|
Post by politicidal on Feb 11, 2022 1:17:04 GMT
It's been banned in Kuwait and Lebanon.
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 12, 2022 21:29:01 GMT
David Niven was a British Officer in World War Two and George Kennedy served 16 years in the US Army - yet I don't think the 1978 DEATH ON THE NILE was banned in Germany. How times change.... You'd have thought they'd want everyone to watch a movie in which the vixen in khaki gets wasted
|
|
|
Post by leesilm on Feb 13, 2022 4:21:23 GMT
It's been banned in Kuwait and Lebanon.
My roommate was talking about this, that it got banned in a few places cause of Gadot's "military history".
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 13, 2022 11:18:22 GMT
It got *** from The Sunday Times and is on general release in UK now. Review did pick up on the rather underwhelming collective star power compared to Branagh's ORIENT EXPRESS or the 78 DEATH ON THE NILE. Branagh, Emma Mackay and Sophie Okenodo got special nods for their standout turns . "Some of the cast loaded up the paddle steamer with their own unwanted baggage" the review said tactfully - Hammer obvs, but Wright & Brand's "Anti Vaccer" musings... didn't mention GI GAL's contribution. I think I might catch a matinee
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 13, 2022 22:19:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 13, 2022 22:39:07 GMT
Just came back from this. Wow. This is awful.
I’m not even sure what to say, but… Wow, I thought the Kenneth Branagh Murder on the Orient Express was bad, but this is worse. Every attempt at wit is so clunky, every attempt at heartbreak so funny, every attempt at characterization so ridiculous. Did Branagh realize how inane this script was? I think he did, despite not asking for a rewrite, because he attempts to go flashy and over-the-top with his direction to make up for the boring scenes, such as every interview his Poirot conducts. And every flashy moment had me wanting to laugh out loud in the theater.
The crowning glory of badness comes when he gets as shouty as Al Pacino at some suspect, I forget who, and the camera swirls around constantly like Branagh wants to imitate Brian De Palma or something. Not only does the shot not fit the material onscreen, but it looks like an SNL parody of De Palma. (“And then, ha ha ha, the camera gets so swirly that you can’t see anything!”)
Also, the characters have the depth of computer paper, and—amazingly—no one comes off as suspicious except the actual murderer. (Someone behind me whispered to the person she was with, right after some ostensibly dramatic scene, that so-and-so “has to be the killer.” And she was 100% correct.) Screenwriter Michael Green, who doesn’t seem to know what a whodunit is, let alone how to construct one, scraps every good line from Agatha Christie’s book (“Do not open your heart to evil … because, if you do, evil will come”) and cuts half of her clues for good measure. This script deserves a place on the worst ever book-to-movie adaptations. (Anthony Shaffer’s script for the ’78 version deserves a place on the best ever list.)
Sadly, I knew this movie wasn’t good from the first scene, which is all about Poirot’s origin story, as if he’s Batman or something. The protagonists of Christie’s book are Jackie, Linnet, and Simon. Skimp on their story and you don’t have a story, as the filmmakers behind the 1978 film and 2004 telefilm—both far superior—understood.
The sets and costumes are gorgeous. Armie Hammer is handsome and a good Simon. Emma Mackey is interestingly attractive and should have been Jackie in a better adaptation. Gal Gadot is the big name and onscreen for so long, and she barely makes an impression.
This is terrible. Stay away. Boo.
(Knives Out 2, you can’t come fast enough.)
