Here is the trailer for "Death on the Nile" for us to hate on

It's got Jennifer Saunders, though!

I am inclined to hate everything, but it won't stop me from watching the shit out of this.

This is the perfect movie for people who loved the original, but wished it didn't have legendary actors or location shooting.

I recognized Wonder Woman, who the hell are the rests of these people ? What happened to all star casts ?

ha French AND Saunders.

The ship, all lit up, looks like an alien spaceship. Why?

I'll give it a try because of French & Saunders.

It doesn't look like the 1930s (or is it supposed to be the 1920s?) at all.

The use of a slow cover of Policy of Truth is awkward.

I'll probably hate it but I'll still watch. I like a big budget mystery.

Sir Kenny Branagh - ham sliced thick.

I'd rather watch a David Suchet "Poirot." Location shooting, gorgeous photography, and flawless attention to period detail.

And then there's the fact that Suchet is the best Poirot by far.

What? Was Jean Desjardin too busy?

The scenes with Gal Gadot in the trailer look like a stylish perfume ad.

Branagh's films are always beautiful to look at, but I don't like the feel of this.

There had to be some updating, but French and Saunders and Russell Brand alongside PROPER ACTORS like Annette Bening and Sophie Okonedo feels inappropriate.

Vulgar drivel!

r14, wasn't Lois Chiles considered a joke as an actress?

She is as stiff as a board in The Way We Were but got better. She is actually good in Broadcast News.

Loish Shilsh

I enjoyed that r8

Lois Chiles wasn't the greatest actress but god was she gorgeous. She should've had more screen time in The Way We Were but you know Barbra wasn't having any of that.

At the end of the movie you find out they are all guilty.

Ha ha R18! One of the best “Lizsha’s” ever!

You're thinking of Murder on the Orient Express, R21.

So Armie doesn't speak in the trailer?

Brannah's accent is one of the worst I've ever heard.

And why is Poirot holding a gun? Is he going to be an action star again

Armie is so HOT with mustache!

Can't that guy do subtle? That was all over the place. What a fucking mess.

Awful

Do Tom Bateman and Armie Hammer make out? Because that would be the only reason to watch this.

Is that Depeche Mode on the soundtrack?

It has French & Saunders in it, so that alone will get me to watch it.

Has next year's Razzie got Kenneth's name on it?

Branagh can't hold a candle to David Suchet, who will ALWAYS own the role of Poirot.

There's just no comparison.

I want to see it for French and Sauders, and for Annette Bening. I expect the Armie fanatics will destroy this thread, pronto.

There are 10 million Agatha Christie stories, why do they keep remaking the same ones?

Branagh sounds like he delivered the narration while stoned.

[quote] There are 10 million Agatha Christie stories, why do they keep remaking the same ones?

Because of the scenic possibilities of the big two.

R29 Yes, it's the "Policy of Truth".

Will there be any guys swimming in the-1920s-style trunks?

I'd like to hear more of the Depeche Mode cover.

Who asked for this ?

It seems rather somber.

Hollywood really is dead. No original ideas. No stars. With the exception of Bening (and I love French and Saunders) it's a huge meh.

"This case changed the shape of my soul" fuck off.

First, crappy writing and bad line reading.

Secondly, in no way did this case have such an impact on Poirot. He was sad at the end of the novel but in no way different.

Maybe this movie had tough, straight Poirot bunking up with Wild Salome Otterbourne and suffering PTSD when SPOILER she gets shot through the head.

I miss Kenneth and Emma being married.

I despise both of them with a passion and it was much easier to direct my laser beam of hate in one direction.

I hope Sophie Okonedo camps it up for Salome Otterbourne; she's a good actress but has big shoes to fill with Angela Lansbury and Frances de la Tour before her!

My favorite Hercule is still Peter Ustinov.

He was adorable.

I believe Suchet created the lead archetype of the know-it-all snob who basically looks down on everyone. Like, Monk, Inspector Barnaby, and House for example.

His show started in 1989 and went on almost two and a half decades.

Kind of spoilerish.

[quote] Do Tom Bateman and Armie Hammer make out? Because that would be the only reason to watch this.

Now, wouldn't that be an interesting twist that the wife gets killed, because she caught her husband with his male lover? Or the whole premise that she does know he's into guys and there is a gender swap where It's a Jaques, and not a Jaqueline, who introduces Simon to Linnet.

Depeche Mode in an Agatha Christie movie trailer. Now I've seen it all.

[quote] I'd like to hear more of the Depeche Mode cover.

That was no cover, it was most definitely Dave Gahan singing. I bought two Policy of Truth maxi singles when they were released (DM used to release multiple maxi singles of their songs) but I don't remember if this version ever existed. It's possible they've remixed a new one for the trailer. It's pretty easy to separate vocals from the music.

Regarding the Depeche Mode song. It's not uncommon for artists to redo their original songs. Just look at Cyndi Lauper's Girls Just Want to Have Fun being rearranged for To Wong Foo, thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar.

