Cacería En Venecia

The change of setting to Venice is inspired, it gives it an otherworldly and insular, claustrophobic tone, which is emphasised by the camera work, and lighting, this one is tricky to review without spoilers so I must be brief, and leave some ideas out, the script is close to superb, but it just hits a couple of bum notes, the third act is over too soon, the denouement rushed, but in part it's because the mystery for all the effort and effects isn't that mysterious, but fundamentally the problem is Branagh, he obviously wants to be Poirot, but he isn't, he just isn't idiosyncratic enough, or dare I say talented enough, and he pales in comparison to the giant magnificent performances that have been before, the genius of Peter Ustinov only surpassed by the subtlety and diligence and sheer depth of David Suchet, one of the greatest acting performances ever, unfortunately for Branagh it's a tough school, and he just doesn't make the grade, gave it a 7, felt like an 8, but also a 6 coz of KBs love letter to himself.

Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) has retired and is living in Venice where he is visited by his old friend Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) who asks him to come to a seance held in a palatial Venetian house by top medium played by Michelle Yeoh who is seeking to speak with the spirit of a girl who apparently killed herself jumping from the building. Oliver wants Poirot to expose Yeoh as a fraud or start believing in the afterlife. He attends and there is a murder.

Branagh's third go at a Poirot story and depending on your fondness for these things, potentially the best. It is very different from the previous 2 mysteries in that whilst the usual interviews and ripping up of alibis takes place, there is a very distinct supernatural element here, which may or may not be real. What Branagh does though is use this to create a much darker and decidedly well crafted spooky story (he should definitely make a straight ghost story) which is looking both for a murderer and proof that the ghostly bit is true or false. So whilst the gloss and usual extravagant beautifully dressed characters might be missing there is still a great mystery to enjoy. I hope he does another one.

This is an interesting film if you're not an Agatha Christie & Hercule Poirot fan. But for me it completely lacked the unique charm of Poirot, his methods and his personality. KB is a great actor but in this film he is as far from being Poirot as can be. Maybe that was intentional but for me it just didn't work. Tina Fey was a nice surprise although my image of Ariadne Oliver was quite different. The pace of the action is not at all balanced and is difficult to follow. It is not bad film, I would definitely recommend it instead of hundreds others but it doesn't do justice to Agatha Christie's marvellous writing.

A Haunting in Venice is the best of Kenneth Branagh's trilogy of Poirot adventures. This one being a smaller scale whodunit with a supernatural edge fixes any remaining issues whilst still being an engaging mystery with a satisfying answer to whodunit.

Kenneth Branagh is still endlessly entertaining as Hercule Poirot, the humour is toned down here due to the darker story and yet again he's grown as a character by the end. Each one has tested something different, first it was his morality then his humanity and here it's his sanity that is pushed to breaking point.

The cast is still undeniably star studded but still smaller than the predecessor which means no one goes unnoticed. Highlights include Tina Fey who makes for a great double act with Branagh's Poirot and Michelle Yeoh, given her best role in a Western film in ages (excluding EEAAO of course).

Mostly being confined to one smaller, interior heavy location, Branagh's direction is even better that what's come before. His trademark canted angles have never been more at home and even though the film isn't massively scary, Branagh is still able to craft some effectively uncomfortable moments.

Thanks to the location this franchise is finally free of the distracting CG that's been its biggest flaw. Being majority practical just makes the whole thing infinitely more immersive and means the stylish visual composition on display isn't having to make up for shoddy effects.

Whereas the last two Branagh Agatha Christie adaptations were movies I sort of liked at first and started to realise were "meh" over time, this latest entry is one that I recognised as mediocre upon first viewing.

Granted, it was really refreshing to see that this time, the filmmakers clearly put effort into the locations and production design. The film looks authentic and gorgeous, as opposed to its predecessors that were over reliant on unnecessary CGI backgrounds.

The story does have some interesting ideas and compelling character interactions, but they unfortunately take a back seat half the time. For the other half, we get a lot of weak attempts at horror and red herring plot points that really do amount to nothing.

I don't know what happened with the performances, but half of them are pretty great and the others are...well, awful. The actors clearly didn't agree on what kind of movie they were in, with some thinking it ought to be straight drama and others thinking they should play it corny.

Like the previous films, this is a middling whodunnit, with all the rote machinations you expect from the genre, nothing shocking, nothing gripping, but nothing so bad as to tank the experience.

It's the definition of mediocre.