Death On The Nile takes a criminally long time getting to the crime
Kenneth Branagh’s chintzy whodunit sequel is short on stars, extravagance, and fun
Image: Photo: 20th Century Studios Film Reviews Death On The Nile
The kindest backhanded compliment one could pay Kenneth Branagh’s lackluster new adaptation of Death On The Nile is that it throws a flattering light on the modest pleasures the actor-director wrung from a different Agatha Christie page-turner five years ago. Murder On The Orient Express was no masterclass in suspense, but there was charm in its aspirations to an archaic form of lavish, adult-targeted blockbuster—how it cast a gaggle of finely dressed movie stars as the leading suspects in a classic locked-room mystery.
Branagh secured nearly double the budget for this sequel, but you’d never guess it from what’s on screen. Death On The Nile feels chintzier in every respect, with a much lower-wattage cast of potential murderers and a digitally summoned exotic locale about as immersive as a screensaver. If a viewer didn’t know better, they might assume they were seeing the fourth or fifth entry in a sputtering franchise, not the direct follow-up to a global box-office hit.
After a number of release dates scuttled by the pandemic, Nile arrives just in time for… Valentine’s Day? The film’s actually not such an odd fit for the holiday, given the extent to which this latest case from the files of Hercule Poirot revolves around crimes of passion, and with an increased emphasis on the dating prospects (and tragic romantic history) of the great Belgian detective. The poor timing is more a matter of casting, a.k.a. the inconveniently prominent roles occupied by Armie Hammer and Letitia Wright, two actors now mired in controversy. Branagh, too, might be irked by the project’s belated emergence at this particular moment; the last thing he needs during awards season is a bloated disaster bobbing loudly into view.
Like the star-studded ’70s adaptation of Nile, his take is set primarily in 1937, the year Christie’s novel was published. Again, Poirot (Branagh, reprising the lead role of idiosyncratic shamus via mannered eccentricities and cartoon facial hair) finds his vacation interrupted by an invitation to ride in luxury, in this case aboard a large steamboat traversing the eponymous river. And once more, a murder is committed on his watch. (This guy stumbles into whodunits about as frequently as John McClane finds himself at the center of hostage situations; the second greatest detective in the world might inquire as to why bodies seem to turn up every time his name is on the manifest.)
The leisurely voyage down the Nile is the last leg on the honeymoon of wealthy socialite Linnet Ridgeway-Doyle (Gal Gadot) and her new husband, the dashing Simon Doyle (Hammer). The two have been doggedly pursued across Egypt by Simon’s former fiancee, Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), who he coldly left for Linnet six months earlier. Naturally, the jilted lover ends up aboard the boat, joining a passenger list of potential culprits, some from Christie’s novel and some not: Poirot’s playboy friend Bouc (a returning Tom Bateman); Bouc’s painter mother (Annette Bening); a whip-smart showbiz manager (Wright) with whom Bouc has become smitten; a tough, sultry jazz singer (Sophie Okonedo) who sends Poirot’s own wounded heart aflutter; an aristocrat-turned-communist (Jennifer Saunders) and her nurse (Dawn French); a lawyer (Ali Fazal); a doctor (Russell Brand); and a maid (Rose Leslie).
As in Murder, Branagh fails to establish a clear sense of space, neglecting the layout of his moving set in favor of a lot of restless flourishes. (The angles are as exaggerated as the accents.) At least in that film, he could exploit the compositional constrictions—and the claustrophobia—of a train’s tight passageways and small compartments. There’s nothing remotely convincing about his tour of Egypt. Much of Death On The Nile was shot in a giant tank on a soundstage, and it shows: The actors are unflatteringly overlit by the glow of Branagh’s artificial sun, while the ancient wonders are reduced to gimcrack illusions—a CGI mirage of pyramids, an almost styrofoam recreation of the Temple of Abu Simbel. The extravagance of Murder has been flattened into faux-epic tackiness, justifiable only for how it underscores the material’s implied critique of conspicuous consumption. What’s the point of shooting on 65mm if your grand vistas are this green-screen phony?
The real problem with the movie, though, is how damn long it makes us wait for the gumshoe stuff. Somewhere in the neighborhood of a full hour elapses before the first corpse is uncovered and Poirot gets down to deducing and accusing. What’s the hold up? First, we have to wade through a flashback to World War I—handsomely shot in black-and-white, like the much smaller movie the director made afterwards—that distractingly, digitally de-ages Branagh to throw some light on the roots of the detective’s hard-earned romantic cynicism, while offering an origin story of his mighty mustache. (As it turns out, he grew it for both practical and sentimental reasons.) After that, Death On The Nile simply takes its sweet time getting to the crime, with scenes of Gadot cosplaying as Cleopatra (her dry run to the future role she’s controversially nabbed) and intersecting romantic subplots for the sleuth and his young, excitable pal. The real mystery, a tagline might reasonably read, was love.
