Death on the Nile ~ Lost in Adaptation

[@Dominic-Noble]

Hey all, this video has been re-uploaded without its sponsorship, after I was made aware of the reputation the company I was working with had.

[@antonellamR2D2]

You are an honorable man 👏👏

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

You're the Best Dom!❤❤❤❤❤

[@nikoladedic6623]

I skipped over the ad so I don't even remember what it was.

[@pandarin6206]

Funnily enough, I just finished watching that segment of the video when it got taken down. I’ve never heard of the company before, so I don’t know exactly what the problems there were. Nevertheless, mad respect for reediting it once you learned they were problematic! 😊

[@GoatAndDog]

Yeah I thought that was an old choice for a sponsorship although all I know about it is I've just been getting annoying unskippable ads from them.

[@AeonKnigh432]

I love the tragic mustache backstory because A) it literally doesn't cover the parts of his face that were scared in the flashback and B) scar tissue can't grow hair, so he shouldn't be able to grow the mustache at all.

[@alexandresobreiramartins9461]

I doubt the movie people know your point 2. Or, if they do, like your point 1, they certainly thought nobody would notice, as they always think we're idiots.

[@AeonKnigh432]

​@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 Another funny thing is that they made sure to have the scars look consistent whenever the mustache isn't there, but they failed to realize that his right (our left) cheek can't be scared because it just... isn't covered by the mascot. If they'd just shown at the end that that part of the wound had healed, I would forgive it. But no, they needed to make it consistent at the cost of making it make sense

[@hakasims]

I know this is totally random, but about a thousand years ago I read a Harry Potter fanfic where Harry got zapped with a curse that covered every inch of his body in tiny little pale scars, and now you made me suddenly remember it and imagine Harry Potter looking like a scarred hairless cat during all those sex scenes with Draco Malfoy. I wonder if magic allows one to grow out depressed pubes to cover the shame of his past, like Poirot did.

[@Mr.NiceUK]

Yep, as someone who has within the last year acquired upper lip scar tissue, I can attest to the truth of that, and even though I never really sported a moustache beyond a weeks "can't be arsed to shave" stubble, I kind of don't like that I don't have a choice now, unless I'm avant gard enough to have a 'tache with an odd gap in it 😅😢

[@Eloraurora]

​@@Mr.NiceUK...given all the wars that overlapped with the extravagant facial hair era, I'm suddenly convinced that somebody out there sported a mustache with a combover for precisely this reason.

[@anastasiawheeler111]

One minor correction: Salome Otterbourne’s character in the book was a washed-up Romance novelist, not a mystery writer. Her claim to fame was writing sex scenes for her books which absolutely no one wanted to read, apparently. Like E. L. James in a few years.

[@Eloraurora]

Yes. I just rewatched the '78 version (because free) and people in the comments were accusing Angela Lansbury of overacting. I'm like, have you read the book? Salome is just Like That.

[@LaineMann]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[@arualblues_zero]

@@Eloraurora Those comments are absolute heresy. Angela Lansbury was right spot on and absolutely brilliant in that role. That '78 version is my favorite and I watched it soooo many times. EDIT: where is it free? I would like to rewatch it again.

[@Eloraurora]

@@arualblues_zero On KZbin! I vaguely remembered seeing it listed as free with ads, searched it after finishing the first upload of this review, and watched it.

[@alanpennie]

​@@arualblues_zero In cinematography and in the casting of the suspects the 1978 adaptation is absolute perfection. It's a pity about Poirot and Race.

[@Unownshipper]

7:00 Regarding the sound of the gunshot, this *was* certainly covered in the 1978 adaptation. One passenger hears the "pop" of the gunshot; it was a derringer, so it didn't make a huge sound (she mistook it for a champagne cork), but it was heard. Linnet's murder was meant to look spur of the moment, not carefully orchestrated. So it was fine if someone heard a shot; it'd be logical that ONE was heard after the outburst in the lounge. Two however, could not be permitted as that could've potentially drawn attention back to Simon.

[@vaspeter2600]

Ding ding, we have a winner!

[@lfroncek]

Also, the cabin next to Linett was Simon's (thus empty) and on the other side was the clepto-author (can't remember her name right now) who was hard of hearing.

[@zace7951]

Another probable reason why it was covered was to prevent the plot hole of having gunpowder residue visible on his leg which would give away the ending

[@edisonlima4647]

​@@zace7951 Yeah, the doctor would have definitely noticed and found very strange to see gunpowder burn marks on his legs from a shot supposedly fired from across the room.

[@Freshie207]

Don't they refer to it as a 22? I get they mean 22 Short rather than 22 Long, but that's still pretty loud, especially on a boat in the middle of nowhere late at night.

[@alyssaagnew4147]

Something that should be mentioned is that they made Linnet considerably more sympathetic in this version. In the book, it is noted she intentionally set out to seduce Simon and then he got the idea to marry her, kill her to get her money, and then come back to Jackie with the latter joining in because she knew he’d fail without her help. In the movie, it is an intentional plan from the beginning between the couple and Linnet fell for it hook, line, and sinker. That's not to say she was an Asshole Victim like some of Christie's other examples (she comes off more spoiled and careless than anything else and she did have her sympathetic moments), but she was a rather privileged young woman used to getting her way and did not appreciate Poirot calling her out on how she treated her old friend.

[@sebastianevangelista4921]

I suspect that Kenneth depicted Linnet in a more sympathetic manner than previous iterations because he cheated on Emma Thompson with Helena Bonham Carter back in the day and projected onto her a little bit.

[@zainab58]

Sympathetic or not, it drives me stark staring bonkers that they persist in pronouncing it “Lynette”.

[@breannab7112]

How should it be pronounced?@@zainab58

[@zainab58]

@@breannab7112 As written: Linnet. It's a bird.

[@eszterbalogh5252]

Yep and that's why I hate this version. The one with Emily Blunt is much better.

[@gailcbull]

The fact that "A Haunting in Venice" is going to be based on "Hallowe'en Party" is absolutely hilarious to me. Hallowe'en Party is set in a small village in England and Branagh has apparently moved the location to Venice (which is only mentioned briefly in the book). So apparently, Branagh is just writing Poirot fan fiction now.

[@alanpennie]

Moving the location to Venice means you risk being compared to Don't Look Now. Unwise in my view.

[@floraposteschild4184]

Wonder what they'll substitute for the landscape gardening in the original? Probably just paintings.

[@white_finch]

I honestly don't understand why they choose "Halloween Party" instead of "Dumb Witness", that story actually depicts a seance and has some supernatural things going on

[@michaelleoanrd194]

I think he's pulling an Adam Sandler. He's just setting movies in places he wants to visit.

[@CalliopePony]

@@white_finch Or "The Sittaford Mystery" which admittedly isn't a Poirot mystery, but the case does revolve around a seance. I really like "Halloween Party" and the fact that it's not so well-known probably means that they're going to play even more fast and loose with the adaptation than they did here.

[@AeonKnigh432]

Honestly, following your jerk ex fiance around on his and his new wife's honeymoon to ruin his vacation is exactly the type of petty revenge that I absolutely love.

[@chellyfishing]

When I was rewatching the 1978 version recently, I was like, is it healthy? No. Am I here for it? Absolutely.

[@mrcritical6751]

I was honestly watching the movie wondering if I was missing something cause she had every right to make their lives a living hell after he broke up with her close to their wedding day then hooked up with her best friend

[@PlayerZeroStart]

two wrongs don't make a right@@mrcritical6751

[@alanpennie]

​@@mrcritical6751 Despite her murders Jacqueline is nicer than most of the other suspects.

