An Almost Good Mystery

A review of 'Death on the Nile.'

By
15

It is, apparently, an unwritten rule of Hollywood that anytime an iconic character’s backstory is shown, questions about them that nobody has ever wondered about must be answered in the clunkiest way possible. Who can forget the cringe-inducing scene explaining that Han Solo got his name in Solo: A Star Wars Story because he had no last name and was alone? Or how Cruella explained that Cruella DeVil’s name was actually Estella but she was cruel, so her mom nicknamed her “Cruella?” Death on the Nile offers the latest entry in this bizarre vein of backstory, giving us the story behind Hercule Poirot’s mustache for which nobody ever asked, and which isn’t even canonical in Agatha Christie’s works. (It’s to cover up severe scars he got during World War I, an anecdote that is both unnecessary to the story and almost impossible to be true. Hair doesn’t really grow on scar tissue, which I was able to find from a simple Google search that none of the writers apparently bothered to perform.)

Death on the Nile is weirdly rife with little things like this that detract from an otherwise interesting mystery. There’s Gal Gadot’s apparent disinterest in acting in the film; two black characters experiencing discrimination for being American but not facing any racism in 1937 English high society; shoehorned-in LGBTQ representation with a scene in which Poirot deduces two suspects are lesbians, something that doesn’t matter in the slightest to the plot; and, of course, Armie Hammer’s inability to deliver a decent British accent—he gives up eventually. Aside from all that, though, the movie is actually pretty good.

The film follows Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) as he joins a recently married socialite couple’s honeymoon party. Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) has just tied the knot with Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot), after being introduced to Ridgeway by her old friend and his then-fiancée Jackie de Bellefort (Emma Mackey). The pair is celebrating with a trip around Egypt, joined by a small group of friends and family, when de Bellefort starts appearing everywhere they go. Ridgeway tries to hire Poirot to foil her, and while he turns down the money he still decides to join them on the trip. While on a boat the couple hired to ferry the party down the Nile, Ridgeway is murdered in her sleep. Poirot attempts to uncover who is behind her death, while others on the ship start mysteriously dying as well.

The mystery is handled very well. There are enough clues for viewers to crack the mystery along with Poirot, with enough red herrings to make sure it isn’t too easy. Luxurious costumes and set design create a gorgeous ambience, though it is occasionally obvious that the movie was filmed in England instead of Egypt. (Green-screen use is a bit obvious in a few scenes, and nobody ever sweats. In the summer. In Egypt. While all wearing suits and dresses in a time before air conditioning.)

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
15
By
Comments (15)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Kurt Von Fuchs

    Fairpoint I guess. One quick correction. I know for former service man who wear beards because of severe scarring yes it does hide their scars.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Alec Dent vertical-nib Author

      I am admittedly not a dermatology expert so if anyone’s got knowledge to the contrary I defer to their judgement, but the assorted pages I saw online suggested that while facial hair can be grown to hide scars (as in growing hair from the skin around the scar to to cover it up), scarred skin itself usually isn’t capable of producing hair follicles without a transplant. In the movie, Poirot’s scarring is particularly severe and on his upper lip, right where his mustache would have to grow from, making it extremely unlikely at best

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Nick H

    Does Gal Gadot really need to do any acting in this role? I haven't seen the movie, but if her character is just attractive young socialite then it seems like she'd be fine to be herself. Overacting would be worse than underacting in this situation.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Zeke

    I'll be glad when adaptations of the great detectives loop back around to at least being KIND of faithful. The recent Sherlocks and Poirots have been determined to make their mark by going way off book. (If you think Branagh's Poirot is far removed, wait'll you see John Malkovich's.) Even Father Brown -- the unassuming priest whose whole deal is that he's easily overlooked -- is a giant in the new show!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Xsearnold

    One thing I always find frustrating about every portrayal of Hercule Poirot in film or television is that none of the actors parts their hair in the middle. This was a primary trait of Agatha Christie’s Poirot due to his obsession with symmetry!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Carson J.

    For once I find myself more or less agreeing completely with Alec Dent on something film/TV related. What a strange day.
    After watching Murder on the Orient Express I spent early 2020 listening to the collection of Poirot short stories on audiobook; coming back from the theater today after watching Death on the Nile I told my wife that even though they didn't really say anything in them about his backstory, what they provided felt out of character to the Poirot of those stories. If Branagh makes more I will almost certainly watch them though, we can always use more good whodunit movies and aside from Knives Out there just aren't that many from the last few years.

    Collapse
  6. James Angelichio

    Any Poirot that is not David Suchet has to be bad by definition.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

    I like this review, Mr. Dent, and thank you for it. I began streaming Branagh's "Murder on the Orient Express" a few weeks ago, put it aside when distracted, returned to it briefly for another few minutes, and again put it aside with no clear resolution as to whether it was worth finishing. Your review of this second Branaghian version of Agatha Christie thus mirrors my ambivalence about the first, but doesn't help me make a final decision about either — which in these circumstances prompts me to give the review itself a high grade.

    You're a careful and thoughtful wordsmith, and The Dispatch was founded by self-professed conservatives, so I hope you will forgive me when I suggest that you're giving in, inappropriately, to the forces of thoughtless modernism (including modern dictionaries) which accept the word "disinterested" to mean "bored."

    There's another perfectly good word for that — indeed, a more obvious and older back-formation — "uninterested." For those who resist the corrosion of the English language, "disinterested" means "fair, as because, for instance, one has no personal stake in an outcome." If you're ever a litigant in court, you want a judge who is (1) paying attention to and interested in the evidence and law that pertains to your case, (2) uninterested in your wealth, status, class, daddy's name, race, religion, etc., and (3) therefore a properly attentive and disinterested decision-maker.

    Yes, I am a world-class quibbler. But then, I'm writing to a reviewer who's just taken umbrage — and I join you in it! — over a screenwriter's ignorance about hair follicles and scar tissue. Carry on; I look forward, interestedly, to your future reviews.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    I have seen the Ustinov and Suchet versions and the Suchet one really did capture the pathos of the whole episode; it even portrays Simon as slightly more sympathetic than even the original Christie story (in which I kept wondering what either Jackie or Linnet actually saw in him; he's really not developed much further than "charming cad").

    It occurs to me that even the Suchet series, which hewed pretty closely to the books, added some extraneous material that was a tad out of place or anachronistic, such as bedroom scenes that made sense for some couples (such as Simon and Jackie), but not others. I can understand the temptation to do this (even some Jane Austen adaptations have done this) but I personally find it quite gauche.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ Hair doesn’t really grow on scar tissue, which I was able to find from a simple Google search that none of the writers apparently bothered to perform.)”

    Harsh.

    “ Death on the Nile is weirdly rife with little things like this that detract from an otherwise interesting mystery. There’s Gal Gadot’s apparent disinterest in acting in the film; two black characters experiencing discrimination for being American but not facing any racism in 1937 English high society; shoehorned-in LGBTQ representation with a scene in which Poirot deduces two suspects are lesbians, something that doesn’t matter in the slightest to the plot; and, of course, Armie Hammer’s inability to deliver a decent British accent—he gives up eventually. Aside from all that, though, the movie is actually pretty good.”

    Ouch.

    “ There has been enough promise in each for them to both be basically good.”

    You didn’t mince words.

    Collapse
  10. Christa

    I haven't seen this film version, but I read the novel at the beginning of the pandemic when I was in great need of some escapism and I really enjoyed it. I had seen the Ustinov film version before reading the book and knowing the plot before reading the book didn't spoil the experience.

    Collapse
Load More