Everything Wrong With Death on the Nile in 22 Minutes or Less
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 вер 2024
- Death on the Nile is not as good as Murder on the Orient Express. It's kind of confusing at times. Oh, and don't forget about the sins!
Next week: recent animated sins, not-as-recent animated sins.
Remember, no movie is without sin. Which movie's sins should we count next?
•CinemaSins website• www.cinemasins...
•Channels•
--TVSins: / tvsins
--MusicVideoSins: / musicvideosins
--CommercialSins: / @commercialsins
--CinemaSins Podcast Network: / @cinemasinspodcastnetwork
•SinClub Members get MORE! ALL videos early, bonus videos and podcasts, merch discounts and MORE on Patreon!• / cinemasins
•Merch!• www.teespring....
•Podcasts•
--Recotopia: A happy home for recommended movies, shows, & music from two people you can totally trust. Chris and Jeremy take turns picking a movie each week to recommend, as well as talk about other pop culture stuff they are consuming. Become a member of the SinClub to interact LIVE with them every week! tinyurl.com/bd...
--Behind the Sins:The CinemaSins B-Team give you an unprecedented inside look at what goes on in the CinemaSins universe. Each week Aaron, Denee', Jonathan, and Ian will break down the videos, UA-cam comments, your questions and more! tinyurl.com/2y...
--Captain’s Pod: A Star Trek companion podcast! Join Ian, Deneé, and a crew of intrepid guests as they boldly explore everything they love and, naturally, everything wrong with the franchise that has dominated the final frontier for more than half a century. tinyurl.com/56...
•Writers•
Jeremy: / cinemasins
Chris:
Aaron: / aarondicer
Jonathan: / samloomis13
Deneé: / deneesays
Ian: / whittsinned
Daniel:
•Other Links•
Discord: / discord
Reddit: / cinemasins
Jeremy's Book: cinemasins.com...
Instagram: / cinemasins
#7 is absolutely spot on. I have a fairly large facial scar from a childhood accident and it makes a distinct line through my beard because hair doesn’t grow in scar tissue…
While I’m empathetic to you,sir…at least you have a reason…my face refuses to beard correctly….FOR NO REASON!
@@-MrFozzy- don't feel bad I'm 23 and i barley have a mustache
@@-MrFozzy- i can grow lots of hair but there is a patch that refuses to grow in
@@-MrFozzy- I have a nice full beard but I have always wanted a long one, unfortunately it gets to about 2 inches from my chin and then just stops getting longer. My sideburns on the other hand continually grow at a blistering pace. Its a great pity I missed the Victorian era of the Mutton Chops. As to why I have always been forced to have a beard, its because by lunchtime I need a second shave to look presentable!
THANK YOU
To be fair, if they DIDN'T tell us how the luggage got on the ship, you'd have sinned the logistics of a surprise boat trip including not knowing what happened to their luggage.
Are you saying that he would have sinned that detail one way or the other? How dare you accuse him of something that is 100% correct?
I too remember feeling like the start of the movie was WAYYY too drawn out, while the interesting investigation part was cut short. It's okay, even natural to only learn all the intricacies of the host of characters AFTER the murder.
My strongest feeling about this movie was that Bouc deserved way better; I was so heartbroken about his death I couldn't give a flip about the main murder plot anymore (which I've seen several better movie iterations of).
ALSO, completely agree on the spinning interrogation scene, it almost made me puke.
100% agree that there are much better adaptations and that the pacing was way off.
Heartbroken? Guess it depends on your emotional investment. Not one person here to care about.
I thought this was gonna be a good movie to watch with the wife.. She actually turned to me and said, "When is this gonna pick up?" I felt the same way because holy shit did it drag on, far too much useless scenery for a murder mystery.
I also hated that Bouc gave a big synopsis of all the characters at the start of the wedding party- basically to save time. It's more fun and intellectually stimulating to find that stuff out. Instead I felt like they were treating us like we're dumb
20:10 If you know Agatha Christie's work and you really know Poirot, you would know two things: he is a showboat and would never do things without a big production reveal and 2 he wouldn't reveal anything to anyone about anything until he knows all the questions were answered... So he wouldn't reveal anything about the murders until he understood about the necklace theft...
Still gets Bouc killed
That is very true. I’ve read several Poirot books and he always seems to figure it out well before he announces he does. And he always has to have an audience to announce his results.
@@leonpaelinck that's the filmmaker's choice... In the books Bouc is not even present... If I am not mistaken, the "jazz singer" (in the books an author) is the ones who dies...
@@TheAlan136 yeah... Not to brag, but I believe I read all Poirot books (I always preferred him to Miss Maple) and he is always the same way... He even wants his friend (in the books) Cap Hastings to think for himself and only after he sees he is not gonna see what happened then he tells everyone...
The biggest mistake in these movies is their attempt to cast Poirot's particularism as a obsessive compulsive disorder. There's no need to make him a victim of a medical malady or to turn that situation into some kind of superpower. I wish these films trusted the audience more to appreciate Poirot for being the man than he is, rather than for being the man Branagh projects onto him.
Agreed. While I wouldn't mind decent portrayal of mental disorders, it just seems that nowdays movie studios think that a character quirk must be a disorder. I remember that Poirot's detective strength is in the fact that he is observant and is very savvy to the devil in details. Just something he learnt, not something because of brain not doing chemistry right.
@@Gebunator Agree, Poirot is a Belgium dandy who rivals Sherlock Holmes with his powers of deduction. Nothing more nothing less. It is the reason I enjoy his stories so much.