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 15, 2022 8:44:40 GMT
Just came back from this. Wow. This is awful. I’m not even sure what to say, but… Wow, I thought the Kenneth Branagh Murder on the Orient Express was bad, but this is worse. Every attempt at wit is so clunky, every attempt at heartbreak so funny, every attempt at characterization so ridiculous. Did Branagh realize how inane this script was? I think he did, despite not asking for a rewrite, because he attempts to go flashy and over-the-top with his direction to make up for the boring scenes, such as every interview his Poirot conducts. And every flashy moment had me wanting to laugh out loud in the theater. The crowning glory of badness comes when he gets as shouty as Al Pacino at some suspect, I forget who, and the camera swirls around constantly like Branagh wants to imitate Brian De Palma or something. Not only does the shot not fit the material onscreen, but it looks like an SNL parody of De Palma. (“And then, ha ha ha, the camera gets so swirly that you can’t see anything!”) Also, the characters have the depth of computer paper, and—amazingly—no one comes off as suspicious except the actual murderer. (Someone behind me whispered to the person she was with, right after some ostensibly dramatic scene, that so-and-so “has to be the killer.” And she was 100% correct.) Screenwriter Michael Green, who doesn’t seem to know what a whodunit is, let alone how to construct one, scraps every good line from Agatha Christie’s book (“Do not open your heart to evil … because, if you do, evil will come”) and cuts half of her clues for good measure. This script deserves a place on the worst ever book-to-movie adaptations. (Anthony Shaffer’s script for the ’78 version deserves a place on the best ever list.) Sadly, I knew this movie wasn’t good from the first scene, which is all about Poirot’s origin story, as if he’s Batman or something. The protagonists of Christie’s book are Jackie, Linnet, and Simon. Skimp on their story and you don’t have a story, as the filmmakers behind the 1978 film and 2004 telefilm—both far superior—understood. The sets and costumes are gorgeous. Armie Hammer is handsome and a good Simon. Emma Mackey is interestingly attractive and should have been Jackie in a better adaptation. Gal Gadot is the big name and onscreen for so long, and she barely makes an impression. This is terrible. Stay away. Boo. ( Knives Out 2, you can’t come fast enough.) Great review thanks Salzmank - you just saved me £20 - don't think I'll bother with that matinee now but wait until my library get it on dvd and I'll only lose £1 (Annette Bening worth that for me). The publicity and trailers all seem to play up Gadot but I have so far been underwhelmed by what I have seen her in - she certainly looks the part but I thought Lois Chiles unforgettable in the original - a gorgeously over privileged bitch the entire cast - and audience - had good reason for wanting dead, a perfect period clothes horse plus that incredibly sexy voice - always wondered why she didn't become a bigger name. Hammer impressed me in the new REBECCA - he scrubbed up surprisingly well as Max - shame DEATH ON THE NILE could be his swan song. Yes Bring on KNIVES OUT 2 Lois Chiles publicity still from the 1978 version - ideal Agatha Christie murder victim? With Simon MacCorkindale
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 15, 2022 19:51:00 GMT
Great review thanks Salzmank - you just saved me £20 - don't think I'll bother with that matinee now but wait until my library get it on dvd and I'll only lose £1 (Annette Bening worth that for me). The publicity and trailers all seem to play up Gadot but I have so far been underwhelmed by what I have seen her in - she certainly looks the part but I thought Lois Chiles unforgettable in the original - a gorgeously over privileged bitch the entire cast - and audience - had good reason for wanting dead, a perfect period clothes horse plus that incredibly sexy voice - always wondered why she didn't become a bigger name. Hammer impressed me in the new REBECCA - he scrubbed up surprisingly well as Max - shame DEATH ON THE NILE could be his swan song. Yes Bring on KNIVES OUT 2 Oh, don’t mention it, but I should point out that opinions differ. I’ve seen a few people who like this movie far more than I did. But really I found it atrocious in almost every way (only exceptions are costumes and sets). I’m similarly underwhelmed by Gadot. She has a warmth in Wonder Woman that I haven’t seen in any of her other movies. Also, I found Emma Mackey, who plays Jackie, more attractive and (not to put too fine a point on it) sexier than Gadot in this movie. Funnily enough, it’s the same way for me in the 2004 David Suchet adaptation of this story, in which I find Emma Griffiths Malin, who plays Jackie, far more attractive than Emily Blunt, who plays Linnet. Maybe I just have a thing for Emmas? Yeah, shame about Hammer. Here I thought he and Mackey understood Christie’s story better than their director, writer, and costars.
