Assassinio a Venezia

This is my first foray into these Branagh Poirots having grown up with David Suchet on TV as him, so he had some big little Belgian shoes to fill.

Branagh brings enough intrigue and quirkiness to the character to make him his own, but in this film he is massively lost in the shadows of Tina Fey whose very presence steals any scene.

Whilst I didn't know the story/plot, it kept me guessing throughout, but some poorly executed shots and weak CGI moments gave the film an element of cheap horror film, and this jarred with the characters.

Yeoh's character was all too brief in her screen time, but she gave a great performance all the same. The main child actor - Jude Hill gives us a wonderfully intense, matter-of-fact, and sinisterly creepy Leopold. I hope to spot Jude flexing this skill in more films in future.

Wouldn't watch again, and likely wouldn't have gone to see it in the cinema if it wasn't because of friends wanting to watch it.

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.

Poirot, now retired, and living in exile, is convinced by his friend Ariadne Oliver, to look into the honesty and integrity of a medium, who's set to visit bereaved mother Rowena Drake.

If you're going into this one hoping for authenticity, you may be a little disappointed, I recently read the book, and aside from a few names and events, it is only very loosely based on the book.

Authenticity to one side, I really did enjoy this movie, talk about an interesting choice, you can understand why Death on The Nile and Orient Express were chosen, but Halloween Party doesn't exactly lend itself well to an adaptation, but overall it works very well, plenty of plus points.

The main winner, the visuals, with Venice they were never going to fail I guess, it looks sensational, but the camera angles and focuses are really nice, very atmospheric and suitably sinister, a shame a few scenes couldn't have been just a tad brighter. The masks, robes and costumes looked so good, they really did give it a Halloween vibe.

I'd say this is Brannagh's most accomplished turn as Poirot so far, the toned down moustache has definitely made a difference, he feels more like Poirot.

Well acted all round, Kelly Reilly is no stranger to Agatha Christie, she's excellent as Rowena, and as for the young man that played Leopold, he was great.

My one gripe, Ariadne, I'm not knocking Tina Fey, she did a good job, but when you read the books, I just don't see her as an American glamour puss, I wonder if we'll see her again.

I'm awarding an extra point for the fact that Branagh chose Halloween Party, and didn't opt for Evil under The Sun or Appointment with Death, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of those was number four.

It worked well, 8/10.

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.

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.