FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

joe-pearce-1 It is understandable that so many reviewers want to compare this film to its predecessor, MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS, and they are right to do so. But for all intents and purposes, these are the only two films that most of them bother with, almost as if no other ones bear comparison. In this assumption (either from not having seen these other Christie adaptations, or possibly even forgetting that they were adaptations from Christie), they do unintended damage to at least two other great Christie-based films. First, though, a short and personal comparison of NILE and ORIENT. They are both great films of their type, to many arguably the greatest, but I have always found NILE to be the better film as well as the better Christie mystery. Once a possible solution presents itself in ORIENT, it rather sneaks up on you before it does on Poirot. Whereas there are myriad story lines in NILE that would explain all of these characters' presence on a Nile cruise, it slowly dawns on the reader or viewer of ORIENT that no such variation of story lines exist to warrant all of the characters on the train being there at the same time - except one. Both are stupendously well-rendered adaptations, sumptuous in design, costuming, cinematography, musical background, etc., and brilliantly, incredibly cast down to the smallest role. Finney is the true physical embodiment of Christie's sleuth through some inspired (if occasionally hard-to-ignore) make-up, whereas it's hard to imagine any major actor looking less like Christie's creation than does Peter Ustinov. Since that fact is impossible to camouflage, that he succeeds so brilliantly in embodying Poirot is a veritable triumph of pure acting talent, versatility and charm over nature. I'd be happy with either actor in this role, but in the end it is Ustinov who "wears" better over time (as long as we can disregard the most perfect Poirot possible, David Suchet, from the long-running TV Poirot series). But what about those two other film triumphs? The first, made on a comparatively low budget but with some major acting talents (Louis Hayward, Walter Huston, Barry Fitzgerald, Judith Anderson, Roland Young, C. Aubrey Smith, etc.), was 1945's AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, which I always thought was the greatest of all Christie film adaptations until Messrs. Lumet and Guillerman arrived in the 1970s. Directed by the great Rene Clair, it may still hold that distinction, but would probably not appeal to a mass audience today due to its lack of Technicolor grandeur and, yes, budgetary excess. And that fourth great Christie film adaptation was, of course, Billy Wilder's WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION (1957), starring Charles Laughton (in a truly brilliant performance), Marlene Dietrich and Tyrone Power. (The sole problem with WITNESS is an added flashback - not in the original story or its theatrical adaptation - to the meeting and subsequent marriage of the Dietrich and Power characters, done not so much for exposition, I think, as to enlarge their roles to warrant their star billing in a film that is otherwise very much dominated by Charles Laughton's character from beginning to end.) What's interesting about these two older films is that both of them had to have their endings rewritten in order for them to conform with The Hollywood Production Code of the day, and in both instances, the endings (probably with input from Ms. Christie) were even better than in the original stories. And I can guarantee that nobody watching those older films for the first time had any real idea of what the denouement would be, this pretty much like NILE (which has the best denouement of them all), but somewhat unlike ORIENT (although in the latter, the ride the director takes us on is so enjoyable that we hardly care if we guess the ending before Poirot does!). One more thing, the musical score for AND THEN THERE WERE NONE is minuscule in comparison to the two films from the 1970s, but just as effective, as it was written by Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco, a leading classical composer of that period, and its repetitive-but-understated nature seems to almost crawl into you as the film progresses. All in all, then, four wonderful Christie adaptations instead of two, all of them well worth watching every year or two (as I have been doing with AND THEN THERE WERE NONE for about 65 years now).

Leofwine_draca DEATH ON THE NILE is the lavish, Hollywood blockbuster version of one of the Agatha Christie/Hercule Poirot stories, featuring an all-star cast and plenty of money to bring the scenery and setting to life (the film was shot on location throughout Egypt). It's certainly a fine-looking thing with some expert direction from the reliable John Guillermin (who knew a thing or two about directing all-star casts since making THE TOWERING INFERNO).My only complaint about DEATH ON THE NILE? It's overlong. It takes an hour for the plot to really kick into motion and some of the narrative before that point feels quite stark and obvious - the careful setting up of each character's murderous motives, for example. I also found the ending reveal to be easily guessable, but that's only because I've had experience of it with other Christie adaptations, so I had a feeling I knew where the story was going.Otherwise this is great fun and basically a showcase for the actors to strut their stuff. Peter Ustinov has the biggest role and succeeds in making his Poirot likable. David Niven plays second fiddle and turns out to be great at it - one of the warmest turns I've seen from him. Bette Davis is, well, Bette Davis, and larger than life as always, while Jon Finch is a pleasant surprise as I always wondered what happened to him after FRENZY. Olivia Hussey and George Kennedy are underutilised but always welcome presences in cinema. Lois Chiles makes for a very convincing heiress to the degree that I didn't recognise her from her roles in the Bond franchise. Angela Lansbury is great comic relief and Maggie Smith plays her usual aloof character. And I've always found Simon MacCorkindale a warm and charismatic player, quite underrated by the public, and certainly not just a handsome face.

