Absalom1991 The change in production team and "vision" for the Poirot series achieved its most sterile and calculating ebb with "Death on the Nile." Once again, they worked very hard to create a little movie for people who never read Christie, wouldn't read Christie, wouldn't want to read Christie, and who lacked the stamina, education and taste to read Christie (who wrote, remember, for a very broad readership at the time - such is the ongoing trend from literacy now).What does that mean? Vapid performances, inept posing, contemporary mean-girl characters masquerading in costume, invocations of sex with lady-candles set to ignite the bedroom, drugs and dumbed-down scripts so that the venality of the actresses can match the vacancy of the target audience.On the Nile, I would have been satisfied to have seen Michele Buck, Delia Fine, Leila Kirkpatrick and Margaret Mitchell, Fiona McGuire and Kate Stannard - notice a trend? - served feet-first to the crocodiles. This production team took an ample budget and the talents of Suchet and de la Tour and spritzed stinky cologne at us as we tried to get by them, just as cosmetic sales staff do at department stores.Pfui.

bob the moo Wealthy British heiress Linnet Ridgeway and new husband Simon Doyle are on their honeymoon in Egypt, but unable to relax as Simon's former partner Jackie De Bellefort seems to be following them everywhere to bother and berate them. Of course one could see reason for Jackie's spite since only 3 months ago she introduced her beloved Simon to her best friend Linnet, only for the two to chuck her and fall for one another. Also holidaying on the same cruise up the Nile is Hercule Poirot, who sees the danger in the spiteful path of Jackie and, in response to a plea for help from Linnet, attempts to defuse the situation.Although I am reasonably sure I have seen the 1970's film version of this same story, I cannot remember it well as it has been many years – and for sure I did not remember the details of the murder or the solution. I say this because I think this version maybe gave too many clues and winks early on about the possible victim and who would be involved; and as much as I would like to suggest I worked it out from the clues along the way – my correct assumptions about the solutions were mostly based on some rather obvious material in the first third. Particularly the setting up of the characters early on was clear what roles they would take in the mystery – however it was the specific stating of the crime to Poirot, and the "is someone listening" moment that seemed too clumsily done; in theory it should have put Jackie in the "suspect" seat in a very heavy way that then makes Poirot know it was not her, but the manner in which these moments are done here actually did the opposite for me.Related to this, although we had lots of potential suspects and clues around the Nile cruise, I never really felt too much sense of tension and urgency around the resolution. This is not really the fault of the material but more the delivery, since the tone does lack a sense of curiosity and intrigue – or at least lacks it at a level I would have hoped for. Maybe this was just me though, because I did always feel that through the other suspects, it was too apparent that we were avoiding looking closer at what seemed obvious. Aside from this aspect of the production lacking, the rest looks very good. The feeling of location is well conveyed, and it does feel quite lavishly produced. This is added to by the casting; Suchet of course is good in the lead, but the support is good and recognizable with Fox, Soul, de la Tour, Blunt, Malin, Donovan, and others all giving roundly good performances – although I thought that the mystery would have benefited from Blunt playing Linnet to be harsher and less sympathetic than she did.As a production it is a solidly enjoyable one, but for me it was one rather dented by the fact that the early clues seemed too signposted, while the others were delivered with relatively little intrigue or tension. It still plays out well, but this aspect, plus the lack of real bite in the delivery did make it feel like maybe it could have been more than it was.

Iain-215 This is one of the few Suchet Poirot's to have some competition as an all star, big budget movie was made of 'Death On The Nile' some years ago with Peter Ustinov. This earlier film was one of the first screen adaptations of a Christie novel I ever saw and I retain a real affection for it. Perhaps its not surprising then that the first time I watched this new version I was really disappointed. I re watched it again very recently and enjoyed it much more.POSSIBLE SMALL SPOILERS BELOW The style is very different from the earlier movie of course and once you tune into that you can enjoy it in its own right. Suchet is wonderful as always and plays the knowing humour in this version of Poirot very well. There is a generally excellent supporting cast (applause especially for Frances de la Tour, Alistair McKenzie and Daisy Donovan) but (and its a big but) the crucial central trio of Linnet, Jackie and Simon were a big let down for me. We all see things differently of course but I found the performances here quite wooden and unmoving. It was only in the very final flashback scene to happier times in Jackie's flat that I felt anything at all for the lovers.There were one or two other strange things no doubt due to time constraints - for example, where did the relationship between Tim Allerton and Rosalie Otterbourne come from? Did we ever actually so much as see them together before that deck scene just at the end? It made Rosalie's decision to lie for him quite incomprehensible.On the whole though, this was pretty good but not as good (in my opinion) as the earlier film which is a much grander affair all round and nails that important central trio right on the head.

notmicro Its not terrible, but something's wrong with this ambitious production - probably more than one thing - but I can't put my finger on it. They seem to be trying for a number of things that never quite work. Its technically well-done, but seems peculiarly lifeless, and the perfectly competent actors come off in a rather cardboard way. I suspect that it was "filmed" using hi-def digital video, and there's something about this new process that's tricky to get right when the subject is a period-piece, or something moody, because you can get hyper-realism that works against the story. This needs a slightly dreamy, gauzy, stylized quality that isn't there. It reminds me of Marlene Dietrich's comment about the transition from black-and-white to color film, that "the mystery is gone".