Branagh goes broad on both sides of the camera, leaning harder still into his conception of Poirot as a puckish cutup, even as he labors to deepen the caricature through all the moony romantic-comedy business on the margins of the investigation. Honestly, the movie could use more overacting; the ensemble is short on both heavyweights and hams. (Brand, ineffectually cast against type, delivers what has to be the least animated performance of his career.) Death On The Nile only really staggers to life in its home stretch, when returning screenwriter Michael Green starts stacking Christie’s clues and red herrings and convoluted explanations on top of each other. The climactic accusing-parlor sequence delivers the promised thrill, the reliable rush of puzzle pieces falling into place. But why does everything before it feel so tired, so drained of fun? That’s a mystery that might stump even the great Hercule Poirot.
219 Comments
“Death On The Nile takes a criminally long time getting to the crime”I don’t recommend reading Christie’s “Towards Zero” then.
Is this a Zeno’s paradox joke?
…the second greatest detective in the world might inquire as to why
bodies seem to turn up every time his name is on the manifest.This is also why I’m never visiting Cabot Cove
It’s Midsummer you need to avoid
Sometimes the Internet almost makes up for it’s existence…https://www.mylondon.news/whats-on/midsomer-murders-terrifying-murder-rate-20224143Radio 4 estimated the murder rate in the fictional county of Midsomer at
around 3.2 per 100,000 – more than 278 times the real rate in England
and Wales….In Murder, She Wrote, Jessica Fletcher’s sleepy home town of Cabot Cove
has a positively alarming rate of 149 murders per 100,000 residents.
Those stats can’t be right. I just looked up the homicide rate for England and Wales on a UK government website, and it says it’s 1.2 per 100,000 people. So 3.2 per 100,000 for Midsomer is higher than average, but not 278 times higher.
MyLondon botched their math somewhere it looks like; multiplied by a factor of 3, not 5:
Here’s the article:
There were 636 killings in England and Wales in 2010-11 – that equates to 0.0115 people per 100,000.Eng+Wales population in 2011 was 56,075,912So we cross multiply: 636 / 56075912 = X / 100000 —> 63600000/56075912 = 1.13Oops.
They’ve botched up the decimals somewhere. What they’re claiming is the number per 100k (.0115) was the number per thousand (for 2010-11) rising to 1.15 per 100k for that year.
Yep, not only all the initial murders to start the episode, but usually 2-3 additional ones per episode to boot. Who knew smaller towns in England could be so creatively violent.
it is well known the main hobbies in the english countryside are birding, adultery, and murder.
Yes! And oddly, precisely in that order.
One does not vary from the order laid down by Queen Victoria.
Well, both birding and adultery are well-established murder motives, so it tracks.
Meet-cute while birding leads to torrid affair. Partner finds out, murder ensues.
Yes, but that’s a Miss Marple mystery, Jamoche.
Hercule Poirot would never deign to lower himself that far….
Just ask The Royal Family.
also trainspotting.
It’s all that repression. One can only say, “Oh, how lovely” in response to dull bucolic anecdotes for so long before snapping and taking out a pub’s worth of innocent bystanders.
My wife watches that just about every goddamn day. The quaint little coffee shops run red with blood in that county.
Seriously. Did anyone ever tally the homicide rate in Cabot Cove? Or the average life expectancy, for that matter?
It would probably prove even higher than one might expect if the authorities were to dig up Jessica Fletcher’s cellar floor.
Please, Jessica Fletcher would never store bodies in her cellar. Plus, there’s very little to dispose of after she eats them.
Which is why Carol Baskin fed her husband to her!!
Is this a reference to her playing Mrs Lovett in the 1970’s Broadway version of Sweeney Todd?
Now it is! “Shepherds pie peppered with actual shepherd on top!”
Or the Cardiff of Torchwood.
Yes, but do time-traveling alien species really count…?
Also, never EVER vacation in Saint Marie!
What’s the opposite of a “Hollywood sweetheart”? Just curious what description to give about half of the cast
Chris Pratt?
“Cannibal / Antivax Dumbass / IDF Propagandist / Diet Joe Rogan”
I know three of those but who is the Diet Joe Rogan? Russel Brandt Maybe?
Yeah Brand has a popular podcast now where he’s “just asking questions” about “controversial ideas” that has devolved into a lot of COVID conspiracieshttps://www.thedailybeast.com/comedian-russell-brand-has-become-a-powerful-voice-for-anti-vaxxers
Oh yuck. I can’t stand the guy as an actor but now I dislike him as a person too. Fits well the rest of those people above
It’s a real “Who’s Who” of the “never want to be stuck in a room for more than an hour with” set.