Thats not really true, hes always been portrayed as a germophobe with an OCD like hatred for asymmetry. That scene in this film where he gets obsessed about two eggs being identically sized? its from the 1923 story The Disappearance Of Mr Davenheim.
@@Gebunator Yep - and in a couple of books, Poirot admits that sometimes his "quirks" are deliberate in order to put people off their guard.
Yep, 100%
"Sir, I would not brag about that third time if she's only counting two."
I guffawed
A perfect line!
@@thefriesofLockeLamora So did I!
“Oh a self burn. Those are rare”
Yeah! I laughed like crazy for that 🤣...... dont know what it says about me, but idc.
You didn't sin a .22 caliber bullet from a derringer somehow going through 2 people and killing them both? One sin for you.
That's the only reason I thought one could get away with 'muffling' it with a scarf- it's a small calibre gun; how much noise can it make?
@@OcarinaSapphr- It's still a gun, not that they're very loud but it is still able to be heard a half mile away under the right circumstances
@@lucask6539
Thanks for clearing that up- if I remember from the Ustinov adaptation, it was mistaken for a champagne cork popping, I thought that might have made that scenario semi-realistically possible _because_ it was so small, & with the night time noises of the river...
@@OcarinaSapphr- reminded me of the video titled "John Wick 2 Subway Fight With Realistic Sound Effects"
@@OcarinaSapphr- The cartridge a .22 derringer would use is very similar to the blank fired from a starters pistol - so the noise would be similar.
one of the great things about Christie is that she didn't have to introduce a boring backstory into the main character. A few paragraphs - a well placed line here and there and you're off. it is called PACE and is hard to do.
If you know about Agatha Christie's passion for archaeology and love to Egypt, you wouldn't make a movie without a single Egyptian on board a Nile steam boat. Because this atmosphere builds the framework of the crime story. Not just the British establishment.
Yeah and I think the part about Egypt is not too long... it just happens to come after that really long jazz club and wedding scenes AND the stupid backstory scenes and then it feels like we do not need further scenes before the murder.
Thank you, this also bothered me when I saw the movie 🤦🏽♀️ I even Watched it in Egypt, which makes it even worse….
“Do you have any idea how love works?”
“Simple, you’ll grow a mustache.”
Oh my god that explains everything
You’ve waited 4 years for this moment!
Guy with moustache. Doesn't work. It's sizeist bs.
I thoughtit was generally a beard...
And immediately after explaining the philosophy of love, Poirot turn his head to show big facial scar, she then tell him to grow a mustache to hide the scar indicating that outward appearance plays a big role for her love, instead of saying things along the line of "it's just appearance" or "It's the inside you that I love" which is in line with the philosophy of love she just explained.
She is saying the scar doesnt matter.
The majority of these sins are coming from the book, but they still leave a lot unexplained. Jacqueline had no interest in killing Linnet, she only wanted Linnet to hire Simon as his land agent. However Linnet tries to seduce Simon from the moment they've met. Simon is the one who comes up with murdering Linnet, after Jacqueline suggests that he should marry her friend, as she is rich, while Simon wants to be rich. Simon basically marries Linnet for her money while he is leaving it to Jacqueline to come up with a plan. Poirot does see them in a restaurant and suspects that Jacqueline is deeply in love with Simon, while Simon's affections are not quite as deep or sincere as hers.
The reason Jacqueline makes herself look suspicious because she knows that everybody will suspect her. Poirot tries to make her leave before the murder is committed because he doesn't want her to open her heart to evil. He knows that she will kill Simon and herself after Simon confesses to everything, but out of pity for her, he allows her to escape the noose.
With that said, I really dislike the sexy dance scenes, the fact that Bouc is here (who's of the same age as Poirot, btw), also I think that the main trio are miscast. The actress playing Jacqueline less so, at least she matches the physical description in the book, kind of. But these 3 actors have very little chemistry. Armie Hammer has no chemistry with either of his on-screen partners. The version with David Suchet was so sad, it made me cry. This version made me confused.
I disagree about the chemistry. I don’t know what you were expecting but he and Linnet had a steamy chemistry in my opinion.
This is one of my favorite Christie books, and one of the reasons is the set of scenes between Poirot and Jackie, which are really nicely done. He also forms a very nice relationship with Rosalie in the book (they are very different in the book, though I do like both versions). I feel the movie cheats itself out of the strong and touching end of the book; and that several of the character and plot changes snarl up the intricacy of Christie's very careful structure. All in all, I was a little disappointed in the movie as a whole, though I appreciated some of the choices they made.
Honestly when i saw the trailer i thought that linnet was jackie and vice versa :’D
"However Linnett tries to seduce Simon from the moment they met" you really got that from the book? I never have, the Mia Farrow movie yes absolutely, but not the book. Linnett in the book isn't the evil bitch the movie makes her out to be. She's a very young naive girl with a lot of money surrounded by people trying to manipulate her. She does some not great things but in her naiveté she truly believes they are for the best. In the book Simon is the master manipulator. He meets Linnett and instantly makes a comment to Jacki about her wealth. He essentially manipulates Jacki into coming up with the plan. The book makes it clear that both women are the victims.
@@dramamole Lovely response. I decided to pull up my handy dandy Kindle and found this quote from Jackie to Poirot toward the end: "What I'm going to say now is quite true...She went all all out to get Simon away from me. That's the absolute truth! I don't think she even hesitated for a minute. I was her friend, but she didn't care. She just went bald-headed for Simon."
But one of the lovely things about this particular Christie is the POV aspect: when WE see Linnet meet Simon, it's with a much more sympathetic ring: we know instinctively what's going to happen: Christie doesn't tease us about that. But Linnet is profoundly lonely and vaguely unhappy/unfulfilled, and her first thoughts upon seeing Jackie and Simon so happy together include: "Lucky Jackie". So it's a question that Christie leaves up to us to some degree: whose head are we going to like living in?