[quote] Do Tom Bateman and Armie Hammer make out? Because that would be the only reason to watch this.

Isn't Bateman's character a police? He's practically a sidekick to Poirot which most probably means he won't get involved with the suspects. Otherwise it could happen since at least in the modern Miss Marples there were plenty of gays and lesbians.

A comment from YouTube:

The song was remixed by Blitz//Berlin. Source is their official Twitter feed here - twitter.com/BlitzBerlinBand/status/1296101699132612609 -- Per the tweet, it's the studio's decision whether to make the music publicly available, so hopefully 20th Century Movies gets on the ball with this one.

How do they explain and mix in the black cast? Or is it non-dit.

Nawt again.....

[quote] Isn't Bateman's character a police?

His character was the one who managed to get Poirot at last minute ticket for the Orient Express when the conductor was reluctant, for obvious reasons, to get Poirot on the train.

[quote] His friend Bouc, director of the Simplon-route Orient Express service, arranges a bunk for him aboard the train.

Bateman played said Bouc. As the director he has authority over who can conduct a murder investigation on the company's assets. Otherwise I doubt any of the suspects would even talk to Poirot.

It looks like a hot mess. Gadot seems to be the greater miscast, Linnet is supposed to be better looking than Jacqueline. And that club scene is ridiculous. That said, cant wait to see it.

I wish they remade Evil Under the Sun though.

[quote]How do they explain and mix in the black cast? Or is it non-dit.

In Orient Express, the movie ground to a complete halt so they could have a scene that gave a convoluted explanation as to why a black American man was there.

They probably will, r57, given that KB just parasites former starred cast adaptations instead of attempting an original one...

[quote]What? Was Jean Desjardin too busy?

Branagh's accent is better.

French & Saunders aside, and they are not enough to get me to watch this shit, this has got to be one of the worst cast line-ups ever.

Oh goody goody gumdrops!

No trans people!!??? SCANDAL!

[quote]Gadot seems to be the greater miscast, Linnet is supposed to be better looking than Jacqueline.

And Gadot is a bad actress. Are we supposed to cheer when she's murdered?

[quote]Now, wouldn't that be an interesting twist that the wife gets killed, because she caught her husband with his male lover?

I don't think that would work (if you want to keep it a period piece anyway) as the obviousness of the love triangle is important to the story. I guess it could be a smokescreen but that seems unsatisfying.

Thee carime ees merder...

Branagh studied for years with the noted vocal coach, John Cleese.

I agree that Linnet is meant to be a 20 year old stunner. Jackie is meant to be pretty, intelligent and vivacious. Young Emily Blunt was very well cast.

I agree with posters in other threats. In the novel Linnet wasn't a 2D selfish bitch. There were scenes that brought out her feelings of remorse and hints of knowing how badly she behaved, although she never expresses it clearly.

Who does that awful Russel Brand play? And why shoehorn Bateman (Bouc) into this story? If they hadn't wasted him in MOTOE he would have been an excellent Simon here.

The original was so beautifully shot, in addition to being perfectly cast.

Those scenes on the boat, while pretty, just leave you cold. It's seems so artificial, like a lot of digital movies.

Not a role for poor old Emma?

Imagine a sexy Poirot, r12!

The BBC Poirot is John Malkovich, and I can see why they thought it might work, but it doesn’t.

I just got hard. I hope he does and Agatha Christie every couple of years. Love this genre... but yes, lacking star power compared to the original

Bette Davis, Angela Lansbury and Maggie Smith were wonderful in the original.

Lansbury said Davis drank like a fish during the entire shoot.

[quote] I wish they remade Evil Under the Sun though.

Why? The Nicholas Clay version was perfection.

Thank you, R73.

No love for Simon MacCorkindale?

Russell Brand plays the doctor who was played by Jack Warden in the 1978 film. Bening plays “Euphemia,” a character not in either the novel, the prior film or the BBC version.

This one is definitely a "wait till it's on cable" movie.

Sorry, My response can't top r3 so forget it.

I am just watching the Suchet version, the Actress playing Jacckie is terrible (and frumpy), so maybe there will be a good Jackie for once (Mia Farrow was miscast). The actor playing Simon is very cute, but it is a graceless character, you have to look cute and dumb, Armie will fit (even if not the right age).

Rosalie Ottoborne was great in this version. I also wonder who Benning is playing, a Mrs Allerton composite with some other character?

What should Jackie be? (I haven't read the book.)

Racist drivel. They all make me feel stabby.

R79. but the Suchet version is very true to the spirit of the novel, particularly in the way it portrays the relationship between Jackie and Simon. Also, they did a beautiful job with costumes and especially music, which is on point for the period.

This trailer makes the new film look like a dismal, anachronistic mess. None of the actresses are attractive or right for the roles (as far as one can tell). I will admit that Armie Hammer is well-cast as handsome, shallow Simon, but Branagh is the worst, least authentic Poirot ever, and the clunky "diversity" insertions are cringeworthy.