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 15, 2022 20:49:57 GMT
Oh, don’t mention it, but I should point out that opinions differ. I’ve seen a few people who like this movie far more than I did. But really I found it atrocious in almost every way (only exceptions are costumes and sets). I’m similarly underwhelmed by Gadot. She has a warmth in Wonder Woman that I haven’t seen in any of her other movies. Also, I found Emma Mackey, who plays Jackie, more attractive and (not to put too fine a point on it) sexier than Gadot in this movie. Funnily enough, it’s the same way for me in the 2004 David Suchet adaptation of this story, in which I find Emma Griffiths Malin, who plays Jackie in that one, far more attractive than Emily Blunt, who plays Linnet. Maybe I just have a thing for Emmas? Yeah, shame about Hammer. Here I thought he and Mackey understood Christie’s story better than their director, writer, and costars. Well a friend offered to treat me so I went. Didn't dislike it as much as you but it is resolutely mediocre -sets and costumes and a couple of performers the exception. Didn't think the few changes added much(conflating the Jon Finch/David niven character into Tom Bateman, Annette's new character brought little to the table and she was over enunciating; French & Saunders as lovers !!! ?; Did I read that right?}. I did like Emma Mackey a lot - didn't know her at all - febrile and wild eyed throughout (and yes very attractive) and very sexy - that dance scene incredibly hot - Gadot & Hammer seemed like runners up!), Hammer was good but not much to do, and I liked both the Ottabourne's, although Sophie Okenodo didn't quite erase memories of Angela Lansbury - but who could?. Russell Brand seemed muted. Gadot looked great but didn't evoke the hatred Chiles effortlessly brought out. Imagine I'd be harsher if I had paid for it!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 16, 2022 15:18:45 GMT
Well a friend offered to treat me so I went. Didn't dislike it as much as you but it is resolutely mediocre -sets and costumes and a couple of performers the exception. Didn't think the few changes added much(conflating the Jon Finch/David niven character into Tom Bateman, Annette's new character brought little to the table and she was over enunciating; French & Saunders as lovers !!! ?; Did I read that right?}. I did like Emma Mackey a lot - didn't know her at all - febrile and wild eyed throughout (and yes very attractive) and very sexy - that dance scene incredibly hot - Gadot & Hammer seemed like runners up!), Hammer was good but not much to do, and I liked both the Ottabourne's, although Sophie Okenodo didn't quite erase memories of Angela Lansbury - but who could?. Russell Brand seemed muted. Gadot looked great but didn't evoke the hatred Chiles effortlessly brought out. Imagine I'd be harsher if I had paid for it! Agreed on everything. I didn’t originally notice, but you’re right, Annette was overenunciating. She seemed uninterested in the role, I thought. Yes, French and Saunders as lovers! Now there was another twist that added nothing and went nowhere. I too had never heard of Emma Mackey before, but she has the right attitude and look for Jackie. Too bad she plays the part here rather than in a better adaptation. Disappointing that Hammer has so little to do, as you say, especially when his character has such a big role. I blame that on the writer’s inability to write coherently. Compare with the ’78 version, in which each scene leads into the next one. I liked the Otterbournes too (turning the character into a jazz singer is a neat idea), but do you agree they had nothing especially interesting to say? A few scenes seemed to build to punchlines, yet I found every one of those punchlines shockingly witless. I don’t mean to keep blaming the writer, but I felt the same way about his MotOE script for Branagh. (Glancing over his filmography… Oof. I don’t think I liked a single thing he’s written or even cowritten.) Lansbury was of course better—and much funnier—but also I thought Frances de la Tour in the ’04 version did a good job and got funny things to say. Agreed on Brand, who’s a nonentity here. Also, did you think the movie looks like a video game? I’m with rogerebert.com reviewer Christy Lemire, who wrote, “So much of ‘Death on the Nile’ looks empty and artificial—a glossy, CGI-rendered version of legitimately grand and impressive sights.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the way movies are going, but it especially irritated me here.
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Feb 16, 2022 15:57:00 GMT
Well a friend offered to treat me so I went. Didn't dislike it as much as you but it is resolutely mediocre -sets and costumes and a couple of performers the exception. Didn't think the few changes added much(conflating the Jon Finch/David niven character into Tom Bateman, Annette's new character brought little to the table and she was over enunciating; French & Saunders as lovers !!! ?; Did I read that right?}. I did like Emma Mackey a lot - didn't know her at all - febrile and wild eyed throughout (and yes very attractive) and very sexy - that dance scene incredibly hot - Gadot & Hammer seemed like runners up!), Hammer was good but not much to do, and I liked both the Ottabourne's, although Sophie Okenodo didn't quite erase memories of Angela Lansbury - but who could?. Russell Brand seemed muted. Gadot looked great but didn't evoke the hatred Chiles effortlessly brought out. Imagine I'd be harsher if I had paid for it! Agreed on everything. I didn’t originally notice, but you’re right, Annette was overenunciating. She seemed uninterested in the role, I thought. Yes, French and Saunders as lovers! Now there was another twist that added nothing and went nowhere. I too had never heard of Emma Mackey before, but she has the right attitude and look for Jackie. Too bad she plays the part here rather than in a better adaptation. Disappointing that Hammer has so little to do, as you say, especially when his character has such a big role. I blame that on the writer’s inability to write coherently. Compare with the ’78 version, in which each scene leads into