Please know that if you have not read the book or seen any filmed version (especially the one from 2022), then there will be spoilers. You have been warned.
So, after listening to David Suchet narrate the audio edition of Death on the Nile, I decided to watch Peter Ustinov in the star-studded 1978 film. And that led me on a continuous boat ride down the Nile in 2004 and 2022. And, taking a little detour from book reviews, I'd like to share my thoughts on these three adaptations. [And, brother, do I have thoughts--especially on the most recent version. Hold on to your asps!] All three manage (to greater or lesser degrees) to remain faithful to aspects of the original novel] while all take liberties with the material in some way as well.
First up, the beautifully shot, beautifully cast 1978 film starring Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot. Does Ustinov look the least bit like my image of the Belgian detective? No. But he's the first Poirot I ever saw on film and I have a great fondness for him. He adds a quirky note to Poirot's self-importance that I find charming. The supporting cast is spectacular from Bette Davis and David Niven to Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, and Mia Farrow to Olivia Hussey and George Kennedy. Simon MacCorkindale and Lois Chiles may not have been as big a name draw for me at the time I first watched this, but I did think they did well in their parts.
David Niven is a smooth, debonair Colonel Race who is ever-ready for action as evidenced by his swift rescue when Poirot taps out an SOS on the communicating wall and Race comes running to stab a cobra before it can strike (one of the instances that stray from the original).
 |
| What are you doing here? |
One of my favorite (non-canonical) scenes is when Salome Otterborne leads Race onto the dance floor to dance the tango as it ought to be danced. Race just doesn't know what to do with her.
 |
| Shall we dance? Am I dancing? |
Speaking of Salome Otterborne...Angela Lansbury is spectacular as the oversexed, alcoholic author with grudge against the victim. Mia Farrow gives us an incredible performance as a woman scorned walking on a knife's edge of emotion. And then there is Mrs. Van Schuyler and Miss Bowers. The exchanges between Bette Davis and Maggie Smith are gold.
Mrs. Van Schuyler: How would a little trip down the Nile suit you?
Miss Bowers: There's nothing I would dislike more. There are two things in the world I can't abide: it's heat and heathens.
Mrs. Van Schuyler: Good. Then we'll go. Bowers, pack.
And at the end of the film...
Mrs. Van Schuyler: Come on, Bowers, time to go. This place is beginning to resemble a mortuary.
Miss Bowers: Thank God you'll be in one yourself before too long, you bloody old fossil!
Beyond the incredible cast, there is the amazing cinematography. They take advantage of angles that not only make for beautiful shots, but enhance the storyline. Shot on location, we get terrific footage of the sites along Nile as well as the river itself.
And what of the faithfulness to the original? Well, overall, the 1978 film is pretty faithful. We lose some of the passengers (the Allertons, mother & son; James Fanthorpe, and Guido Richetti) as well as Fleetwood, an engineer on the boat who just happened to be the maid Louise's ex-lover. Colonel Race is the one who is there on behalf of Linnett's British solicitors and interferes when Pennington tries to get her to sign papers without reading them. And the subplot of jewel thefts has gone by the wayside. We have Mrs. Van Schuyler the kleptomaniac doing all the stealing. The extra murders run according to schedule, though the discovery of the maid's body takes place a little differently (and takes place a little differently in all three films). And then there's Simon Doyle. Simon has way more bravado in the wrap-up scene then he is given credit for in Christie's original work. The confrontation with Doyle takes place off-stage, as it were, in the book and he immediately cracks. In the film's grand finale, Doyle tries very hard to brazen his way out and does well until Poirot threatens him with the fictional "Moulage test." No such bluff takes place in the book. But--given the needs that visual media have that the written word does not, this is a very faithful rendering of Christie's story.