Hollywood douchebag?
Russell Brand isn’t really “Hollywood”, he’s more “Pinewood”.
So it takes a while for Hammer to start chomping down on the rest of the cast? Lame. What’s even the point of casting a cannibal?
It’s not PC to call them cannibals anymore. You have to call them People Eating-Americans now.
They would prefer Masticators.
You have to call them People Eating-Americans
So are they people who eat Americans or Americans who eat people?
People who eat people are people too.
People don’t eat people, people eat people.
moreso, even.
Armie Hammer’s having some old friends for dinner – he’d love to invite you, but it’ll cost you an arm and a leg! Just don’t show up late, or he’ll give you the cold shoulder.
HAM HAWKS
The novel itself takes its own sweet time, with an excruciatingly poorly written prologue before everyone gets on the cruise. I can’t imagine why someone would want to slow things down further.
It’s an unusually clunky beginning for a Christie novel. You could essentially cover everything that happens in a few lines of dialogue (rich woman stole poor friend’s lover) and start the book with their honeymoon.
Yeah, it retroactively made me question my love for other Christie books, wondering if I had been remembering them more fondly than they deserved.
I have to admit that I have a soft spot for some of her meandering books that get a pasting, although the worst of those come near the end of her career (Elephants Can Remember is particularly haunting to read as she seems to use a version of herself to work through a lot of things).
I remember finding the Tommy and Tuppence books to be very snappy and enjoyed seeing them age up over the decades. When I eventually reread them, I hope they hold up.
The Tommy and Tuppence books were my favorite Christies – I know they are seen as poor by some, but I appreciate getting to see them age and you can feel her fondness for the characters (a fondness not there in some of the offputting later adaptations of them). Postern of Fate is a very odd book, and a sad one, but does have some lovely moments.
I quite like the bit where the girl who’s beloved by all and seen as a total sweetheart meets with a fatal temptation (her friend’s fiancé) that exposes her moral weakness. There’s something quite noir or Joseph Conrad about it.The rest of it is all pretty weak, particularly with the Americans (always a weakness of Christie’s). And Christ, you can work out the whole jewel thief subplot just from the prologue, as long as you manage to keep the names straight.
The plot is good, the execution of the prologue isn’t great.
Like you say, it’d be catnip to a hard-boiled detective writer. Christie doesn’t pull it off, IMO. (I did enjoy the rest of the novel, though.)
That pacing is 100% from the original novel, which has such an unusually convoluted backstory by Agatha Christie standards that the entire first half is spent just establishing how all the suspects are connected. The very good 1978 adaptation with Peter Ustinov also stays true to that structure.
The very good 1978 adaptation with Peter Ustinov also stays true to that structure. But it is entertaining. Mostly because Mia Farrow is brilliant as Jackie.
Also, the exteriors for the ‘78 adaptation were shot on location in Egypt, so it feels, you know, real.
The main reason why I despise movies being made today- lack of authenticity, and, by default, lack of effort. Taking the smoke and mirrors concept behind filmmaking to its most extreme, lowest common denominator. Will never watch this, as a first-hand witness to the snoozefest that was the Orient Express debacle.
But at least the novel has the excuse of having almost twice as many characters and subplots. I’d like to see what the movie’s excuse for the pacing is, other than “unnecessary Poirot love story”.
Yes, I remember finding that quite off-putting when I read the novel, though I ultimately enjoyed the book. By the time I watched the ‘78 movie, I didn’t see it as a detriment.
It even has a first chapter that is so excessively long that it is itself divided into chapters, just to set up why all the different people are on the boat!
I guess I have to ask – how does it compare to the David Suchet version?
Or Absaroka County, which somehow has more murders than the entire state of Wyoming, so it must be in some sort of wormhole or something.
I was under the impression Poirot’s presence was requested for this case at the end of the previous film (which I admittedly never saw).
Continuity in the Poirot Cinematic Universe is about par with 616 Marvel Comics Universe.
I’ve been assuming the case set up at the end of Orient Express gets resolved at the beginning of this movie, accounting for why he’s in Egypt for this to begin with.
It is (I’ve just finished watching this not-very-good movie) — his French friend from the first one says something like “So you solved the Egypt case!” a few minutes in. (That is, after the extremely-necessary prologue where we learn the vital information about why he has a mustache.) He then gets sort of roped into this movie’s actual plot.
Complaining, even jokingly, that a famous fictional detective sure does show up around murders a lot, was pretty dumb. Like, yes, that’s the premise: detectives get stories written about them where they solve crimes.
