Review: A Haunting In Venice

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

"A Haunting in Venice," the third entry in actor-director Kenneth Branagh's Hercule Poirot series, is a stylishly-shot but somewhat languorous murder mystery that is based on Agatha Christie's "Hallowe'en Party." Venice has always been a great spot for filming thrillers - look no further than Nicolas Roeg's deeply unsettling "Don't Look Now" - and Branagh and company get maximum usage out of that city's bridges and canals.

The film is based on one of Christie's lesser-known novels - whereas the first two were adaptations of the classic mysteries "Murder on the Orient Express" and "Death on the Nile" - which is a benefit to audiences who might not necessarily know the outcome this time around. This third Poirot mystery also includes a hint of the supernatural, which was not present in the previous entries.

This time around, Poirot is lured out of retirement by a pal, mystery writer Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey), to attend a seance held by a psychic (Michelle Yeoh) whom Oliver wants to expose as a charlatan, although she's seemingly convinced by that woman's ability to commune with the dead. The scene is an old Venetian house where a mother named Rowena Drake (Kelly Reilly) previously lost her daughter, possibly to murder.

As usual, a Who's Who of suspects abound - Oliver, the psychic, a dedicated nanny (Camille Cottin), Rowena's ex-husband (Kyle Allen), a doctor who looked after the deceased girl (Jamie Dornan), the doctor's young son (Jude Hill, of "Belfast"), two Romanian war refugee teens (Ali Khan and Emma Laird), and an ex-cop (Fernando Piloni).

Shortly into the psychic's performance, Poirot exposes her as a fraud but then a murder occurs and Poirot - in the same fashion as the other films of this series - locks everyone into the house until he can figure out who the murderer is. Then another murder occurs. Throughout the course of the investigation, Poirot must also reconcile what appears to be a supernatural presence in the house with his lack of belief in ghosts or any sort of afterlife.

While the first two Poirot films were more familiar - and less prone to surprises for those who already knew how they culminated - they were also more engrossing. "A Haunting in Venice" is stylish and the film's camerawork is reminiscent of the work of Orson Welles, from dutch tilt angles to deep-focus shots and close-ups of significant objects. There's even a screeching cockatoo, for those familiar with "Citizen Kane." In other words, the film looks great.

The mystery itself is a little less compelling this time around, perhaps because its denouement is seemingly pulled from nowhere. Even though I had a feeling that the character who is eventually unmasked as the murderer might have been guilty, there aren't many clues this time around as to why - as opposed to the previous Poirot entries - and the reason for their misdeeds, while understandable in the context of the picture, feels random.

"A Haunting in Venice" is my least favorite of the three Poirot movies - whereas most other reviewers gave middling reviews to "Death on the Nile," which I preferred - but it's still an often enjoyable whodunnit with a cast of great actors and some haunting photography. It may not have a whopper of a finale like "Orient Express," but it's well made and the film's best moments once again involve Poirot considering how he views the world and philosophical manners in light of his latest case. As a piece of escapist entertainment, it provides some modest pleasures.