Peter Ustinov and David Suchet's versions remain the best in my honest opinion
Absolutely. I prefer Ustinovs over Suchet just because of the miscast of Emily Blunt and the great Cast of 78
@@qeetuhd I prefer Suchet's because that episode wasn't as over the top as Appointment with Death or as overdramatic as Murder on the Orient Express... It was a very neat, classic crime movie where the dénouement brought some real terror by providing insight into the mechanically cruel minds of the two murderers. On the other hand, I prefer the 1970's Murder on the Orient Express to both the new versions.
Ustinovs movie was certainly alot more entertaining than this dreadful garbage
For the movies, I prefer Ustinow. But the TV series, it is Suchet.
But I agree 100% that it is either one of those amd never ever anyone else,- not the Branagh, the undisputed Shakespeare adapter. He should have sticked to William.
Branagh is a great actor, but a sub-par Poirot.
I recently saw the 1978 version of this story with Peter Ustinov as Poirot. It is quite entertaining and it clears up much of the confusion by the end, with only a few exceptions
What confusion? This version was as clear as the book was, to me.
I wish they would do a comparison of the 1978 version with this one as being which is the better adaptation. Also yeah cast, location, atmosphere, tone, pacing and reenactments kicked ass in the 1978 verison versus this piece of crap. I thought it would be funny as hell is Maggie Smith reprised her role as being what Betty Davis character was in the movie so it was kind of like a come full circle of her career.
This movie was trash. Worst Agatha Christie movie I've ever seen. Agreed the original was so much better
Honestly going off of his recent track record I think Keneth Branagh needs to refrain from directing non-Shakespearean film adaptations, between these movies and Artemis Fowl it seems he has more a flair for Shakespeare and his own original IP’s than Agatha Christie or fantasy novel adaptations
Perhaps. So far the only movie of his I’ve seen is Thor. I hear one of his Shakespeare movies is ridiculously long.
Makes the 70's version look even more like a classic.
100% agree.
They changed WAY too much in this version. It is nothing like what Agatha Christie wrote at all.
Bouc isn't even IN this story! Col. Race is Poirot's companion in this story.
Multiple characters are missing and having Bowers and Mrs. Van Schuyler as lovers is a change to introduce LGBT characters that were not in the original.
The 1970s version wasn't a perfect rendition, but it was MUCH better, both in writing and acting.
This version is garbage.
It was already laughable enough that this film honest to god starts with an origin story for Hercule's mustache, because it's not enough to just be an interesting thing on his character, it has to be connected to big drama they could possibly have milked in a tv series/movies, but then seeing the early scenes in Egypt that doesn't even begin to look like they are actually there and not on some sound stage around wonky green screen made this one of the great unintentional comedies for me. Not to mention the modern glitz on this film really feels distracting for the old one style they also want you to take in. I feel the 1978 film did a much better job of immersion on that end.
That first scene was even weirder for a french speaker. It’s so clear Poirot’s the only non-native French speaker in it. He speaks French like he doesn’t understand a word of it.
The first scenes are just Kenneth Branaghs hubris thinking the Poirot stories are about Poirot as the main character. But Poirot is never the main. He is only a small fly on the wall in the larger narrative.
When you Swing Dance it's actually very common to be extra vigilant on the dance floor. Leads are always looking around to make sure they are moving into clear spaces, leaving space for other pairs, and not running themselves or their follow into someone. I'd argue that Swing is probably one of the easiest styles of dance to walk across the dance floor during! :)
Poirot being in the club at the same time as Simon and Jackie is a huge coincidence- but it happens in the book, so it’s accurate
09:50 "Who was watching Murder on the Orient Express and thinking 'man, I hope we get to learn more about Bouc in the next film [...]?" Here, me, that was me! He was a favorite of mine in both films and I was crying so hard when he dies.
Lol 😂
You're not the only one. I was absolutely devastated and couldn't give a flip about the main murder plot anymore after he got killed off.
I expected him to be the Watson to Poirot's Holmes, so his death was a bit of a surprise. I really should read the books.
@@RitsusDarlingGirl In the books, Poirot's Watson would be Captain Hastings (in most books, but not Orient Express or Death on the Nile). He's a bit of an idiot, always thinks it can't have been the pretty girl, and often draws the wrong conclusions, but he's a loyal friend and often accidentally helps Poirot solve the case, if I remember correctly. The books really are worth it!
@@RitsusDarlingGirl Bouc is not even in the book - Salome is the one shot towards the end
There is only one definitive Poirot, and it was the master Suchet.
No-one else has even come vaguely close...
Ain't that the truth!
He was born to become Poirot, that's an understatement.
True. Ustinov was too big and Finney, while he was able to look the part, made choices as an actor that I cannot see Poirot doing.
I was shocked to find out David was actually British, I was so taken in by his character and masterful acting!
@@phoenixnyc Sorry, but Suchet's Murder on the Orient Express was AWFUL, as was Brannagh's. Finney's version is actually the closest to the book. I like Suchet, but he certainly isn't flawless.
The David Suchet Poirot films will always be superior.
And his moustache was better
The Peter Ustinov version was also better.
Suchet is to Poirot what RDJ is to Iroman or Viggo Mortensen to Aragorn.
The little grey cells never lie.
David Suchet *IS* Hercule Poirot. Period. Kenneth Branagh just pretends to be him (and rather badly, I'll add).
The version with Mia Farrow and Peter Ustinov was always the best.