Death on the Nile, Take Two!
 |
We couldn't get everyone in front of the camera at the same time.
|
In 2004 David Suchet takes his own little trip down the Nile. With a television budget, Poirot wasn't surrounded by near as many big name actors, but we do have David Soul of original Starsky & Hutch fame and we get to see Emily Blunt in role of chief victim, Linnett Ridgeway. And...having brought her up...can I just say that a: I don't see Linnett as a platinum blonde (perhaps because of the 1978 film) and b: Emily Blunt is not convincing as a platinum blonde. |
| Oh no! I put on the wrong wig. |
She looks like she's wearing an ill-fitting wig that belongs to somebody else. And she's a spoiled rich b---- to her core. In the 1978 film, Lois Chiles gives Linnett a bit of humanity at the beginning. She seems ready to help her friend Jackie until she actually sees Simon and decides she wants him and is going to have him. The scene in 2004 is cut to such an extent that I never got the sense that Linnett was very connected to Jackie. J.J. Feild does the boyish look of Simon very well, but I didn't feel like he got the character quite right during the period where he was supposed to be fed up with Jackie.
 |
| Aren't' I just so boyishly cute? |
The rest of cast are very good and this version retains more of the original characters. This Jackie isn't quite on the razor's edge of emotion that Mia Farrow's version walks, nor do I get the depth of emotion behind Emma Griffiths Malin's cry of "I shall die if I can't marry him" that I do from Mia. But the rest of her performance is quite strong. Among the other characters, I find myself very taken with this particular Dr. Bessner as well as Cornelia Robson and I like them as a couple (though I do feel a bit sorry when Mr. Ferguson gets pipped at the post by the good doctor). James Fox as Colonel Race here is a little more understated than Niven's version, but I can easily see him as the unobtrusive intelligence officer. The scene where he travels across the desert incognito to join Poirot is quite nice.
Once again the filming of the scenery and locations is superb. Beautiful shots and we get a real sense of the trip down the Nile. We also have a great deal of fidelity to the source material. We've kept most of the characters (Fleetwood, Louise's ex and James Fanthorpe, representative of Linnett's British law firm, still don't appear) and the jewel theft subplot is back in play. We even get the private breakdown of Doyle instead of the grand wrap-up scene with all the suspects as well as the exit of Doyle and Jackie as per the book rather than in the middle of Poirot's explanation in the lounge. Considering that this was made for television and does not have near the length of early film, it manages to keep the plotlines pretty much intact and even includes some of what was left out in 1978. A fine production.
Which brings us to the final trip down the Nile: In which Kenneth Branagh and company does whatever the heck they want with Poirot and all the other characters and even throws a bonus wrench into the production.
So....when Branagh took up the Poirot mantle in Orient Express, I decided I appreciated it for what it was and even appreciated the fact that it was fairly faithful to the original. Despite the fact that I thought that mustache was going to come off the screen and get me like some weird mutant growth in a 1950s B-movie sci-fi horror adventure. And the fact that Poirot is NOT an action hero. If today's audience wants a 1920s/30s action hero detective, then how about we dust off Sexton Blake or one of his friends that regularly got bashed over the head, tied up, gassed, and what-have-you but still managed to fight their way through to a victory at the end?!
Sorry, I digress. Anyway. About Branagh's Death on the Nile...those two quibbles are still there. The mustache doesn't seem quite as distracting, but it still is. And, again, Poirot is NOT an action hero. There is absolutely no need for the chase scene through the boat with killer shooting at him and dousing part of him with boiling water (which doesn't seem to phase him a bit). Seriously. Quit with heroics already. Now we'll approach the film in the same way as the others.
 |
| Isn't this the best honeymoon ever? I'm taking everybody who has a reason to hate me along. |
The cast. The cast is amazing from Gal Gadot as Linnett to Dawn French as Bowers. We've got Annette Bening and Armie Hammer and Tom Bateman and Jennifer Saunders. I'm sure that if I were up on more recent actors (spoiler alert--I'm not, not even a little bit) that all of these names and the names I haven't mentioned are bigger than I think. Taking the film as a film (and not thinking about it as an Agatha Christie story), the portrayals are terrific. I believe in these characters and who they're supposed to be. Well--mostly (we'll get to my quibbles when I talk about fidelity to the source). Not many complaints here. I am a little curious about that whole Marie Van Schuyler as Linnett's godmother business. It's so very contrived. In fact, making everybody "friendly" enough to deliberately take them on the whole honeymoon trip seems contrived. But then, Christie setting up practically everybody on the boat to have have motive and just happen to be on the same boat with them is a bit contrived as well....sigh.
