming the continuity follows some time after the events of "Death on the Nile".  Maybe he got disillusioned.  Although I too am wondering if anything is going to be mentioned about the budding relationship that was developing at the end of that movie.

Edited October 19, 2022 by blackwing

[MissAlmond]

On 10/19/2022 at 4:15 PM, blackwing said:

I'm assuming since this movie is set in Venice that it's only a loose adaptation.

It has to be as Hallowe'en Party is set in an English village. My guess is Branagh wanted to skip remaking any previous Poirot movie adaptations while making changes to maintain a glamourous setting. 

[Sandman]

Oops. Wrong thread.

Edited January 23 by Sandman