Yeah, but there’s a difference between stories where a murder happens and then a detective is assigned to a case versus stories where a murder just so happens when the detective is vacationing or whatever. That’s a really silly premise that I wish would stop, unless they are going to run with the detective as serial killer angle.
I mean, it’s a “silly premise” that’s been around for well over a century. It’s no sillier a trope than anything else we accept in a lot of popular fiction, like rom-com behavior actually being stalkery or action heroes being able to shrug off falling five stories or actually getting shot.
I like to think that all the “normal” (i.e., non-franchise, non-blockbuster) movies made by Hollywood also share a cinematic universe that operates on intractable laws of reality, such as pertinent information always appearing on a TV as soon as it’s turned on, human beings having no ability to sense when another person is extremely close by and overhearing their conversations, and women going into immediate, brief labour the second after their water breaks.
Okay, that’s — yeah, it’s a trope, but it a trope that mystery series wouldn’t survive without.A recent one is, “Wow, cops come across a lot of serial killers in their line of work!” The latest IN DEATH book which just came out has a serial killer in it — which Eve Dallas hasn’t faced in…four, maybe five books? She’s a New York City cop, not a FBI Agent in what used to be Behavioral Sciences.
Perhaps, but counterpoint: there is a reason Agatha Christie did not write Hercule Poirot Enjoys A Pleasant Cruise Down The Nile Where Nothing Bad Happens At All.
ScottyEnn — that’s the picture book version of Agatha Christie.
Well, sure, but complaining about it in an Agatha Christie story is kinda silly. Kinda like saying, “This Hamlet movie is dumb, half of these lines I’ve heard a hundred times. ‘To be or not to be’? Pfft, be original.”
“I am reminded of the particular incident where Holmes and I stayed in on a rainy day and read quietly to ourselves for several hours.”
Can we please retire “whip-smart”? As far as I can tell it just means “smart, yet somehow also female.”
I have never once thought of whip-smart (or smart as a whip) as meaning anything other than someone, regardless of gender, who is smart and gets things right away. Not sure where you’re getting your definition from.
Context (here and elsewhere).
I think you’re maybe reading into the context too much and / or selectively choosing which uses to remember. Google “whip smart AVClub” and you’ll see that the results that come up have them using it to describe male characters or celebs (Patton Oswalt came up for me), female characters or celebs, and even the writing or plotting of the TV show or movie as a whole. The word means what it means.
I can’t think of any concrete examples right this moment, but I feel like I’ve often seen it applied to children, usually to imply they’re smarter than you might expect for their age.
(also borrowing the vocal similarity to ‘whippersnapper’)
Oddly, I often hear “whip-smart” used as feminine, and “smart-as-a-whip” used for masculine. But I don’t think either is used as anything but a positive observation.
Liz Phair?
Projecting much? Wtf?!Maybe relax and find a REAL “thing” to be concerned about.I’m sure your opinion is needed on that Awkwafina article..
I never thought of it as a gendered term (and I’m old).
Brand playing a doctor with a restrained performance does sound like an idea that was misguided from the get-go. Why have him in your movie if you’re not going to let him be obnoxious?
Its like hiring Jack Black and not expecting singing and fat man dancing
Given how much I dislike Jack Black, Nilus?I think that’s a great idea!
I remember people complaining that Vince Vaughn always does the same schtick, but…..that’s what you would hire Vince Vaughn for?If someone has a thing that propelled them to success, it’s weird to want them to stop doing that thing.
Brand playing a doctor is a bad idea. Enough people are taking medical advice from him as it is.
This is the second time the AVClub has described this cast as “lower-wattage” than Murder on the Orient Express, and it doesn’t really make sense. I mean… maybe a little bit, but not to any meaningful extent that warrants mentioning every time the film is mentioned.I think what you mean is “I was personally more familiar with/a bigger fan of the actors in Orient Express.”
i think bar for bar the orient express has the cast with more movie stars in it.
There are a lot of wonderful, well known, actors who I love in that film, but by my reckoning the only true “Movie Star” was Johnny Depp. Likewise, this film is full of familiar faces, anchored by one “Movie Star” (Gadot). Personally, I’d bet that at the moment Gadot is a bigger audience draw than Depp.Of course, we can debate this all day, but my main point is that even if there is a difference in star-power it hardly seems so significant as to require mentioning in every article written about the film.
The first movie’s cast had Depp, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Michelle Pfeiffer, Josh Gad, and Daisy Ridley (then fresh off a lead role in The Force Awakens). What you define as a “star” is somewhat subjective, but I suspect the average person would recognize most of those names.Death on the Nile has Gadot and Anette Benning. People may recognize Hammer and Brand, but I think they’re more on the fame level of Josh Gad.
i think josh gad is arguably more famous than gal gadot haha.
