Death On The Nile (2022) Non-Spoiler Film Review: The Destination Matters More Than The Journey Getting There...

 

After the events of the first film, Detective Hercule Poirot is assigned to travel to Egypt in order to attend and work undercover to monitor the honeymoon of Simon Doyle and Linnet Ridgeway, which includes a cruise on the Nile River. When a murder occurs on deck, it is Poirot's job to learn what's going on before the murderer can strike again. While similar to the first film in structure, the sequel does a far better job in the overall mystery and conclusion. There's also an underlaying theme of love and what people will do for it that makes it a fitting film for the Valentine's Day week. The pacing on the other hand is a huge problem. The first half of the film moves at a snail's pace without the murder happening and just has the cast indulge on this vacation. There is a reason for the slow pace though as it does a far better job at establishing the characters and environment compared to the first film. The tone is also very much like the first, with very few jokes and a serious mood, but the latter sticks even by the end, unlike the first film's ridiculous sappy and cheesy conclusion.

Kenneth Branagh returns as Poirot to still be the most charismatic character in the film. Poirot is far more subdued in this film as the tone is far more consistent, but still has his quirks with sweets and social skills. Much like the previous film, the ensemble cast are talented and do their best in the film, but do their characters improve from the underwritten tropes from the first? To a degree. There are some characters that are underwritten and basic such as Armie Hammer's Simon the newlywed, Rose Leslie as Louise the timid maid, Emma Mackey as the crazy-ex Jaqueline, and Jennifer Saunders and Dawn French as the two bumbling British elders that are enjoying their time and are insensitive to Egyptian culture. However, there are some characters that are given a bit more depth and personality than the others such as Gal Gadot's high-class elite Linnet, Tom Bateman's Bouc, the loyal friend of Poirot, Annette Benning's Euphemia as Bouc's overcaring and possibly racist mother, Russell Brand's Linus, a doctor who was a fiancee to Linnet, Ali Fazal as Andrew, Linnet's envious cousin, Sophie Okonedo as the blues singer and cool-as-a-cat Salome, and Letita Wright as Rosalie, Salome's niece and lover to Bouc. So, the cast is much improved over the previous film in the regards to the characters. Even though not everyone is as good as Poirot and the others, at least they all still do their best in their performance.

Branagh directs once more and while his directing is as great as ever, it's far more engaging in this film. This is primarily thanks to the location and environment of Egypt and the boat. The train and snowy Alps in the first film were fine and the cold and moody lighting and colours helped with the atmosphere of the film. Here, the warm and vibrant colours of Egypt and the Nile are not only more distinct to look at, but carries its own sense of dread as the paradise will soon be viewed as deadly rather than dreamlike. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is just as good, if not, better than before thanks to creative tracking shots of the ship, the panning over the river, and some dynamic cinematic birds-eye view shots. The music by Patrick Doyle has also improved. I couldn't remember anything from the previous film, but the more dramatic and dreading score helps fit the film and make things more memorable as a result. However, one thing that didn't improve was the effects. The first film wasn't heavy on visual effects as the train and environments were digital and were well rendered given the budget and limited use. However, Branagh tried to push the effects and sets with the increased budget and while the sets and recreations are pretty impressive, the issue is that the green-screen and compositing shots look dreadful. They are so obvious and unlike a train where it's easier to hide the effects in the environment, a small boat with tons of open space isn't as easy. Despite the effects though, Branagh's direction is as sharp as it can be.

"Death on the Nile" is an improved sequel that has some overbearing luggage of its own. The pacing in the first half is abysmal, some of the characters are just as underwritten as the previous film, and the visual effects are even more obvious and worse to look at. However, the murder mystery is far more compelling and interesting than before, the tone is perfectly serious and contains light levity, Branagh's Poirot is just as enjoyable as before, some of the newcomers are given character and a touch of depth, the acting all around is great from all of the talented cast members, the camerawork by Zambarloukos is visually creative and interesting, Doyle's score is more memorable than before, and Branagh's direction allows the warm sunny landscape of Egypt to carry a sense of dread and unnerving atmosphere. If they just fixed the issues they had, this honestly would be a top contender of the genre. As is, it's a solid detective film that's unfortunately burdened with a painfully slow set-up.

Verdict: 7/10. Good, but could have been far better. Watch this week if you like your spicy murder mystery adventures. 

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) Film Review: Murder Of Precious Time...