So...the filming itself. The costumes are sumptuous. The scenery is beautiful (even if you can definitely tell when CGI gets used--honestly, the alligator jumping up to eat the birds?). And you still get the feeling that you've been on a boat ride down the Nile (even though you really weren't--obviously because you weren't there....but neither were they). And the plot is fine--if you don't care about fidelity to Christie's characters.
So, yeah, fidelity let's talk about tha---
 |
| Why aren't you on the train? |
Wait. What?! What the heck is Bouc doing in the middle of this story? And flying a kite for heaven's sake. And therein lies my first, biggest, I-just-can't-with-this-movie moment. MAJOR SPOILER coming!!! So...not only do we have Monsieur Bouc (who, by the way is much younger than I ever expected in these films) in the middle of a Christie plot where he does not belong! Not only that--we're going to make him be the jewel thief and lie his head off to his friend Poirot. Not only that--we're going to make him the one who sees the blackmailing maid get killed. Not only that--we're going to kill him right in front of Poirot. And that's on top of rearranging and merging characters. For instance the doctor is now also the lord that Linnett almost married and he's also kept some of Ferguson's characteristics. We've changed the whole Bowers/Van Schuyler dynamic. Bouc and his mother have taken on the Allertons' roles. We've completely changed Salome and Rosalie Otterborne's characters (and I'm not talking about diversifying them). Sure, Salome is a dynamic jazz singer. That's awesome. But she's not anything like the character as written--and neither is Rosalie. And let's just talk about Rosalie for minute and, yes, this is about the diversity thing.
So...at one point we learn that when spoiled, rich Linnett was a young girl, she objected to "colored people" swimming in the same pool as her. We're supposed to believe that with the upbringing that produced that spoiled, segregationist viewpoint that Linnett would go to a school which would actually allow "colored" girls in and (if they did) that Linnett would suddenly have made friends with Rosalie and "made it all right for the other girls to be friends too"???? Seriously? What version of rich, white America does Branagh and company think existed during that time period?
Back to Bouc....So, not only do we have that whole disturbing bit mentioned above. But Bouc's mother has hired Poirot to dig up the dirt on Rosalie and what Bouc's up to. Really? Poirot--the world's greatest detective (according to him) is doing background checks on potential brides now?
I come back to this--even more strongly in this second film. Agatha Christie did not write this Poirot. He's not a run-of-the-mill private eye who takes on divorce cases and trivial checks on potential girlfriends/boyfriends. He wouldn't stoop to that. He wouldn't do that to a friend. And, here's the point, Bouc is his friend. His mother isn't. Maybe (I stress maybe), Poirot would take on a case for a friend that he wouldn't normally touch. But not for the friend's mommy. And the presentation of his findings in this film? Ick. And, I say again, Christie did not write an action hero. She wrote a thinking man who uses his little grey cells. If you're going to film a story about that character, then by golly let's have that character. The way he was written. He doesn't need to be an action man and he doesn't need whatever angsty backstory you want to tack on to him. Christie's books have never been out of print. Apparently, people like her stories the way she wrote them. Call me a stick in the mud. But I'd like a bit more fidelity to what she envisioned. And if you want a quirky detective with great thought processes AND action hero abilities who has angst, then create that character and write some stories for him.
Climbing down off my soapbox now.
I enjoyed Branagh's Murder on the Orient Express for what it was. But I can't say the same for Death on the Nile. Too many changes. Too much fiddling with Poirot.
For a different take on the 2022 film. please check out Brad's review over at Ah Sweet Mystery! He's a lot more positive than me.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(mine).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