[@snowangelnc]

On the other hand, if she was planning on ruining the new wife's honeymoon AND killing her, it might have been smarter to put some space between those two phases of revenge instead of doing them both at the same time.

[@Kaiheart]

As a bit of backstory on Christie, she studied tons of subjects so much that she became an expert in them, so she'd be like "I need to ask an expert about this" and her second husband would be like "you are the expert dear". Also she said that "the older i get the more interesting I get" and her husband just fell more and more in love with her. lol

[@Eloraurora]

This is incredibly endearing. I always love when a character has a hobby/interest/profession described in such detail that it's clear the author either a) does it themself, or b) knows someone who does it very well.

[@shelbyherring92]

Explains why she was the basis for JB Fletcher then.

[@alanpennie]

​@@Eloraurora She was an excellent archeologist because of her painstaking regard for detail.

[@stefansauvageonwhat-a-twis1369]

More specifically this was about about who was the foremost authority on Mesopotamian pottery, she was, and "the older i get the more interesting I get" joke was made when she was asked about how it was to be married to an archeologist iirc

[@garfreeek]

Oh murder in Mesopotamia definitely breaths her love of archeology! (And husband! ☺️)

[@Caernath]

So while ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ can be summed up as “everybody did it”, for ‘Death on the Nile’ it’s apparently the case that ‘everybody did something’.

[@samuelbarber6177]

Probably why these ones have been singled out for adaptations if anything.

[@alanpennie]

​@@samuelbarber6177 Tbf Ferguson was guilty only of being an obnoxious "debate me" bro.

[@white_finch]

@@samuelbarber6177 Being that the next adaptation will be set in Venice I think "Death on the nile" was chosen more for the vistas and exotic destination, "everybody did something" is a thing in almost every single story written by Agatha Christie

[@shinyagumon7015]

Now we only need "Everyone did it but without knowing the others did it too", like everyone tries to murder the same person but unlike in Orient Express they don't work together.

[@wendyheatherwood]

​@shinyagumon7015 What about nobody did it (it was a very weird accident), but don't worry, everyone did at least one something else, so they're getting arrested for that instead?

[@Eloraurora]

I do love Cornelia's book ending. She's so quiet and patient, it's great to see her reject the shallow jerk and choose someone who respects her as a capable, intelligent person.

[@lenawalters1866]

And her goal is to aid him in hospital work and help the sick. Far better then Ferguson's vaguely aimed rage at everyone or whatever Van Schuyler thought she should be doing (serving her no doubt)

[@aquariuspower7138]

Same, I really like how they portrayed her in the TV show

[@jenniferschillig3768]

@@lenawalters1866 I noticed that about Ferguson too...that for all his blathering about equality and brotherhood, he didn't seem to give a damn about PEOPLE. I'd have loved to see Cornelia call him out on that: "These 'useless' people you dismiss...they're going to be part of any world you want to build whether you like it or not. And if you don't manage to drum up some compassion for them, what's to stop you from becoming as bad as the ones you claim to be against?"

[@sarahnour5561]

IIRC Ferguson was an asshole, but he did seem to have genuine affection for Cornelia, as he told her she didn't deserve her elderly cousin's verbal abuse, called her "the nicest person on this boat," and expressed grudging admiration for her kind, forgiving nature. Still glad she went with the doctor, though.

[@cam4636]

@@jenniferschillig3768 I mean, her response is "but of course some people are worth more than others!" and "the oRiEnTaLs are uneducated savages, those poor ignorant fools." I agree, it would've been nice to see someone actually call out Ferguson's bull and Cornelia _would've_ been in a good position to do it. But she wasn't the sort to actually say anything against his hypocrisy, only his philosophy.

[@MissCaraMint]

No I think the shot in Lynette’s cabin could easily have been mistaken for cork popping, as that was what those who hear the shots in the front of the boat thought. Basically no one is going to go investigating that small pop at the time, only remember it later when questioned. What is viral however is that nobody at all hears that third shot, or even thinks that there’s been a third shot at all. If only two shots are heard, then everyone will assume that only two shots have been fired. That’s why the third only was muffled.

[@HappiestMango]

It's been a few months since I read the book but I believe this was what happened

[@lydiabourne8341]

100% agree! Plus having the shot be heard when Jackie is freaking out and the husband is "shot in the leg" doubles down their alibi that there's no way its them.

[@aimeem]

Plus it would mess everything up if Simon were found with powder burns on his leg after Jackie supposedly shot him from across the room.

[@NoelleTakestheSky]

As someone who witnessed someone get shot in the head, I can confirm that the sound is a lot quieter than you might think, and mistaking it for a cork popping is extremely plausible.

[@jimhaggard7436]

Exactly! I haven't reread the novel in years, but I've seen the 1978 movie version recently. Mrs. Van Schuyler (Bette Davis) hears the second shot and mistakes it for a champagne cork. Louise Bourget hears it too, outside of Linnet's room, then sees Simon flee back to the lounge. She doesn't know what to think until she discovers the body the next morning (or possibly the night before, but doesn't alert the authorities) and decides to blackmail Simon.

[@doombiscuit5515]

The 'tragic backstory for the moustache' is absolutely killing me. Thank you so much Dom, I am going to lose my mind laughing at this every time I think of it for at least the next week.

[@kingsleycy3450]

That was so dumb I had completely forgotten about it. Hack writers thought there needed to be a reason why a character grew facial hair

[@Craxin01]

My understanding is that Poirot has his mustache as being a bit of a prissy aristocrat. It took a lot of time and effort to grow a mustache in that era with trimming, waxing, combing, etc. It was a symbol of his fastidious nature and attention to detail. Trying to make it to cover his face out of shame is really not in his character.

[@irisravenhild9060]

David Courtney Suchet is and forever will be my Hercule Poirot.

[@captainufo4587]

He is an awesome Poirot. His series too, though, took some questionable adaptation decisions with some characters in the later seasons. Don't get me wrong, if Suchet's adaption mistakes are like a tenor singing slightly off key, Branagh's are like a tenor going on stage to sing Nessun Dorma with armpit farts.

[@irisravenhild9060]

@@captainufo4587 That's true. That's why I read the books to see the difference. (which is not easy when English is not your language and you are dyslexic.) I know the cases in the series by heart, but it's nice to see the difference between the TV series and the book series. 🥰 Lol, I haven't even seen Branagh's movie variation, won't even watch the first one even with Johnny Depp in one role, as I have to admit I misunderstood what role he played in it. 😅

[@kyletowers9662]

suchet has a cameo in this movie

[@solvorrustad3854]

@@captainufo4587 Yes, but they still work because David Suchet's portrayal of Hercule Poirot is absolute perfection. As long as you've got him right, you can play around quite heavily with the rest.

[@Nightcore-336]

He is the only actor that I know who played Poirot

[@LexW5]

I don’t think the scarf was entirely just to muffle the sound, but to prevent burns on his clothes. He wouldn’t have burns if he was shot from a distance, but would if the gun was against his clothes when fired.

[@leann848]

It was to be entirely muffled. The shawl wasn't meant to be found, but it was. You were supposed to have heard 2 shots and not realize there was a third, supporting the timeline and Simon's inability to have killed his wife alibi.

[@thewingedporpoise]

yes, and the sound was heard, nobody heard all 3 shots clearly but Tim Allerton distinctly heard the pop and the splash, which was connected to the 3rd actual shot taken by Simon Doyle into his own leg

[@mu8242]

The moment Gal Gadot walked in wearing silver, I knew the heart of the story was lost. For those who haven't read the book, a MAJOR running theme is that of the sun and moon - Jackie is the moon, and Linnet is the sun. Linnet should outshine Jackie in every way: rich, beautiful, charming, etc. And in case you don't think it's obvious, when I told my sister about the dresses, she said, "What! But why did they have her wear silver! She's the sun! Gal Gadot would look great in gold!"

