Death on the Nile

Why is it that modern blockbusters just seem very ordinary?

This is a genuine question. We’re seeing an awful lot of great looking, great sounding, funny and entertaining films that are absolutely stacked with great casts which are just distinctly ‘meh.’

Is it the sheer amount of new films, the increasing competition in a market now competing with equally big-budget TV or a lack of originality?

Death on the Nile is the most recent example.

Is it great looking?

Absolutely: lovely and immersive CGI blends with great ‘murder mystery’ locations (a steamboat on the Nile) and all set in front of pretty orange sunsets and nice swirly tracking shots to give a great sense of time and place.

Great sounding, funny and entertaining?

Again, absolutely. Key character Salome Otterbourn’s ‘bluesy music’ (as Poirot describes it) again perfectly suits the era and the script is kept light, witty and amusing with an extra layer of depth given to Poirot not really shown in the first film: Murder on the Orient Express.

Stacked cast?

This completes the checklist. Like its predecessor, Branagh enlists a tremendous cast (what is it with the appeal of the murder mystery to A-listers?) to deliver the material.

So what’s the issue?

It’s just a hard film to recommend. It’s absolutely solid and thoroughly entertaining but it’s nothing new.

Sure, the source material is great (although as hard as Branagh tries to conceal the twist it is fairly predictable) but this type of film has been done to death and, in the case of Knives Out, done better.

An unnecessary prologue on the ‘origins of Poirot’s moustache’ feels very much like an attempt to keep up with the modern ‘shared universe’ films and it just feels out of time.

An enjoyable romp for a snoozy Sunday afternoon and an extremely well made and pretty adaptation of a great book but a blockbuster for a different era.

⭐️⭐️⭐️