“この殺人事件の犯人は―人間か、亡霊か。”
一線を退き、ベネチアで流浪の日々を送るポアロは、朽ち果てた大邸宅で行われる降霊会にいやいやながら参加することに。そこで来賓の1人が殺害された時、ポアロは影と秘密をはらんだ邪悪な世界へと足を踏み入れてしまう。果たしてポアロの灰色の脳細胞は、水上の迷宮都市ベネチアで起きた、常識を超えた超常現象のミステリーを解き明かすことができるのか！？
製作費: $60,000,000 (90億円)
興行収入: $121,400,000 (182億円)
推定収支: $61,400,000 (92億円)
※製作費・興行収入はTMDBのデータを参照しています。収支は(興行収入 - 製作費)で算出したFindKey独自の推定値であり、広告宣伝費や諸経費は含まれません (1ドル=150円換算)。
監督: ケネス・ブラナー
脚本: アガサ・クリスティ / Michael Green
制作: James Prichard / サイモン・キンバーグ / Louise Killin
撮影監督: Haris Zambarloukos
制作会社: 20th Century Studios / Scott Free Productions / The Mark Gordon Company / Genre Films / Agatha Christie
The one thing a good whodunnit should not do is put its audience to sleep. Unfortunately, this latest cinematic adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel fails miserably on this score. Director Kenneth Branagh’s third outing as Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot is a protracted snooze that leaves viewers caring little about the characters and even less about the story in which they’re trapped. When the famed detective (Branagh) – now in retirement in Venice – is called upon by a friend and author of murder mysteries (Tina Fey) to help her verify or discredit the psychic powers of a medium (Michelle Yeoh) at a séance at an allegedly haunted Venetian palazzo, he’s drawn into yet another of his famous investigations. The problem here is that what should be an engaging story is interminably dull, one that, regrettably, prompts frequent checking of one’s watch. Moreover, virtually the entire film is shot with excessively dark camera work (so much for showing off the glories of Venice). And then there are the performances, which feature good turns by Yeoh and Jude Hill but a positively wooden portrayal by Branagh (compared to his previous depictions of the protagonist) and an absolutely dreadful performance by a woefully miscast Fey. To its credit, like its recent predecessors, the production values of this Christie offering are top shelf, but that’s about all this release has going for it, a far cry from the much better overall work found in “Murder on the Orient Express” (2017) and “Death on the Nile” (2023). Indeed, even fans of the famed mystery writer are likely to find “A Haunting in Venice” tiresome and tedious. Pack a lunch for this one.
FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.firstshowing.net/2023/review-kenneth-branaghs-a-haunting-in-venice-is-quite-the-horror-mystery/ "A Haunting in Venice is, by some margin, the best adaptation of the now trilogy featuring Hercule Poirot, correcting many of the mistakes of the past and utilizing Kenneth Branagh's innate talent as both filmmaker and actor to stand out as a darker, more atmospheric film. Exceptional performances, suspenseful sequences with intense build-ups, and a couple of genuinely intriguing mysteries that last until the very end. Some ambiguity surrounding its supernatural themes feels off in such a logic-driven world, just as not all characters deserve the allocated screen time. If this last installment is used as a solid base for new sequels, the saga has everything in its favor to continue…" Rating: B
Unlike his other two Christie adaptations featuring this character, this film does not have a previous, star-studded, version with which to compare. That's a good thing because this is certainly not one of the author's stronger stories. "Poirot" (Sir Kenneth Branagh) has retired to a sort of self-imposed exile in Venice where he sees nobody but the pastry chef. The arrival of fellow writer "Ariadne" (Tina Fey) teases what's left of his little grey cells and takes them to an old palazzo where there is to be a seance to try and ascertain what caused the strange death of the young "Alicia". He quickly discovers that those assembled consist a group of folks who all have baggage - individually, or with others from the party and of course, in the best "Cleudo" style, one of them is duly murdered in a nigh-on impossible fashion. The last ten minutes of this is quite quirky and as usual with this writer we are presented with a fairly left-field solution, but I found the bulk of the remainder of the mystery to be presented in a stylish and classy-looking, but ponderous and lethargic fashion. It's way too wordy and the cast don't really gel together particularly well as the sense of peril really doesn't accumulate very much at all. It's nicely scored and shows off the beauty and the vulnerability of Venice but as a whodunnit, I felt it just lacked a little je ne sais quoi! Sir Kenneth is definitely trying to create a persona for his detective, and I am warming to that slightly (though he's no Peter Ustinov) but I found the writing rather too dry and I didn't really manage to get into this. Maybe one to watch a few times?
While Kenneth Branagh is not our favourite Poirot, we like seeing Agatha Christie tales on the big screen. (We want to encourage more murder mysteries to be made.) Much improved over Death on the Nile, this one gives us interesting establishing shots of the titular Venice before we get to the haunted Pallazo where the majority of the film takes place. Michelle Yeoh was the highlight of the familiar faces populating this one. Tina Fey was an odd choice as the comic relief in a period film. We did both close our eyes sometime in the middle though.
Another take on Agatha Christie's books, this one takes the "Hallowe'en Party" (1969), into the screen on a loose adaptation. Again Kenneth Branagh leads on the direction and main role (the belgian detective Hercule Poirot), while on his retirement in Venice, in post-war Venice, 1947. The screenplay is by Agatha Christie (obviously) and Michael Green (Blue Eyed Samurai, Blade Runner 2049, Logan, and the previous two movies of this series "The Murder on the Orient Express - 2017, and Death in the Nile - 2022). It is a way better movie than Death in the Nile, but it doesn't reach the level of Orient Express tho. In all passes in a dark Venice palazzo, in a strange empty Venice, that is shown only into the begging and the end (that were actually shots on a London Studio as much of the movie). The CGI effects are really nice into deleting modern things (and actual tourist) nto some obvious closed famous spots on close angle shots. The cinematography of Haris Zambarloukos (another close colleague into Branagh works like the previous movies and Belfast) is really beautiful, even into the dark settings that can be into closed spaces or huge claustrophobic rooms. I've read somewhere that the actors weren't aware when something like a closing door, etc would happen, but I bet that after the first one the trick didn't work again. On the story side, Branagh is spot on Poirot again. The story follows the usual premise of a crime with several characters involved, but I killed the charade into mid-movie (knowing how usually Agatha Christie Stories area - I can't really compare to the book as I didn't even read it). But it is enjoyable anyway if is that that you search. The story plus acting and beautifully well done cinematography and settings ensure a 7,0 out of 10,0 / B on my score. How I miss to see Venice again.
