![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A Haunting in Venice - review
Nov. 12th, 2023 12:48 pmI’ve been a big fan of Kenneth Branagh’s Poirot movies. I love Poirot (I’ve watched every David Suchet adaptation, and he adapted 100% of the Poirot novels and short stories), and I especially love when new adaptations have different takes. I also think that Poirot is Branagh’s highest and best use—he’s hammy and melodramatic in both his acting and directing anyway, why not put that to work in playing a character that is best served with all the ham.
The first two movies were arguably the most famous Poirot stories—Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. I’m most familiar with Death on the Nile, and Branagh’s movie managed to surprise me with some of the changes made, but ultimately the solutions to both mysteries remained the same.
Not so A Haunting in Venice. A Haunting in Venice is ostensibly based on the 1969 novel Hallowe’en Party except…not really. I just rewatched the Suchet adaptation of that book and other than being set at Halloween, the names of the characters, and one very memorable murder method, there is no relationship between this movie and that book. Which is for the best, really—the book was panned when it came out and, I have to say, the solution is duuuuuumb. Like. OMG. Christie wrote a lot of stuff, and for every real corker there’s one or two mediocre stories and a dreadful one. Hallowe’en Party, despite its memorable hook, is in the dreadful category.
Which leaves A Haunting in Venice to be entirely its own thing—and it’s a supernatural thriller. It still feels very much like something Christie would have written. I didn’t know the solution, but general genre awareness had me guessing a few of the key twists (but not all of them). It’s beautiful, the mood is fantastic, and like the others, has some really delicious performances (Tina Fey and Michelle Yeoh are stand outs). It is, however, edging into horror a bit more than I generally like.
Christie, though she’s considered the progenitor of the cozy mystery, did not shy away from the darker parts of human nature in her stories. This adaptation leans into that, with a Poirot in retirement because after years of being around murder and two world wars, he is weary of the world. (In one of my favorite lines from the film, Poirot explains his method as: “When a crime has been committed, I can, by application of order and method, and the slow extinguishing of my own soul, find without fail or doubt, whodunit.”)
There are quite a few jump scares, which will either be pleasantly mildly spooky for you or Too Much. I’d definitely recommend this, but understand that it’s genre bending a little while remaining very true feeling to Christie’s work. (I mean—she wrote horror sometimes. What else would you call And Then There Were None?)
Mostly, I just want to keep getting more of these and more Christie adaptations in general.
The first two movies were arguably the most famous Poirot stories—Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. I’m most familiar with Death on the Nile, and Branagh’s movie managed to surprise me with some of the changes made, but ultimately the solutions to both mysteries remained the same.
Not so A Haunting in Venice. A Haunting in Venice is ostensibly based on the 1969 novel Hallowe’en Party except…not really. I just rewatched the Suchet adaptation of that book and other than being set at Halloween, the names of the characters, and one very memorable murder method, there is no relationship between this movie and that book. Which is for the best, really—the book was panned when it came out and, I have to say, the solution is duuuuuumb. Like. OMG. Christie wrote a lot of stuff, and for every real corker there’s one or two mediocre stories and a dreadful one. Hallowe’en Party, despite its memorable hook, is in the dreadful category.
Which leaves A Haunting in Venice to be entirely its own thing—and it’s a supernatural thriller. It still feels very much like something Christie would have written. I didn’t know the solution, but general genre awareness had me guessing a few of the key twists (but not all of them). It’s beautiful, the mood is fantastic, and like the others, has some really delicious performances (Tina Fey and Michelle Yeoh are stand outs). It is, however, edging into horror a bit more than I generally like.
Christie, though she’s considered the progenitor of the cozy mystery, did not shy away from the darker parts of human nature in her stories. This adaptation leans into that, with a Poirot in retirement because after years of being around murder and two world wars, he is weary of the world. (In one of my favorite lines from the film, Poirot explains his method as: “When a crime has been committed, I can, by application of order and method, and the slow extinguishing of my own soul, find without fail or doubt, whodunit.”)
There are quite a few jump scares, which will either be pleasantly mildly spooky for you or Too Much. I’d definitely recommend this, but understand that it’s genre bending a little while remaining very true feeling to Christie’s work. (I mean—she wrote horror sometimes. What else would you call And Then There Were None?)
Mostly, I just want to keep getting more of these and more Christie adaptations in general.