Kenneth Branagh apparently finally made a good Poirot film with A Haunting in Venice

Saying it's his best Poirot film yet is not saying much after Death on the Nile and Murder on the Orient Express

That’s not even an Agatha Christie story.

It’s Hallo’ween Party.

All that and only a “B” grade? Ghost story? Canted camera angles? Jump scares?

Clearly the critic never read a Christie mystery, let alone this one. The original story concerns a children’s halloween party in an English country village at which a child is murdered. The plot has obviously been completely revamped.

I get that the Christie estate wants to be free-handed about artistic license, but this is ridiculous. See David Suchet do a faithful version of the book in “Poirot” on Brit Box and save your money.

Agreed, R4. I'll stick with David Suchet. I think he is the definitive Poirot.

His Poirot SUCKS! And only he would have the ego to rewrite Christie.

Has Kenneth Branagh ever made a great movie? He seems to coast on goodwill left over from the 90s and 'Thor.'

Fuck Branagh and the Christie estate for selling made-up pastiches and calling them Poirot.

Plus Branagh is completely wrong for the character.

As he has been for every character he's every played except the grifter in Harry Potter.

Belfast was a multiple Oscar nominee including Best Picture, Original Screenplay and Direction and a very good film.

SUCKED. It has the problem of so many "serious" movies nowadays-- it's not fun at all. Just because a movie is for adults doesn't mean it can't be kind of playful. See: Ustinov's Poirot.

I preferred Death on the Nile to this one. Neither mystery was compelling (the culprits of both films were pretty obvious), so the camp value of DotN was its saving grace.

This one didn’t seem to do well at the box office and if it’s target audience of datalounge eldergays didn’t show up….

Branagh's version of Death On the Nile was such a piece of shit. If you haven't seen it, spare yourself the agony.

I so had high hopes for this one due to its “is it or isnt it?” supernatural angle.

Two queens I trust saw it and said it was like watching paint peel.

I just watched it and, well, it’s really terrible. I frankly don’t understand why is this associated with AgathA christoe because although based on Halloween party, except for the Halloween motif and the names of some characters, it has retained nothing from the story. Anyone who is a fan of AC will be disgusted and anyone wanting to see a ghost story will be disappointed- unless they like some very basic scares, moslty mde from predictable camera angles. As usual, Branagh make it all about Poirot, and wether he is seeing ghosts or not. The murder plot and the other characters take a back seat (has done in the other two movies). Only since the plot in this one is so terrible (they couldn’t even retain the more clever aspects of the novel, which actually has some horrible moments), the movie becomes very boring. Performance wise there is a lot of scenery chewing (Michelle Yoh in a tie with a child actor) but frankly I understand this as the only way to not be completely obscured by Branagh.

I don’t understand the positive reviews on this. I was both bored and irritated at the same time.

Brad likes this

dohhhhhh

My problem is with his height. The character is "supposed to be" 5'4". Branagh is 5' 9" ½. This is somewhat too tall. David Suchet's 5'6" is close enough to pass for it . Alfred Molina, @ 6'3" was nearly a foot too tall for a CBS version of Murder on the Orient Express.

[quote] It’s Hallo’ween Party.

I heard it was just based on an Agatha Christie story, but didn't know which one. Only afterwards did I hear it was based on this story. I did not recognize it. (I gotta say though, the kid was pretty good.)

I'd say even the Knives Out movies were closer to a traditional AC story. If I were the estate I would rethink my strategy for movies and TV. The Branagh movies don't retain the cozy mystery feel very well. And I think that is what people expect from AC's work. So rather modernizing the way of story telling (with too many gimmicks), maybe they should go the way how they handle books already. Film TV shows and movies traditionally, but do it with new stories. "Imelda Staunton in new mysteries of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple".

R19

[quote] "Imelda Staunton in new mysteries of Agatha Christie's Miss Marple".

No.

How about they use truth in advertising...

"...in new mysteries where we try to rip off Agatha Christie because her heirs are money grubbers."

or

"...in new mysteries where we try to fool you into thinking that Agatha Christie on her worst day would ever write anything as bad as the script we used."

or

"...in bad, make that very bad, videos where we would love to think you are too stupid to realize that Agatha Christie's work has absolutely nothing to do with the drivel we hope you will fork over your money to watch."

I cannot watch KB play Hercule Poirot - it looks like his mustache is growing out of his nose.

R15, that's so unfortunate. Christie's work was never about her detectives. Poirot and Miss Marple are fine, but neither one is Sherlock Holmes. (The Holmes stories are always about the mystery of who Holmes is). Christie was famous for her plots, which frequently took dark turns. Christie may not have created great characters, but she had nasty insights into human behavior.

Well, I enjoyed the movie.

I’ve never seen any of the other films based on AC’s books so I thought it was interesting. Didn’t see the ending coming. I was surprised it only lasted about an hour and a half.

That villa must be amazing in the day time.

I just saw it and loved it. Perfect for a rainy day - it’s shot beautifully in Venice and was quite watchable.

I haven’t seen the other Agatha Christie ones he’s done. Was a fan of his back in the 90s.

