Search
Search results
David McK (3547 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Apr 10, 2022
The second of Kenneth Branagh's outing as Agatha Christie's sleuth Poirot, apparently much delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, and set after The Murder on the Orient Express.
I've never seen that movie.
I have read the book on which it (Murder on Orient Express) is based, though.
As I'm not that big a fan of murder mysteries, I hadn't, however, read the story on which this is based.
Why does that matter?
Simply because it meant I was going into this with no preconceptions; no real idea of what would happen (other than there would be a murder which Poirot has to solve)!
I'm not sure whether the rest of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels are all like this or not - I've only read Murder on Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but I did find heavy similarities between the plots, with both Orient Express and is film largely taking place in a confined location, where there is a limited pool of suspects and where Poirot has to sit down and methodically think his way through.
This movie takes a while to get going, with the first hour or so in particular - I found - dragging quite a bit. I've also heard that there was extensive use of Green screen throughout, which might also explain why some of the Nile scenes just didn't sit quite right.
On the other hand, there is a veritable list of who's who acting talent on the screen: aside from Branagh himself, we have Gal Gadot (as the key victim), Emma Mackey, Arnie Hammer, Russel Brand (surprisingly understated), Annette Benning, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders (yes, that French and Saunders!), Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo - nearly all of whom would have their own motives for the murder.
I've never seen that movie.
I have read the book on which it (Murder on Orient Express) is based, though.
As I'm not that big a fan of murder mysteries, I hadn't, however, read the story on which this is based.
Why does that matter?
Simply because it meant I was going into this with no preconceptions; no real idea of what would happen (other than there would be a murder which Poirot has to solve)!
I'm not sure whether the rest of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels are all like this or not - I've only read Murder on Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but I did find heavy similarities between the plots, with both Orient Express and is film largely taking place in a confined location, where there is a limited pool of suspects and where Poirot has to sit down and methodically think his way through.
This movie takes a while to get going, with the first hour or so in particular - I found - dragging quite a bit. I've also heard that there was extensive use of Green screen throughout, which might also explain why some of the Nile scenes just didn't sit quite right.
On the other hand, there is a veritable list of who's who acting talent on the screen: aside from Branagh himself, we have Gal Gadot (as the key victim), Emma Mackey, Arnie Hammer, Russel Brand (surprisingly understated), Annette Benning, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders (yes, that French and Saunders!), Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo - nearly all of whom would have their own motives for the murder.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Mar 16, 2022
Well Done
The old adage “they don’t make movies like this anymore” is no truer than when one is speaking about large budget, big name cast murder mysteries and with what must surely be a disappointing box office for DEATH ON THE NILE, they just might not try again.
And that is too bad for the latest Kenneth Branagh Hercule Poirot mystery DEATH ON THE NILE with Branagh starring, again, as the great Agatha Christie Belgian Detective is the stuff that makes going to movies fun - big characters, major stars, gorgeous scenery and a plot that will keep one guessing until the end.
Branagh’s previous work as Director and star of MURDER OF THE ORIENT EXPRESS was a bit of a disappointment as it was gorgeous and well cast - but the pacing of the film dragged and Branagh decided, inexplicably, to add an action scene to a drawing room mystery.
In DEATH ON THE NILE, Branagh (who Directed this film from an screenplay by Michael Green who adapted the Agatha Christie novel), corrected these mistakes and the film moves along spritely with the actors chewing the scenery - but quickly - making this a very enjoyable movie-going experience.
Branagh, in his second go-around as Poirot, seems much more relaxed and comfortable with his character. This is, perhaps, because they add a backstory to Poirot, so he has much more to set his character upon. On the surface, purists of the the Agatha Christie character will blanche at the thought of adding a backstory, but I’ll be darned if it doesn’t work and adds a layer of depth to the character and the film that I wasn’t expecting.
The All-Star cast knows what type of film they are in - and what is expected of them - and they deliver. Gal Gadot, Armie Hammmer, Rose Leslie, Letitia Wright, Jennifer Saunders, Sophie Okonedo and, surprisingly, Russell Brand all shine brightly in their “moment” that their character gets with Poirot. Special notice needs to be made of Annette Bening’s performance. It was GREAT to see this wonderful actress get a role she could sink her teeth into.
As always, with this type of film, the settings and costumes take a prominent position and they do not disappoint. Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos should be hired by the Egyptian Chamber of Commerce for he lovingly shows the sites along the Nile River (circa ‘1930’s) in a beautiful poetic way while the Costumes by Pago Delgado are gorgeous and ornate - without being over-the-top.
If you get a chance to see DEATH ON THE NILE on the big screen, do so, you will be well rewarded for your efforts - and just might help get another of these big budget, big star mysteries made. If not, make sure to check this film out when it starts streaming near you - it’s a ton of fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is too bad for the latest Kenneth Branagh Hercule Poirot mystery DEATH ON THE NILE with Branagh starring, again, as the great Agatha Christie Belgian Detective is the stuff that makes going to movies fun - big characters, major stars, gorgeous scenery and a plot that will keep one guessing until the end.
Branagh’s previous work as Director and star of MURDER OF THE ORIENT EXPRESS was a bit of a disappointment as it was gorgeous and well cast - but the pacing of the film dragged and Branagh decided, inexplicably, to add an action scene to a drawing room mystery.
In DEATH ON THE NILE, Branagh (who Directed this film from an screenplay by Michael Green who adapted the Agatha Christie novel), corrected these mistakes and the film moves along spritely with the actors chewing the scenery - but quickly - making this a very enjoyable movie-going experience.
Branagh, in his second go-around as Poirot, seems much more relaxed and comfortable with his character. This is, perhaps, because they add a backstory to Poirot, so he has much more to set his character upon. On the surface, purists of the the Agatha Christie character will blanche at the thought of adding a backstory, but I’ll be darned if it doesn’t work and adds a layer of depth to the character and the film that I wasn’t expecting.
The All-Star cast knows what type of film they are in - and what is expected of them - and they deliver. Gal Gadot, Armie Hammmer, Rose Leslie, Letitia Wright, Jennifer Saunders, Sophie Okonedo and, surprisingly, Russell Brand all shine brightly in their “moment” that their character gets with Poirot. Special notice needs to be made of Annette Bening’s performance. It was GREAT to see this wonderful actress get a role she could sink her teeth into.
As always, with this type of film, the settings and costumes take a prominent position and they do not disappoint. Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos should be hired by the Egyptian Chamber of Commerce for he lovingly shows the sites along the Nile River (circa ‘1930’s) in a beautiful poetic way while the Costumes by Pago Delgado are gorgeous and ornate - without being over-the-top.
If you get a chance to see DEATH ON THE NILE on the big screen, do so, you will be well rewarded for your efforts - and just might help get another of these big budget, big star mysteries made. If not, make sure to check this film out when it starts streaming near you - it’s a ton of fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.