Death on the Nile - Film

I'll watch it now its on Disney+ but really without Angela Lansbury what is the point!

Better than I expected but I still prefer the other version…

I stopped watching anything with Superman in it when I discovered he doesn’t actually fly, and it’s all done with special effects! Can’t be doing with all this movie fakery!!

The cgi has been coming in for a fair bit of criticism, quite fairly tbh. It really was spectacularly bad at times

uproxx.com/viral/death-on-the-nile-cgi-backgrounds-twitter-reactions/

Every scene in a car where the moving background is added, or every huge crowd scene where CGI people are added, would be perfectly possible without “faking it”. But these are movies, they are inherently “fake”, they aren’t documentaries. I really don’t see the issue.

The CGI wasn't great, but the boat was. A half and half approach would have been better.

Overall it was an enjoyable enough watch, but share the sentiment that I could have done without Branagh padding his part. I'd rather the time was used to get to know some of the suspects a bit better.

My main criticism was that I just don't see Arnie Hammer's character as attractive or interesting enough to be the subject of obsession of not one, but two very attractive and seemingly bright women.

Have to agree with some of the above. One thing that puzzles me: why does the spurned lover follow them around etc. surely if they had planned to bump off the heiress then they could have waited til they had settled into their country estate and she could have choked on a bone, fell off a cliff, had accident rising, been cut with a kitchen appliance etc etc. I’m just not into the plot. And the Suchet makes it much clearer how it was done. The paint thing doesn’t wash ( see what I did there?) In the Suchet we have nail polish, referred to in this one, pointlessly.

The CGI bit I liked was the CGI-enhanced Young Branagh at the start, I remember that's what he actually looked like at that age. However that whole WW-I scene was absolutely self-indulgent and entirely pointless in the context of the film.

A WW1 scene?! Don't remember that from the book. Is this more random invented things from the past to explain why Poirot acts like he does now?

Like that Sarah Phelps BBC adaptation where they inserted scenes revealing that Poirot had been a priest in Belgium. 

She certainly was; the Ustinov film was close to the book and all the better for it.

'A moustache origin story', surely one of the oddest phrases ever!

I'm notoriously bad at watching books adapted into tv/film, I have somewhat mellowed with age and can appreciate change/additions if they still feel in keeping with the book/characters but fume when extra stuff gets added that minimises what actually was in the book in the first place. Haven't seen the film but i'm struggling to imagine any relevance for a moustache adding to it?

Right, well I have been warned and have no excuses if I ever chose to watch this film do I.

Agree on timing, the film needed at least 30 minutes cut and those 10 minutes were obvious candidates. The main issue I have with the WW-I stuff is it doesn't explain anything at all about the main plot, it's just added on at the beginning so it can explain another entirely fabricated 5 minutes at the end.

Michael Billington in his regular whines about Trevor Nunn always used to accuse him of editorialising Shakespeare's text, that is adding in extra bits and pieces of his own devising to explain things in the text. I actually like that a lot. One example was in his Timon of Athens with (coincidentally) Suchet. There's a bit in the text at the end where Timon entirely unexpectedly and randomly finds some buried treasure. In Nunn's production he started with a scene of a full-on bank raid where the the thieves buried their haul afterwards thus providing a reason for it to be there later, plus it told you something about the state of Athens. What Branagh has done in this film is the bank raid but with no buried treasure afterwards.