If anyone is trying to say Dame Judi Dench isn’t a star of the highest order, they and I are going to have words.
i think if i were writing a review of this movie i would mention that the previous one had bigger stars in it, especially considering this one sounds like it has a bigger budget.it’s possible that he was trying to be predictive and go ‘i made an all-star cast before these up and comers became all-stars’, but he also made poor choices haha.
Implying that only Depp, in a cast with names like Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe and Michelle Pfeiffer, is a true “Movie Star” is quite the take, I’ll give you that.
The only one of those four who ever was a “Movie Star” is Pfeiffer, and that was 20 years ago. They are all amazing actors, and very familiar to anyone who cares at all about film. But they are not powering box-office hits. People are not lining up by the millions to see the next Willem Dafoe project on opening weekend.
i mean, his last movie was number one at the box office for like 8 weeks and he just hosted snl.he’s a big famous star! has been for decades!
Dafoe’s a well known character actor certainly. But to be a star you kind of have to be the main character in the film. Except for maybe “The Florida Project” Dafoe is always a side character, generally a villain.
what the hell are you talking about. edit: wait i get it. i said ‘movie stars’ but i meant ‘more famous cast members’. i guess if you want to get granular, sure willem dafoe isn’t ‘the lead’ in as many movies, but he’s a much bigger star than most of the supporting cast in dotn.so i suppose if you’re saying ‘these movies have equal amounts of leading men and leading ladies’…well whatever, i don’t necessarily think i agree but i can squint and see the point.i just think that, pound for pound, the orient express had a cast full of more famous people than death on the nyle. phew.
So was Boris Karloff, Frank Walker Barr — are you saying he wasn’t a star?
Cruz is absolutely an A lister
Willem Dafoe is defintely more of a character actor than a star
Implying that only Depp, in a cast with names like Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe and Michelle Pfeiffer, is a true “Movie Star” is quite the take, I’ll give you that.Is this meant to be ironic or something? Since Depp has 40 films as leading man, $8.2 billion global box office, #9 international box office earner, #12 US box office earner etc… Even if you’re saying he lacks the acting ability to be considered a true star… doesn’t Depp’s collapse into is-he-just-drunk-or-did-he-just-do-a-sex-crime seediness make up for that? True star quality, right there, come on.
Agreed. I mean Gadot is one of the biggest stars on the planet.
You could argue that at the time of the filming and initial planned release, Armie Hammer was also a star whose career was heating up and could draw an audience even more so than Depp. And then, things happened that I’ll decline to feast on.
I could dine out on that pun, Son of Spam.
I have no beef with the idea that Gal Gadot should be called a movie star, but it does remain to be seen if she is any kind of a box office draw when not playing Wonder Woman.
One movie star Gadot? Gedt out of here.
As a middle-aged Scotsman who grew up watching their comedy, I am unexpectedly excited at the thought of French & Saunders being reunited on the big screen. Low wattage? Pish!
Came here to say that (not the Scotsman part… ). French and Saunders FTW!!
That was my unexpected thrill while reading this, too. FRENCH & SAUNDERS ARE IN THIS?!?
Not as star-studded as (slightly tighter) the 1978 version, which in addition to Peter Ustinov as Poirot had Bette Davis, Maggie Smith, Mia Farrow, Jane Birkin, Angela Lansbury, David Niven, Olivia Hussey, Jack Warden, and George Kennedy.
1970’s Murder on the Orient Express was full of stars. Look at the trailer, I don’t think I’ve seen the movie since the early 80’s but man did they love to have star studded movies in the 70s.
Evil Under the Sun was another star-studded Poirot movie with Peter Ustinov. My main issue with it was that Diana Rigg played the murder victim & after that the movie did not have Diana Rigg in it anymore, vamping it up as a bitchy actress
At least we got the fantastic (semi) duet with Maggie Smith. Bitchiness has never looked so good.
Maggie Smith & Diana Rigg together, just incredible, almost too amazing
And Roddy McDowall managed to be bitchier than both of them. I really do need to watch that again.
I own a digital copy just so I can watch it whenever the mood strikes. Tried to buy a digital copy of 1978 Death on the Nile, but you can’t get one. Settled for the dvd. Still worth.
Britbox has it, but not Death on the Nile. There must be some rights issue holding it up.
There has to be a rights issue. Amazon Prime also has Evil Under the Sun but not DOTN in digital.
Found out last night that DOTN is on Criterion Channel. I will be watching today.
That’s cool. Idk why but I just never think of the Criterion Channel.
It’s funny how we haven’t been able to have (Knives out was great) Movies with star studded casts in a one shot plot that are great in a long time. I’m spoiled because (while not everyone loves it) I watched it’s a mad mad mad mad world like once every year from 1979-early 90s. I know it’s a different twist but movies like that always made me happy.Well that and the towering Inferno which they showed every year on NBC.
