“A Haunting in Venice” (2023) is Kenneth Branagh’s third Hercule Poirot film, which purports to be the first adaptation of Agatha Christie’s “Hallowe’en Party” (1969) but is a complete departure from the original in terms of location and story, but it still takes place on Halloween. Post-World War II, Poirot (Kenneth Branagh) lives in Venice and has retired from being a detective. His old, ambitious, apple-loving, writer friend, Ariadne Oliver (Tina Fey) persuades him to attend a Halloween Party, which will feature a séance to debunk whether medium Mrs. Reynolds (Michelle Yeoh) is fraud or the real deal, but wherever Poirot goes, there is murder, so he is forced out of retirement to uncover the murderer.

I am not into mysteries and had zero desire to ever see a single Poirot movie until now because of Yeoh. It was brilliant marketing to frame it as a period Halloween horror movie. Most potential viewers are oblivious to the fact that it is an Agatha Christie adaptation and the most recent Poirot film in a trilogy. In preparation for watching “A Haunting in Venice,” I watched “Murder on the Orient Express” (2017) and “Death on the Nile” (2022).

Though Yeoh may be the draw, Poirot is the protagonist so don’t say that you were not warned if it feels like a bait and switch. The famous detective is a local celebrity fending off fans seeking his help. Branagh sports an obtrusive, signature mustache and his ridiculous take on a Belgian accent, which will either be annoying or amusing depending on the viewer’s sense of humor and appreciation of Branagh’s schtick. The over-the-top ridiculousness may be the point. Bodyguard Vitale Portfoglio (Riccardo Scamarcio) and Oliver flank Poirot as he reenters the fray. Scamarcio is convincingly intimidating and impressive, and Fey fits the flippant, fast-talking role, but if you are looking for Fey’s trademark dry wit, you may feel a bit underwhelmed.

The ensemble cast does their best with the material, but the main problem of a film like “A Haunting in Venice” is none of the characters are meant to eclipse Poirot. It is hard to judge whether the actors are doing their best or the characters are just archetypes who exist to serve Poirot’s ego. Yeoh, who is the best part of the film, manages to play a mystic who alternates from mournful to insouciant, modern, and playful. Yeoh avoids being the Magical Asian or Dragon Lady. “Yellowstone” Kelly Reilly is wasted as Rowena Drake, a mourning mother and opera singer who toured Europe…during World War II…..um…. No one really considered the timeline between Rowena, her daughter and her daughter’s fiancé and the logistics of living in wartime. Camille Cotton is having a good year as the maid in this film and as the Israeli Prime Minister’s personal assistant in “Golda” (2023). Cotton makes an impression as a superstitious local but is otherwise forgettable as another in a long list of suspects. “Fifty Shades” Jamie Dornan plays the shell-shocked Dr. Leslie Ferrier, father of his precocious, parentified son, Leopold (Jude Hill), who monitors his father’s psychological health. Hill was a consistent and sober bright spot in the film.

“A Haunting in Venice” is the perfect movie for people who like period films set in a foreign destination and enjoy the fantasy of escaping the chains of our present time and place. It is the perfect atmosphere for people who do not watch horror films, but want to feel a frisson of fear. They may find the plethora of jump scares and the dark, brooding atmosphere sufficiently terrifying.

“A Haunting in Venice” contains two mysteries: the murderer’s identity and the existence of life after death. The narrative’s trajectory is aimed at Poirot getting his groove back and returning to the detective game by restoring his faith in God through proof of people having souls, which seems like a logic leap, but to each their own. The film does lose the thread of whether Mrs. Reynolds is a fake however if Poirot can be convinced, then that answer will have to be sufficient. The restoration of faith makes this installation the most optimistic film in the trilogy but is somewhat dissonant with the fact that compared to its predecessors, it is the gloomiest film in the bunch.

Hard-core horror fans will never find this mystery terrifying. It is easy to guess whodunit. The off-kilter above and below camera shots—dutch angles—are overdone and become tiresome. It is more gothic with the action unfolding in a decaying, shadow-draped palazzo with a backstory. While the plethora of extreme close-ups are supposed to be unsettling, it is just another feature to add to the list of overbearing gimmicks. The sound effects were impressive, and a booming typewriter and a battering boat ramming into the house evoke dread long after the lack of supernatural origin is revealed. While Branagh deserves some credit for departing from his customary sun-soaked, luxurious locations and mixing a ghost story with a mystery, it just resulted in diluting both genres.

Branagh and writer Michael Green’s decision to depart from the source material by setting it in post-World War II Venice instead of the swinging sixties Britain seems like an exercise in willful historical ignorance. The historical erasure of fascism and the extermination of the local Jewish population, who were restricted to living in a ghetto since March 1516, feels like a grave omission. Lucky for Branagh, most viewers do not have a handle on history and will probably not notice this lack of details despite explicit references to the WWII. Would a WWI veteran really retreat to such a place for rest and comfort?

It is one thing for horror to enhance the atmosphere of a mystery, but is it appropriate to use World War II in the same way? Green’s mystery revolves around past, present and potentially future murdered children. The palazzo is alleged where doctors and nurses locked up and left sick children to die of the plague. The present involves allegations that Rowena’s daughter did not commit suicide but was a victim of murder.  Two Hungarian orphans with ambitions to go to Missouri and finish seeing “Meet Me in St. Louis” (1944) are the only allusion to World War II’s impact. Without any adults in their life, these orphans became criminals and are in danger. Dr. Ferrier makes an explicit reference to the horrors of Bergen-Belsen, but not the identity of its prisoners: Jews, political prisoners, the Roma, gay men, etc. It is almost as if “A Haunting in Venice” is trying to avoid controversy or making the film too somber, but it could have easily been done by not setting it during 1947.

While World War II did harm many children, this veiled allusion to the Nazis’ specific war crimes unintentionally serves Holocaust deniers. By mining World War II for material, the real-life atrocity gets white-washed and the only impact rests on the shoulders of the Christian European men who bore witness, not the ones who did not survive.