Death on the Nile (2004)

Just perfect...

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Jacqueline De Bellefort introduces her fiance Simon Doyle to her friend, a wealthy heiress Linnet Ridgeway.A few months later Simon and Linnet are married and honeymooning in Egypt. Jacqueline stalks them, threatens them and Linnet ends up dead just after Jacqueline is seen shooting Simon on his leg.Poirot also happens to be on vacation. Although Jacqueline is the main suspect there are others in the trip that might have had a motive to kill Linnet, especially people who lost a fortune after the stock market crash.I have said in the past that the later Poirot's had decline in quality of the art production, it is very good here but the humour is still lacking. The biggest issue was that too many clues were laid which got my little grey cells ticking so I managed to work out parts of the plot before Poirot.It is an enjoyable enough mystery, it moves along at a fast pace but the characters did appear to be rather one dimensional.

Pithy plot summary: It's Agatha Christie, which means that someone is murdered in an elaborate manner and it's up to Poirot to find the killer. Oh, and it takes place on a boat on the Nile.As hard as I try, every time I watch the 2004 version of Death on the Nile, I can't do it without comparing it to the 1978 version. It's impossible. And the newer film, in my opinion, doesn't measure-up. While there are a number of things I could write about, there are two main areas where the newer Death on the Nile pales in comparison. Acting – with two exceptions, the actors in this film are not the world-class actors in the 1978 movie. Don't get me wrong, the actors here are fine – there aren't any poor performances. But they're not Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, David Niven, or Jane Birkin. The two exceptions I mentioned are David Suchet and David Soul. As much as I like the 1978 movie, Peter Ustinov never really feels like Poirot. And, as much as I love George Kennedy, Soul is a better fit in the role.Tone – the newer film has a much darker, brooding feel to it that the earlier movie. As a result the newer movie's just not as much fun or enjoyable. This really hurts the 2004 production. The 1978 movie actually has quite a bit of comedy in it, but not enough to take away from the serious nature of the subject matter. Even other episode in the Agatha Christie's Poirot series have a lighter touch to them that would have worked much better here. That's not to say it's a bad movie, there's really a lot here to like. I've already mentioned the two Davids – Suchet and Soul. There's also some incredibly beautiful cinematography, nice costuming, and interesting locations. It's also as faithful to the significant plot points found in Christie's book as the earlier movie. On the whole, the good and bad just about negate each other and I rate it a 5/10.

