Death on the Nile (1978)

Only after watching did I become aware that another adaptation of the Agatha Christie book is coming out this year. This information does not make me regret my choice; if anything, it makes me gladder. If the remake is reputedly good, I'll be in a fine position to compare both versions.

I was particularly interested in seeing how, besides the exact setting and vehicle, the story differs from Murder on the Orient Express, which I both read and saw the 1974 movie of. Once again, famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot (Peter Ustinov herein) must figure out which of many passengers committed murder in transit. The first obvious difference is that DotN, at least in this version, doesn't have any death until about halfway in. Before that, we get pretty well acquainted with the guests, whose actors include Bette Davis, Mia Farrow, David Niven, Maggie Smith, and Angela Lansbury. Poirot does, too, observing them slyly as if he fully expects a murder. Hey, detectives should pick up on patterns in their own lives.

Another difference is that the body count doesn't end at one, nor is the violence strictly off screen or even toned down. Clearly, the guilty party wants to silence witnesses. Poirot isn't regarded as untouchable either. As '70s British fare goes, it's pretty exciting.

I can see why whodunits are almost never played straight anymore. I mean, what are the odds of having a whole bunch of equally likely suspects, the only exceptions being the detective, his friend, and the travel company staff? At least in MotOE, the victim was so reprehensible that total strangers might want to bring him to justice; in DotN, Poirot notes that few suspects would have the same motive. Is it resentment of a past personal wrong? A wish to end blackmail? Romantic rivalry? Greed? Sheer contempt for aristocracy? (We do get a fair amount of tension between socioeconomic strata.)

Regardless, DotN does apparently want to be taken seriously. Ustinov's Poirot is less cartoony than Albert Finney's, and the moments of comic relief, while suitably amusing, do not go overboard. At its best, the story presents a mystery whose solution is not obvious but almost feels that way after you follow Poirot's logic. Unfortunately, he still uses the rather questionable method of assembling everyone to spell out the answer. This isn't the Academy Awards, dude.

Perhaps more concerning is that if Poirot got it all correct, then the story's first act of violence, which takes place off the ship, doesn't make much sense for the killer. My best guess is that one of Poirot's earlier theories was partly correct, in which case there should be a further arrest. I suspect that Christie didn't include the moment and the adapter didn't think far enough. Either that or a fuller explanation got left on the cutting room floor. The film may have an Oscar for costume design, but I can see why it wasn't nominated for best adapted screenplay.

Taken as a whole, the strengths of the 1978 DotN, not least in the acting, outweigh its weaknesses. And I won't reject the 2020 on the basis of being tired of the story.