For # 31, Bouc made a 'Casablanca' reference:
"Of all the [insert anything] in all the world, you showed up at mine."
The thing is, 'Death on the Nile' is set in the 1930's. 'Casablanca' is set (and was also released theatrically) during WWII, so like 1940-something.
Poirot would have probably found that phrase odd in a pre-Casablanca setting. Any detective worth his salt would have immediately gone searching for the DeLorean.
Just a pet peeve of mine when I see it in movies.
But if Casablanca hasn't happened the reference is only for us. The in movie people wouldn't know of a movie that hasn't come out yet
@@zom8680 But it makes no sense if it isn't a reference to Casablanca. "Of all the pyramids in all the world, you had to walk up to mine." is a very strange thing to say in a world that doesn't have Casablanca.
Here to say the same thing.
It's ok. We'll always have the David Suchet-version.
Wait a minute... If you say Poirot would have gone searching for the DeLorean, that must mean that he himself knew of Casablanca in the 1930s, which in turn would mean that Poirot *is* the time traveller. Am I reading to far into this?
Honestly the biggest mystery for me was what the hell Jackie and Linnet saw in Simon
I genuinely can't wait for Jeremy to lose his will to live when he gets to Dominion
Horrible people tend to be very good at sex. This helps them get away with a lot
@@heathersurprise3381 not really. they exploit your vulnerabilities for their own gain which gaslights you into seeing them as sex gods as they manipulate you into projecting what you want most on them. it's a myth that needs to be debunked yesterday.
Well, in the book he was supposedly charming, good-looking and boyish. Here though, I couldn't understand it either. Simon in the movie was about as charming as sandpaper. Had as much chemistry with the other leads too. In fact, almost everybody was miscast. In my opinion, at least.
@@heathersurprise3381 But she only counted 2 when he said 3 though........ Either 1 of that blew her mind so much that she forgot OR it wasnt that great.... Both of them leaves questions
He was hot and apparently was good at sex and being horny lol
"It's kind of confusing at times." Is an understatement
The movie in a nutshell
@@chasehedges6775 Serious question, what about the movie is confusing?
@@tigriscallidus4477 Everything if you have read the book.
Windelsham isn't on the boat.
Mrs Van Schulyer and Bowers are not lesbians.
Bouc is not in this story at all.
Col. Race is missing.
Characters are missing, characters are added and the characters there have totally different motivations and behavior than the story Christie wrote.
If you want to do Agatha Christie, then stick to her classic story. Otherwise, write a different story and make a movie from that.
You forgit a sin that Poirot wasn't played by David Suchet, who in my opinion is the only actor who nailed the character down
Absolutely 💯 right 👍🏻
The Passengers on the Orient Express: (Team up for several years to plan and commit first-degree murder.)
Poirot: I don't like it, but I understand why you did it, so I'll let you get away with it.
Cousin Andrew: (Embezzles money for years, commits attempted murder.)
Poirot: Eh, I'll let you get away with it, its fine.
Bouc: (Steals a necklace, returns it later, doesn't immediately reveal evidence. Tearfully apologizes.)
Poirot: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? HOW COULD YOU BETRAY ME LIKE THIS? YOU WILL GO TO PRISON!
The ghost of Bouc: .... seriously?
"If it is a remake of a classic, go see the classic." Jay Sherman from The Critic.
It's awfully hard to try to "reimagine" a book where David Suchet has already done so good a job on the character that most people can't even imagine anyone else playing him. Forget watching this and just watch Death on the Nile with David Suchet as Poirot.
Ustinov is at least as good and the cast of that movie is better.
Epilogue... not a prologue. Also, the notion that a .22 would have enough power to go completely through Armie Hammer and still have enough penetration power to kill Jaqueline was kinda laughable.
I thought the same thing, at least in original movie Jackie shot Simon and then herself. Also glad somebody else noticed the incorrect use of prologue.
I think the bigger sin is the notion that a .22 caliber bullet would actually kill them. I've seen footage of a .22 going through six pine boards and kept going, but the bullet is so small it's incredibly unlikely it hit anything in such a way it would actually kill them. She didn't even hit the spine. Some minor internal bleeding sure, but death and death within seconds? Not unless they got shot in the brain or the heart.
@@jonathanmcginley8128 yeah the tv series also has Jackie killing both of them with two bullets
Fun fact the Belgian police were an ideal heroic model whilst the Belgian armed forces collapsed the Belgian police armed with personal weapons and what they could loot from gun shops and their own armouries held up the most mobile and heavily armed army in Europe for 5 weeks now that would be an epic film
That sounds like it would make a great film.
I believe Poirot was made Belgian because Belgium and England had been allies in WWI and it was considered patriotic to support them. I love learning about all the little things in real life that influenced Christie's stories!
Gal Gadot is, I'm sure, a genuinely lovely person. And she was somehow very compelling in the first WW movie. But she cannot carry a film like this. Even halfway. I'm reminded of Keanu Reeves' quick turn as Don John in Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing," and his Californication of the line "I would rather be a canker in a hedge than a rose in his grace, [dude]."
KB's ensemble casting often forces the "flavor of the month" into roles they just can't inhabit. Perhaps Gadot will one day transcend her one-note, type-castable woodenness as Reeves ultimately has. In the meantime I say, "get thee to an actor studio-ary!"
The added scene with her as "Cleopatra" was pure cringe to me and I doubt that shes a lovely person in real life. She flipped of a palestinian girl at a red carpet once for being confronted with israels politics.
@@calistafalcontail Well WTF does she have to do with Israel's politics? Just because she's from there? Would any other actor want to be "confronted" about Donald Trump? Celebrities get way too much sh*t and eventually they're fed up with it.
