User reviews

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.

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.

My Review- A Haunting in Venice My Rating 6/10

I was underwhelmed by Kenneth Branagh's latest interpretation of an Agatha Christie novel this one is based on her 1969 novel Halloween Party .

It was written late in the authors life to luke warm reviews one critic Robert Weaver wrote - Halloween Party is a disappointment,but with all her accomplishments is Christie can be forgiven some disappointments Poirot seems weary and so does the book.

It was filmed previously in 2010 for television starring my favourite Hercule Poirot David Suchet which I watched only after seeing A Haunting in Venice.

I must admit Kenneth Branagh who I like in some roles and not others is my least favourite characterisation of Hercule Poirot.

His first effort in 2017 Murder on the Orient Express also underwhelmed me but did exceedingly well at the box office however his last effort in 2022 Death on the Nile flopped and for me also had nothing of the grandeur or appeal of the original film adaptations.

All that needs to said about the plot line in this whodunnit is that Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot investigates a murder while attending a Halloween seance at a haunted palazzo in Venice, Italy.

I was expecting more from this new original adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel Halloween Party that's set in the mysterious and spectacular city of Venice because it's a story I didn't know and I had no preconceived expectations.

Spectacular Venice is featured in the start and conclusion of this film but it's mostly set indoors in a gloomy gothic villa that could have been built on any movie set.

A Haunting in Venice for me fails in a few aspects primarily because of its dark gothic reworking from Kenneth Branagh. It's probably his best Hercule Poirot performance but for me his interpretation of the novel lacks The Agatha Christie touch of humour, eccentric characters and is trying to be something it's not a gothic horror movie it's not really scary at all just dark and brooding.

After I saw this movie I watched the 2010 television movie Hallowe'en Party starring David Suchet my favourite Hercule Poirot that bares no resemblance to A Haunting in Venice . It's not her greatest story but the television version has humour and lightness as well as suspense and the performances are much more impressive in my opinion.

There are some interesting actors in the cast of A Haunting in Venice including Michelle Yeoh who dropped out of The action adventure 2024 film The Electric State to star in this movie. Why she chose to do this I'm not sure because her role as the clairvoyant Mrs Reynolds is more a short cameo role as is Jamie Dornan's who plays Dr Ferrier .

The main supporting role is Tina Fey as Ariadne Oliver a crime writer but she didn't shine for me either. Tina Fey plays a similar role in Only Murders in the Building as Cinda Canning but that role is edgy and funny which she does best .

With a much more modest production budget of $60 million than his last Agatha Christie move Death in Venice Kenneth Branagh who also directs this movie in my view features himself as Poirot more at the expense of the ensemble characters which is a mistake in an Agatha Christie movie.

A Haunting in Venice is a classic 40s whodunnit pulled off with great cinematography, writing and of course a murder mystery. Performed in a way with suspense, horror, thriller, heart and more.

Over the course of 1 hour 40 minutes what feels like 3 hours (in a good way) stretches out different events intertwining into the same storyline. Nothing goes the way you'd expect, and keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Action in this film is mainly in the beginning and doesn't show up later, the first half is more frightening content, and the other half is the nitty gritty murder mystery.

The cast is spectacular. Tina Fey KILLS it. Everyone in this film does a spectacular job, especially the little boy.

Emotion is really confusing in this movie. It's present, but more of an overlooked emotion. You can see characters change throughout the movie. You definitely don't start to notice it until the third act.

Overall, this is a great movie to watch for a good murder mystery feel!

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, 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.

This was surprisingly spookier than I thought it would be but it was happily welcomed during this Halloween Season. It was spooky without being cheesy or goofy which is what a lot of traditional horror movies tend to lean towards. I saw it in theaters but can definitely see myself cuddling up on the couch with a hot chocolate and a blanket to watch this film in the autumn.

You can tell Tina Fey isn't used to playing more serious roles but she pulled it off enough. It was definitely a surprise to see her in this film, especially as such a large character.

I would love to see more Poirot in the future as Kenneth Branagh does a great job portraying him.

This film was a good length too. Not too long and not too short.

I'd recommend this to those who enjoy a little spook and mystery but not for anyone looking for light hearted Halloween fun.

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.

The film is a nonstop parade of extremely wide angle shots done from extremely high or extremely low positions. That and tons of dutch angles. If you get motion sick, avoid this!

Usually those kinda camera tricks are used sparingly for a very specific effect. When used constantly, they lose impact and begin to confuse the audience (and make them nauseous!).

Then, the script. It's silly and thin. The acting is all around just fine. But the lines and situations are dumb. Branagh can act, but his impression of a Belgian man is... uh... embarrassing.

Finally, who is loving this stuff? It deviates incredibly far from Christie's stories, that I can't imagine too many hardcore fans liking this. Plus, when you have a rich history of David Suchet and Joan Hickson turning in fantastic performances as Christie's beloved characters; this one just feels wayyyy off center. No fun.