[@CalliopePony]

The theme is even reflected in their physical appearances with Linnet having golden blonde hair and Jackie having dark brunette hair. The film switched their appearances by casting a darker-haired actress as Linnet and a lighter-haired actress as Jackie. The 1978 version also did this, and it annoyed me there too.

[@darthtepes]

This! And in the same way, the have respectively blond (Linnet) and dark (Jackie) hair, which is also symbolic of their nature. And... this is completely confused in this particular movie. Shoutout for Emily Blunt and her accurate portrayal of Linnet in the series (I love Gal but nope, she should have been Jackie. And she would be iconic as Jackie)

[@Barakon]

Silver is the metal of the moon according to the bullshit field known as alchemy.

[@easyenetwork2023]

They put Gal in the Cleopatra dress. The sun and moon references would be nods to Egyptian mythology.

[@easyenetwork2023]

@@CalliopePonyIt does not hurt that Emma Mackey is quite beautiful.

[@grutarg2938]

The thing about Agatha Christie is she really enjoyed playing with the mystery - making the killer the most unlikely person. And then when you think you've figured her out, in Death on the Nile she makes the killer the most likely suspect that you dismissed as too obvious. The most accurate adaptation to the spirit of her work might be to start with the familiar set-up, but alter the clues in subtle ways so that in the end they point to someone else entirely. For instance, the nurse was alone all night with the unconscious woman - the nurse could easily have snuck out and done the murder.

[@amarisfrede2]

good point!

[@CRandyGamble]

Looking forward to the revenge fueled action spinoff featuring Poirot's mustache. Lots of opportunities for good one liners. "That was a close shave." "You're about to feel this razor burn!" "The cream precedes the cut, Mr. Poirot's Mustache."

[@conoryoung1761]

I feel like the reveal of Simon's involvement in the murder was handled a bit clumsily, mostly because they don't really play up how serious his injury is. In the book, there's a lot of talk and worry about whether or not he'll walk again with the way the bullet shattered the bone in his leg, and he's pretty much helpless and confined to his bed in agony for the remainder of the book, giving him his iron-clad alibi. Whereas in the movie, he seems fine with moving or being moved around the ship without too much pain, so the idea of him running up and about after being shot isn't as unthinkable as it should be.

[@ashleytuchin7693]

This movie was clearly pre-occupied with setting up the Poirot's Moustache spin-off. I hear they're trying to set up a facial hair cinematic universe with Henry Cavill's Mission Impossible 'stache and Chris Evan's Infinity War beard, brought together my the ghost of Charlie Chaplin's grease paint mo.

[@motherplayer]

Where does Kurt Russel's stash from "The Hateful Eight" come into play? Think he's gonna be phase 2 or what?

[@ashleytuchin7693]

@@motherplayer oh, they're definitely saving him for Phase 4.

[@mcw1907]

The League of Extraordinary Grooming Habits? The Facial Hair and the Furious? Beard Box? Stubble or Nothing? Shaving Private Ryan?

[@ashleytuchin7693]

@@mcw1907 I think the first one is the clear winner. 🤣

[@shaygedam6406]

Let's all agree - no one beats David Suchet as Poirot

[@Nightcore-336]

Yea

[@uswatunhasanah2151]

Fr!

[@julianfurner]

Peter Ustinov hands down imo

[@biffyqueen]

Albert Finney

[@sydneyanderson5922]

Amen!

[@irisravenhild9060]

Regarding the gun and the scarf. It was to not have gunpowder or burn marks when he shoots himself in the foot. Remember that the first shot was, what 2-3 meters distance.

[@NessieNep]

Gunshots are loud though. There's no muffling it afaik. Even suppressors (makeshift or otherwise) simply aren't magic like they are often portrayed in media. To my knowledge subsonic ammunition wasn't a thing in the late 1930s either but I could be mistaken there.

[@Skreezilla]

@@NessieNep Derringers and .22's are not that loud what so ever so the ship machinery would pretty much muffle the shot to anyone over about 20 feet away or in another room, it is more of a Fomp sound than a bang and often will not register to people as a gun shot.

[@CalliopePony]

Something that hits really wrong about this adaptation is how melancholy it feels. I mean, the book had five deaths, so it wasn't exactly a cheery story, but it did end on a positive note. Jackie, Simon, and Lynette's romantic entanglements ended tragically, but the book ends with two other couples happily getting together. Cornelia and Rosalie both look forward to much happier lives than they had in the past, paired up with Dr. Bessner and Tim Allerton respectively. And the narration itself ends on the sentiment that it's important to move on from the past and look forward to what the future holds. Cornelia gets cut from this movie altogether, which deprives us of Dr. Bessner's happy ending, and Rosalie's story ends in tragedy rather than happiness with her love interest getting killed instead of offering her a loving family. Bouc and his mother replace Allerton and his mother, and in the book Mrs. Allerton was a total sweetheart who welcomed Rosalie into the family, not a racist shrew like Mrs. Bouc. Even Poirot's supposed happy ending feels forced and hollow since it doesn't match his book character at all and only underscores the stupid tragic backstory they added in for him.

[@EnderPanReigns]

oh, ive only watched david's version! do tim and rosalie really get together in the book?

[@CalliopePony]

@@EnderPanReigns Yes! Much as I love David Suchet's Poirot, I hated how that version treated Tim and his mother with that weird Oedipal vibe. In the book Mrs. Allerton was a sweet, loving mother who wanted her son to meet a nice girl to settle down with. After years of suffering under her own mother's alcoholism Rosalie finally got the caring mother figure she'd always wanted in Mrs. Allerton. It was a happy ending all around for the three of them. I don't know why adaptations seem determined to give Rosalie an unhappy ending when she's one of the most sympathetic characters in the story.

[@jenniferschillig3768]

@@EnderPanReigns They do, and I don't know why the Suchet version chose to alter that plot point.

[@wjzav1971]

I hate how Hollywood is now at the point where they think they have to add sexy dance scenes and action scenes to a story that has stood the test of time. Its so cynical and just reinforces a stereotype of people having short attention spans instead of fighting it.

[@SingingSealRiana]

it actually is kinda past the point, sex sells was yesterday, in at the moment is having gruesome details closer to gore and grimmdark sell where they before would have inserted eyecandy

[@jamesatkinsonja]

It's hardly anything new-pretty much all adaptions of the 39 steps including Hitchcocks add action and a love interest which isn't present in the book. Even the more accurate bond adaptions an extra action and romance

[@TheFLAMEXD]

​@@jamesatkinsonjaTo be fair, the James Bond books are terrible.

[@JohnnyElRed]

Have you heard of the producers of the Witcher lately? They did all of that, then literally called their audience stupid, and left it at that.

[@Nerobyrne]

@@JohnnyElRed Yeah but the people running that are terrible, even they admitted it ^.^

[@explodingtomahawks7589]

The backstory about his moustache is absolutely hysterical. So much sillier than it should have been. Also, thanks for the re-upload without the sponsor. You're a cool dude.

[@LenHazell]

This part of the film is forshadowing, and actually indicates that the fourth film in the series is going to be "curtain" where it is revealed that Poirot never could grow a moustache after his injury in WW1, and had since then always worn a false one, something that in that story is a MAJOR plot point.

[@easyenetwork2023]

@@LenHazellPossible, since we never see him grow the mustache out.