R82, I completely agree about the Suchet version except for the actress playing Jackie, otherwise is very good and (except for the camp factor) better than the earlier version. Also agree about Branagh, which is a dismal Poirot and tens to make it all about himself. That said, i think Emma Mckey may be the first, well cast, Jackie.

R80, Jackie is admittedly difficult to cast, she should be somewhat charismatic but less attractive than Linnette. On the other hand she must be someone who you believe that Simon would prefer to one of the most beautiful, richest, women in England.

I thought JJ Feild, who played Simon in the Suchet version, was gorgeous.

Branagh’s Cinderella was on tv last night and it really is a beautiful film, so many nods to the old MGM classics.

Having seen him in Tenet this week, he is a much better director than he is an actor.

R86 He's crap at both. This movie looks like horseshit. Armie looks extremely ugly too.

Why does Kenneth Branagh have a career?

The fake French accent is a complete turn off I couldn’t even finish watching the trailer.

Not one person in this cast has even a fraction of the appeal of the 1078 adaptation: Peter Ustinov, Jane Birkin, Lois Chiles, Bette David, Mia Farrow, Jon Finch, Olivia Hussey, I.S. John, George Kennedy, Angela Lansbury, Simon MacCorkindale, David Niven, Maggie Smith, Jack Warden, Harry Andrews & Sam Wanamaker.

Now that is a cast to die for.

Sure French and Saunders are amusing but no match for the above and Annette Benning can be good but wouldn't have a career if she wasn't married to Warren Beatty. The rest of the cast is a joke of the highest order. Even Branagh's turkey adaptation of Murder of the Orient Express had a much better cast than this and it was a fucking disaster.

I’m disappointed with Branagh’s voiceover. I expected him to do a better and more convincing French accent.

R91 His Russian accent in Tenet is atrocious but suitable for such a piece of shit.

Not Armie Hammer!

Why is Russell Brand in this?

Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French might save the day. Still not enough for me to watch this.

Where is Annette Bening? Is she in the trailer? Didn't see her.

R94 Nobody else wanted to be I suppose. This is such a D grade cast.

Why does Kenneth Branagh insist on playing Poirot himself? What a very strange undertaking.

And this takes place on a cruise??

Poirot with a gun was WEIRD. That's what was missing from the original series!

Isn't it a little anachronistic to have a black actress? I get the point of diversity, but it's a little ridiculous when it's completely implausible.

It’s Kenneth Branagh, r101. He cast Denzel Washington and Keanu Reeves as Italian brothers in Much Ado About Nothing. He gives zero shits.

R99 Will a COVID outbreak be added to make it more relevant for modern audiences?

R102 But that worked and was fresh. This looked stale before they even started filming. We have a perfect version from 1978. I suppose if this piece of shit gets people to watch the 1978 version it will have accomplished something useful.

R102, he obviously gives a shit if he cast Arme Hammer as the male lead.

What bugs me is the the lit up ship. How can you commit murder on a ship that offers no shadows to hide? To me light leaves no room for mystery and sinister action.

The better question is:

Why is Russell Brand?

1. Why has Branagh not received more scorn for his terrible performance and needlessly making Poirot some action hero?

2. The trailer gives almost no insight into what the movie is about

3. It looks like there is very little comedy in this

[quote]Isn't it a little anachronistic to have a black actress? I get the point of diversity, but it's a little ridiculous when it's completely implausible.

Seriously, if you're watching the film and your main focus is WHY ARE THESE TWO BLACK WOMEN ON THE BOAT and not HOW DID ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO HATE LINNET RIDGEWAY COME TO BE ON THE BOAT AT THE SAME TIME, DEIRDRE CHAMBERS, WHAT A COINCIDENCE! then this might not be the film for you.

The book explains adequately why all these people come together on the boat. Don't know if this will be explained in this movie.

Just think, if Simon had let that rock drop on Linnet as they explored the ruins, we could have all gone home!

I grew up with the Peter Ustinov movies and he will always be Poirot to me. He was perfect in the role.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Does Armie get hammered first or drilled first?

Who’s the Prettiest?

^ Oops let’s try again:

French accent? I thought Poirot was Belgian.

You're terrible, Muriel.

None of these people will ever be famous (except for those who already are).

Gal Gadot, movie star? I'll be the judge of that.

R115 that's awful, Linnet is awful looking there and she's meant to be a YOUNG STUNNER. And the actress playing Jacqueline is much prettier than Linnet

Lookswise, I think Gadot is well cast. She's glamorous but somewhat forbidding. She doesn't have the vibe that would flatter a man or make him feel needed.

Charlize Theron would have been well cast as Linnet once upon a time.

R122, Nicole Kidman even more so.

Any actress playing Jacqueline to fit the book's description should be small, dark, pretty but not beautiful, and spirited to the point of being fiery. Who would fit - or would have fit in recent years - that description?

Too bad they didn't make a movie of this story in 1938 ... Bette Davis was perfect for the role of Jackie.

