Pithy plot summary: It's Agatha Christie, which means that someone is murdered in an elaborate manner and it's up to Poirot to find the killer. Oh, and it takes place on a boat on the Nile.As hard as I try, every time I watch the 2004 version of Death on the Nile, I can't do it without comparing it to the 1978 version. It's impossible. And the newer film, in my opinion, doesn't measure-up. While there are a number of things I could write about, there are two main areas where the newer Death on the Nile pales in comparison. Acting – with two exceptions, the actors in this film are not the world-class actors in the 1978 movie. Don't get me wrong, the actors here are fine – there aren't any poor performances. But they're not Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, Maggie Smith, David Niven, or Jane Birkin. The two exceptions I mentioned are David Suchet and David Soul. As much as I like the 1978 movie, Peter Ustinov never really feels like Poirot. And, as much as I love George Kennedy, Soul is a better fit in the role.Tone – the newer film has a much darker, brooding feel to it that the earlier movie. As a result the newer movie's just not as much fun or enjoyable. This really hurts the 2004 production. The 1978 movie actually has quite a bit of comedy in it, but not enough to take away from the serious nature of the subject matter. Even other episode in the Agatha Christie's Poirot series have a lighter touch to them that would have worked much better here. That's not to say it's a bad movie, there's really a lot here to like. I've already mentioned the two Davids – Suchet and Soul. There's also some incredibly beautiful cinematography, nice costuming, and interesting locations. It's also as faithful to the significant plot points found in Christie's book as the earlier movie. On the whole, the good and bad just about negate each other and I rate it a 5/10.

One of the best Christie books, "Death on the Nile" has again been made into a TV movie, this time with David Suchet as part of the Poirot series. Previously there was a 1978 version with Peter Ustinov. I'll admit that one was a lot more fun. Ustinov's Poirot was his own creation and fabulous, and that particular film had a fantastic cast including Bette Davis, Angela Lansbury, David Niven, Maggie Smith, Mia Farrow, Olivia Hussey, Simon McCorkindale, Jack Warden, David Niven, and George Kennedy. Hello. Talk about star-studded.A couple of people on this site said the way this particular episode was set up, you knew who the culprit was immediately. Actually I found both versions easy to figure out.The story concerns a happy couple, Jacqueline de Belfort and Simon Doyle, whose relationship falls apart when Simon meets the wealthy, gorgeous Linnet Ridgeway, Jacqueline's soon-to-be-former friend. In the next scene, Linnet and Simon are married, and they're basically being stalked by Jacqueline, whose life's work is to drive both of them crazy and ruin everything they do.So it's no surprise when Jacqueline shows up on the couple's honeymoon cruise. Hercule Poirot and his friend, Colonel Race (Edward Fox) are also on the cruise. One night, Jacqueline has a fight with Simon and shoots him. Then Linnet is found dead, though Simon was only shot in the knee and survives. Jacqueline has made no secret of wanting Linnet dead, but she was busy shooting Simon. It's up to Poirot to sort out where everyone was and what everyone heard. Who killed Linnet? When another passenger is murdered, the situation becomes even more desperate. No dearth of suspects, including Andrew Pennington (David Soul) who has been using his position to mess with Linnet's money. We also have a thief on board, and Linnet's pearls are missing, as well as a blackmailer.It was mentioned on the reviews here that the actress playing Jacqueline seemed to be playing her as someone who was spiteful, rather than a woman in love. I think the spite/revenge is a good choice, having known a few scorned women in my life and having been one of them myself. One does harden, one does feel betrayed especially if your fiancé takes off with your best friend.Terrific story, still intriguing, with Suchet in top form, surrounded by a good cast. This is a dark episode. I know some people don't like the Ustinov TV adaptations, but I do. It's worth seeing just how the plot is handled, as well as being delightful.

The book Death on the Nile is long and complicated, but superb all the same, and one of my favourite Christies. The Peter Ustinov film is one of the better outings of his as while it wasn't completely faithful, it boasted a superb cast and it was sumptuous to look at. This adaptation for me is slightly inferior to the Ustinov film, and the only one of two to make me feel that way (the other is Evil Under the Sun). Starting with the pros first, it is breathtaking to look at. The Egyptian scenery and the costume and set designs were top draw, the script captured the style of the book perfectly and the music was excellent. And the acting was great, David Suchet is impeccable as Poirot, and Emma Malin is a superb Jackie, gorgeous and expressive. Frances DeLa Tour gives a first rate performance as Salome Otterborne, the same character that Angela Lansbury overplayed so deliciously in the 1978 film. In fact the only weak performance came from Emily Blunt as Linnette, she looked the part (more than Lois Chiles I'd say) but she wasn't quite bitchy enough. As a matter of fact, neither Blunt or Chiles quite nailed Linnette quite right. And there are slight improvements over the 1978 film too, one is that the pacing is faster, the other is that it is more faithful to the book, the murders are closer to the ones in the book and the ending done in Romeo and Juliet style is closer too. However, there are one or two flaws, namely the direction from Andy Wilson, it wasn't absolutely abysmal, but it wasn't quite as efficient or as suspenseful as it could've been. Also there were times where I felt that I had been told too much too early, and this was a similar problem I had with Murder on the Links. All in all, this is a very good episode. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

This is one of Christie's most popular mysteries because it works with the "impossible murder." Its also an exotic way to manage the remote country house idea, where you know exactly how many suspects there are and can map their movements within the structure.If you aren't unhappy with the others in the Suchet series, you won't be unhappy with this. Generally, they've settled the stories into a simple BBC model, with the answer revealed at the end instead of displayed as a puzzle.This one is worse in that regard, because this story is more of a puzzle than the others. And they go much further in telling you who the villains are even before the story itself begins.But what'll be interesting to students of film is the way the space is used. Despite the flaws of the 1978 version, it understood that the structure of the space is a part of the puzzle. People coming and going, being seen, being heard. This version and that use the very same boat, but the difference in how things are photographed is radically different.Its partly a matter of cost. The TeeVee budget could pay for location shots, but when they use the boat, they have to work with the physical limits of where they can put the camera. The 78 version made a studio copy of much of the boat. It had a real cinematographer — we're talking "Red Shoes" and African Queen" — and knew something about how space constrains emotional vision.So quite apart from whatever problems you might have with BBC handle of an entire genre, and Suchet's sensibilities, there's this business about space that just might drive you crazy if you know how well it can be done.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.