Death on the Nile had interesting twists, Poirot revealing the killer's identity, and more. We break down the ending & biggest changes from the book.
Warning This post contains spoilers for Death on the Nile.
Death on the Nile ending is explained. Grounded on Agatha Christie's novel of the same name, Kenneth Branagh returned to direct the alternate film starring him as famed operative Hercule Poirot. Leading an ensemble cast, the murder riddle included relatively many twists and turns before the dick figured out the killer's identity.
Set in 1937, Death on the Nile follows Hercule Poirot on vacation in Egypt. After reconnecting with old friend Bouc (Tom Bateman), he is invited to attend a Nile voyage to celebrate the marriage of Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer) and Linnet Ridgway, a descendant. After Linnet is killed and her choker stolen, Poirot sets out to find exactly who is responsible for her death and the person's provocations.
Like the great detective he is, Poirot does break the murder riddle in the end, along with many other interesting discoveries about the passengers of theS.S. Karnak. Then's the ending explained, the killer's identity revealed, and the biggest changes from the book.
The Killer’s Identity Revealed ( & Why There Were 2)
It took Poirot a bit to get to the bottom of the riddle because he was busy looking into Rosalie’s history for Euphemia. Still, the sleuthing operative eventually discovered it was Simon Doyle, Linnet’s hubby, who killed her. He wanted her plutocrat further than anything, which is why he gallanted her, intimately left Jacqueline and married her so snappily. Working for Linnet as a land agent wasn’t enough — Simon wanted a lot further than that and he was willing to come a killer to get it. He was seen by Louise, which is why she was next on the list of victims. Still, Simon wasn't working alone at all.
The reason there were two killers was that Jacqueline couldn’t repel helping Simon; she'd do anything for him, indeed if that meant conniving to kill her friend. While Simon killed Linnet, it was Jacqueline who boggled both Louise and Bouc, the former because she’d seen Simon and the ultimate because Bouc had seen Jacqueline kill Louise. Simon had to maintain his innocence and, since he was present during Poirot questioning others, he couldn’t do the payoff or give himself away. Simon and Jacqueline planned everything from the launch and they might have gotten down with it, too, had Poirot not been around to dig up the verity.
Why Jacqueline Showed Poirot Her Gun Before Linnet’s Death
Interestingly, Jacqueline revealed to Poirot that she had a gun, the veritably same bone that Simon used to kill Linnet. At that point in Death on the Nile, Jacqueline formerly looked shamefaced and Linnet was suspicious that the woman would, in fact, kill her because Simon left her to marry Linnet. So why show Poirot the gun at all? Following Simon and Jacqueline like a snooper should have been enough, right? While Jacqueline harbors the importance of the blame for conniving to kill, it’s possible she showed Poirot the gun because a part of her felt shamefaced for trying to murder Linnet. After all, she and Linnet were musketeers, with the descendant making it clear Jacqueline was one of the only people who no way watched about her plutocrat. Perhaps there was a part of her that wanted Poirot to see the gun in the expedients he'd try to take it down from her, precluding the series of events that entwined later.
Why Bouc, Andrew & Euphemia Are Also Shamefaced
Andrew may not have been successful, but he did essay to kill Linnet and Simon while at the tabernacles of Abu Simbel. He also tried to get Linnet to subscribe papers that would keep him in charge of her estate for longer, which means he'd have continued getting her plutocrat, at a time when she was rattled and unfocused on what was written. The only reason Poirot lets Andrew go is on the pledge that he'll make effects right with Linnet’s accounts.
Poirot would have also let Bouc go for stealing Linnet’s choker in Death on the Nile, but he failed before that could be. Bouc was so hopeless to start his new life with Rosalie that he allowed their life together first rather than revealing Linnet had been boggled. Stealing the choker put him in peril, too. However, Bouc presumably wouldn’t have seen Simon speaking with Louise at each, If he hadn’t been trying to hide it or put it back. Taking the choker complicated matters more than necessary, performing in further deaths. Still, Bouc may not have stolen the choker at each if Euphemia had simply accepted her son’s relationship with Rosalie. Her hiring of Poirot complicated effects and inadvertently set Bouc on his path.
Why Poirot Has A Mustache ( & Why He Finally Shaves It Off)
A big part of what makes Poirot notorious is his lengthy mustache, twisted at the ends and prepped to perfection. Death on the Nile reveals the reason behind his mustache is actually an idea from his late woman, who suggested he grow facial hair to cover up his war scars. He has worn his mustache ever ago. By the end of the film, still, Poirot has shaved off his mustache entirely. It may feel originally like he is done it to impress Salome Otterbourne (Sophie Okonedo), but it also goes a lot deeper. Poirot was hiding behind his work and his pride.
Bouc's death made him realize he lost the only friend he really had — one who was willing to fight for love — while Poirot kept people at arm's length. After Rosalie, Salome's bastard, openly read right through him, Poirot knew she was right; he did hide. His mustache is a big part of that, shielding him from questions about his once despite the numerous commentary he gets about it. Removing it showed that he was willing to live his life more openly moving forward. Going to see Salome without the mask, in a terrain where he isn’t working, speaks to the idea that he wants to live more completely, and paring off his mustache is a launch.
Biggest Changes From Agatha Christie’s Book
Film acclimations of novels are noway going to be exactly the same as their source material and Death on the Nile is an illustration of that. While the core of the murder riddle remains the same, there is a plenitude of changes made from the original work. The movie brings back Bouc from Murder on the Orient Express, but he isn’t in Agatha Christie’s original novel. But seems to have replaced Tim Allerton as Rosalie’s love interest in the film. In the novel, Rosalie is also Salome Otterbourne’s son and not her bastard; Salome is also not a jazz songster, but a loved novelist.
Marie Van Schuyler in Branagh’s adaption is Linnet’s grandmother, but she’s Tim’s mama in the book. What’s more, there are several characters from Christie’s novel that don’t appear in the film at each, including Cornelia Robson, Marie’s kinsman, communist Mr. Ferguson, archeologist Guido Richetti, who stole Linnet’s choker, and Jim Fanthorp. Death on the Nile includes croaker Linus Windlesham, but he’s a relief. Bessner. Colonel Race is also neglected in the 2022 adaption. By removing certain characters, others in the film were shifted to take their places, further engaging with the murder plot that still involves Simon and Jacqueline colluding to get Linnet’s plutocrat.
Death Of The Nile's Real Meaning Explained
Death on the Nile may be a murder riddle, but its core is about the hopelessly in love. Everyone in the film is fueled by their passionate love for someone different. Hiding behind certain effects — care, plutocrat, work — is also a major theme in the film. Eventually, every character was masked. On the outside, the wealth of Linnet shadowed much of the rocky connections brimming beneath the face. Love, in numerous ways, showcased the ugliness behind all of their guests; it's also what drove them to axes. Love erected them up, but it also made them monsters. Eventually, those who had their heart in the right place were fighting for commodity beyond rapacity in the murder riddle. Others, like Simon, were really only in it for the plutocrat. Love, it seems, makes people do unfortunate, illogical effects and Death on the Nile is evidence of that. But the film's communication is ultimate that people, no matter what, should try to love anyhow.