Plot hole: According to the denouement sequence shown in the film, Linnet Ridgeway is shot asleep in her bed approximately three minutes after retreating from the lounge. Less than 2.5 minutes pass from the moment Linnet leaves the lounge to the moment when Doyle is left alone by the other guests. It takes another 30 to 45 seconds for him to pick up the pistol, rush into his cabin and kill his sleeping wife. How could Linnet have walked to her cabin, taken off her jewelry, changed into her night-dress, retired to bed, and fallen asleep in 180 seconds? (00:59:00)
Sammo
17th Feb 2004
Death on the Nile (1978)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The sequence never showed when Linnet goes to sleep. We can't be sure how long it is between her leaving and Simon shooting. All we know is in the actual scene she leaves after having already taken a sleeping pill. This is "movie time", not real time. 3 mins can be 30 mins in movie time. The flashback sequence doesn't clarify anything based on her timeline.
This...is not at all what happens. This is the 1978 movie; Linnet is playing cards with the others up until a moment before cutting the game short not by her choice but because of Jackie's interference, so certainly took no pill in advance nor does she take one on screen, and the characters interact with no interruption from that point on leaving no room for an implied 'movie time' elapsing at a significantly slower rate than 'real' time.
24th Feb 2022
Death on the Nile (1978)
Factual error: When Jackie pulls out the unusually high amount of cash that Simon happened to have on him, you can read the banknote was issued in 1940. The movie is set in the 1930s. (02:08:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: 1) The shot is onscreen for a fraction of a second. 2) Even using freeze-frame, I do not see any visible date. Do you have a screen capture of this?
I did not, but I took one for you.;). I just uploaded a zoomed-in and straightened version you prolly can already see in the pending screenshots section. It says "Juin 1940", but you shouldn't need it; the note is on screen for a full second or slightly less, but the fact that allows you to read it without even pausing is that she holds the note straight, her motion stops just long enough to avoid stealing the moment with freeze-frame (in fact if you take screenshots on VLC like I do, the compression might make it harder to read than watching it in real time). And also pre-WW2 1000 Franc notes have a huge date, I circled it for you in the screenshot. You can also notice the signature of the "caissier general" that matches notes post-summer of 1937 at earliest, and the only date given in the movie is 1930. Serial numbers are consistent with a 1940 release as well, they definitely used a legit banknote from the era who happened to be a late print.
22nd Mar 2016
Death on the Nile (1978)
Plot hole: Jackie supposedly doesn't have any money, but she seems to have enough to travel halfway around the world, following Simon and Lynette.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: As Jackie was plotting with Simon to kill Linnet the entire time, surely its the case that Simon had provided Jackie the funds to be able to do this so that they could enact their plan?
Suggested correction: It's not like "not having money" necessarily means lacking at that exact moment any cash, including the funds for one trip; it can simply mean your lifestyle is not sustainable and you're gonna run out completely dry or be forced to sell your remaining properties soon if you don't change anything. The novel makes it much more clear because the characters actually address it and express concern for her saying that she probably exhausted the small allowance she had for that crazy stunt. Poirot in fact in the novel suggests them initially to just let her go on until she'll eventually be unable to keep up. Back to just the movie, it's also worth noting that she is following them on that one trip, which brought them in Egypt from Venice through Brindisi, so 'halfway around the world' is relative too, it's not like she's been squandering the money in this endeavour for a long time.
22nd Mar 2016
Death on the Nile (1978)
Plot hole: Simon wasn't shot at the time everyone thinks - he shoots himself after killing his wife - so how did he get all that sweat, in his forehead, through his hair? It was all over him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He'd just been running around the boat, and he'd just killed his wife. That'd make anyone sweat.
What the OP says is that he's already sweaty before he does any of that; if you look at the first scene when he's tricking the others, and in Poirot's flashback during the denouement, it is true that the actor's face is already pretty sweaty, although not quite as much as it is later when Simon is actually in pain. Look at him when he closes the bottle of varnish, his hair is a mess sticking to his forehead. You could argue he was nervous, but in the rest of the movie he keeps his cool all the time without such displays of perspiration.
23rd Oct 2008
Death on the Nile (1978)
Corrected entry: Several times, when Poirot explains that someone could have been the murderer, we see scenes in which someone is peeking through the window and observes when Jackie "shoots" Simon in the leg. The distance between Jackie and Simon varies frequently. It's particularly apparent when Salome Otterbourne "peeks" through the window, when Jackie and Simon are almost at arm's length, vs. the first time (when it really happens), when they are maybe a couch length away from each other.
Correction: The scenes each unfold with subtle differences because they aren't of the actual event, but rather Poirot's version at that time.
There is technically no reason why the premise of the murder (aka how Simon gets shot) and all the ancillary details would vary in Poirot's story. Sure, it's not 'the actual event' but the version has to be believable and can only be a variation of what we originally saw (and Poirot didn't). For instance, when he accuses the doctor to pocket the gun, the moment when Ferguson is 'distracted' is identical but Simon's shirt collar is in a completely different position. Or when the doctor calls Ferguson a "Stutzer" telling Miss Ottenbourne to come along, the delivery of the line is subtly different. If everything were *completely* different and just Poirot's mental construction without visual connections at all to the actual scene he after all did not witness, fine, but here we talk about small differences between alternate takes of parts of story unaltered by Poirot's theories.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.