SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Nice effects though.

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

I waited years for this to get made, I always assumed that due to the success of the Ustinov version, this would always follow, quickly. Wrong, it took a good few years, I'm sure budget restraints were the issue. Boy was it worth the wait, it's a stunning production, it's beautifully written, gloriously acted and visually jaw dropping.Initially I couldn't get over how good the casting was, Emma Griffiths Malin had an almost passionate Latin look to her, JJ Feild was very hunky and perfect for Doyle, then came Linnet Ridgeway, I love Emily Blunt, but she was not right for this role, she didn't fit somehow, that was really my only gripe of the production, and it was only a miner. The rest of the cast was flawless, Frances de la tour, Barbara Flynn, Daisy Donovan etc, and I thought a stunning performance from Zoe Telford.It had an epic feel to it, but it was never overdone, it stayed remarkably true to the book, although some characters were omitted, sadly no Bowers. The actual shooting of Simon scene I thought was very well done, you could sense the mood shift when Jacqui enters singing 'love is the sweetest thing,' very well done and directed.The costumes were incredible, how sad we don't get to see much of Zoe Telford's red costume in the scene when Jacqui rushes in late for dinner, from a distance it looks stunning, she has a red dress and fantastic red head gear, out of interest Francesca Annis wore it in Partners in Crime.The music is outstanding and helps build tension in the right places, it works really well, the scenery of course is magical, they couldn't fail could they.The conclusion is hugely satisfying, I love how they did it, so dramatic, exactly as it was written, and the use of flashbacks was brilliant.All in all a perfect adaptation, as good as Ustinov's. 10/10

One of the best Christie books, "Death on the Nile" has again been made into a TV movie, this time with David Suchet as part of the Poirot series. Previously there was a 1978 version with Peter Ustinov. I'll admit that one was a lot more fun. Ustinov's Poirot was his own creation and fabulous, and that particular film had a fantastic cast including Bette Davis, Angela Lansbury, David Niven, Maggie Smith, Mia Farrow, Olivia Hussey, Simon McCorkindale, Jack Warden, David Niven, and George Kennedy. Hello. Talk about star-studded.A couple of people on this site said the way this particular episode was set up, you knew who the culprit was immediately. Actually I found both versions easy to figure out.The story concerns a happy couple, Jacqueline de Belfort and Simon Doyle, whose relationship falls apart when Simon meets the wealthy, gorgeous Linnet Ridgeway, Jacqueline's soon-to-be-former friend. In the next scene, Linnet and Simon are married, and they're basically being stalked by Jacqueline, whose life's work is to drive both of them crazy and ruin everything they do.So it's no surprise when Jacqueline shows up on the couple's honeymoon cruise. Hercule Poirot and his friend, Colonel Race (Edward Fox) are also on the cruise. One night, Jacqueline has a fight with Simon and shoots him. Then Linnet is found dead, though Simon was only shot in the knee and survives. Jacqueline has made no secret of wanting Linnet dead, but she was busy shooting Simon. It's up to Poirot to sort out where everyone was and what everyone heard. Who killed Linnet? When another passenger is murdered, the situation becomes even more desperate. No dearth of suspects, including Andrew Pennington (David Soul) who has been using his position to mess with Linnet's money. We also have a thief on board, and Linnet's pearls are missing, as well as a blackmailer.It was mentioned on the reviews here that the actress playing Jacqueline seemed to be playing her as someone who was spiteful, rather than a woman in love. I think the spite/revenge is a good choice, having known a few scorned women in my life and having been one of them myself. One does harden, one does feel betrayed especially if your fiancé takes off with your best friend.Terrific story, still intriguing, with Suchet in top form, surrounded by a good cast. This is a dark episode. I know some people don't like the Ustinov TV adaptations, but I do. It's worth seeing just how the plot is handled, as well as being delightful.

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.

This is one of Christie's most popular mysteries because it works with the "impossible murder." Its also an exotic way to manage the remote country house idea, where you know exactly how many suspects there are and can map their movements within the structure.If you aren't unhappy with the others in the Suchet series, you won't be unhappy with this. Generally, they've settled the stories into a simple BBC model, with the answer revealed at the end instead of displayed as a puzzle.This one is worse in that regard, because this story is more of a puzzle than the others. And they go much further in telling you who the villains are even before the story itself begins.But what'll be interesting to students of film is the way the space is used. Despite the flaws of the 1978 version, it understood that the structure of the space is a part of the puzzle. People coming and going, being seen, being heard. This version and that use the very same boat, but the difference in how things are photographed is radically different.Its partly a matter of cost. The TeeVee budget could pay for location shots, but when they use the boat, they have to work with the physical limits of where they can put the camera. The 78 version made a studio copy of much of the boat. It had a real cinematographer — we're talking "Red Shoes" and African Queen" — and knew something about how space constrains emotional vision.So quite apart from whatever problems you might have with BBC handle of an entire genre, and Suchet's sensibilities, there's this business about space that just might drive you crazy if you know how well it can be done.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.