Am I the only one who liked Mia Farrow as Jacqueline in the Ustinov picture? She and the Simon MacCorkindale were very convincing together.

^ I'm sorry no need to address him as The!

Bel Powley for Jackie!

This looks fantastic!

Nobody will be seeing it in a cinema though. We will all wait until it's available to stream. It will leak out on torrent long before that.

It is a big misstep to cast a pretty younger model as Jacqueline, a whole decade younger than the actors playing Linnet and Simon, I don't think Branagh understands what makes the story compelling.

The miscasting is not Gal's fault, r121 is right about her having the right look, she can't help Branagh's incompetence not understanding the age factor, direct your ire toward him. The French woman looks like she is trying to do an impression of the much superior Farrow in r115's picture. This will be tiresome.

Gal Gadot is a lousy actress. She'll suck in this.

Lousy actresses shouldn't play that role.

Lousy actresses shouldn't play that role.

r104 Sophie Okonedo is a great actress. Black or not, she will be the least problem with this supporting cast of clowns.

It's an Agatha Christie novel r109 and audiences are versed enough in the tropes of the murder mystery genre, in film and books, to understand that there can be coincidences like that. But a black woman on a cruise in the 1930s is not part of the tropes and is rewriting the original novel. It's also rewriting history and gives a wrong perception of race relations and the position of black people in that era.

But Okonedo seems to be playing a stage performer.

Will the ladies be sunbathing topless on deck in this version?

So they changed the jobs of the character in the book (where Salome is an author) in order to be able to include a black person, r135. Which is fine, if there was a real desire to have Okonedo in the film on the basis of her acting but if from now on everything created prior to, let's say, 2018 has to be rewritten to include black people, then that is bullshit.

Apparently Christie based the character of Salome Otterbourne (played by Sophie Okonedo) on this person.

I think Saoirse Ronan would've made a fantastic Jacqueline playing the jilted lover and the scheming bitch to perfection.

Actually, I think that Lois Chiles not being a good actress worked for the part, she seemed devoid of feelings and robotic in her perfection. You have to believe she steals her friend fiancé. Emily Blunt, in the Suchet version, was a little to emphatic and nervous.

Linnet is also a difficult role to cast, since she is gone from the action after a third of the movie...I don’t think a really famous actress would take it.

I'm glad to see non-white main characters. I just wish it wasn't done in the laziest way possible. Why not make the story contemporary? Oh, right, that would require an effort.

R140 Blunt was closer to the character, as written. Linnet in the book tries to gloss over the terrible thing she's done but you can tell underneath she has guilt.

R137 what's Salome's new job?

Sure r141, let's completely rewrite the book and set it in the 2020s just so we can make it appear to make sense that there's a main black character in a 1937 Agatha Christie novel. Alternatively, let's keep classic and much-loved works generally as they are and come up with interesting and entertaining new movies that reflect our own era today. We can even create new works set in the 1930s with rounded black characters! But let's not rewrite books, history and reality to reflect our own version of things today.

R142, i read some really interesting interpretations of that here, but i think there is no actual evidence that she feels any guilt. She knows she did something wrong and is upset and inconvenienced by Jackie appearing everywhere and proving an embarrassment. But there is no actual evidence of guilt. This makes the murdererers more sympathetic.

I grant that you can play the role 2 ways and inject some more humanity in the character, as Blunt did.

In Murder On the Orient Express, the whole movie ground to a halt so they could include a scene that explained why a black American man was on the train. It was a pretty convoluted explanation.

Elizabeth Taylor for Linnet.

Debbie Reynolds for Jackie.

The definition of DREAM casting!

The bones of most Christie stories would work perfectly fine in many settings, eras and interpretations.

You could also include POC in the original era and dig into xenophobia and classism and so on, but I wouldn't want R143 to actually have a stroke.

I doubt either approach would be worse than Branagh's version.

But then, I'm a theater buff. I've seen steampunk Shakespeare, hip-hop Greek tragedy, you name it. The play's the thing. Just be good or at least not boring.

You could absolutely create a new story including non-white people and dig into racism and xenophobia in the 1930s and other eras r148, but that would not have anything at all to do with Death on the Nile.

"Death on the Nile" has been filmed at least three times, now. I couldn't give a shit that there's a black actor "invading" historically white stories. I couldn't care less.

What's the third?

The Branagh (Ustinov, Suchet, Branagh).

My issue isn't about having a black actor implausibly cast per se, it's about the fact that all movies and TV series from henceforth are going to have to feature black characters otherwise they will be deemed racist, so everything produced up to now is going to be forcibly rewritten.

Well, it's not like they're going to make more projects written by black writers about the black experience...

[quote]In Murder On the Orient Express, the whole movie ground to a halt so they could include a scene that explained why a black American man was on the train. It was a pretty convoluted explanation.

That's poor writing. It didn't need to be addressed at all. The beauty in Armando Iannucci's THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD is that there was never any attempt to explain why Dev Patel was the nephew of Tilda Swinton or why white Welsh actor Anuerin Barnard was the son of a Black woman or why a Black woman was the daughter of a Asian man. It just was and there was nothing distracting about it.