Whenever I think of Diana Rigg, I think of that episode of ‘Extras’ featuring her and Daniel Radcliffe (playing a sex-obsessed version of himself), who sidles up to her at the end and says, “Dame Diana, do you still have that catsuit?”
Prestige film with the kind of location shooting that’s more vacation than slog, it’s an easy sell to a big star.Remake on a green screen? No thanks.If the Suchet Poirot series had landed French & Saunders, it would be a major coup. Fun as they are together, they’re not who you think of for prestige films.
Yeah, Jamoche — I wonder WTF Branagh was thinking, shooting Death on the Nile in green screen.I thought the movie had finished shooting pre-COVID, though I admit time has become a blur since March 2020.
Nor as much as the 74 version of Orient Express, which had Bacall, Bergman, Connery, John Gielgud, Vanessa Redgrave, and, um, Michael York. But I digress.
Yeah, but Ustinov was a worse Poirot than Tom Cruise was a Jack Reacher, Evil Lincoln! It would be like, “I’m doing Sherlock Holmes and I want Vincent D’Onfrio to star, with —”
Actually, I can’t think of anybody who’d be a worse Dr. Watson than D’Onfrio would be a Holmes. OTOH, D’Onfrio is both physically and able to play the genius of a great Nero Wolfe, if he can internalize his energy and act by largely sitting in a chair and being princely.
Jesus what a murderers row of actors!
nope, it has fewer stars and they’re smaller names = lower-wattage. That’s not difficult compared to “Orient Express” which can be accurately described as “an all-star cast but also Josh Gad.” Just comparing the posters leads to the conclusion: lower wattage (I haven’t even heard of three or four of the people on the DOTN poster). I don’t know what Branagh’s efforts were this time, but he didn’t get Lupita Nyongo, he got Letitia Wright, he didn’t get I don’t know Benedict Cumberbatch to be the doctor, he got Russell Brand, who I didn’t even know was still doing movies I thought he was trying to become Joe Rogan. He didn’t get Brad Pitt, he got Armie Hammer, who has had a considerable number of clunkers even before he was outed as a cannibal fetishist. Heck the IMDB page for DOTN isn’t even organized into who is the lead cast. All signs point to that Branagh didn’t get the cast he wanted, something happened with regard to the budget that resulted in the money not winding up on screen, and generally this is a turkey that’s being buried in the dead of winter (as opposed to the original which was a November release).
Yeah… a lot of you are confusing “acclaim” with “stardom.”
short on acclaim as well! I mean…she hadn’t done The Favourite yet, but Olivia Colman wasn’t even a name on the poster! It was english-language Penelope Cruz (like seeing Robert Goulet in a non-musical), but still!
Yes, and if the argument AV Club kept bringing up was that this movie has a much less critically acclaimed cast, I’d be fully on board. But the specific phrase they keep using is “lower-wattage.”
ergo “as well”You are objectively wrong if you think the people in DOTN are even close to being as big of stars as the many many stars in Orient Express. For example, I love Annette Bening but Michelle Pfeiffer is the bigger star.
Genuinely appreciate your claim to be in possession of the “objective” truth as to who counts as a movie star. It’s ridiculous, but it keeps the comments section going!
Before her acclaimed and Oscar-winning role in The Favorite, Olivia Coleman was largely known as David Tennant’s flatfoot partner in the BROADCHURCH series, ANathanofFillions.
Russell Brand, who I didn’t even know was still doing movies I thought he was trying to become Joe Rogan.
lol are you high?Express: Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Derek Jacobi, Michelle Pfeiffer, Olivia Colman…Nile: Annette Benning, Gal Gadot, Armie Hammer, Russel Brand(?)
Yes, there’s always an absolute fever-pitched mass hysteria whenever a new Derek Jacobi joint hits the cinemas!
lol. i’ll give you that!
Plus, Armie Hammer, is uh, well, you know…
Yes, I do not get that criticism either..Gadot is probably one of the biggest actresses around now
Depp, Willem Dafoe, Penelope Cruz, Dame Judi Dench, Leslie Odom, Daisy Ridley (with star wars ongoing), Josh Gad and Michelle Pfeiffer.That does seem to be a wholly level above in terms of casting to this movie. So no, I don’t think they meant “I was personally more familiar with/a bigger fan of the actors in Orient Express.”
Murder on the Orient Express:Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer (that white gold), Judi Dench, Willem Dafoe, Penelope Cruz, and Olivia Colman are just the academy award nominated members of the cast + Daisy Ridley at the height of Star Wars.Death on the Nile has Annette Benning + people who have spent the pandemic ruining their careers – Armie Hammer, Gal Gadot, Russell Brand, and Letita Wright.