She cannot act. Even in WW you could see the cracks but playing a fish out of water masks a lot. She has been incredibly wooden in everything. She doesn’t even have Keanu’s natural screen presence, which makes up for his obvious stiff performance skills.
My big issue is that a better version was made not too long ago with Suchet.
I agree. Suchet version is my favourite and it’s also the most accurate to the book.
Suchet=Poirot. Change my mind.
"if you can, you're a liar and this movie still gets a sin" one of the funniest lines in all of the EWW... catalogue 🤣🤣🤣
Cinemasins is how I watch movies without paying or wasting 2 hours
Same! 😂
Movie Recaps pretty much fo the same
Hurhurhur
And they cinemasins are ruining movies 🤡
Pretty much. If it seems interesting at the beginning I might switch away so I don't get spoilers... But just did it yesterday for Scott Pilgrim.. Might get the movie from the library but not gonna pay to rent
20:21: "In fact, he didn't even need to interview Bouc! Poirot has had all the evidence that points toward Jackie and Simon." Yes... that was THE POINT. Poirot had figured it out already by that point but he was just tying up every loose end to show off before he does the 'big reveal' and then gets told how clever he is. In doing so however setting up the big finale he got his friend killed. This was Poirot's character flaw, and he addresses it literally before he starts revealing who did it after locking them all in when he says
"I did fail. Linnet Doyle. Louise Bourget. Bouc. I will not fail him now. The murderer is here. And will stay here. Miss Otterbourne is right. I love to talk. An audience. I am vain, you see. I love people to hear me bring the solution to a crime and say, “See, how clever is Hercule Poirot.”
When all I want now, would give anything for… is one conversation… with Bouc.
I would stomp about and say, “Around a person like Linnet Doyle there are so many conflicting hates and jealousies. It is like the cloud of flies, buzzing, buzzing.” And he would laugh at me.
“Then play your clever games,” he would say. “Ask your questions till the right one comes.”, “Who would want to kill her?", “Who could have?”
And then, I would ask and I would see."
He had planned how all this was going to go when he finally revealed the killer even though he'd figured it out relatively early because he wanted the audience. But him tying it all together for his own vanity got Bouc killed which is why he was all business at the end. The entire point was that he'd figured it out, but didn't want to reveal it till it was a spectacle that fed into his vanity. That was the character flaw he had that he addressed at this part of the film. So whenever CinemaSins says "He should have already figured it out by now." He had. That was the point of revealing that character flaw later.
That's actually pretty good. They took a character flaw that Poirot in the books undoubtedly has, and gave it consequences. Moreover, they made him realize those consequences, thereby giving him an arc.
I don't think I've ever seen or read Poirot getting character development (with the possible exception of Curtain). Not even Suchet's Poirot, who I love and will probably always prefer.
@@monmothma3358 Agreed. I was very happy they did that in the film.
As Poirot says at the end tho, he has very little evidence. If he can get Bouc to be an eyewitness to the assistant's murder by Jackie, that is better.
They had great source material....and they completely ignored it. They had a great, iconic main character, a they chose to change him completely. They has a great cast, and they barely used them. I liked Orient Express. I HATED this movie.
And the awful CGI had no excuse.
But....it did make me appreciate the David Suchet one a lot more. All the subplots, all the characters with their issues and motivations, woven together so seamlessly I never realized how hard that should have been.
Oh come on. You know you would have sinned them for 'luggage magically appearing on the ship'.
#42 Spending so much time on the mustache backstory and the added Bouc side plot; then realizing you forgot to leave enough time to establish believable motives for any of the other characters, so you end up running through them all with rapid exposition that makes it feel painfully obvious that they were only thrown in as an afterthought because a murder mystery needs multiple suspects.
Thought Russell Brand was amazing in this film. He can do over-the-top comedy, but also a nice retrained performance.
He was good in this movie - a bright spot in a total train wreck IMHO.
However, his character doesn't appear in the book except as the suitor that Linnet dumps to marry Simon.
As a David Suchet fan I do find these movies hard to get into but I still watched them
Kenneth Branagh is one of the finest actors of our time. He has no more business playing Poirot than I do.
He’s the director it’s an ego thing
Well he did play Gilderoy Lockhart soooo
I agree.
He should have stuck with Shakespeare. His versions were beautifully done.
Hamlet, Much Ado About Nothing and Henry V were all fabulous.
As Poirot, he stinks.
While I know this movie wasn’t for everyone, I loved the song “Rock Me” which gets played in the dance scene 😁
Me too
The whole "let's modernise it and have a homosexual relationship thing" is silly. No way would everyone in the upper middle class party be accepting of it in the nineteen thirties. Then they go walking through Egypt holding hands- where they would probably be imprisoned, if not executed
But they are not really displaying homosexuality, are they? They disguised themselves to everyone as a female employer and her companion, which is very common back then. And let's be honest, females holding hands in public is NEVER considered homosexuality. In fact, men holding hands in Arab countries is pretty normal.
Plus, they are portraying homosexuals as they were back in the day. Discreet and taboo in society. It's not like the entire characters are aware of them as a couple and accept it (other than the couple themselves, only Poirot and Bouc know) and they are not like kissing in public or doing anything that would show them as a lesbian couple which would result in them being imprisoned or executed. So it's a pretty accurate portrayal of homosexuality in those days. There is no modernisation in it other than that they are exist and discreet with only a few people that accept it.
After death of Bout and how agile the shooter was. I could rule out lesbian couple, both black women.
Wait is Egypt extremely homophobic
Correcr
That’s wokeness for you.