[@dondashall]

As someone who has read a fair bit of the series, one thing that comes up again and again is that he is INCREDIBLY selective with his cases, and this becomes even more so as the series continues. He basically only takes cases that has some detail that strikes his interest. The idea that a case of him spying on someone's possibly-to-be girlfriend would have passed that bar is absolutely unimaginable.

[@edisonlima4647]

Yeah, it comes a point in his career where finding a reason for Poirot to *accept* a case was one of the plot treads. That case would be so below him as to be invisible.

[@aliccolo]

I think that perhaps Branagh is pulling some of his choices in characterization from the Albert Finney portrayal of Poirot. Finney's Poirot in Murder on the Orient Express has a scene where he's overly protective of his mustache by wearing a cover on it before bed, and another where he cleans each individual utensil with his bib before eating. While Poirot is meant to be a character with particular behaviors and eccentricities, I think there's a way to protray it more subtly than to just have him literally measuring eggs or desserts as they're served. That's why David Suchet is so brilliant in the role. His Poirot is peculiar but not so much that it's a distraction. In my opinion Peter Ustinov's Poirot also succeeds at this, though his Poirot is quite a bit different. Both of these portrayals show Poirot as eccentric, set in their ways, yet not to the point of absolute ridiculousness in how the need for order and balance dictates his life.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

Great points. Given the previous portrayals-especially Suchet- are well known so Branagh needed to do something different.

[@edgarallenhoe3518]

Yeah. I remember him in the books being fixated more on "order" and consistency than cleanliness, particularly with the trappings of upper-class British life. He'd be much more preoccupied with a teacup that didn't perfectly fit into its saucer than whether the tea in the cup was exactly 6 fluid ounces.

[@avrilfan0521]

David Suchet did measure eggs on several occasions the the thing I found interesting was the Poirot's oddities in DS version want played for laughs but genuinely created friction between him and suspects and even got pointed out by his friends they were supposed to reinforce the idea that as smart as he is his eccentricities make him super annoying

[@georgeray1906]

Just out of curiosity but what are your thoughts on Albert Finney's portrayal of Poirot.

[@EnchantedEssays]

Literally watching the whole thing again on mute so that the reupload doesn't affect the video's performance! Good for you for standing by your scruples and listening to others.

[@SingingSealRiana]

I rewatch his vid either way in most cases ^^

[@EnchantedEssays]

@cannibalteddy6846 how so?

[@ZoeAlleyne]

​@@EnchantedEssaysPeople like to use the word scam wildly incorrectly. Like, people will be like "hello fresh actually costs you more and therefore it is a scam" like...no one thinks they are cheaper, people think they are more convenient.

[@spikeoramathon]

Poirot. Would. NEVER. Shave. Off. His. Beloved. Mustaches!!!! SHAME on Branagh for adding this. I was so upset at him when I saw this. Maybe the reason nobody heard the fatal gunshot was because the whirring sound of Agatha Christie rolling over in her grave drowned it out.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

Not sure if it was true to the books but there was an episode of the TV series where Poirot bet if he couldn't solve the case he'd shave it off.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

John Malkovich's Poirot in 2018's ABC Murders gives the character a goatee beard.

[@spikeoramathon]

@@jamesatkinsonja Oh, YES! I remember that case, and yes, it's true to the books. But Poirot only made that bet because he already knew he could solve it.

[@spikeoramathon]

@@jamesatkinsonja we do not speak of the 2018 John Malkovich Poirot. ;) (except to say that Rupert Grint was surprisingly good in it)

[@mk46794]

That’s another thing which the movie series so far has failed to highlight. Poirot loves to dress up. He takes great pleasure in his appearance. He would go about in exceedingly uncomfortable shoes for the sake of his ensemble. And of all his sartorial achievements his mustache was paramount. And isn’t that just lovely? Seeing Poirot happy in his appearance and deeply appreciative of it. Indeed the only time he shaved was literally a life and death situation that involved saving both himself and Hastings from an international criminal empire. And even then he deeply mourned the necessity. Him shaving it off so easily in the movie is akin to Da Vinci putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa as a whim

[@elbauldelosrecuerdosdemigu5137]

Now, I might be wrong, but in the book there were a few suspects that heard the shot, but didn't really know what it was and thought it was a bottle being opened. Also there was another noise making it complicated with some stolen pearls being thrown into the sea and I seem to remember Rosalie also throwing Salome's secret alcohol stash overboard. So with all those sounds, the shot wasn't considered if anyone knew it. Also, it happened on the other end of the ship at the same time there was a lot of noise regarding Jackie at the other end. The film, if I remember correctly (I haven't finished the video yet, so sorry if you mentioned all of this later), does away with all of the pearls and Salome being a drunk, streamlining the plot but creating the little plot hole you mentioned.

[@edisonlima4647]

Yeah, even though the noises didn't occur at the same time, one passenger saying the heard the sound of something falling into the sea at X o'clock on starboard, another that no, it was a champagne bottle being opened at port at Y and a half and another claiming they heard a shot at Z o'clock at the front of the ship created another smaller mystery in declutching these infos.

[@Scarleto]

I'll never get over the tragic story of the moustache, and then him SHAVING IT AT THE END. The reveal of his moustache's backstory had me laughing out of my seat, which I don't think was the intended purpose of that scene tbh.

[@easyenetwork2023]

I disagree. My thoughts were it gave him character and established his vanity and even obsessive compulsive behavior too.

[@AbsolXGuardian]

Adapting a mid story when you're going to change a lot is generally a good strategy. If you pull it off, what you get is Agatha Christie fans going "this isn't a good adaption, but I did actually prefer x and z to the original." Changing a lot from a good story is high risk with a lot less potentional reward

[@floraposteschild4184]

True. Then again, the chances that the people who write these movies are going to be better than Agatha Christie are low.

[@kingofhearts3185]

And if you fail there won't be the backlash of butchering a more beloved story.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

Playing Devils Advocate [and being general, not specific to these films]:While it's great to get fan approval it's frankly not the 'be all and end all'. For example, look at the Bourne series which has pretty much nothing to do with the books but the original trilogy was very well received and a big hit at the box office.

[@DukeSkylocker]

@@jamesatkinsonja Agreed. It's also worth pointing out that Agatha Christie's mysteries are in that sweet spot of adaptations, where most people are familiar with her name and her books heroes, but haven't actually read her novels, kind of like Frankenstein, Dracula, Sherlock Holmes or James Bond. This means that the films benefit from name recognition without the downside of pissing of pissing off a large vocal fanbase (not that there aren't hardcore Agatha Christie fans out there, just that their portion of the audience is probably a lot less than say the Harry Potter or Hunger Games films) I guarantee, one of the reasons they changed the title of the next adaptation is because A Haunting in Venice sounds like the kind of exotic title people would associate with an Agatha Christie novel.

[@sirrliv]

One interesting detail that I picked up on was the subtle aging of the steamer Karnak. At the start of the mystery, the steamboat is shown as this glamorous plaything of the rich, an immaculate if noticeably monotone floating pleasure palace that even the crew leave at night so as not to disturb the guests (which I thought was rather odd; they don't have crew quarters aboard the ship? Who tends to the boilers through the night? What if the guests need something, they're supposed to just get it themselves? It's also a bit of a plot change at the end when it becomes imperative that Poirot solve the case as the ship races at top speed to the nearest police headquarters in Aswan.). As things progress and the tension begins to build, the filmmakers subtly draw closer and closer in on the ship, gradually revealing more of the tarnish on its seemingly spotless features; the worn paint on the staircase handrails struck me the most. A superb bit of mis-en-scene subtext at how these characters, like the ship they're on, may seem glamorous and carefree on the outside, but are all deeply scarred and troubled on closer inspection.

