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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[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.

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*

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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!!

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)

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

I’m glad you got this re uploaded so fast!

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.

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! :)

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.

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

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.

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

Wonderful video as always. Forever one of my most favourite creators on KZfaq. Keep up the amazing work and take care of yourself!!

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.

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

Re-watching the upload and commenting to help that engagement! Dom, you are definitely one of the good ones. 🤗 Thank you so much!

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

You are such a compassionate, caring, kind, considerate, and intellectual soul. Thank you for being you

Thank you for your time and effort.

That’s enough reuploads of the same video…TO FILL THE NILE! 🥂🍾

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.

Thank you for another great video!

Loving these recaps of classic mysteries!

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.

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.

Great work, as usual! And new kitty! Congrats!

I found this channel by accident, and it’s wonderful! Glad to know someone else loves these films even if we know they’re not fantastic 😂

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

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.

Loved your video and the comparison of the whole "everybody did something" thing. Thanks!

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.

A question for or a thought regarding the book-only related content moving forward: Would you be into/consider doing big well known original text vs a book adaptations?? I've just been thinking since the last video when you brought up how things have to be reworked because we 100% solidarity here, of how there is the original Pride & Prejudice but also like the book Pride, Prejudice and Zombies. Or a slew of other books that take that base storyline but re-adapt it to something modern or niche. Another duo that I've read both of being Romeo & Juliet and then Romeo's Ex: Rosaline's story {by Lisa Fiedler} which is an adaptation but specifically from all the side characters perspectives. To be honest there are soooo many books that are varying degrees of adaptations of Shakespeare, some good, some laughable atrocious, that you're in the clear of having enough content til honestly the end of time probably.

Amen!! Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders were the best in the film!! I wish they'd just played all the roles and bring back their French&Saunders show. I HAVE very much been enjoying their podcast on Audible called "French and Saunders Titting About". Absolutely Fabulous!!

Awesome as always!

Thanks again , Dominic Noble