Kenneth Branagh, now in his 60s, seems to have made his late career focusing on Agatha Christie stories, and assuming the role of Hercule Poirot, the world's greatest detective. From her novel "Halloween Party." It was partly filmed in Venice, and partly at Pinewood Studios in England.

Poirot is trying hard to be retired, living in beautiful (and very wet) Venice. However every time he emerges from his front door he encounters a dozen or so men who desperately want him to look into their case. In this movie he gets an apple delivered to him, he knows who it is from, and old writer friend from America.

He gets pulled into a mystery she is trying to solve, the death of a teenage girl found in the canals below. She doesn't think it was an accident, she thinks it was a murder. The title comes from the seance that is held, and some trickery makes it appear that spirits are there, communication with them. But at the very end, something happens, maybe some of it is true?

Nothing here that is novel to decades of murder mystery TV shows and movies. The enjoyment, to the extent that it is enjoyed, comes mainly from the characters and their interactions. I was entertained for the almost 90 minutes running time. Branagh is very good as Poirot.

We watched it at home on DVD from our public library. At the end my wife said, "I missed parts of it, I snoozed off, I never really got invested in the story."

And so it goes!

Kenneth Branagh's third foray into Agatha Christie territory doesn't have the handicap of previous all-star movie adaptations to be compared with. This has enabled him to make savings with a slightly B-list cast (no disrespect intended). And, by taking one of the less well-known Poirot cases as its core, Branagh is able to put more of his own stamp on the project. This is not such a "sacred text" as DEATH ON THE NILE and ORIENT EXPRESS.

Sorry to say, these factors have not proved advantageous. A HAUNTING IN VENICE seems rather under-scripted and under-played. A séance in a decaying palace in Venice ends in a murder, with all those present anxious to prevent the medium (Michelle Yeoh, miscast but on fine form) revealing their secrets. There's not enough back-story to establish character and motives. Even Poirot (Branagh) is a bit flat this time. Jude Hill as a precocious schoolboy steals the acting honours with a performance possibly inspired by Paul Dano.

The cinematography lavishly evokes a dark mysterious Venice redolent of DON'T LOOK NOW. Unfortunately, murkiness overwhelms too many of the interior scenes, heightening confusion rather than tension for at least one viewer. Maybe Mr Branagh should invest his considerable talent in revisiting a different 20th-century author: is Anthony Powell due for a revamp?

I might be saying this because knowing the endings to the other two movies kinda ruined the fun, but this adaptation really stands out from the other two for me. Its Gothic visuals are gorgeous. The atmosphere feels like an Edgar Allan Poe story. Kenneth Braunaugh's portrayal of Hercules Poirot is excellent. However, the movie is not without problems. The pacing in the middle part of the movie kinda slogs down a little bit. The reveal scene comes a bit abrupt, and the killing method is a little bit lame for my taste (except for one part). But overall, I had a good time watching it and discussing it with my friends afterwards.

I'm a huge fan of Kenneth Branagh and his embrace of one of my favorite characters starting with 'Murder on the Orient Express' (my favorite so far and regardless of this film want more) I have to say disappointed in this film. Loaded with incredible talent, admittedly loved Tina Fey but lacking the humor and chemistry of Tom Bateman as one of the very few in Poirot's circle of 'friends' ("I have no friends!") she still allowed us to see what an incredible actor she is. I noticed midway I was bored. A dark background required for this type of film but missing was the incredible delight of being shot in Kodak 65mm film. Yes Venice is exotic but we are cheated. Missing to were the incredible quotable quotes from Poirot and others. Missing were the talents of this cast. Cheated! Camera angles used supposedly to create tension but causing imax headaches or a bad trip. I stayed as one reviewer stated to see the 'who done it' but only to add all the answers (clues) to the murders after an hour plus in a typical Poirot slam dunk without the clues so intellectually left throughout the film for Poirot and the viewers.

Still, I want more. From all of the prior actors that brought Poirot to life, Albert Finney, Peter Ustinov, David Suchet, I love Kenneth Branagh. I'm hopeful he will continue. I so looked forward to this film and hate to write a negative review but to quote the great Poirot, "I yes, it is most sad. The truth is sad!" But rest assured 'I have not lost my faith'...

With the previous ones you kinda know what you're getting. Hercule Poirot offers the same witty charm we love. The film undertakes a darker tone than the latter with the hint of a supernatural element to it. Overall it wasn't Oscar worthy but surely worth watching and it does have a good build up during the film which makes you more intrigued as to what is actually at play here. The choice of actors did the film justice, Michelle Yeoh I thought personally was brilliant and Jamie Dornan also put on a really good performance. I really do hope they continue with further mystery's and crime from Hercule folklore, everyone loves a whodunit!