[quote]In Murder On the Orient Express, the whole movie ground to a halt so they could include a scene that explained why a black American man was on the train. It was a pretty convoluted explanation.

Every single character explained why they were on the train. Every single one.

But with the black American man it made no sense given the time period. I can't even remember the explanation, but it was just dumb.

R143, I think you could re-tell many of Christie’s stories in current times. I would much rather see that than a butchering of the plot (as, alas, the Suchet versions sometimes did) or indulging in excruciating anachronisms for the sake of diversity or simply to be “artistic” and “original”.

The basic plot of Death on the Nile is timeless. It would be far more interesting to see it retold in the 2020s than to watch yet another version that attempts to portray the 1930s but can’t be bothered to be accurate to the period in music, costume, dialog or characters. What’s the point?

Agatha Christie wrote a million books. Why do the same ones always get remade? There are so many others to choose from.

Linnet would be a Queen Influencer? Jackie is an aspiring TikToker?

R144 - IIRC, there’s a conversation in the book between Poirot and Linnet in which he states bluntly that she did a bad thing and that part of her extreme nervousness and moodiness is the result of her guilty conscience. Am I misremembering? Poirot is more or less omniscient in these matters, so I think that’s probably the way Christie meant the character to be seen.

Not to feel guilty after such a monstrous betrayal would be, well, monstrous. I don’t think we’re supposed to see Linnet as a monster but rather a human being whose fatal flaw is her monstrous selfishness.

Maybe they should have Linnet strumming Kirsty MacColl's "Caroline"

True factoid: In her book, “Cybill Disobedience”, Ms. Shepherd wrote that she was offered the role of Linnett in the 1978 version, but turned it down.

[quote]Any actress playing Jacqueline to fit the book's description should be small, dark, pretty but not beautiful, and spirited to the point of being fiery. Who would fit - or would have fit in recent years - that description?

Andrea Riseborough.

Now I'm unsure about Gal's look, I keep going back and forth, I think it's because Linnet, Jacqueline, and Simon should look like they're from similar stock, so to speak, Gal is too med - and of course everyone is still the wrong age

I don't see Ricci being able to play pitiful, she always looks like she's concealing a devious plan - she'd be fun, just not convincing.

And Ricci has never been catnip to heterosexual men. Back in the day, Bullock might have worked opposite Kidman and Keanu.

R166, Jacqueline's surname is de Bellefort. Her father was a French count. In Christie's worldview that makes her Latin and fiery and impulsive. You know ... not English. 😊 It's not a stretch to throw Mediterranean looks in there.

R165 - Andrea Riseborough was excellent in Sarah Phelps BBC adaptation of Witness For The Prosecution. She’s 39 now so a bit old for Jackie.

Jodie Comer would have been excellent, if obvious.

r169, you know what I mean! If Linnet is of a noticeably different ethnicity, of a noticeably different skin tone, then the audience is left wondering if the motive was in some way shaded by it, there shouldn't be any distractions to the core motivations of the characters - they should all have the same look and it doesn't have to be lily white.

Oh please. the audience can think the fuck it wants. It's pretty clear from the source material that it was pure greed for money that motivated the initial murder. The racism angle would be some sort of prejudicial conjection (source material vs. adaption).

I think - and this is more or less what Poirot says - that if Linnet didn't feel guilty she wouldn't find Jackie's presence so upsetting.

So which director would you folks like to see helming a big-screen Christie? Ang Lee? Pedro Almodovar? Rian Johsnon? Mike Flanagan? Lynne Ramsay? Should Kevin Feige build a Christie Cinematic Universe? How about a Bollywood version? (If it's more Bhardwaj than Johar.)

why is this cast so shit. on top of worst poirot ever there's armie hammer who was letting his son suck on his toes for 7 minutes, racist and pro brexit cuntservative rose leslie and zionist gal gadot.

Almodovar would be an interesting option, r173.

Branagh's MOTOE had some interesting European style camera moments and Michelle Pfeiffer.

I fear that after Branagh the next "legit" AC franchise is stacked with Reality TV bimbos and social media starlets, because they will be considered legitimate stars who get people to watch another MOTOE or MOTN adaption.

"Because of the scenic possibilities of the big two."

Unfortunately both this and the previous one sport "locations" that seemed provided by Apple computers. The exteriors and those fly-by shots couldn't look more CGI.

"I think Saoirse Ronan would've made a fantastic Jacqueline playing the jilted lover and the scheming bitch to perfection."

I agree, but she's probably gotten too expensive. The casts of the Branagh remakes don't even begin to compare with the casts of the original movie versions. I will miss the fun of watching big names kill each other. Who the hell is Emma Mackey? Or Letitia Wright? Ugh.

Branagh casting himself as Poirot is the very definition of hubris. No matter how much money his movies (will) make.

I'm surprised that Suchet hasn't lost his eyes from rolling them so hard whenever someone mentions Branagh.