"Are you my mummy?" Brilliant! (For those who are confused, this is a reference to the Doctor Who episode, "The Empty Child," starring Christopher Eccleston and Billie Piper.)
Man, that episode scared the **** out of me!!
I know you are usually joking around with all the sins but I wish you had found even more sins with this movie.
For me, the boat looks extremely wide. There are parts of the Nile that could accommodate a wide boat but then you are trapped between the numerous cataracts where the Nile narrows. The Murder on the Orient Express has a similar problem. Where a huge Hollywood set is used when the real life space would have only been no more than 1/5 as wide. Films about the Hindenburg do this as well. In real life, your room was the size of a typical hall closet.
You’re totally right. I’ve been to one of these Nile cruises, the Nile is wide, and it can certainly accommodate wide boats, but not as wide as some of those rooms in the film.
...and no other boats and tourists around either. Very convenient.
That's what I loved about the 1974 Murder on the Orient Express(aside from Albert Finney). The characters never leave the train once the investigation starts and the claustrophobic surrounding really help build suspense and tension.
@@sourdrop That movie was great and Finney was wonderful. Much better than the version with Suchet.
Suchet is normally good as Poirot, but that particular story is awful. Nothing like the book and too much like the Branagh version, which is also awful.
I loved the original movies. Ustinov had a nice take on the character. The style is terrible and I wish remakes stop doing backstories. They are always bad and just drags the movie. This was so bad I stopped watching. I was on the plane, so I didn’t pay for it this didn’t have to endure for long. When I arrived home, I watched the original.
And they dropped the ball...the backstory that would've added to the story was the one they cut: the victim's.
It is with great sadness that we say goodbye to Jeremy. He died doing what he loved though, sinning movies, and I like to think it's how he would have wanted to go.
He died??
Fake died while he was sinning this movie!
Fucking christ!! DON'T SCARE ME LIKE THAT! I actually thought that he died!
@@Ronald98 I apologize for scaring you. I was just trying to keep going with the spirit of his video. To the best of my knowledge Jeremy is not dead.
I did not even notice the voice change.
In my opinion, David Suchet will always be Hercule Poirot.
When you remember the David Suchet version (2004) featured a little known British TV actress called Emily Blunt.
JJ Fields was brilliant in that one.
Agree
"Who was watching Murder on the Orient Express and thinking 'man, I hope we get to learn more about Bouc in the next film” Me, I love him
Bouc isn't in the book, so this isn't cannon to Christie.
22:05 is a VERY obscure Dr Who reference that I appreciate.
The biggest sin, Poirot was bold and had a egg-shaped head. He was also short..lol
Fantastic video! Could you do the 1978 Death on the Nile film, starring Ustinov, too? Might be an interesting comparison
IMO not much to sin in that version, but I'm sure Jeremy would find something.
Both “Death on the Nile” and “Murder on the Orient Express” are just okay in my opinion.
It’s because the remakes suck! I would highly recommend watching the original Death on the Nile from 1978; Angela Lansbury as a drunk romance novelist alone is worth watching! 🤣😊
@@lk_c7214 The 1978 version was so good, and Peter Ustinov was fantastic as Poirot. Just found out KB is making a 3rd Poirot movie. Why, Ken, why? Please STOP NOW!
Orient Express was damn good in my opinion. Even before I say the series "Everything great about murder on the orient express" sadly this movie had bad pacing issues imo.
@@lk_c7214 that's funny, because Lansbury ends up being a famous crime fiction writer....., and was Miss Marple in The Mirror Crack'd.
Both movie remakes were an absolute insult...
Dawn French and jennifer Saunders together again on screen, one of the most beloved comedy duos in British TV history doesnt warrant a sin off?
Nope.
Bette Davis and Maggie Smith were much better and portrayed the characters more as Christie wrote them.
There's absolutely no way a .22 would go through both Simon and Jackie.
yes I thought it would not have the speed to do it nor I would have thought with out complete accuracy hit enough in both there bodies to kill them as fast as it does. no screaming in pain. no please help. no one runs to try to help them
Sin 24: "world's most famous detective..."
So.... Sherlock is ALSO on this old paddle boat too
I would love to smoke and watch u sin these movies live 🤣🤣🤣 like the new intro as well
The overt CGI in these Branagh productions makes them feel so cold and fake. I realize that, as we move further into the future, period movies and TV will be forced to rely more and more on computer generated sets. But, as with the jarring "young Poirot" in the opening scenes, there is an uncanny valley associated with scene settings and props as well. At least for now, a CGI backdrop of an imagined world - like in scifi - can be breathtaking. But CGI used to recreate vast, familiar locales - like the Pyramids of Giza or a steam train on a snowy mountain side - leaves the entire enterprise feeling like a bad video game.
Clerks 3 opened this week and you're not sinning clerks? I love Kev and love the Kev's sin video, just as we only roast the ones we love. We need to sin the movies we love too
I felt like Rose Leslie was very under used in this movie
Imma be honest. I didn’t realize Gadot was gonna be the one who died right until it happened.
What did you expect the only other note worthy actor was Russell brand
Her character was supposed to be a lot more rounded, but Gadot is no actress. She’s a pretty girl who did her job in the casting couch. Her character was supposed to show clear spoiled and entitled behavior, a very unlikable person. Instead Gadot tried to make her likable because it’s her character and she has no talent or inclination as an actress, so she couldn’t have possibly even begun to understand her character, or have any interest in doing so. She had no idea what the real assignment was, so she looked cute on screen, which is all she can do. That added, completely displaced Cleopatra scene was beyond cringe, something that only a very silly, infatuated producer would do; cause it made absolutely no sense, that’s how displaced it was. Notice how she’s a part of that squad of pretty, talentless galls who completely disappeared after Harvey Weinstein went to prison. 🙄 If she had any acting chops this film would have made her, instead it seems to have buried her, for good. I seriously wish that people like her found their real talent and stopped ruining movies.