A Haunting in Venice is the third film in the now Poirot trilogy directed and starring Kenneth Branagh. I'm a very casual Poirot viewer. My only exposure to the character is through these films and the British tv series, which I watched long ago and barely remember. As someone who has never read a Poirot novel, I personally liked the previous two films by Branagh, Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. I know many Agatha Christie fans do not, and I can understand why given that these films are not extremely loyal to the source material from what I'm told, especially this film.

I haven't read the novel, A Halloween Party, but I'm told the only thing this film has in common with it is that it takes place on Halloween, and that there is a Halloween party in it. The culprit is the same in both, but the motivation and victims are entirely different. I'm guessing Branagh went with a far more obscure Poirot story this time, banking on the fact that not many have read and so they won't notice the many alterations made to it.

However, as someone who is only a casual fan, just like with the last two films, I'll be judging this solely as a standalone piece and not an adaptation. From that viewpoint, I think the movie is good. Like with the last two movies, the film looks great, is wonderfully shot. This one evokes a strong haunting, Halloween atmosphere. The acting is good by everyone involved, even the child actors.

The film is also significantly shorter than the previous two, though in some ways to the film's detriment. I felt Poirot solved the mystery a bit too quickly. The pacing is a bit rushed at the end, and I'm not entirely convinced of how Poirot comes to the conclusions he does.

Despite that, the film is a fun mystery/haunting story. A fun movie to watch, especially around Halloween. I would still say I still like Murder on the Orient Express the most. But I would put this film slightly above Death on the Nile. If you're someone who likes the previous to films in this series, there's no reason not to check this out.

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.

Started with some beautiful shots of Venice and instantly I was captured by how beautifully shot this film is. This was a really good Poirot. It's appropriate for the Halloween season and it achieves that without silliness or gore.

Synopsis: "A Haunting in Venice" is set in eerie, post-World War II Venice on All Hallows' Eve and is a terrifying mystery featuring the return of the celebrated sleuth, Hercule Poirot. Now retired and living in self-imposed exile in the world's most glamorous city, Poirot reluctantly attends a séance at a decaying, haunted palazzo. When one of the guests is murdered, the detective is thrust into a sinister world of shadows and secrets.

Kenneth Branagh's third Poirot has the benefit of being a new story for the big screen - and I have to admit it's much more enjoyable to watch without the familiarity of a previous adaptation.

It's certainly an improvement on Death in the Nile, with much better pacing of the plot, which neatly combines a ghost story with a murder mystery and pulls it all together in a sharp and tragic reveal.

But like Death on the Nile it suffers from some key weaknesses. Casting is average at best, many of the players are wooden, the token diversity is clumsily handled, and Kelly Reilly is far too youthful to be convincing as the mother of a woman of marrying age (nice for Kelly, but not so good for the audience when she seems to be the same age as her daughter's ex-fiance). However, casting Tina Fey as a murder-mystery author was a great move as she brings bundles of wit and energy that the film otherwise lacks. Jamie Dornan is decent, as is the boy that plays his son (Jude Hill). Michelle Yeoh's turn is just a bit weird but that is not the fault of her acting. And Branagh still doesn't convince as Poirot.

The other issue (again) is production values. The film feels cheap. Very few exteriors of Venice, with the majority of scenes filmed in the rooms of a crumbling palazzo (which are almost certainly in a studio somewhere). The scope does not feel cinematic. Branagh tries to compensate with shadowy lighting, wide-angle lenses and strange shooting angles but all it does is make the story feel more artificial.

Overall a decent film, but if Branagh wants to continue with this series, he really needs to step up the quality. Christie's stories are peerless, so at least take the time to put together the cast and production team that will do them justice.

...and yer strangely the result is neither charming, funny or scary! The acting is the usual overwrought hamming you expect from this series of 'Poirot' films. Lacking in conviction and soul the script is delivered by rote leading to the viewer rapidly losing all interest in what is already a ludicrously contrived plot. I used to go to the cinema and usually leave uplifted, inspired or at least with some sort of feeling I'd been entertained but all too often lately I've left with the conviction that the focus is more on satisfying the producers of the film rather than the audience. As mentioned before if you want an entertaining Poirot story then look no further than Ustinov or Suchet...

I've been a fan of Agatha Christie since I was a teenager and have read nearly every book she ever published. When I saw there was a new adaptation of one of her stories I was interested to say the least. Kenneth Branagh is not my favorite actor to portray Hercule Poirot but I don't mind him. On the other hand Tina Fey should stick with comedy. She may be an exceptional writer of comedy but as a dramatic actress she is AWFUL. Every line she delivered sounded as if she was waiting for the punchline. She always had a smirk on her face that found off putting fur a murder mystery. The story itself was rather dull and the ending anticlimactic.