Before I continue: I loved this book when I was younger. I especially liked the exchanges between Poirot and Jacqueline. And on the page, the book more or less works.
It is unbelievably ridiculous on film.
First, it relies on split-second timing and the kind of set-up that never, ever, ever happens in real life.
*Spoilers If You Read Between the Lines*
For one, why doesn't someone stay with Simon? They would in real life. Why didn't one of the other passengers pick up the gun? They would in real life. What if a passenger wandered into the temporarily empty lounge? They would in real life. Why didn't someone come out of a cabin and run quite noisily into Simon ("Hey, Simon! Whatcha' doin' with that gun?")? They would in real life.
Simon and Jacqueline can't kill off everyone. Which brings me to--
It's more or less the reason I stopped watching Midsomer Murders, despite liking John Nettles. Uh, I don't think anyone in the tiny English village at the end of the episode is left.
I am extremely willing to suspend my belief (or disbelief) when I'm watching just about anything. So I know that something has reached radical levels of "I can't help but roll my eyes" when that's exactly what I start doing.
I have thought for years that scriptwriters should remove at least one of the extra murders from Death on the Nile. It simply doesn't translate from the book to the screen. Writers never do. Melodrama sells!
I'm curious to see how Branagh handles the problem.
1 comment:
I agree completely with those criticisms. The story hinges on the surprise that Simon & Jacqueline are conspiring together. Once that secret is revealed then one is left wondering why the two plotted such a risky scheme. I suppose it is because Simon is rather dimwitted and Jacqueline is unhinged.
Post a Comment