R22, exactly. I think the main issue in these adaptations is that Branagh makes it all about Poirot (who is. Coincidentally, playing) to the detriment of the plot. Only on this one the (horrible) plot was not the original from Agatha Christie but a feeble, non-sensical one, By all means adapt and change, but not to the point of being unrecognizable. Ugj

Some bad casting in this. Tina Fey pushes way too hard in an attempt to convey a Roz Russell sort of quality-Allison Janney could have pulled it off effortlessly. Michelle Yeoh was fucking awful in yet another piece of stupid woke casting. She plays British wartime nurse turned psychic Joyce Reynolds when someone like Celia Imrie would have been much better. Yeoh is once again delivering lines with a stiffness and distinct lack of humor like in Crazy Rich Asians. She’s just a martial arts performer/stuntwoman/model who got lucky. And Kyle Allen-why he’s playing someone with a French name is anyone’s guess-resolutely lacks the It Factor. No doubt he was cast because Branagh had the hots for him.

R26 Tina Fey is in A haunting in Venice!!? A must to avoid!

R27 Yes, I had several issues with Ariadne Oliver in this movie. Spoiler alert: she betrays Poirot. Bullshit! She would never have done that. And Tina Fey is certainly no Zoe Wanamaker. The episodes with Poirot and Ariadne were my favorite in the David Suchet series. I love when she called him out on his "ridiculous patent leather shoes" while investigating a murder in the country with muddy dirt roads.

I did enjoy the movie though, despite the issues.

I like my Poirots short, round and olive.

It was just OK. Jamie Dornan was wasted in a small part. Branagh and Fey were kindof flat. I'm glad I didn't pay to see it in a theater.

WHY do they keep giving Branagh these? I just watched A Haunting in Venice and while it started off well and was creepy, it still sucked as usual. Branagh just doesn't have 'it'. Every Poirot film he has made I have not liked or wanted to watch again.

In contrast I've loved the BBC Christie adaptations written by Sarah Phelps, especially And Then There Were None.

[quote]Branagh's version of Death On the Nile was such a piece of shit. If you haven't seen it, spare yourself the agony.

At one point I was thinking 'wow, Branagh has a fascist aesthetic' - because there was that weird scene when he lined up all the workers on the boat wearing the same uniform which looked totalitarian/military. Not very Agatha Christie.

I didn't hate it. Watched it on Hulu Halloween night. It's much better than that other "Haunting of" something also just released on Hulu (the one on the cruise ship). I had to turn that shit off after ten minutes.

R34, Yes the cruise ship one looks terrible.

Should I start reading Agatha Christie? I never have. Are they... I know they're quintessential, but so's Jackie Collins in her realm.

Why does his Poirot have to be so unremittingly earnest? Shouldn't the character have some irony, even humour?

r36 I've read the Poirot ones and they tend to be well written enough to keep you interested. Also they're not overly long either so its not a massive time sink to start one.

I liked it enough. Something to watch…

The danger an actor can run into when playing Poirot is that he can very easily become a caricature or a stereotype because of the accent, the mannerisms, etc.

I think David Suchet is the definitive Poirot so far because his character comes across as a real person.

I enjoyed it, as I did all of the Branagh adaptations.

Hmm. 'A Haunting in Venice' is rather different from the Agatha Christie novel, 'Hallowe'en Party.'

* 𝐏𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 *

It looks to me like the 'guests' at the Palazzo all dodged a bullet. When Poirot conducts his interview of Maxime Gerard in the kitchen, the chef is occupied paring one of the abundant apples lying about. Under the duress of the questioning, Maxime cuts his thumb, and leaves off what he was doing, which looked to me like it might have been the beginnings of a pie, which he would have sweetened with the jar of you-know-what, which was also sitting nearby.

Only two people in the Palazzo would have known not to partake.

Kyle Allen is one of the best looking men alive.

That Poirot mustache is so disgusting to me I can't watch any of the movies. It looks like petrified shit.

The choice between Suchet and Branagh is a purely subjective one. The Branagh haters (or hater singular, using socks to propagate his opinion) merely have a stick up their asses - rather like the sad MAGAt at R26 crying about Michelle Yeoh and "stupid woke casting."

I had never watched a David Suchet Poirot until today, when I looked up 'Hallowe'en Party' (Agatha Christie's Poirot, Season 12, Episode 3). I was mildly entertained, as one can expect to be by a television series. It has a higher body count than the film, I'll give it that.

For those who haven't seen it and are curious, here's the episode:

Tina Fey should avoid period films. She’s as bad as Cybill Shepherd in The Lady Vanishes.

I was not that impressed with it. My usual complaint is that movies are too long these days, but this one wasn’t long enough to flesh out the characters enough for me to care about them.

The sets were gorgeous though.

R43, I know! He's gorgeous

R43 and R48, is Kyle Allen gay?

R49, don' t know, but he's a fabulous dancer.

Just watched it @ home. Too many loud noises like a horror film. Branagh too tall and isn't fat like the character is supposed to be. In the 2001 CBS adaptation, Alfred Molina was almost a foot too tall for the role.

I wish all movie reviews on DL were like r51's.

Two hours I'll never get back.

This was terrible. I have tried twice to watch it and can't get more than 30 minutes into it before losing consciousness from boredom.

Weird because I really enjoyed Murder on the Orient Express and Death on the Nile.

Agreed R52. I would love to see a thread devoted to movie reviews all written like that by R51.

We have a capsule review and recommendation thread for TV series, we definitely should have one for movies as well. As long as people can control themselves and don't pounce on reviews they disagree with.