Coventry There's nothing I enjoy more than spending a lazy Sunday afternoon watching an overlong and bombastic '70s movie with an all-star cast and a compelling but nevertheless simplistic plot! Disaster movies qualify perfectly for this, the Irwin Allen kind for example, but I learned that also the Agatha Christie adaptations provide terrific weekend entertainment. In terms of cast & crew, this movie is like a dream come true. John Guillermin ("The Towering Inferno") directs a splendid ensemble cast including great names in the final years of their amazing careers (like Peter Ustinov, David Niven and Bette Davis), timeless and always reliable performers (like George Kennedy, Jack Warden and Angela Lansbury) as well as new and contemporary popular actors and actresses (like Mia Farrow, Lois Chiles, Olivia Hussey and Jane Birkin). With an awesome cast like that, I don't even mind if the script would be inferior, but still it's a more than adequate and absorbing – albeit occasionally tedious – interpretation of one of Christie's more commonly known murder mysteries. Largely taking place on a luxurious cruise ship on the Egyptian Nile during the 1930s, we follow the beautiful but slightly obnoxious young heiress Linnet Ridgeway on her honeymoon with the hunky Simon Doyle. The two newlyweds can't fully enjoy their holiday, since they're aggressively being stalked by Simon's ex-fiancée Jackie, and it's also becomes abundantly clear that pretty much every other passenger on the ship has a feud with Linnet and openly threatens to kill her. Luckily the brilliant Belgian detective Hercule Poirot is on board of the cruise as well, so when Linnet's body does get found, murdered with a bullet through her brains, he can provide some bright clarification in the complex murder investigation. What ensues is a delicious whodunit mystery with numerous culprit options (literally everyone in the cast is allowed to kill Linnet in turns when Poirot recites his hypothetical murder theories) and dazzlingly far-fetched deductions. Although it has to be said that Hercule Poirot's accusations are almost always based on passengers' conversations that he overheard previously during the journey. This man must have astonishing hearing skills and eavesdropping capacities, as he mostly was yards away from the conversations but somehow he still overheard them! As the mysterious puzzle slowly solves itself, a couple more bloody and sadistic murders are committed and the whole thing ends with a traditional and fascinating Hercule Poirot lecture in the salon. Fantastic stuff! The filming locations and scenery are breathtaking, the performances are all flawless – although I personally prefer Albert Finney in the Poirot role rather than Peter Ustinov – and Guillermin's direction is steady and highly professional. This particular Agatha Christie adaptation is perhaps not as unforgettable or mesmerizing as "Murder on the Orient Express" or the 1945 version of "And then there were none", but it's great entertainment and must-see material for fans of the author, the genre and nostalgic 70s cinema.

grantss Very intriguing, and scenic, whodunnit.Based on the Agatha Christie novel, our favourite Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot, is on a cruise up the Nile. He is surrounded by an interesting assortment of characters, including a wealthy heiress and her husband, on their honeymoon. It appears that everyone hates the heiress...Very interesting, mysterious and tense murder mystery. The backgrounds of the different characters, including potential motives, are explored well before the murder occurs. It is never obvious who the murderer is (at one stage I thought we might have another Murder on the Orient Express on our hands...). Great twist at the end.Great scenery and cinematography too. Shot on the Nile, with the characters also visiting pyramids and other ancient sites. Star-filled cast (as seems to be the custom for Poirot movies): Peter Ustinov (as Poirot), David Niven, Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury (who really should have been able to solve the mystery herself...), George Kennedy, Maggie Smith, Olivia Hussey, Jack Warden and Harry Andrews. Also includes Lois Chiles who I am surprised did not turn out to be a bigger star (if you see her in this movie, you'll understand...). Solid performances from all of them. Maggie Smith, as Miss Bowers, gets the funniest lines, though has limited screen time.