It’s rare that we get a Hollywood sheen on a film nowadays, it feels like most films are at least aware of who’s going to see it, and vaguely how it's going to be received. A Haunting in Venice calls back to the golden age of unawareness and delivers a “name droppy” cast list, cheap jumpscares and a general disservice to what seems to be an interesting premise for a “whodunnit”.
The rise of the murder mysteries has been quite nice in recent years, with either genuinely good, or at least inoffensive entries to the genre, this new one though, feels like a contractual obligation. This Kenneth Branagh Poirot revival seems to have lost all behind the scenes passion, discrediting the first two films, with a similarly buzzy cast list and less phoned in creation to them. They weren’t perfect, but I walked away with a satisfied shrug, and that’s all I can ask for.
We find Poirot in retirement, sitting atop a very baron rooftop in Venice, where he ignores requests from the gross general public looking for him to solve a case for them. This cycle is broken when Ariadne comes by with a party invitation for him on Halloween night.
They venture off to the soiree, being chauffeured through the suspiciously clear waters of Venice by old Victorian crow mask doctors, slowly rowing while conveniently cinematic fireworks light up the sky.
We dock in an almost abandoned looking townhouse, where distinctly American children frolic and play around for the evening. Once they leave, the owner of the house introduces Mrs Reynolds, an infamous medium to conjure the spirit of her recently deceased daughter. Poirot’s case is to prove that Mrs Reynolds is a fake, and then who really killed Alicia Drake.
My plot synopsis has to be on the shorter side because quite a lot of the story is kept to reveal itself during the film, rather than during the marketing material, shockingly.
However short my story recount is, I can make up for in complaints for the film.
My biggest gripe with the film is actually its writing, the adaptation from the source material. I’m not familiar with it entirely, but from understanding the general plot, I can be pretty sure that the adaptation is the issue, and not the story itself. It is the job of the screenplay writer to either faithfully adapt an already well written piece, or to elevate a good story that may not translate well. In this case, I will assume it's an attempt at elevation, instead, they removed any sort of intrigue or stakes in the characters. I was so taken out of the experience that I didn’t even try to guess who did dunnit.
This is not helped by the weird casting and performances in the film, opting to only hire American and English actors for this film that is set in Venice. It is so reliant on its big name stars to sell the lacklustre film on its talent only. Tina Fey, in particular, is given nothing to work with as Ariadne. I think Tina Fey is an excellent actress, in both comedy and drama. However, she was not made for this type of role, I don’t think anyone was. My only positives for the casting is Michelle Yeoh, who I was worried about from her initial scene, but she redeemed herself hugely from then on. The other compliment I will throw out is to Jude Hill, who played Leopold and did what very few child actors are managing to do this year, and not be unbearably annoying and mostly a burden on the story progression. Leopold brings a lightness in his maturity and seriousness of reactions.
The Poirot accent is mostly safe, with occasional slips into a different European region. This doesn’t bother me so much though, I am in for his wobbly accent and poor dialogue to work with.
Not only did the actors let me down in this one, I had major problems with the camera and editorial department here, so listen up people.
The camera style and shot choice always felt like the wrong option, we had so many unnatural angles that looked down on characters, with a wide lens, almost making me think that Poirot asked for a quick 0.5 picture before hitting the road again. I have mentioned this a few times in other reviews about how easy it is for the camera when you film in nice locations, just sit and wait. This film subverts that theory though, being in one of the most picturesque cities in the world, there were no interesting uses of this space.
We spend most of our time inside the chateau, locked in to figure out the mystery, which I have no major problem with, I’m not walking into the movie expecting to be brought on a sightseeing tour, but I would have liked to see more than random inserts of the exterior whenever they didn’t know how to transition from scene to scene.
There is no flow to this film, with scenes being cut off at what feels like mid sentence. We have quick cuts to the outside of the house to transition from scene to scene where I imagine the goal is to give the film a quick pace, but it ends up just feeling stuttery and doesn’t give you any time to connect to the suspects.
The horror element of the film is done well enough, with some cheap but sometimes effective jumpscares, that I’m sure will keep some audiences entertained with. It doesn’t push the theme far enough to be a genuine horror but enough that I wouldn’t be surprised finding it on the Netflix scroll wheel of horror films.
Well, shockingly not my favourite film of the year so far. Its a shame to now go into any more of these murder mysteries with pause at the fact it might not at least be a well throughout story allowing you time to figure out the killer, with larger than life characters to observe. Instead, I[m going into the next one expecting a film void of any personality or creative flair with a mystery that hinges on factors that you’re not told about. Maybe those minimum expectations will help the next one though.
Comments