He should have offered Dame Maggie the Mrs Van Schyuler role

It gets worse on every viewing!

I wonder if Branagh offered Suchet a cameo.

So what twink PA was Branagh fucking on THIS shoot?

Please! An auteur of Branagh's stature fucks the talent.

[quote] I fear that after Branagh the next "legit" AC franchise is stacked with Reality TV bimbos and social media starlets, because they will be considered legitimate stars who get people to watch another MOTOE or MOTN adaption.

He'll move on to some dog eared, shop worn Jane Austin property, with Fleabag mugging for the cameras.

Austen is way too girly for burly Branagh. Maybe Dickens, if he can shove in some parkour or MMA.

it's going to flop hard

I'll guess we have to wait until someone makes a deepfake edit of the movie with Timothée Chalamet as Jacqueline 'Jackie' De Bellefort to make it a hit then.

SERIOUSLY Who's going to watch this shite?

SERIOUSLY Who's going to watch this shite?

I just watched the old version off the newly released Blu-ray. It's terrific. Impeccable star cast with a story perfectly told without excessive visual flair, which it doesn't need, in real Egypt locations and some interior work at Pinewood. Part of the delight is watching famous actors who were typically typecast in benevolent roles play the bad guys. Then I re-watched the trailer for the new version. It looked to me like they never even travelled to Egypt because all the "location" shots look CG. And Branagh, who was consistently mocked by the press for wearing a scene stealing mega mustache in MOtOE is now seen wearing a double-decker mega mustache, probably as a kind of fuck-you to his critics. I suspect this is going to be another over baked Branagh production like all his recent ones.

[quote]But with the black American man it made no sense given the time period. I can't even remember the explanation, but it was just dumb.

You're just dumb, r157. It's funny how people think black people didn't exist in Europe before the 1960s.

A NO STAR cast. I recognize Wonder Women, and that's it.

r192 they weren't millionaires on luxury trains.

As a doctors for hire (yes, there were black doctors in the early 20th century) he makes perfect sense. Dodgy criminals hire who they can and a black man would take the work.

Oh, Lord help us, the troll who spent two threads whining about David Oyelowo in Les Misérables (who was great) isn't here is he?

If you don't complain about Denzel and Keanu in MAAN, you can't complain about any other of Branagh's casting. There is more than enough wrong with his shitty films, but an Okonedo or a Washington is the least of them. I mean, if he casts Beyonce and Stormzy as Tommy and Tuppence have at him, but Sophie Okonedo is a great actress. She'll be great and far better than Russell Brand and Jennifer Saunders.

I am a big fan of Agatha Christie who is a genre in herself. Her adaptations lend to a stagey, English artifice that bore passing resemblance to reality even when they were written. Attempts to make them modern and edgy barely work. Sarah Phelps did a great job with And Then There Were None which is one of Christie's two or three creepiest, but her neo-noirish, Scandi-crime are exponentially worse by the year. Likewise the worst thing about Branagh's Orient Express wasn't the (very good) Odom but his own performance as proto-action hero Poirot.

R161, i went to see the book, which i ve resd a lot but not inyesrs and they (linnet and poirot) have a Big dialogue where he confronts her and says she must feel guilty and,though she does not admit it she lets it go as such (“why do you mind so much madame”). Tks for making me look it up.

Death on the Nile has a triangle Agatha Christie used for many times, but this (except for Five Little Pigs) was its ex libris. After seeing the Suchet adaptation I went to see theearlier classic, and the early s ene wit linnet and jackie is ok. The Suchet is superior in they don’t go oner a reanactmE of all the murdes, as in the original.

Thay said, and answering someone above, i will see this gladly

[quote]wished it didn't have legendary actors or location shooting.

Actually, this version spent a month in Aswan, Cairo, and Luxor. Almost as much time as the original did.

R196 DLr's were younger when Denzel and Keanu were casted in MAAN so they didn't complain. Some young people think that having a POC cast in a film about white people in the olden days as being edgy and artistic whereas older people see it as being unrealistic.

cast, not casted.

Casted is a DL meme.

Ok, i just saw the trailer again and confess i m looking forward to see this

"Casted is a DL meme."

No, casted is the illiterate form of the past participle for the verb to cast. There's no such a thing as a DL meme except in your stupid head. Learn to spell, you twit.

Casted isn't a spelling error, dear.

Casted is a DL meme. It's like cax and graxy. And if you want proper English and correct grammar at all times, you need to stay off the internet. Colloquial English and verbal shortcuts are part of online life in the 21st century. Stringent grammar rules to not apply to such a free-form, stream of consciousness way of writing.

[quote] Learn to spell, you twit.

You're more fun when you're tipsy, Salome.

Anyone who use casted deserves to take a ride on the Orient Express with me and my fellow mates who hate the word casted.

K Branagh is worst poirott in history of cinema....

tho armie looks fun

To those who want to believe "casted" is a DL thing, it's not. It's what uneducated, ignorant fucks everywhere use when they don't speak English well.