[@bootsthecat6718]

I actually started reading Agatha Christie because I bought the Wii version of "And then there were none", the game was trash but it came with a copy of the book.

[@EnchantedEssays]

Oooo that sounds interesting

[@swausgebouwen143]

I like that one. That's one of the genuinely special ones (like murder on the Orient express) which has very original plot twist/premise. If you haven't seen it already I strongly recommend the ITV adaptations of Poirot, the "curtain" case is a masterpiece.

[@Nerobyrne]

That story made me wish that I could fake my death in that one Elder Scrolls Oblivion quest. I think you know the one if you've played it ^.^

[@floraposteschild4184]

I'm glad to hear your first experience with that story--IMO Christie's best--was with the book. In the filmed versions, almost always SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER the final couple survive and the killer makes some fatal mistake. Blah. The definitive film version has not been made.

[@kramermariav]

A Wii version??

[@nenja3625]

The thing about the muffling of the gunshots: For Simon and Jackie's plan to work, it must look like there was only TWO shots fired that night: the one where Jackie 'shot' Simon, and the one where the murderer (who TOTALLY can't be Simon, because he was just shot in the leg, guys) kills Linnet. In their story, there was no third shot that night. So the third shot has to be muffled, to keep up the illusion. Linnets cabin was flanked by Simons on one side (and he was TOTALLY still in the dining hall bleeding from his leg at this point), and Miss van Schyler (who's hard of hearing) on the other. So the detectives doesn't question it so much. And it was a tiny gun, so it doesn't make much noise.

[@notdancooper923]

An interesting detail I picked up in the movie is that the jazz troupe seems to actually be Sister Rosetta Tharpe, a late 30s/40s blues (not jazz) singer who basically laid the groundwork for what rock'n'roll would become a decade later. They didn't even change the voice, they just straight up played recordings of Rosetta Tharpe

[@mauriciosousa1275]

But they only used the voice, right? IIRC the music had a more contemporary leaning, since the rhythm relied on this funky backbet, something that only became more popular from the 50s onward. Also, considering the movie is in the 30s , chances were a bunch of rich people would be listening to swing jazz, but I understand they went with a more modernized version of Sister Rosetta and Mavis Staple as to don't alienate modern audiences.

[@notdancooper923]

@@mauriciosousa1275 They might have used one of her later songs but it was definitely a Rosetta Tharpe original. She was pretty ahead of her time so that's probably why it sounded so modern

[@jrgrimm6091]

Yes, they played "shout, sister, shout" and I was so pumped. It was one the only parts that I was absolutely excited

[@thedatabase677]

Rewatching this to support Dom after he removed the sponsor. I love excuses to watch more Dom content!

[@blueisasomedancer]

Do you know what it was? I missed it before the re-upload and am kind of curious.

[@ZoeAlleyne]

Dittoon the curiosity.

[@19Levsko19]

@@blueisasomedancer Temu

[@thedatabase677]

It was Temu, one of those Shein/Wish clones. A lot of comments pointed out to Dom what the reputation was of that site, and he responded super quickly by removing the sponsorship from the video. He's always been really great about responding quickly when people bring up issues.

[@ZoeAlleyne]

@thedatabase677 Oh, that one doesn't bother me very much. But if he is bothered by what people said about it that is his prerogative.

[@Gerilyn2003]

He wrapped the gun in the shawl NOT to muffle the shot, but to avoid powder burns on his pants. Since if he fired from anything but touching it would be easy to miss his leg, but he couldn't risk Poirot (or anyone else) noticing powder burns on his pants when witnesses saw Jackie shoot him from a few feet away.

[@monmothma3358]

Maybe both? Considering the timing of the leg shot was so crucial

[@oneinathousand2156]

It’s really funny that in the 70’s movie, the self-deprecating author character was played by Jessica Lansbury years before she played a mystery writer/detective in Murder, She Wrote for years.

[@hew2356]

For my money, she, Mia Farrow, Bette Davis, and Maggie Smith made the '78 version so much more engrossing.

[@vanilloia7479]

the comments are a fight of suchet girlies vs ustinov girlies, it's great. I think those reasonate more with viewers than branagh because they actually do look harmless and kind. Those are Poirots that a distressed person might tell their deepest secrets to, and be met with gentle assurance. Branagh constantly carries himself as if he's Cool.

[@alanpennie]

Poirot's non - creepy affection for Jacqueline is an important part of the original story. An exchange towards the end (quoted from memory so not accurate), "You really like me don't you Poirot? Yes mon chere. But it never occurred to you to let me off? No mon chere

[@hew2356]

@@alanpennie In the Ustinov version, Poirot is desperately trying to prevent Linnet's murder and save Jackie from herself. It makes the final reveal so heartbreaking.

[@robertkendzie3]

Would love to see you give the same treatment to the other two adaptations of Death on the Nile - the David Suchet version in the early 2004 and the Peter Ustinov edition from 1978 (Which is still my personal favorite). Ustinov also did "Evil Under the Sun" as well.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

I Ustinov did 6 overall [including TV Movies] so there would be many episodes for Dom to potentially do!

[@dorianr4770]

same. the 1978 version is my favorite

[@romankotas448]

I love Kenneth Branna’s Shakespeare movies but he’s gotten weird of late and I’ll never forgive him for what he did to Artemis Fowl

[@AvatarYoda]

I never understood Shakespeare until I saw his Hamlet film. It finally clicked, and now I've read all the plays except three. His Henry V is very good too.

[@motherplayer]

So did Disney, since they seem absolutely fine with it becoming lost media since they took it off their service.They are pretty much gonna pretend it never happened.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

Belfast was very well received

[@romankotas448]

@@jamesatkinsonja I haven’t seen that one but heard good things

[@raymondkim3740]

[Edited: I went back and read the book again to find the answer and took notes while I read] Regarding the shawl and the gun shot: The short answer: The shawl was used to prevent scorch marks on Simon's leg, as there would be no way for him to get a burn mark when he was shot at from a distance. The long answer: If we're considering both the noise of the shot that killed Linnet and the shawl that covered the third shot that actually went into Simon's leg, then there's a lot to cover. Obviously, when Jackie shoots Simone there is no shawl. No question there. This needs no explanation. When Simon shoots Linnet, he does not use the shawl. Here's why. For one, it's explained in the book (by Colonel Race, a character removed from the film) that the shawl would not muffle the sound as is often believed in fiction. Moreover, the tiny gun would not be very loud (as is stated multiple times throughout the story). But even then, it will still make a sound. And Dom's right, someone would have heard it. So lets look at our surroundings. Linnet's room is on the starboard side facing the river and is flanked by her husband's room (which is empty), and Ms. Van Schuyler. It's explained in the story that Ms. Van Schuyler is partially deaf (chapter 20) and there is no way that she would have been able to hear anything going on in the neighboring room. Moreover, her bed was up against the opposite wall from the one between her and Linnet's room. When she is at her interview with Poirot and tells him she heard someone in Linnet's room and a splash, she's lying. She's simply putting pieces together from what she saw later (Rosalie out on the deck having just thrown something overboard). She's also likely covering for herself and her own theft of Linnet's pearls. On the port side of the ship, Linnet's room is opposite Andrew Pennington, her American lawyer. When he's interviewed he claims to have heard nothing except for a commotion around midnight (chapter 17). Initially, it seems very unlikely that he heard nothing, especially the shot that killed Linnet, but one needs to take into consideration who his neighbors are. Andrew Pennington is neighbors to Jacqueline de Bellefort and Dr. Bessner, the two rooms that were likely the loudest that whole night. Plus, Jackie had already planned for the possibility of the second shot being heard. This is why when she's being taken away she did her damn hardest to make a huge fuss, scream and cry, and make a lot of noise to cover up the shot. One could argue that Simon should have shot through the shawl anyway so that if the shawl was found in the river later then there would be a plausible reason as to why it had holes; the criminal falsely believed that the shawl would help cover up the sound when they shot Linnet and threw the gun and shawl into the water and therefore Linnet's body had no burn mark. However, the whole plan hinged on the detectives being misled into believing that this was a crime of passion and was spontaneous. The stealing of the shawl would indicate premeditation, a perspective Jackie and Simon desperately wanted to avoid as they would have been found out much sooner. Then there's the third shot. The main reason Simon wraps the gun in the shawl is to prevent there being burn marks from the shot on his leg, which the doctor would have noticed. This would then call into question why there were burn marks on his wound when Jackie shot him from a decent distance. The very last thing that either Jackie or Simon would have wanted was to bring into question the events that took place in the saloon. They had a story planned out and they needed to make sure that all of the major pieces of the story fit properly. The purpose of the shawl had nothing to do with noise. It was solely for the possible mark it would have left after being shot at close quarters.