 

With "Death on the Nile" finally coming out this week, it's time that I look back on the first film. While the marketing and pre-release was a big deal with the various big names and slick production, the remake of this classic story got mixed reviews when first released, but earned enough money to have a franchise. So, five years later, is it worth going back to? Short answer: Not really. Detective Hercule Poirot is invited to take the luxurious Orient Express back to London for a three-day expedition. When a con-artist named Edward Ratchett asks Poirot to be his bodyguard, the detective refuses, resulting in Ratchett to be murdered in the first night. Poirot now must discover the truth behind Ratchett's murder and learn who's the culprit leading to a shocking reveal. While the premise alone sounds interesting the problem is the conclusion, which many found disappointing. It's revealed that all of the suspects admitted to killing Ratchett due to him causing so much pain and misery in their lives. Poirot then decides that he will let everyone go as there will be no justice for the case. This ending is one of the most infuriating I've ever seen as it not makes the mystery not worthwhile, but having everyone get away with it just makes Poirot a spineless person as a detective. The only positive thing I can say about this ending is that I doubt that the sequel will use it again, because that would be dumbfounding. The tone of the film takes it seriously for the most part up to the ending as well, as the reveal makes it cheesy and childish, not just for the depiction of the murder, but for everyone to be let go. You can't make a film that takes itself pretty seriously and have an ending that is ripped from a children's movie.

The cast and characters is where things get complicated, because the actors are all highly talented and commendable, but the characters themselves are underdeveloped or cookie-cutter. Kenneth Branagh as Poirot is by far the only charismatic performer of the film, since Poirot is a very expressive and cunning man who knows how to put the pieces together. The problem with the character is that he lets everyone go off the hook at the end, which is just dumb. As for everyone else, I'm not going to go in depth for every character, but they all carry the issue of a talented actor over a bland character. Johnny Depp as Ratchett is underused and is just treated as a filthy criminal, Josh Gad is a devoted assistant, Judi Dench is just the old family relative of a crucial character, Willem Dafoe is a European professor that's hiding a secret, Michelle Pfeiffer is the aging femme fetale, so on and so forth. The problem with ensemble casts like this is that everyone ends up being underdeveloped, so you don't really get attached to any of them. It sucks, because the actors and actresses do a fantastic job with the limited material. At the end of the day, every character aside from Poirot is meaningless, only a directive to uncover the full underwhelming mystery.

If there's one thing that Kenneth Branagh can do, it's to direct a slick-looking movie. The 1930's is depicted with elegance and luxury and every detail and set is carefully made to feel welcoming with the set design and ominous with the grand Alp Mountain landscape. Branagh also knows how to carry an intense and suspenseful mood with the more enclosed personal scenes. The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is excellently handled with methodical movement and wide shots of the environment and subtle tracking in the interior scenes. Close-ups of various actions and objects are also shot with perfection. The score by Patrick Doyle is pretty generic though as nothing really resonates or stayed with my memory. The effects are also standard for the most part with the train and landscape being the notable elements. They aren't the most convincing effects ever made, but they are acceptable for the modest budget and production values. Overall, Branagh always does his best when he makes a film. Even if the material isn't the best, he tries to throw eye candy whenever possible to distract you.

"Murder on the Orient Express" is a frustrating experience. On the one hand, the majority of the story is given a great tone and suspense, the character of Poirot is charismatic, the acting all around is superb, the camerawork by Zambarloukos is exceptional, the effects are decent, and Branagh's directing continues to show just how much of a visionary he is in the art of cinema. However, the film is botched from an awful ending that ruins the credibility of the mystery, tone and characters, the extensive ensemble cast is underdeveloped and never grow to be fleshed-out or endearing, and the score by Doyle is rather forgettable. The film is so close to being considered good or even decent, but the third act practically ruins what could have been a great mystery film. 

Verdict: 5.5/10. Just above average, but not really worth a watch if you want a great murder mystery. Hopefully "Death on the Nile" can stick the landing?

The King's Man (2021) Film Review: The Best From The Franchise And Vaughn Himself!

 

It's been more than a month since my last review, which is primarily due to a lack of new movies releasing at the time of January as well as the theatres being closed in my area. I never had intention to see this movie, mainly since I wasn't in love with this particular franchise and director, but with a dry spell of movies for the first two months, I guess it wouldn't hurt watching this box-office dud. For those who aren't familiar, "Kingsman" is a spy franchise that is about colourful characters battling over-the-top villains. The first film was a solid introduction, even though I wasn't in love with the main lead and the cliched story formula. The second film, while not bad, damaged the brand due to its ridiculous writing, weak drama, and a continued use of racism that is depicted in these films along with other Matthew Vaughn films. As for the long delayed new installment, this film goes way back into the past as it covers the first World War and the man who would eventually find the espionage service in the attempts to stop Germany from winning the war due to the aid of a shadow organization. While the story does appear predictable, the film does incorporate some nice twists and turns that keeps the film far more fresh than it is. What really stands out from the story though is the tone. The first Kingsman had a balance of seriousness and over-the-top comedy and scenarios, while the second film doubled down too much on the craziness and comedy. This film is the most serious of the franchise, while incorporating few moments of absurdity and humour. It not only helps ground the film more in reality than the others, but it makes the dramatic aspects far more potent as it never once feels shallow or empty, unlike the previous films. Despite the seriousness, it's still a fun movie for the general crowd.