North Americans, again, deciding in a British film what is a star and what not while not knowing the actors here, because of course if they do not know the actors they are not famous. And the 70s version is seen as full of stars now. When it was released probably the same guys here would thought that it was full of mediocre players.
To be fair, Risingson Carlos, the U.S. does have the world’s biggest film industry in terms of global reach.
Bollywood may have overtaken us in sheer number of movies, but outside of the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia and to a lesser extent Indian enclaves in the U.K., Australia, and Canada, they’re largely unknown to general audiences.
I suspect because of the way that streaming services diffuse entertainment, almost everything from here-on-out that is supposed to be ‘star driven’ is going to feel lower wattage than it did in the 80’s, 90’s, and 00’s. Stars in generally are simply becoming less ‘big’ than they were in the past.
I’m gonna miss you most of all, Dowd.
Of the doldrum-release movies, I think it is fair to say that Jackass was intentionally released at this time of year as counterprogramming to how bored and cold everyone is right now; this is a turkey that has been buried at the time when turkeys are traditionally buried; and Moonfall I can’t tell. The question for me is did Branagh intentionally cast some of these people because they are arguably problematic (see: Johnny Depp in Orient Express)? In any case, even if the movie stinks I am glad Sophie Okonedo is still getting regular work, she has been so friggin good lately (Flack, her short turn in Wheel of Time)
Branagh: “Ok, for the third Poirot movie, Mystery at the Regatta, I want Kevin Spacey, Chrissy Teigen, Ellen DeGeneres, Louis CK, Casey Affleck, Aziz Ansari, and Jeffrey Tambor. On the soundtrack, I’m thinking edgy – I want an R Kelly/Marylin Manson collab.And can we get Weinstein to produce?”
And introducing Kanye West as The Beaver
And introducing Kanye West as The Beaver
Mel Gibson is the Beaver.
Really? Did Mel Gibson get canceled again?
“Wow, this is a big movie to do on my own. Maybe I could co-direct with Bryan Singer?”
And Queen Liz in Doctor Who. Basically, she rules.
(just don’t mention her having hands for feet in Aeon Flux)
This was filmed in 2019, well before the cannibal business.
I don’t think you’re right, ANathanofFillions, but that is pretty good!
After that, Death On The Nile simply takes its sweet time getting to the crime, with scenes of Gadot cosplaying as Cleopatra (her dry run to the future role she’s controversially nabbed) and intersecting romantic subplots for the sleuth and his young, excitable pal.So I assume the controversy is due to the fact that Gadot isn’t ethnically Greek like Cleopatra was?
i think it has more to do with the fact that she’s dogshit at acting.
From what I’ve seen its people complaining that they cast a white lady. Then when you point out that Cleopatra was Greek and not Arabic or black they treat you like you’re the ass hole and a bad liberal.
And everyone gets mad when you point out she was also really fucking inbred
How else are you supposed to fit your family tree on one scroll, if you don’t keep marrying siblings for generations?
When you reduce a family tree to a family bush, you just can’t hide as much beneath it.
In the case of the Ptolemys, it was more of a family telephone pole.
As were most royals. And even to a degree today. Prince Philip was Elizabeth’s third cousin as well as her second cousin once removed. Which may explain some of the issues with Charles and Andrew.
Prince Philip was Elizabeth’s third cousin as well as her second cousin once removed. And also Greek like Cleopatra! But Danish Greek, not Macedonian Greek. But is the cousin thing really inbreeeding? Because there’s inbreeding (your third cousin) and then there’s inbreeding (your little brother who is such a little shit you leave him off the coins and official documents AS A PRANK but next thing you know there’s war, and the library is burned, and you have this Italian lover who is just so much drama all the time and…)
In fact, Egypt at the time was known as the inbredbasket of the Roman Empire.
Triohead:
Yes — at least Gadot looks more convincing as a Greek in Egypt than Liz Taylor did.Though I worry given there has yet to be a successful movie made about Cleopatra.
I don’t know if Gadot can act so her as Cleopatra isn’t good.
How is Gal Godot’s acting? LOLOLOL JK we all know it’s shit.
“EENOOOF CHAMPOUGNN TO FEEL DE NIYULL!”
“I KEEELED HIM FOR THE STOOOOONE”I am so confused by how someone watched the dailies for Wonder Woman 2 and heard Gadot say the word “stone” in such a weird odd way over and over and didn’t think “Maybe she can call it a gem or something instead”
who cares she’s so pretty
I’m gonna differ from the consensus here and say I don’t think Gadot is especially *bad*, but I’ve also never really seen a moment where she adds to the performance. She’s… there. Like yeah her readings in WW84 are cheesy because that film is cheesy in general (to the extent that it almost works), but Kristen Wiig and Pedro Pascal actually work to make their part of the cheese entertaining and Gadot doesn’t.