[@juanfranciscovillarroelthu6876]

I think that the point of mufuling the gun was to make it look like he was shot at a distance, by not letting residuo in his leg.

[@lavendersblue2580]

The three random grinding scenes in this movie had me whispering to my sister, “Poirot fought in WWI for this???”

[@StarryEyed0590]

He definitely didn't though. He was a middle-aged (highly decorated) policeman who was granted refugee status in England during WWI. This is literally how he meets Captain Hastings, his "Watson," and how he gets involved in The Mysterious Affair at Styles.

[@lavendersblue2580]

@@StarryEyed0590 oh no, I know! I just meant in the context of the movie; we had a good laugh about it together 😂

[@Rixec2]

I've really noticed how mystery stories are often the ones that get the biggest changes. Even a number of animated Batman stories have done things like change the killer or the like just to keep some kind of twist since everybody would know it from reading the source material. I think people making the adaptations get so focused on the twists and action they forget there are smaller, subtler things they can do with the performance and shots to still make it an investing watch even if the story is known.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

I think that is the main reason. For example, the story and the end twist in Orient Express is well known even to people who've never read it so I can see why they feel the need to make some changes to throw people off the scent.

[@Casutama]

@@jamesatkinsonja But that's stupid. If I've read the book and still go and watch the film, I do so because I want to see it adapted.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

​@@Casutama Fair enough but both Orient Express and Nile had been adapted at least twice before [film and Suchet tv show] so I can understand it more in this case.

[@XanderPGK]

Yeah. There's been like at least four animated Batman films based on comics that have changed the twist of each story. It's probably a mix of changing the twists to keep fans on their toes and to simplify or fix them.

[@collinmurr3207]

In addition to being a fantastic reviewer, you're a class act for taking it down and re-uploading without the sponsor. Great video as always!

[@destinyjewel2588]

Time to rewatch this and do all the other algorithm supporting things to help the reuploading of content. Hopefully things go well for you Dom.

[@ArtemyMusha]

I'd be so happy to see a shirt that says, "This moustache has a tragic backstory".

[@bsperoz]

10:19 YES!!! YES!!! MY FAITH IS RESTORED!!! I KNEW THAT PIECE OF JUNK TWIST HAD TO BE FILM ONLY!!! THANK YOU!!! It was my least favorite part of the film too. SO GLAD IT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

[@Eloraurora]

I'm actually struggling to remember if any of the Poirot books have him doing anything close. He will engage in matchmaking shenanigans on occasion, but I don't think he'd try to break up a couple if one of them wasn't plotting murder.

[@edgarallenhoe3518]

​@@Eloraurorait seems out of character for several reasons, but mostly I just can't imagine book poirot doing someone else's bidding like that.

[@Eloraurora]

@@edgarallenhoe3518 No, definitely. After all, his buddy Hastings married an acrobat, which is probably in the same respectability zone as a jazz manager. I always regretted that we never really saw her again.

[@monmothma3358]

​@@ElorauroraYeah, "Cinderella/Cinders". I think Hastings moved to Argentina with her

[@edisonlima4647]

Yeah, Poirot was always super romantic. Searching for dirt on a happy couple for a snob mother is the exact opposite of what Poirot would ever do.

[@andreagriffiths3512]

And the cat cameos at the end are often a highlight as I enjoy seeing them so much - please never remove this tradition.

[@TheSuzberry]

I will repeat my observation that Dame A’s grandson makes money on these movies.

[@AeonKnigh432]

Is this a positive or negative observation? I have no idea how he is as a person

[@TheFLAMEXD]

Or he could just genuinely like them. Ever think of that?

[@Roadent1241]

Which makes sense since he's family. And?

[@fmac6441]

​@@Roadent1241I think the issue is with* copyright. The book is over 80 years old and Agatha Christie passed away about 50 years ago. Why is this work not yet in the public domain? *Included for clarity

[@bubblewrapstargirl]

​@@fmac6441 Cause she was British, the books were published in the UK, and UK copyright lasts 70 years after the author's death

[@laceybird5151]

I was under the impression that the reason Simon had to use a shawl (in the books at least) when he shot his own leg was because he didn't want to leave any sort of burns or residue on the leg to prove it had been fired from close range. Also, some passengers did hear the shot that killed Linnet, but they said they assumed it was a champagne bottle.

[@MissCaraMint]

Army Hammer being a cannibal was honestly so shockingly out of the box that I don’t think anyone is going to forget it. *Shudder*

[@corruptangel6793]

Is he an actual cannibal, or is it just a fetish? Dom only said fetish

[@SingingSealRiana]

never heared of the guy . . .

[@Nevae_696]

@@corruptangel6793 both I’m pretty sure

[@MissCaraMint]

@@corruptangel6793 Reading what I have about the case, when it first came out, I'm convinced he's an actual cannibal. Further more I believe he is a cannibal for fetish reasons. Edit: If you read about the story it's actually pretty chilling.

[@katieowlpower]

The impression I get is that it's more a white-guy thinking he's edgy thing. I might be wrong, but according to what I've heard, that's my take (like I said, it could be there's more action that he's taken on this than I'm aware, but what I've seen reads like a boast to shock). Still probably carries some danger, though I'm much more repelled by his pursuit of underage female fans.

[@ololo518]

First, I love that you listen to community and don't stick to shady sponsors, and second that you support strike. Godspeed to you and all those amazing people (really) giving us entertainment

[@vesperlord4342]

Props on you for reuploading the video without the sketchy sponsorship! Also i love that they give the mustache a tragic backstory. It's so amazingly stupid.

[@simonorourke4465]

I didn't see the earlier upload didn't realise it had been reuploaded lol, who was the problematic sponsor?

[@vesperlord4342]

@@simonorourke4465 I believe Temu, which is basically just Wish 2.0 but with data harvesting this time (from what I've heard. Never used it myself)

[@thorstonmanderlay5010]

I had to laugh when you praised Brannagh's epic shots of Egypt. The film was almost entirely shot at Longcross Studios in Eng;and. Aby Simbel and most of the locations in Egypt were all built in the studios. Very few scenes, like the market, were shot on location, but that location wasn't Egypt but Cotswold Water Park Nature Reserve near Swindon. The 2nd unit crew did go to Egypt for a couple of days to film some establishing shots, that's all. And vow, does it show. I found the re-creation of Egypt absolutely laughable. Contrast that to the - in all areas far superior - 1979 version with Peter Ustinov as Poirot. That one was actually filmed in Egypt, including Karnak Temple, and on a real historical Nile cruiseship. The makers of this new version should be hiding their heads in shame!!