[quote] It's like cax and graxy.

Both of which have fallen off the DL radar, thank God. Even WHET is rarely used these days.

Stupid is stupid, not amusing.

"Casted" always gets the Golden Girls crowd in a tizzy.

You don't have to be old to have a low tolerance for stupid, r211.

[quote]Casted is a DL meme. It's like cax and graxy.

A show of hands for those that think the day of DL memes has come and gone.

Not to mention lazy.

[quote]To those who want to believe "casted" is a DL thing, it's not. It's what uneducated, ignorant fucks everywhere use when they don't speak English well.

This is a bullshit forum for wasting time and procrastinating. It's people who are quickly typing down their random thoughts, not writing a thesis. If you want proper spelling and punctuation you can just go fuck yourself.

Triggered much, r215? And the objections are not to typos and casual misspelling, but to stupid “memes” that are long past their shelf life,

You know who looks like hell in this.

Tragic that someone once so beautiful is such a mess, onscreen and off.

Agreed. Get yourself together, Jennifer Saunders!

R218 = Joanna Lumley

[quote]You know who looks like hell in this.

All of them?

branagh really gay?

his acting sux bad, specially as this beloved P....

Well, he cast craggy Madden as young Prince Charming... I expect Branagh was more familiar with his crotch than his face.

indeed! im bored with these gays who hide in the closet all their life.......so unbrave.

R79, I totally agree. I watched the Suchet version only a couple of nights ago. The actress (Zoe Telford) playing Rosalie Otterbourne was excellent. I love that scene where she goes to rescue Poirot from her mother on the dance floor. The camera is centred on her while the other two talk and during their conversation she plays her character perfectly: stress over her alcoholic mother, an unconvincing attempt at social niceness, being fed up with her lot in life.

I also agree with how unimpressive the actress playing Jacqueline was. You remember how in old fashioned murder mysteries they would film the scenes leading up to a crime twice, so you'd see the actor play it normally during the episode or movie and then doing the same actions but exaggerrated for the denouement to show their status as a criminal? She played all her scenes like that. The part where she is telling Poirot how much she wants to kill Linnet and then acts like someone is watching them was so unconvincing I'm not sure how anyone unfamiliar with the story would've been fooled. Perhaps I am too hard on her though, maybe the direction was partly to blame?

R133, oh my gosh yes, Sophie Okonedo is wonderful. I often am fascinated by how she has such a distinctive look and yet manages to disappear into her characters in everything I've seen her in.

Black people were definitely in Agatha Christie's world throughout, even in the early days. Parker Pyne pays a couple of black men to assault a woman in "The Case of the Discontented Soldier." I have no idea why I remember that, except that he always freaked me out a bit. His methods to make people happy seemed to be just as liable to give them PTSD. How about that woman he had kidnapped and sent to a farm where she was brainwashed, while he stole her money? Weirdo!

I agree, R224, Zoe Telford did an outstanding job as Rosalie in the Suchet “Death on the Nile”.

I think Branagh must be an egomaniac. That voice over is fucking ridiculous.

"Casted" is only used by stupid people, no matter what you might tell yourself.

Kenny kenny....cum out of the closet honey....the weather is fine out here.

Part of what cracks me up here is that French and Saunders have done a sketch before where they made fun of Kenneth Branagh and his relationship with Emma Thompson (I believe they were/are friends with Thompson from the early days of 80s comedy). Dawn played a very self-important and smarmy Branagh, kind of like how he comes across in real life. I've never really gotten his appeal, he seems to be smirking in everything he does, like he's saying to the audience: "Yes, I know, I am really rather wonderful!" and yet he really isn't, haha.

Thanks, r224, I think Zoe/Rosalie stole every scene she was in, actually i think she might haVe played a perfect Jackie herself. You are also Spot on on the actress playing Jackie, she was terrible all the way. Swaying in her backless dress she was the very definition of frump.

As to the race thing in my view the best policy is to ignore, not apologize nor explain (as in Da id Copperfieild, as mentioned above).

Every thing considered, even Gal Gadot, the worse thing about this is Branagh who will, again, make it all about himself/Poirot , in detriment of the other characters and story.

Pulled from December release date and on hold indefinitely

Bugger! I wasn't confident of this being good in any way, but I still wanted to see what they were going to do with it. And having movies and other entertainment to look forward to is the bright spot in these times. Oh well...

These movie studios are clueless. Release things on streaming and make a ton of money, everybody's stuck at home and running out of shit to watch.

Disney continues to be clueless about what to do with these films from Fox because they want to keep Disney Plus “on brand.” Despite owning Hulu as well they don’t seem to want to move premium content over there, determined to keep it as the ugly stepsister to DisneyPlus. They will never challenge Netflix for dominance.

There is absolutely no reason for something like Death on the Nile to be held for theatrical release, where the previous film, although money making, only was so because it served an underserved audience (over 40) in an environment where people still went to see movies in theaters out of habit. That era no longer exists and it may not ever come back.

