Death on the Nile (2022)

It's probably best to start by saying that this adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel has virtually nothing at all in common with the 1978 Ustinov/Niven iteration (which I really like). Sir Kenneth Branagh starts off by giving us a little of the somewhat tragic WWI backstory to the famous Belgian detective before we are introduced to the newlywed "Doyle" couple Gal Gadot and Armie Hammer, his disgruntled ex girlfriend "Jackie" (Emma Mackey - whom I could have sworn was Margot Robbie) and an assembled cast aboard the luxury Nile paddle steamer "Karnak" where murder and mayhem ensue. A great deal of care has been taken with this production, and it looks great. That said, though, I found the characterisations pretty sterile; there are stars here but not (Annette Bening notwithstanding) big stars, and we get to know little of the personalities or grudges of the suspects. Tom Bateman reprises his role as "Book" from Sir Kenneth's other, equally flawed, "Poirot" outing back in 2017, but that stretches coincidence just a bit too much! There is little, if any humour, and though I did initially enjoy the 1930s Blues music it started to intrude a bit as the film progressed. Patrick Doyle's rather bland score reminded me of "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005) and though there is a fair degree of location photography, there is an equally fair degree of pretty obvious CGI too. Somehow, Sir Kenneth just isn't "Poirot" for me. His performances are always just a little bit too theatrical - he always has to be centre stage. The whole pace of the film really does lack any accumulating sense of menace and though it is certainly better seeing it on a big screen, I was really somewhat underwhelmed.

Death on the Nile has a prologue set in World War I, where a young Hercule Poirot is played by a digitally ‘de-aged’ Kenneth Branagh. Et tu, Kenneth? If you must do this, why not get a younger actor who looks likes Branagh? Or even one who doesn’t look like the Northern Irish writer/director/actor, so long as he looks like an actual human being; it’s safe to say that Branagh looks neither like himself nor like a member of the human race (he actually looks less grotesque after an explosion disfigures one side of his face). Again, this is only if you must do this – but then, you mustn’t do it, especially considering that this prologue exists only, and I kid you not, as an origin story for Poirot’s mustache.
In order to catch up with Branagh’s current appearance, the character then ages some 40 years in the space of about two decades, and in the interim it’s the world around him that has received a digital facelift – in particular Egypt, whose entire topography and everything in it, including flora, fauna, bodies of water, architecture, historical landmarks, etc., etc., has been computer-generated, and very crudely at that. They should have called this Death on Denial, because based on the evidence of this movie, the Nile isn’t a river in Egypt – or a river at all, nor Egypt a place that bears any resemblance to any known landscape that can be found on planet Earth.
As for the actual plot, who cares? It's impossible to believe in the existence of these characters as real persons because they're all clearly actors standing in front of green screens, and the "Death" of the title is rendered meaningless because it takes place in a lifeless world. Even an Agatha Christie murder mystery – nay, especially an Agatha Christie murder mystery demands a plausible backdrop, and in that sense a matte painting, rear projection, miniatures, any number indeed of practical special effects would offer a much more tangible setting for this story – the next best thing, as a matter of fact, to actually shooting on location (which admittedly is not always feasible).