Death on the Nile

By Jonah Naplan

February 11, 2022

I surprised myself by how much I liked “Death on the Nile” as I left the theater. Sure, it wasn’t perfect. But it was a pleasant reminder of how fun mystery movies can be, and why Hollywood should make more of them. The film is somewhat of a sequel to 2017’s “Murder on the Orient Express,” but not really. Every single character showcased in this film is different, other than an assistant and the detective himself, Kenneth Branagh’s charming Hercule Poirot.

This time around, Poirot takes a simple vacation on a cruise sailing the Nile River in Egypt. He looks to have a relaxing break, and sit around reading his books, but as expected, drama breaks out, leading to a betrayal, then a murder. And of course, Poirot ends up getting more involved than anyone. This leads to some of the most entertaining scenes in the film, moments in which Poirot conducts the simple necessity of interrogating and accusing each and every person presently within a sufficient radius of the victim in question of murder. “It is a problem, I admit,” Poirot says.

The best thing I can say about “Death on the Nile,” is that it’s just as fun as it needs to be for a classic whodunnit, and yet still has an extra style and substance to it. Kenneth Branagh directs the film with a wonderful director’s eye, filming the locations and cruise ship in such a cinematic way that it sometimes feels like a prestige art film on the big screen. The Egyptian pyramids and tombs have never looked so fresh. Although there are only a few direct jokes in the film, it’s still fun to watch the mystery unfold, regardless of its considerably serious tone. It could be argued that the plethora of characters were mistreated and poorly screenwritten, and the undevelopment does often feel like it comes at a price in the third act, but I didn’t care. I enjoyed the suspense nonetheless.

The setup of “Death on the Nile” works well, and we understand the relationships that Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) has with two different women in his life, Jackie de Bellefort (Emma Mackey) and Linnet Ridgeway (Gal Gadot). These three characters, I felt, were developed thoroughly inside and out, but the rest of the lot on the cruise feels two-dimensional. The problem here is that the film takes its time with the exposition-heavy first forty-five minutes, meaning that much of the final suspense feels at a rush to conclude, and the final twists and turns play out almost as if the producers were summarizing and giving footnotes for a more expansive and layered story.

We’re told that Poirot is somehow making big connections in his mind, but until the brief explanatory montage at the end of the movie, Poirot’s ideas aren’t showcased as anything more transparent than his thoughts. I just wish we could’ve taken a bit more of a look inside his head as these connections are being made. The film falls short of delivering motives for a few characters, and we’re left wondering why some took up so much screen time, when instead we could be focussing more on the anatomy of the murder itself. Those who are important, feel important, but for the most part, the rest are just left on the back-burner with nothing else to do except exchange frightened glances every so often. Luckily, Branagh’s film finds its footing again as Poirot begins to put the pieces together, finding that everyone played an integral role in the incidents, but I still wish that the rhythm was more consistent throughout.

A film such as “Death on the Nile” needs a drive to continue delivering its payoffs, and I do believe that the movie has a fair amount of motivation. The landscapes are gorgeous, the cruise ship is pristine, and the outfits are carefully detailed to fit the time period. Everything about “Death on the Nile” is cinematically beautiful, and it works well with the given substance. Much of this credit, again, goes to director Branagh who appears to enjoy himself while in front of the camera. His crew of actors is superb, and there isn’t a bad performance in the film. Each character is quirky, and it’s fun to see them all interact.

Its dramatizations are effective, and as the plot thickens, the film doesn’t treat the audience like idiots. It trusts that we as individuals, are smart enough to put the pieces together in our heads and understand the whole number of possibilities that a single shot can allude. A good mystery acts as if the twists and turns are fresh and new, and plays the game along with us, as the audience makes their own assumptions. The secrets were well kept, so I didn’t even realize the turn the film was taking until Poirot explained it all in classic cinematic fashion. 

Regardless of the film’s occasional clunkiness, much of the reason why I enjoyed “Death on the Nile” was because it realized its identity as a murder mystery, and therefore was self-aware of its unique sanity. A much inferior whodunnit would have taken itself much too seriously, destroying its chances of being believable and captivating the audience. Fortunately, “Death on the Nile” does the opposite.

When it all comes together, “Death on the Nile” isn’t great, but it still does prove that we should remain faithful in Hollywood’s future. The murder mystery genre is dying, and I’m pleased to say that “Death on the Nile” feels like a much-needed comeback. And, if the film does financially well enough, I wouldn’t be surprised to expect another Poirot mystery in the coming years. Appointment with Death? Evil Under the Sun? They all sound like fun to me.