the next one. I liked the Otterbournes too (turning the character into a jazz singer is a neat idea), but do you agree they had nothing especially interesting to say? A few scenes seemed to build to punchlines, yet I found every one of those punchlines shockingly witless. I don’t mean to keep blaming the writer, but I felt the same way about his MotOE script for Branagh. (Glancing over his filmography… Oof. I don’t think I liked a single thing he’s written or even cowritten.) Lansbury was of course better—and much funnier—but also I thought Frances de la Tour in the ’04 version did a good job and got funny things to say. Agreed on Brand, who’s a nonentity here. Also, did you think the movie looks like a video game? I’m with rogerebert.com reviewer Christy Lemire, who wrote, “So much of ‘Death on the Nile’ looks empty and artificial—a glossy, CGI-rendered version of legitimately grand and impressive sights.” Unfortunately, that seems to be the way movies are going, but it especially irritated me here. I'm going to rewatch the 78 one later Yes the script wasn't up to much - but I saw MOONFALL the same day - beyond lousy script even by prevailing standards of Emmerich blockbusters - believe me the DEATH ON THE NILE script is as Wilder & Brackett's finest compared to that. Checked out Michael Green's screenwriting efforts - yes mostly big bucks superhero stuff. Nothing of any consequence. Never knew Frances De La Tour in the 04 version - saw her on stage in one woman show about Lillian Hellman back in the day - she is a superb actress. Will put it on the list..... Bening had every right to look bored Yes I think those pyramids and tombs existed mainly in cyberspace Re the Otterbourne's - they were not gifted with much in the script, but I liked Wright's feistiness and was genuinely sad for her at the end, although Bateman obvs no catch... - Loved Okenodo's flirting with Poirot and reminiscing about her husbands (and impressed with how handy she was with a ladygun) Shame she never got the focus during her blues numbers - the cameras mostly on folk in the audience - Mackey aside the Otterbourne's alone interested me and were the saving graces of the cast.. If French and Saunders had been given a hot dance sequence together to celebrate their joint "coming out" I might have given it a half star more Trying to imagine Bette Davis & Maggie Smith pulling off a surprise sapphic romance! ""!
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 16, 2022 17:00:23 GMT
Trying to imagine Bette Davis & Maggie Smith pulling off a surprise sapphic romance! ""! I would watch that movie! Enjoy the ’78 version—and let me know what you think if you get a chance to see the ’04. I like both versions equally, though for different reasons: The Ustinov plays up the fun and wittiness/bitchiness, the Suchet plays up the tragedy (and is, somewhat surprisingly, better directed). Both do a great job of clearly and concisely presenting Christie’s plot—unlike this version.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 18, 2022 15:05:38 GMT
It's been banned in Kuwait and Lebanon.
My roommate was talking about this, that it got banned in a few places cause of Gadot's "military history". Stupid.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Feb 20, 2022 4:47:32 GMT
Finally saw Death on the Nile. A decent film. However, I do think it takes a long time to get to the murder which occurs halfway through the movie. Should have happened sooner. It can also be a little hard to piece together and process why the killers did what they did, as well as Poiroit's accusations on the possible suspects being possibly true or not, because the information comes at you so fast. I think Orient Express got to the crime sooner and gave you a little more time to absorb and process the information on the suspects and accusations. Branagh does a fine job again as Poirot and the movie is a slick production like Orient Express. The cast works, but the Orient Express cast was more memorable. Then again, I was more familiar with the actors in that group.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 22, 2022 15:04:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Feb 22, 2022 16:26:16 GMT
So we shouldn't be expecting Nile Harder any time soon?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 23, 2022 20:34:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 25, 2022 1:49:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 25, 2022 2:28:35 GMT
Even putting aside my strong dislike for both of Branagh’s Christie movies, I have a hard time seeing which Marples would work well on the big screen. The only two possibilities I can think of are The Mirror Crack’d from Side to Side because of the possibilities for an all-star cast (it’s already been filmed, and you’re unlikely to get a better cast than Elizabeth Taylor, Kim Novak, Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis, and Angela Lansbury, but that hasn’t stopped Branagh before) and A Caribbean Mystery because of the colorful setting. Maybe 4.50 from Paddington too, but the only real visual part is the opening scene. The others are all too confined (several small village settings) and/or too complex ( The Murder at the Vicarage, while similar to Death on the Nile, has a much more complicated, and less visual, alibi). I say all this as someone who thinks the Marple books have been excellently adapted for TV; I’m one of the very few Christie fans who prefer the Geraldine McEwan series to the Joan Hickson series, but I love McEwan’s performance and think the writers really understood how mysteries work. But film, even more than TV, requires visual storytelling, and Aunt Jane just rarely traveled to the exotic places or met the eccentric suspects that Hercule Poirot did. Note how the Margaret Rutherford movie series only adapted one Marple book ( 4.50 from Paddington, adapted under the far superior title Murder, She Said); the other series entries were either Poirot adaptations ( Murder at the Gallop, based on After the Funeral; Murder Most Foul, based on Mrs. McGinty’s Dead) or original ( Murder Ahoy!).
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 13, 2022 14:25:00 GMT
|
|