A Haunting in Venice: Everything Should be Fine As Long As They Don't Make Any More Sequels

Compared to the previous two films in the detective Poirot series, A Haunting in Venice is quite a safe choice. After all, this detective story by Agatha Christie is not as well-known as Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile. Expectations for those two films were high, especially with the pressure of living up to the previous classic film adaptations. Choosing a lesser-known work like the Hallowe'en Party (the original novel of A Haunting in Venice) is smart, reducing the burden of comparison and criticism.

However, director Kenneth Branagh seems to have chosen a challenging path deliberately. The film's reception is likely to polarise. After the enthusiasm for Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile, the excitement for this one seems to have diminished, and the box office performance is not as impressive as the previous ones. Of course, this is now quite typical for a Hollywood film.

A Haunting in Venice continues the story of Detective Poirot.While the original novel is a story in an English manor house, the film is in Venice. The director emphasised real locations and scenes, showcasing the charm of Venice throughout the film, which is undoubtedly a highlight of the movie. However, the major change lies in the plot.

In the original story, Halloween was just a concept. However, Halloween becomes central to the plot in this film. Kenneth Branagh turned A Haunting in Venice into a supernatural mystery thriller, incorporating elements of Halloween-related psychic phenomena and spirits. He also mentioned in the interviews that he just wanted to make a thriller with supernatural elements this time, so this could be considered one of his obsessions. This supernatural twist is the most peculiar aspect of the film.

Although this film features the great detective Poirot, the movie's core revolves around supernatural and psychic elements. The film even hints, intentionally or not, that Poirot might have encountered ghosts. Some reviews criticised that the film seems more focused on a haunted house in Venice instead of a detective story. The most awkward part of the film lies here: you might expect to watch a crime-solving mystery, but the film introduces many supernatural and ghostly elements. Though the film attempts to emphasise that it aims to debunk superstitions and myths using Poirot's intelligence, the overall style follows the patterns of horror movies, which significantly weaken the logical thinking parts and make the film more fantastical. The film is set in an old mansion with rumours of spectres and a past murder case. A legendary psychic witch (played by Michelle Yeoh) is called to help communicate with spirits, hoping to find the culprit. Detective Poirot is invited to observe, aiming to expose the witch's tricks. However, more murders occur. Even Poirot himself feels like he's seeing ghosts. Of course, he uncovers the truth in the end, but the entire process feels like a ghost story.

This isn't Kenneth Branagh's first encounter with horror-themed films. He directed Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in 1994, which many of you might have heard of. In A Haunting in Venice, the style draws heavily from horror films. For instance, the movie employs a lot of tilted or irregular compositions and uses some very eerie subjective perspectives, including immersive subjective moving shots, all to enhance the creepy atmosphere. The director would even suddenly open or close doors or change the lighting while filming, hoping to capture genuine reactions from the actors. The director seemed to go to great lengths to shoot this horror film.

Unfortunately, this is not actually a horror film, so they didn't dare to go too crazy. At most, there were sudden sounds of wind, rain, or doors opening – cheap thrills typical of low-budget horror films. Therefore, this film is not quite qualified as an outstanding horror movie. The more significant issue is, isn't this a story about the great detective Poirot? It's supposed to be a detective story!

The film compromises the suspense and deduction parts for some unnecessary horror elements. For example, the core of the film's mystery revolves around a bizarre teenage suicide case in the old mansion. Of course, we all know that in detective stories like this, suicides are never that simple. The culprit's identity should have been the film's biggest suspense and the ultimate twist, which is the charm of detective novels. But rest assured, most people can guess who the murderer is halfway through.

It seems like the film didn't want to create much suspense around this mystery. The film drastically adapted the original work, making it challenging to conceal the truth. Even if the identity of the culprit isn't that hard to guess, the film's approach to handling various details appears to lack consideration.

Although I don't want to delve too much into discussing the plot or spoilers, I just can't wrap my head around some aspects. During a part where Poirot is attacked, how could the assailant mistake him from behind for a woman with his build? Also, Jamie Dornan's storyline is utterly perplexing. As for Poirot's various strange behaviours and moments of confusion, they are attributed to some kind of rhododendron honey, also known as 'mad honey', which has been mentioned in previous works. But the fact that it induces hallucinations in some and proves fatal to others, the dosage control seems incredibly fantastical, almost becoming a lazy excuse for the scriptwriters. In the end, the film leaves behind numerous unexplained elements. When you can't make sense of it, just assume Poirot is getting out of his mind because of the honey.

Ultimately, this film appears to be a mishmash of weak, nonsensical suspense and colourless in the horror department. These features and various inconsistencies make it quite frustrating for the audience.

Regarding the performance, Michelle Yeoh did an excellent job, especially with her unique appearance, and a few strands of white hair added to her charm. The role of Jamie Dornan, however, remains entirely baffling. I couldn't comprehend his character's purpose, and his performance didn't contribute much. I wonder how Jamie Dornan himself interpreted this role. Of course, this isn't entirely his fault; the character was designed this way. If there's a highlight, it's probably the film's attempt to portray Poirot's sense of helplessness and vulnerability in the later stages, making audiences feel sympathetic toward him. This change departs from the overly confident detective Poirot from the first two films. Unfortunately, by the end of the movie, Poirot, having successfully solved the case, regains his confidence and returns to his self-assuredness.

At this point, my biggest wish is simple: let's just not make the fourth one.