'A Haunting In Venice' Review: A Scary Good Time
Over the course of his decades-long career Kenneth Branagh has indulged in the works and worlds of William Shakespeare, Harry Potter, and even Tom Clancy. But it’s his latest obsession with Agatha Christie - and her enviably clever detective Hercule Poirot - that has finally granted the writer, director, and actor a franchise to call his own. After the critical and commercial success of his previous adaptations, Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, the filmmaker returns with a third star-studded murder mystery, A Haunting in Venice. But is it as good as his previous entries, or is it dead on arrival like so many other franchise threequels these days? Contrary to what Poirot might say, the answer is not so clear cut.
Based on Agatha Christie’s novel Hallowe’en Party, the film follows a retired Hercule Poirot as he is pulled from solitude by an old friend with an invitation to attend a seance on Halloween. While hesitant at first, Poirot ultimately agrees. But just as the detective finally lets his guard down at the event, a murder happens. As a massive storm closes and leaves all the attendees - now suspects - stranded, Poirot reluctantly decides to step up and solve the case. Not only in the hopes of finding the murderer but in the hopes of uncovering the truth about his seemingly convenient invitation in the first place.
Unlike the first two films, this one tows the line between two genres. It’s just as much a horror film as it is a mystery. But it doesn’t lean into traditional horror tropes such as blood and gore. Instead, Branagh makes use of both modern and classic horror imagery. For a film that takes place in the middle of the 20th century, it is equally reminiscent of a Scream film as it is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - with both the respective wit and German Expressionism to fit. For every jump scare, there is a dutch angle. Even when nothing “scary” is happening, the audience is made to feel uneasy. That adds an extra layer to the experience that was notably absent in the first two films. For the first time in the franchise, anytime Hercule Poirot is alone trying to gather his thoughts, he is not really alone - or so it seems.
The sound design and score heavily assist the film’s eery tone. Taking place inside of a large palazzo, you are constantly reminded of the infinite space and potential secret passageways due to the constant creeks and echoes. The audio is so crisp that when Poirot starts to hear voices, you can’t help but feel like you’re in his head. Additionally, Academy Award winning composer Hildur Guðnadóttir (Joker) ensures the film lives up to its name with a truly haunting score. Although it has a purposeful ghostly presence throughout the story, fading in and out of the most pivotal scenes, it is undeniably the film’s most memorable element. It’ll literally stick with you longer than some of the supporting performances.
Despite being joined by another group of talented actors, very few match Branagh’s pitch perfect performance as Poirot. Granted, by now, he’s had enough to comfortably settle into the role. Although his arrogance and the timing of his one-liners easily make this one of the character’s best big screen appearances to date, it only makes the supporting cast look worse. This time around, Branagh surrounds himself with the likes of Tina Fey, Michelle Yeoh, Kelly Reilly, Kyle Allen and even Belfast alums Jamie Dornan and Jude Hill. As hard as all the actors try to commit to their roles, the only one who seems to be having any fun is (unsurprisingly) Fey.
She plays said longtime friend of Poirot who invites him to the seance. She lights up the screen with as much humor and wit as Branagh that you can’t help but hope she won’t become a victim of the night. Considering how many other talented faces there are, especially recent Academy Award winner Michelle Yeoh, it’s one of the film’s glaring cons.
Nothing is more frustrating than the film’s resolution though. As far as parlor scenes go, it is one of the weakest in both the franchise and in modern murder mystery memory. For one, it happens too quickly. Poirot goes from seemingly knowing nothing to all-of-a-sudden knowing everything. Additionally, as Poirot comes to his final summation as to who the killer may or may not be he draws upon incredibly small details that will make you question if you’ve been watching the same events unfold as he has. Without giving too much away, there are pivotal moments that are shown in a climactic flashback that may have only gotten a few seconds of screen time. Not to say that these callbacks, or their underwhelming context, impacts the finale, but they certainly create some confusion at a point in the film where there needs to be absolute clarity. While Poirot’s final designation is still shocking, it doesn’t feel as damning as it should.
Make no mistake. A Haunting in Venice may not be perfect, but it’s still a scary good time. While it’s hard to say if it’s the best in the franchise, it is undeniably just as good as the first two entries. More than anything, it marks an exciting turning point for Branagh as both the man in front of and behind the camera. Just as Poirot realizes it’s not quite time to retire, Branagh (once again) proves his versatility as a genre filmmaker. Both of those breakthroughs should be more than enough to ensure that Poirot keeps coming back for more.