[@monmothma3358]

What about the TV version with David Suchet, starring Emily Blunt as Linnet? Do you know if they went to Egypt for that one?

[@thorstonmanderlay5010]

@@monmothma3358 Yes, indeed they did. At least for the scenes at Luxor. While for me this version was a bit disappointing after their excellent adaptation of Murder on the Orient Express (with that fascinating psychological angle at the climax involving Poirot himself), it is still absolute gold compared to Brannagh's film.

[@butterknife1066]

I’ll definitely agree that the fact that no one hears the unmuffled shot that killed Linnet is a plot hole, but I do think a secondary reason that Simon used the shawl when he was shooting himself was to avoid scorch marks, if that helps?

[@NoelleTakestheSky]

I witnessed someone get shot in the head, and it’s not loud. Easy to mistake for a champagne cork, as was suggested, or even a “what was that?...must have been nothing.” Gunshots are louder in movies for dramatic effect.

[@chrismanuel9768]

​@@NoelleTakestheSkyNot sure what gun you heard, but they sound more like high power fireworks going off than a champagne cork. If anything, movies significantly downplay the volume. Soldiers are required to wear ear protection because firing their weapon will cause permanent hearing loss. They're loud. Loud enough to blow out your ear drum at close range.

[@helenl3193]

Doesn't it depend on the size and type of gun and the ammo? I'm not an expert, and have never been in close proximity to a gun being fired, but I'm under the impression that rifles/long barrel guns are quieter than smaller/hand guns, for example. Plus I'm sure my uncle had some near silent ultrasonic or subsonic* bullets from a WW2 gun in his collection. Based on it being a purse sized gun, though, if I'm right that would make it louder, because there's less barrel to muffle the sound/air pressure ? *I may be misremembering the terminology, I was told about it as a teen in the 90s.

[@Serilia]

Maybe I didn't find Poirot's mustache that impressive because I semi-regularly share a bus ride with a man who's whiskers are about twice as long, higher on his cheekbones, and generally overly groomed. You get used to it.

[@melodiousmooose5301]

I really loved the book (which I only just read like, last week lol). Watched the movie afterwards and it was waaaay harder to keep my focus on it. Surprising that a 9 hour audiobook was more fun to listen to than a significantly shorter movie.

[@skug9bob]

Re mustaches in WW 1, mustaches were _literally_ part of French troops uniform at the time. Facial hair was also strongly encouraged in British troops until 1916.

[@brianalambert1192]

I think in the book they mentioned that people heard the two non muffled shots and assumed they were corks from a bottle because of how similar the sounds were. I can't remember if they heard two cork bottle sounds in the book, or if one was heard on one side of the boat (the fake shot) and the second on Lynette's side of the boat (her murder)

[@pamelalansbury94]

I know this version is very flawed, but I love how gorgeous it is. The sets and costumes are so beautiful. I also think Poirot’s sleep mask being shaped like his mustache is just hilarious.

[@MasonMakesStuff]

7:42 because the expanding gas was against flesh it merely caused a fart sound, cleverly hiding the gunshot

[@timothymclean]

I don't think that's how gunshots work,* but it's silly enough that I'm willing to accept it. *I'm pretty sure the gas inside a gun is too high-pressure to escape the flesh/barrel seal in a fart-y manner. It would probably sound _different,_ but not _organic._

[@Phantom86d]

Yes. Deadpool silencer style.

[@Indiechick]

I just saw the promo for “A Haunting In Venice” and I can’t wait to see your take on it. I definitely think Kenneth is going off the deep end with this next one.

[@SingBlueSilver-m7t]

Agatha Christie's works are pure perfection. Absolute masterpieces of intelligence. It physically pains me when script writers feel the need to change anything in an adaptation of her work.

[@alexbennet4195]

But why adapt if you’re just going to do everything the same again?

[@RadioNocturnus]

@@alexbennet4195to introduce a work to a larger audience. there are far more people willing to watch a movie than read a book

[@SingBlueSilver-m7t]

@@alexbennet4195 transferring a great piece of literature to live action film is just another way to love something you've loved as a book. There is no need to change anything when going from book to film. Something that the film industry has never understood. There is literally zero reason to change anything from ANY book to its screen adaptation. People are fans of books for a reason. They're great the way they're written. Seeing what you love butchered once the film industry has gotten their hands on it is distasteful and leaves fans feeling like the script writers don't give a crap about the source material. Adapting a book to a film should not include changing everything about that book. You're just slapping a book title on a film that has nothing to do with the original story just so you can sell tickets. That's why.

[@alanpennie]

​@@alexbennet4195 Everybody should watch the 1978 version which is an absolute treat and an extremely faithful adaptation. Ustinov isn't a great Poirot, but at least he's better than Branagh.

[@white_finch]

@@alanpennie Suchet's version of Poirot for me is the best one and he did a great version of Papa Poirot when BBC adapted this story

[@sophiekinch-lake]

Book Linnet is American, not British. I remembered this because I was watching the David Suchet version this morning, which featured a startlingly young Emily Blunt doing her best American accent. Great video! For once I've read the book and watched the film! :)

[@grapeshot]

If I was going to write a book like this being from Columbus Ohio it would be entitled Death on the Scioto.

[@LadyTylerBioRodriguez]

The Buckeye Murders

[@Nerobyrne]

I was gonna say that I'd write a story about a mansion where everyone is slowly killed by a mystery murderer, but then i remembered she already wrote that book ^.^ And it turned out to be the best selling one she ever wrote.

[@KawaiiStars]

​@@Nerobyrnei loved that one, watched the david suchet ver, i really wish i could experience the series all over again

[@mcw1907]

Wonder how that could be done?! A member of the Wexner family is slain while taking part in a kayaking group trip to a glamping site in Hocking Hills? Yes, I know the geography makes no sense, but when did that ever stop filmmakers?

[@drosmel3116]

Regarding the "plot hole": If I remember correctly, they drugged Poirot's drink prior to the murder as I believe his cabin was near Linette's. I could be wrong though.

[@mk46794]

Yup, Poirot realized this due to the unnatural sleepiness he experienced the night of the murder

[@MissCaraMint]

Oh hey Dom. How are you. Yes we support the screen writers guild!

[@wy4553]

The dancing scenes were SO cringe. When Jackie and Simon were literally dry humping on the dance floor, I was shocked that no one in the room was staring at them in horror. They were being trashy even by modern standards.

[@samuelbarber6177]

I just can’t help but love the style of these movies. This one in particular just looks so gorgeous. Mads props to Cinematographer, Harris Zambarloukos, BSC.

[@motherplayer]

It looks decent when it's not being filmed on an obvious green screen set (That Pyramid scene being particular egregious.). But it did get me appreciating the 70s film for how much more....authentic it felt, I suppose.

[@helenl3193]

Yup, I'm pretty much only there for the scenery/landscape porn! 🤩😍

[@nataliegath395]

Never seen this one, but holy crap it looks stylish as hell, even if it's a poor adaptation. Lots of pretty shots, sets, and costumes. Almost tempted to watch just for that sweet 20s flavor.

[@atreides213]

The Brannaugh Poirot films absolutely ooze style from every poor. It’s almost like Fantasia; the plot is at best a secondary factor for me, I rewatch these movies when I want a visual feast for a couple hours.

[@DDlambchop43]

if you REALLY want visuals, watch the '78 version...it's spectacular.