Word is this Death on the NIle is so bad it willl go str8 to netflix and avoid theatres......the director ruins yet another Christie story. ugh

Out of all the 5 million stories Agatha Christie wrote, why do they keep remaking the same ones?

I'm really not sure why they're not putting it on streaming either. Murder on the Orient Express did ok in cinemas, but a lot of that was due to people being curious and not knowing what to expect. I imagine a lot of people who saw that aren't going to be interested in watching the next one, particularly those who just went out to see a movie and thought it was merely "fine". Even I as someone who will watch any Christie adaptation was not that excited by this one and not that fussed about seeing it in the cinema.

What I can't believe is that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd has never been made into a film or a tv movie. It's Christie's best book and widely regarded as one of the best murder mystery novels of all time.

It'd be interesting to think what novels could be made into movies that we haven't seen that much before (nearly everything of hers has been filmed, but a lot of it only once). I put my vote in for Peril at End House, which isn't necessarily a hugely flashy one, but you could make a lot of the rot and cynicism setting in amongst the cast of "bright young things". The house can become quite a character and a movie about a girl with numerous attempts being made on her life could interest people, I think.

Five Little Pigs would make an excellent film, but the TV version of that is so good at the same time, it's almost definitive. I'd like them to take some ones that are great novels but haven't been adapted so well, like Appointment with Death or Sleeping Murder and make really good versions of those.

This movie will be streaming really soon.

R240. Hulu

[quote]Linnet is meant to be a 20 year old stunner.

A role tailor-made for me!

[quote] why do they keep remaking the same ones?

They remake these ones because most of Christie's stories are very static with lots of talking heads inside one house.

They're lucky this has been pulled. It was already a flop.

[quote]This movie will be streaming really soon.

I will absolutely pay one ha'penny for it.

R238, Akroyd has been adapted for TV, with David Suchet. It was pretty dire and actually ended in a ridiculous pursuit. I think it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to adapt this and maintain the greatness ofthe book. Since its main originality does not transpose to screen, any adaptation will only highlight what ultimately is an otherwise basic plot.

I've often thought the only way to come close to successfully adapting Ackroyd is... SPOILERS AHEAD:

...

To have it filmed in chronological order after a stack of Poirot/Hastings stories, where in the previous story Hastings has left to get married. Make the most of Poirot having retired and missing Hastings terribly and make Dr Sheppard seem to be the New Hastings, like Dr Who changing companions. I think only then there is a chance of coming close to the effect of the original novel. It is going to be hard any way you put it though. And I agree with R246 - the novel was innovative for its time, but I never reread it like others of hers, because it's not really an interesting plot. I mean, it kinda has to be your standard murder mystery to make the ending more surprising too.

Exactly, r247, the i novation, so to speak, mea that otherwise the story is neither original or innovative. Agatha Christie would never go for this plot if,for instance,it was narrated in the third person. That said, for the same reason i had not reread it for years but when i did it is a great experience .

This trailer doesn't even have 2 million views. This is going straight to Hulu.

"What I can't believe is that The Murder of Roger Ackroyd has never been made into a film or a tv movie. It's Christie's best book and widely regarded as one of the best murder mystery novels of all time."

I often wondered how they could make it because the book relies entirely on the first-person narration and that could make the movie very difficult. It is, in my view, one of the trickiest books to adapt because of the central mystery which I won't give away here. Truly a masterpiece.

Couldn’t they pick another river to set this on and make it more interesting? Death on the Potomac or the YYoughiogheny for example?

Death on the Yangtze is a good title.

I thought Agatha Christie spent time on the River Tigris and/or the River Euphrates.

Wasn't her husband working for the British/Persian oilfields with the husband to Vita Sackville-West?

[quote] I often wondered how they could make it because the book relies entirely on the first-person narration and that could make the movie very difficult.

Dolores Clariborne (the novel) was not only written in a first person narrative, the entire thing was written in an old-time Mainer dialect. In spite of that, a fantastic film was made out of it.

Well, yes, r254, but the problem with Roger Ackroyd isn't that it's written in first person, but that being in first person is connected to the surprise ending.

Another book that had that issue was Marathon Man. In the book we have a scene where Scylla is talking to his girlfriend, Janey. Janey ends with "call me Janey, all my friends do." Much much later, we find out who Janey is, and it's a real surprise. In the movie they couldn't really duplicate that, so they basically got rid of it, unfortunately.

R253, Christie's second husband, Max Mallowan, was an archaeologist, not an engineer, so I don't think he was connected to oil exploration or extraction. Christie did accompany him on digs in the Middle East, which contributed to the finely drawn settings for several books. Murder in Mesopotamia is set specifically at an architectural dig in Iraq.

For those who might want to see the definitive adaptation of the book, without camp, without big stars and (mostly) without woke casting and storylines, the David Suchet version is available in Season 9 of Agatha Christie's Poirot on Amazon. I bought the season a while back, so I don't know what it costs now, but whatever the price is, it's probably less than the cost to watch the new version and is a great delight besides.