@@selmahare What I don't get is was Linnet supposed to be American or some other nationality? Because Gadot didn't even attempt a British accent. Kevin Costner's Robin Hood was more British.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 Linnet was written by Christie as an American.
@@selmahare You sound jealous.
Also also I would think that telling the detective who a murderer is (that keeps murdering people) would trump stealing a necklace.
I remember watching this on a 12 hour plane flight.. I thought It was “confusing” because I kept falling asleep.. BUT NOPE -
The snake is a direct reference to the Ustinov version. Also they used the same Sharps 4 barreled derringer/pocket pistol in that film.
Elementary..So is the boat..the dessert..the nile..the dancing..the sun..the..well we get it..
@@gonogazz Don't forget, the snake wasn't in the David Suchet version, and they used a Belgian ladies pocket pistol, a nickel plated revolver (22LR) in that one, instead of the four barrel derringer (22 short). A snake was used to try to kill Ustinov's Poirot, no such attempt was made in the Suchet version.
@@colinmoore7460 Well of course you wouldn't use a snake to kill David Suchet. He once fought a bigfoot and lived. A little snake wouldn't bother him a bit.
Also, her devoted hubby doesn't make a move to help her. It's left to Poirot.
one of the last sins, about how the couple could have gotten away with things due to the circumstantial nature of the evidence. you're forgetting the time. back then court decisions weighed MUCH less heavily on tangible evidence, and likely the word of poirotte (however you spell it) would almost be good enough to convict on its own, given his stature and the nature of legal precedings in that time and place.
‘Of all the pyramids in all the world…’
Yes, quote Casablanca. A movie that came out in the forties…when this movie takes place in the thirties.
This movie left me with too many questions. What about the pistol kicked below the chair in the fake shot scene? What if Rosaline or Bouc had taken the pistol with them as they left? What if, in the altercation, the pistol ended up in a place that was too hard or would take too much time reach? Does the plan always depended on Jackie's pistol being used by Simon to commit the murder, replacing the ammunition to not call suspicion, Simon shooting himself using a stolen scarf to muffle the sound of the gun (a thing a scarf would hardly ever do), then wrapping the pistol with said scarf and throwing it into the Nile? Isn't such a plan way too complicated and risky and bound to fail if it relies on too many uncontrollable variables? Why couldn't Simon just carry a gun around with him? He would have to be carrying a .22 round with him anyway, and given how small a bullet of such caliber is, what if he lost it? Sure, Linnet would probably have noticed him carrying a gun around, but they were already being chased by Jackie at this point - and barely any security is seen around them - so that is a great excuse to carry a gun in the first place. Linnet was to be killed anyway, so it's not like she would tell anyone. Furthermore, why couldn't Simon dispose of a concealed gun in another manner on ir another time frame? If no one else knew he had a gun, the only thing that would need to vanish at the time of the murder was a spent cartridge, a thing that can be virtually irrecoverable from the bottom of the river. Also, by the time of the murder, Simon was thought to have been shot and incapacitated alrealy, so it is not like they would be searching him for a gun.
Additionally, about Sin #7 and thereabouts: Poirot's entire right cheek is wounded in the explosion, the injuries go from the center of his face to (almost what it seems) his right ear. The wounds to his upper lip and the small one on his lower lip are minor compared to the rest, yet these spots are the only ones with scars left and are the ones covered by his facial hair. He should have his entire right cheek covered in scars. As already adressed in the video, hair cannot grow on scarred tissue, but even if it could, no amount of facial hair could cover practically half a face of scars. Telling a origin history through facial hair and scars with very selective and seemingly magial healing powers - specially considering 1910's medicine during the time of a world war - is one of the laziest things ever commited to film and one of the biggest sins of this movie I would argue.
The whole movie felt very underwhelming.
The acting was good tho.
Honestly, the trailers were better than the actual movie.
Agreed, the trailers had me super pumped for this, but the actual movie was a bit of a let down.
@@Kate18TX 💯💯👍
I saw the trailer for it, even when I went to see Spider-Man no way home, the employees at the theater were pumping it up and Spider-Man no way home as the greatest two movies ever.
They were right on Spider-Man, but this movie is boring. It was on sell for the cheapest price on Vudu and it was right after it was released in theaters plus it then got immediately put on HBO max and it was on Hulu at some point but I think it got removed.
If it was immediately on sell on Vudu even on the release day, it's gonna be a bad one. Learn it the hard way but it was renting movie at least.
If they are gonna a hype up movies, they need to make it sure it will meet the expectations and excitement they give in the trailers. Some do it great then you get these.
I like to imagine Hercule also has just an absolute monster of a dong and thats why he's so famous
This channel is so great. I wasn’t going to watch this movie anyway but now I have a synopsis of the movie, all the reasons why I made the right decision in not watching it, and you’ve made me laugh more than the movie probably would. Just delightful. Channel sin counter: -9,001
I watched it, but only when I could see it for free and it wasn't worth the time I wasted.
A sin should have been taken off with the subtle hint Bouc was giving to identify the killer, constantly looking towards Jacqueline
I mean yeah if the movie itself wasn't giving over the top hints that it was her
03:30 - screenplay references Casablanca in a story set 5 years before its final script was written. True this story takes place the year before the real events that inspired Casablanca took place, but Agatha Christie did not write Casablanca even if she could have.