My point of comparison for her historically is Arnold Schwarzenegger but I honestly believe he had way more screen presence and charisma than her.
I think Gadot is limited but not actually bad, Evan Waters. She has exactly the presence and teasing charm you need for Wonder Woman, same as Lynda Carter did (and still does, as per WW84!).
Is it just me, or do other people want to see Gadot and Carter team up in the next Wonder Woman movie?
Kal-el no.
I sort of glad to see this comment. I enjoyed Gal Godot’s performance in the first Wonder Woman film but in all other films she has been less than mediocre and I thought it was just me who thought that.
Her whatever accent is better than Rose Leslie’s stilted French, and she’s more dynamic than Lois Chiles.
I refuse to believe Maeve can’t get over a guy.
Ah, Emma Mackey, currently sitting second in the Margot Robbie Line of Succession. If anything happens to Samara Weaving (god forbid), Mackey will be just one heartbeat away from the top spot.
Meanwhile poor Jaime Pressly is wasting away in exile following Robbie’s coup and usurpation of the tile of Most Famous Person who Looks Like That.
She’ll always have ‘My Name is Earl’. No one can take that away from her.
Emma Mackey and Rose Leslie????! I need to see this!
Review: It’s really bad.
Damn it all to hell.
If it makes you feel any better, I’ve seen a lot of positive reviews as well.
So have I — INDIEWIRE’s David Ehrlich, who is if possible an even bigger pretentious asshole than A.A. Dowd, really liked it a lot.
I liked it – a lot. The CGI early on with the pyramids was laughably bad, but from that point on was perfectly adequate. Branagh looked like he’d settled on how to play Poirot after an unconvincing performance in Orient Express. Even knowing the gist of the plot, it was an enjoyable trip to the cinema.
I’m sorry, whenever I see Gal Gadot, I think of three things, one of which is:“Kal El, no!”
In fairness, I have completely forgotten what the context for that line was and I don’t know what a proper reading of that line would be. Like I’ve seen a side by side of her reading from the Snyder cut and the Whedon reshoot and like, it’s different but I’m not sure how.
I’ll always prefer the David Suchet version, with a pre-fame Emily Blunt as Linnet.
Sorry Ken, Suchet is Poirot. Il est sans pareil.
Oui.
i prefer james coco, myself. he’s not a frenchie, he’s a belgie!
Oh, and Knives Out 2 is also going to be on a ship!Benoit Blanc is coming for Branagh…
Craig is already doing the Bruce Willis pout? Hope he doesn’t follow Bruno’s career trajectory that early…
acting in anything as long as he gets an earpiece to feed him his lines? Would’ve added a nice post-modern edge to the Bond movies if he was checked out throughout.
Hopefully not shot all on green screen.
I’ll tell you what, I really enjoyed Branagh’s 90s murder mystery, Hamlet.
A classic ‘Who Dane It’.Also: “Fresh Horses!”
Not a single one of these can match the ludicrous insanity of Branagh’s 90s murder classic, Dead Again…
i remember that one!
Intelligent creature that I am, I bought tickets to see it opening night (without having seen a single preview) thinking eh, it’ll be a not-great but still fun mystery movie. I was ignorant about most of the cast and am extremely not excited about it now. Well, at least I’ll have plenty of cocktails to keep me company while I try to pretend Armie Hammer and Gal Gadot are different people.
I think Kevin Branagh lives in his own universe of what movies should get made and what he can play and it just doesn’t have anything to do with our universe.
He’s the English version of Kevin Smith.
Nice!!! This is the kind of movie that deserves more attention! Meanwhile you don’t even acknowledge so many cool new releases. This site is boomer trash.
Like what?
Since they are using the term boomer trash I am guessing they really want that Clifford or Sing 2 review.
Wait Armie Hammer is in this? Okay, I know who did it.
So when the hell is someone going to make me the Nero Wolfe movie I’ve been waiting for, huh?
We got a two-year series shot on almost no budget, starring a miscast Maury Chaykin and a hammy Timothy Hutton — what else do you want?
What’s problematic of a man who checked himself into rehab for addiction (with the support of his wife”.
The person in the film did bad things and now he’s getting help for it.
We used to say “I hope that ____ gets the help he needs” but now we just want to freeze them at the moment in time in which they did the bad and cancel them for it. No thank you, I say
Gal Gadot is so deeply uninteresting. Swap her role with Dawn French, stick Gal in the background trying to squeeze into the shot!
Seems like if Gal Gadot is standing there in a great dress, you could at least give the movie a solid C.