[@Eizlem]

About the ‘hearing the gunshot’ situation. I seem to remember that there was quite some noise from the commotion (i.e. Jaqueline screaming her head off), and that it was discovered later that the person in the room closest to Linette was the kleptomanic old woman, who was coincidentally hard-of-hearing, and wouldn’t have heard the gunshot

[@milktenders6219]

What a chad “I’m moving to book only content because of their reasonable demands” hell yeah, that’s awesome you’re helping the effort

[@kyzsa]

Possible reason for the gun and shawl question - The gun required the shawl in the third shot so there wouldn't be any burn marks on Simon's pants or leg.

[@Ardentbluesky89]

Wrapping the gun for Simon stopped the powder burns to show it was fired very close. There were burns on Lynette's skin which showed the pistol was held close.

[@MysteryMiles]

It's been a while since I read the book, but I think Simon didn't muffle the shot that killed Linnet because he wanted the shot to be heard--except that the gun was so small, it wouldn't be loud enough to cause anyone immediate alarm. In the morning, after people learned about the murder and the earlier shooting, a few of them would say, "I heard two pops in the night--those must have been the two gunshots." He muffled the third shot because he wanted people to remember hearing two shots, not three. The stole that muffled the shot wasn't meant to be found. This is probably completely wrong, but it's the first explanation that came to mind.

[@alexanderyakubik2289]

Dom, you pinnacle of virtue and chivalry, no explanation needed. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I express my admiration for you upholding that which you believe to be right.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Welcome back! Gonna love this video all the more due to the change! You're the best dom! Huge fan!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤❤

[@richardwilliams2808]

These movies are also a guilty pleasure for me, but I recently rewatched some of the series with David Suchet as Poirot, and Branagh's version really can't hold a candle.

[@tacitus7797]

The weird thing is ... I have no memory of the Suchet version of Death on the Nile, but dearly love the Peter Ustinov version. Haven't seen this one yet - but clearly have to check it out. Oh ... and I did catch the first upload and said to myself that sure is not the company I would expect to be sponsored ... good job on the reupload.

[@jamesatkinsonja]

The Suchet version is noticeable now for featuring a pre-fame Emily Blunt as Linnet.

[@meganhuffmanwrites]

This is the one I've been wating for! These films are also a guilty pleasure for me. I kind of hold the book versions and the film versions on different shelves at the same level. I enjoy them both for different reasons.

[@Grey-sz7rz]

I was drinking when you explained the moustache backstory and almost choked. Why, just why

[@anthonylarocque7975]

On the body count, three feels about normal for an Agatha Christie novel. One actual victim, plus a couple of witnesses or blackmailers is pretty common: A Murder Is Announced and Mirror Crack'd both have three, IIRC. ABC Murders and Pocket Full of Rye have three as well, but not as part of the pattern I mentioned.

[@VegardMyklebust]

The mystery of who the killer is, was so easy to solve in this movie (I have not read the book). Like literally, you can even figure it out before Poirot comes to egypt.

[@vanilloia7479]

the movie really lingers on IMPORTANT!!! CLUE!!!! too much, instead of just. Having people have conversations. And then later you learn that a detailw as actually an important clue.

[@Nerobyrne]

Thanks for clarifying that the guild actually asked for this. I've seen a few creators say some random stuff that really doesn't seem like it would matter at all, and for no real reason. But I'm still glad they're trying to help :)

[@karl_alan]

18:50 gotta admit, having a horror themed entry into the soon-to-be trilogy sounds interesting. It may be the first of the series that i actually watch. Horror/mystery hybrids can be pretty great.

[@alanpennie]

Agreed. Though these remakes of great old movies are the definition of superfluous they may be justified if they get a new Christie adaptation greenlit.

[@alanpennie]

If they want a horror inflection I'd say The Pale Horse would be a better choice than this rather washed out late work. But we'll have to wait and see how the new film turns out

[@chellyfishing]

Hey Dom, as always appreciate your commitment to personal integrity. Here’s a comment to help your engagement on this reupload 👍

[@autumnramble]

The shawl is not to muffle the shot (even though a small gun is still quite noisy), but to avoid powder burns on his leg.

[@lenapawlek7295]

Good on you for reuploading - wishing you the best for future sponsors!!!

[@mcw1907]

If only Kenneth Branagh would have the courage in the next movie to have the scarred and moustache-less Poirot confess to Ariadne Oliver that he is really Hercule's twin brother Achille, I would forgive him everything.

[@christinehall9544]

After I saw this video uploaded, I went to the library, borrowed Death on the Nile, read it in 2 weeks, and watched the movie, all so I could appreciate this video. Worth it

[@namewitheld2637]

Ooh, I have an answer for the "muffling"! It may not necessarily have to do with muffling the shot and have more to do with catching the stippling. See, after faking being shot in the leg, Hammer Time may have realized that shooting himself in the leg would leave gunpowder burns on his clothes, which would be hella suss as he was "shot" from across the room. The shawl wasn't necessarily needed to make the sound of the shot softer (though that would be at least some benefit) but to ensure his clothes weren't burned, thus maintaining his alibi. As for why nobody reacted to shots being fired... well, I'd put that down to a combination of drug induced stupors and low-caliber gunshots being surprisingly soft. Unless it's stated in the book it was for a makeshift silencer and nothing else, in which case, yeah, plot hole.

[@CalliopePony]

The tragic backstory here is so stupid. Christie never went in-depth with Poirot's past, but we know that he was already middle-aged when WWI happened, not a young man. He had a high-ranking position in the Belgian police; he wasn't a farmer. He came to England as a war refugee. I don't think that the exact circumstances of his emigration were elaborated on, but it's implied that he was targeted because of his position and had to flee the country. Near the end of the war the British Prime Minister was kidnapped to prevent him from attending peace talks, and the King of Belgium personally recommended Poirot's services to the English government to find him. Book Poirot grew his moustache because he liked it and thought it looked "magnificent". It was something he enjoyed and was proud of, not a tragic mask to hide his pain. Especially since scar tissue doesn't grow hair, so the movie version isn't even physically possible! I'm also sick of this series trying to cram in a lost love for Poirot. He didn't need it, and this movie's line about wishing that he would fall in love again so he could "be human" just echoes the idea that people who don't fall in love are either broken or inhuman.

[@NocandNC]

I actually watched this movie before the Orient Express adaption, but I definitely liked Orient Express much more which I can only assume is due to the smaller amount of plot meddling involved in it.

[@alanpennie]

I do think Nile is a weaker story.

[@madsct]

They explained the gun wrapped in the stole/shawl in the book as when he shot himself in the knee after shooting his wife. Jackie hadn’t actually shot him - the handkerchief had red ink that he pressed to his knee so people would see he was shot. Then he ran to kill his wife, then ran back to get into position but had to actually shoot himself in the knee.

[@notavailable2590]

The most unrealistic part is Jackie supposedly having the time/money to stalk her ex around the world. Having just watched the Ustinov version of DOTN, now I want to hunt down the Lansbury adaptation of The Mirror Crack’d From Side To Side.

[@hew2356]

You won't regret it. It's a perfect cozy mystery.

[@rachidbirdi1928]

Great video as usual! Super happy that you're supporting the writers and actors strike. And please show us your cat more.

[@OmnivorousReader]

It has been a while, but, from memory, I think that the shot that killed Linnet in the book was heard. Someone thought they heard champagne popping and that was part of what Poirot used to solve the mystery.

[@Pedone_Rosso]

Well, I guess this is what happens when you go for "I'll watch it tomorrow". Thanks for your videos! (both versions, btw)