Ralph Fiennes as Orlando Oxford is the best protagonist that the franchise has received, not only due to Fiennes's acting, but also Orlando's distinct personality and growth. Orlando is a pacifist who must learn to make the hard choices in life and is overprotective of his adult son due to a family tragedy. The way the character grows and deals with the story throughout the runtime is resonating while also providing a bit of charm and wit. Harris Dickinson as Conrad, Orlando's son, comes off as a pretty bland character who just wants to do the right thing and make his father proud. Conrad however serves as a perfect red herring of the film as he is shockingly killed off in the second half of the film, which lets his character serve a huge deal to Orlando and the plot, but make his inclusion more interesting because of how vanilla his character is in these type of films. Djimon Hounsou as Shola is a great supporting role as the badass butler to Orlando and escapes the usual black guy dies trope in the process. Rhys Ifans as Rasputin is fantastic for the limited screentime he has by making the figure so over-the-top and enjoyable as a secondary villain. Matthew Goode as The Shepard is also a fun yet generic villain whose petty motivation is made up for his energetic performance. Aside from other supporting roles such as Tom Hollander as various historical leaders and Charles Dance as Kitchener, there are two characters that sink the film down. Gemma Arterson's Polly is a very generic"strong female" archetype that's over-confident and acts badass without given much depth, despite a lazily-forced love angle with Orlando. Aaron Taylor Johnson has a bit role as Archie Reid, the man who Conrad trades places with in the war and a founding member of the Kingsman, but he does nothing at all to gain that position, not even joining the climax to make up for Conrad's sacrifice. Lastly, the choice to kill Rasputin early in the film is a mistake as it not only serves as marketing fodder, but it does make the climax a bit one-sided to an extent. Despite this, the cast of characters are great with well-done performances all across the board, with Fiennes and Ifans stealing every scene.

Matthew Vaughn is a director I both love and hate. While I can't stand some of his films in regards of storytelling and writing, he always knows how to direct a film. So, imagine if you get the best parts of Vaughn as a director and a writer. Well, this is the film we get. The stylized, comic-book esque mixed with a sense of realism and restraint is the norm of Vaughn, but is best used in this film due to the setting and tone. Ben Davis does a fantastic job with the cinematography as the camera zooms or pans to various locations while tracking specific subjects or people. It makes the action have spectacle, but keeps the somber scenes untouched to savour the mood. The score by Matthew Margeson and Dominic Lewis is good for a typical action film set in that era along with some great dramatic cues. The soundtrack is also restricted to that era, primarily using classical music, until the credits which is a nice touch. The effects are good for the budget it has, as Vaughn tries to make his action in camera as much as possible, so the effects are used for locations, green-screen or objects that wouldn't be pulled off with a limited budget. Lastly, there's the action. While the church scene in the first film will always be the most recognizable sequence of the franchise, this film carries the best action in regards to consistency and memorability. The Rasputin fight is the most over-the-top combat in the film with the music and choreography, the fight amongst the covert ops in the trenches is well-shot and paced with no music to match the intensity of the situation, and the climax is a typically robust way to end a movie like this with brutes, sword-fights, and gory deaths. It completely overshadows the action from the second movie and the majority of the action from the first. It has taken me a while to get around, but I now can't wait to see what Vaughn does next as a director.

"The King's Man" is the most refined of the franchise to date. While a few characters are underdeveloped or under-utilized, the film has the best story due to its serious tone, themes and historical context, Fiennes's Orlando being the most compelling character in the series, Ifans and Goode as Rasputin and the Shepherd are enjoyably over-the-top villains, the side cast is strong with Dickinson, Honsou, Hollander, and Dance to name a few, the camerawork by Davis is just as great as it gets, the score by Margeson and Lewis is good and fits the movie well, the effects are well-implemented, the action sequences are fantastic, and Vaughn's directing continues to show that he is a gifted filmmaker in the visuals and style. It's a shame Disney went out of its way to make this film bomb in order to not finance more movies with these characters and feel. Here's hoping that the third Kingsman learns from this prequel.

Verdict: 8.5/10. The best film from the franchise to date. If you want a clever, emotionally-packed action movie that's not Spider-Man, this is a good one to see during a rather slow February.