I noticed that too when I watched it. It's not a line normal people just say. I thought it was going to be a "he became a screenwriter to support his family and later wrote Casablanca" type of reasoning, but obviously no.
If you've never read an Agatha Christie novel you wouldn't really understand why everyone is a suspect and acting suspicious untill the last reveal
didn't see this movie but thanks for this look into the movie. I'd rather watch the version with Peter Ustinov
The David Suchet tv version is also great ;)
@@Skyebright1 he is closer to the books. some of those are a bit dark though. Albert Finney tops them all though.
@@Medraut00 Finney in MOTOE is closer to the book than Suchet.
Branagh redid that one as Suchet and they both were awful and I normally like Suchet.
I had the same 'WTF is this? Not everything needs an origin story' moment
Han Solo dice style ;)
the next movie will explain why he likes his eggs the way he does. with flash backs to the most important time
omg using the Disturbing Behavior monologue at the end absolutely stole my heart lol🤣
I do like the murder at cinema sins joke but it'd be even funnier if the rest of the episode was narrated by someone else.
I have to admit... I love both movies. If they make a third, I'll definetely see it.
You might be interested in reading the books from the Poirot series or checking out the previous adaptations. I think there's a series, called "Poirot" where each episode is one book (case).
I liked them too.
This remake was such an insult. Classic hollyweird trash with so much added nonsense that was just cheap.
I take David Suchet and Peter Ustinow versions, anytime.
Detective Gadget deserves that kind of praise (#9)
This film felt anachronistic for the time it was suppose to be set in because of the writing choices. I'm a huge Agatha fan and this film is an abomination
I felt the same way, was wondering when someone would mention in the comments.
My major issue with it is it does not focus on the main point of the plot enough, the murder. It’s too sexualised.
I actually really liked this film when I saw it in theaters. It was beautiful to look at and well acted. Hoping Glass Onion is another great mystery viewing experience later this year.
Yes, I noticed that too, so silly
Guessing you never watched the original from the 70s?
@@sjokomelk I have not seen the original actually
@@CTN71 I highly recommend watching it. Then you will see that the remake is just Kenneth Branaghs hubris thinking Poirot is the main character.
@@sjokomelk I saw the one with Ken, hated that ridiculous mustache; and thought Poirot’s sidekick was Captain Hastings.
In all fairness to the movie, the book also takes forever to get to the actual murder as well. I remember it was 200 some pages in before Linnet is actually murdered. It was like 3/4 of the book 😂
Guys, let's be real...
David Suchet was the best Poirot!
I'm surprised you didn't mention how a film that's set in around the mid 1930's (the older version was indefinitely set in '3
same as the novel however unsure if its mentioned in this film) is referencing Casablanca: a film that released in cinemas in 1942 with the "of all the pyramids in all of the world, you had to walk up to mine" quote from bouc towards the start of the film and "Of All The Gin Joints In All The Towns In All The World, She Walks Into Mine" being from casablanca
the little 22 caliber gun that jacqueline has also has some major forshadowing, with the gun being engraved with a ace of heart and an ace of spades.:
the Ace of heart meaning unconditional love and rekindling of an old flame, and the Ace of Spades being a card that was symbolic with death and destruction in the first world war.
This should have been called 'Egyptian Murder Boat'.
If someone threatens your wife’s life on an Egyptian cruise in a time period that predates security cameras, you push them off the boat. Honestly.
Yup feed him to the crocodiles
Unless you are in on it. As soon as she is on the boat I knew who did it. Because how could else Jackie know?
Oh Goody! I’m so happy that you’ve dissected this rather unusual version of Death on the Nile! I love Kenneth Branagh but this film was interesting….. And let’s not talk about Armie Hammer ever again, m’kay? Thanks so much.
One sin for you for not taking into account that horrendous cgi in 3:38
Its not David Suchet is the sin on repeat
1:32 - An extremely talented Adam "Coyote Ugly" Garcia barely getting any screen time *DING!*
I haven`t seen this yet but, the only version of "death on the nile" I know is worth watching, is the one with David Suchet as hercule poirot. it`s partially filmed on board the Sudan, the steam paddle boat Agatha Cristie was on herself, (early 30`s) and witch was the inpiration for the book.
That one wasn't terrible but Ustinov's version is better.
I defiinetly have to watch it then.@@pattierotondo1108
Don't get me wrong I love Kenneth Branagh but I find it irritating when he tries to tackle roles of this kind because he just makes them Goofy and comedic when they're not supposed to be. Like he's a brilliant writer director and actor but like there's just some roles he needs a no person for to tell him no
I should point out that .22 Short is very quite (being subsonic) and would be about as loud as firing an air soft so all the sins relating to how loud a gun shot would be are irrelevant.
.22 short will also fail to penetrate a tin can.
Lack of pressure, keeping the sound of the discharge low, also means the projectile is less dangerous than some air rifles.
Is this one of those "epics" where every "who's who" of British acting talent has to have a cameo?
David Suchet is the best Poirot
🤣🤣🤣
This movie's biggest sin by far was that it took waaaayyyy too long to get on the friggin boat. They could have cut out most of the first 45 minutes or so without losing much.
I still liked the scene where they visit the temple, and if you know some history you know the temple was originally located right next to the Nile, carved into the cliffs, and then moved above the cliffs when the Aswan High Damn was built in the 60s.
They actually couldn't shoot in Egypt because of the political instability since the military took over, not Covid.
I liked the colour scheme though. Someone was complaining about it in another thread, but I liked how they weren't afraid to make the colour 'pop' in this movie and not have it just be bland like a lot of modern movies are. (No, this is not a rant against modern films in general, just about the way some of them are shot.)
The book Tok a long time to get on the boat too.