Give these 2004 filmmakers credit. The 1978 version released to theaters, coming on the heels of the acclaimed 1974 feature film, is perhaps second to its predecessor in familiarity to the public for Hercule Poirot movies. With the film's fancy location shooting, another all-star guest cast, and the first of Peter Ustinov's portly performances as Poirot, some viewers might not have been interested in a remake.But this is a David Suchet series remake we're talking about -- and besides, the Ustinov version wasn't that good anyway. Actually, it was good for camp more than anything. You had (1) tacky violence (a stabbing from the book replaced with an on-screen throat-cutting); (2) Mia Farrow playing a woman whose jerk lover spurns her for another young woman, a role she'd play later in real life; (3) a cartoonish Egyptian official who is inexplicably mentioned as a suspect at the climax; and (4) the repeated device of Poirot magically appearing in scenes of private conversations, having eavesdropped on them. As I remember it, my favorite was when some suspects are talking secretively in the lounge, and Poirot suddenly pops up from behind the bar and makes a catty remark -- evidently he just happened to be inspecting the cleaning supplies under the counter or something when the characters walked in. But nothing beat (5) the Egyptian band whose stringed instruments somehow correspond to the brass on the audio.So we are fortunate that this Suchet version was made, and done so with high quality; it is one of A&E's better Poirot offerings. As usual, readers can consider the mystery and the neat floorplan of the boat more leisurely than filmviewers, especially with the running time kept to 97 minutes and a fast treatment of clues. But while I haven't read the text in years, I think this Suchet movie presents one of Agatha Christie's most famous and clever mysteries in an appealing way that is mostly respectful of the story.It doesn't take as many cheap paths as some episodes, though it does get tacky with a voyeuristic opening scene peering into Simon and Jacqueline's bedroom, and Dr. Bessner's bawdy talk about Egyptian gods. Salome Otterbourne's saltiness is accurate to the book, though.But there's quality in the impressive photography and location shooting, quite glamorous for a TV movie or series. Good use of artistic flashbacks, too. Series veteran Christopher Gunning composed the music; unfortunately like in other recent episodes it's mostly mellow and there's a mysterious lack of the old signature saxophone theme. In one misstep, the flashback to a stabbing occurs with the shrieking strings from "Psycho" in the background. Elsewhere, the period jazz tunes were a nice touch.The show maintains some humor, too -- such as Suchet dancing! The humor comes across well thanks to the able acting. Since it mostly consisted of young actors I'm not familiar with, lesser-known veterans, and the star of the 1970s show "Starsky and Hutch", I initially wasn't sure what to expect of the cast. What a great surprise then about how uniformly good everyone was.The casting and strong characterization of Tim Allerton was a delight. Daniel Lapaine's Tim is a mustachioed, messy-haired, pudgy twit whose mama's boy habits and occasional monacle-and-scarf getup make the contrast of his thievery gig all the more amusing and silly. How strange, then, that screenwriter Kevin Elyot changes his decision in the book to marry Rosalie Otterbourne, in one of Elyot's few major divergences from the original. Elyot has Tim show no interest in her after she kisses him, and he runs away to his mother. Too bad, since their union in the book was a poignant subplot.Ferguson's role has expanded, and Alastair Mackenzie expertly makes him both charming and offensive. At the end, I found myself hoping he'd mend his ways and find some future happiness. Daisy Donovan hits the right note as the awkward but kind Cornelia Robson, as do David Soul as the gruff, goateed, and golf-obsessed lawyer Andrew Pennington and Frances de la Tour as the loopy Salome (interestingly, she reminded me of Diana Rigg).Emma Malin is just like how I pictured Jacqueline De Bellefort while reading, except I thought Jackie was an American Southerner in the book. Here, she's played as a Brit. Having a Southern-accented character would have been appealing, and a rare opportunity for the series.After I saw this show I learned that Mrs. Van Schuyler was played by Judy Parfitt, whom I saw in some Avengers episodes and in an intense performance as the icy Vera Donavan in "Dolores Claiborne". As in those shows, Parfitt does well here.As Colonel Race, James Fox doesn't have much to do, but he does it well, e.g. his facial expressions of mock sympathy when he tries to act diplomatically with Van Schuyler and her haughty complaints about the ruining of a scarf that some Count gave her. His entrance, in which he dismounts from a camel and whips off his riding robe to reveal a prim double-breasted suit, is classic.This version has an interesting interpretation of Rosalie emphasizing her hardness, which wasn't so in the book I think and not in Olivia Hussey's shy rose portrayal in 1978. Also, whereas Maggie Smith played a masculine Nurse Bowers in that one, here Rosalie is the butch one.More flawed was the way Bessner was written. His Teutonic mustache and shaved head were unique, but he was unusually peevish (especially with Race, whom he twice confronts nose-to-nose) and also lecherous. His marriage to Cornelia comes out of nowhere, but so it was in the book too.

I Love Death On The Nile! I have read the book loads of times and I still love it. The David Suchet version is very glamorous and exotic and this is what i love about it. All the characters have there own personal stories and likings about them. The setting is beautiful and so are the characters. Emily Blunt is fabulous as Linner Doyle and so is the actress who plays Jaqueline De Bellefort. Every time I watch it, I always forget who the killer is, that is how effective it is! And the twist at the end! WOW! I never see that coming even though i watch it all the time! The book is great as well and the film is very true to the book which is a good thing! I definitely recommend this to anyone who likes Poirot!