A Haunting in Venice Ending Explained | Book Changes | Spoilers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- Agatha Christie -- This video explains the ending of A Haunting in Venice, as well as changes from the Hallowe'en Party book and the movie. There are spoilers in this video. This is your spoiler warning.
Other Agatha Christie Videos
A Haunting in Venice Review Short: • Review: A Haunting in ...
Death on the Nile Ending Explained: • Death on the Nile Endi...
Death on the Nile Review: • Death on the Nile Revi...
Chapter Timestamps
0:00 Intro
0:39 Plot Details
3:52 Who Done It?
5:30 Deaths Explained
8:45 Book Differences
For daily news and rumors, you can follow Nerd Doc at:
/ thenerddoc
/ thenerddoc
/ thenerddoc
/ thenerddoc
/ thenerddoc
#AHauntingInVenice #EndingExplained #AgathaChristie 
Кино
I always liked Ariadne Oliver, as an obviously ironic self-insert of Agatha Christie herself.
Really surprised this is the first time she's shown up in this new series of movies. And with how they've done her in this one, I don't know if we see her again
@@TheNerdDoc Agreed. However I do not think we will have more than these three movies, with the current state of Hollywood. I was referring to the great series with David Suchet, the complete Poirot canon. Ariadne is both in books and the television series remarkably over the top, with her Skandinavian detective solving ridiculous whodonnits (and her continuous struggles when she once more wrote herself in a corner). You can find the Case of the Halloween Party here: ruclips.net/video/NDs0maul_fA/видео.html
Yeah, while Haunting opened higher than Nile, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the last one. I don't think there's been any official word yet, but it seems inevitable. I'll check out the other stuff. Thanks for the link!
Personally, I liked both versions, but the whole "loosely based on the book" is no joke. I highly suggest reading the book (although perhaps not the BEST of Agatha's novels, it is certainly my favorite so far, and I've read about half of them), but if you want a quick summary of the important points of the book, I'll list a quick summary of the important parts of the original novel down below.
SPOILER WARNING AHEAD!
Ariadne Oliver is invited as a guest of honor to a halloween party. There, thirteen year old Joyce Reynolds claims to have witnessed a murder when she was younger, but didn't realize it until she was older. Other children call her a liar, and her behavior in defending herself does seem like she's lying; but later, she is found drowned in the apple bobbing attraction, indicating SOMEONE believed her statement. Ariadne (having appeared in "Cards on the Table" and a few other Poirot novels) asks for Poirot to help her in finding out who killed Joyce, and the two set off for information. A few key points to keep in mind are as follows:
-Joyce was a known liar.
-Leopold suddenly came into a fortune.
-There are four different unusual deaths/unsolved murders in the area (only the death of Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe and the stabbing of Leslie Ferrier are the key victims for this case).
-Miss Emlyn thought that Rowena Drake might have seen something in the hallway to startle her, causing her to drop a large vase full of flowers and water. (Keep in mind, the library where the apple bobbing game was held was down the hallway.)
Later, Poirot determines that Joyce was probably lying about having witnessed a murder, but it leaves open the question, "Why did someone believe her?" Later, Leopold is also found drowned by the brook, leading to the conclusion that he DID know, or at least had a decent guess, of who killed his sister, Joyce (in the book, they are related and Leopold dies). Rowena does confirm Ms. Emlyn's statement that she DID see something that startled her: Leopold was in the library at the time she dropped the vase. Eventually a few more key characters are interviewed and the suspicions around Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe death resurface.
-Judith Butler, who was at the party and is Ms. Oliver's friend.
-Miranda Butler, friend of Joyce and was home sick the night of the party.
-Michael Garfield, a man described of having an unusual sense of beauty, and (despite his arrogance) an impossible suspect due to him having not been at the party the day of Joyce's murder.
The details of Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe's death, and the disappearance of her au pair, Olga, are eventually brought out into the open. Olga was accused of having forged Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe's last will, and having been a crude forgery, was immediately dissmissed. Olga insisted she didn't forge the will, and planned to run away to Turkey, for fear of prosecution of the forgery and potential murder. Eventually, the house and the garden of Mrs. Llewellyn-Smythe went to Michael for his work in the garden, and he in turn sold it, but still works on it. Poirot eventually gets an idea as to where Olga might be, and his suspicions turn out correct. Olga's corpse is found at the bottom of an abandoned well, stabbed in a similar manner to Leslie from before, and Poirot puts together what all happened.
It turns out, Olga was the murdered victim that Joyce claimed to have seen before. However, it was Miranda Butler who actually saw the murder, or more accurately, two people dragging her corpse to the well. One of them thought someone was watching them, hence why they believed Joyce actually did see their disposal of the body. (It's never directly confirmed if they killed Llewellyn-Smythe or if she actually died of natural causes.) The reason they killed her was because Olga ratted out Llewellyn-Smythe's niece as having had an affair, thus resulting Llewellyn-Smythe's last will being changed. The niece and her partner then made an obvoously forged will to discredit Olga, and then killed her to make it seem like she was guilty and running away.
Poirot knows that Miranda is in serious danger, and advises Ms. Oliver and Judith to take her far away from the area for the time being. Although they get her some distance away, an older man succeeds in leading her away when she steps off on her lonesome to the restroom while she, her mother, and Ariadne are out eating together. She and the man arrive at a sacrifice altar, and are about to partake in a ritual, but Poirot enlisted the help of two young men to keep watch and make sure Miranda stayed safe. They intervene at the last moment, saving Miranda's life.
Later, Miranda is discussing the details of the murder she witnessed, having not realized it was a murder due to the fact the Michael Garfield, the man that Llewellyn-Smythe's niece -- Rowena Drake -- was going to forsake her invalid husband for, had told her it was merely a sacrifice. Miranda confirms she told Joyce, and Leopold might have guessed or overheard their conversation. Since Miranda wasn't at the party that night, Joyce told everyone that SHE had seen the murder. In a final twist, Poirot reveals that Miranda's father was none other than Michael Garfield. Although he loved his daughter (having been seen earlier drawing a portrait of her), he wasn't above murdering her to keep the secret. As for Rowena and Michael, Poirot theorizes that, having bought a small Greecian island with Rowena's ill-gained fortune, Michael probably would have ended up killing Rowena anyways just so he wouldn't be under her thumb. As for figuring out that it was Rowena who killed Joyce, Poirot reveals he figured this fact rather early because of the fact that Rowena was wet, claiming to have spilt the vase on her; however, by drowning a victim, the killer would naturally be wet, and Rowena was the only person to be wet at the time of the murder.
In the end, I found this novel to be really fascinating. I missed the fact that Rowena had to logically be the killer because I was so fascinated with the backstory of the novel. Seriously, I would suggest reading the novel JUST to see how different it is from the movie. I woul LOVE to see this novel adapted into a play or something, it was that much of an enjoyment.
Have you seen the version with David Suchet in it?
@@suzie_lovescats Actually, yes. I got BritBox and watched some of the ones I've read. I've got the remaining books that I was missing, so I'm finishing up the books before watching any of the ones I haven't read yet. But I did enjoy the Suchet version and have high hopes for some of the other adaptations.
@@mr.saturnNice 😁 I watch the ones with DS in on ITVX and also I buy episodes on Amazon prime 👍🏻
This sounds too complicated to have been adapted to a movie
As I was reading I could not understand any of it
What an age for murder mystery: The only people eager to socialize at all always had sinister plans, hidden agendas, and ulterior motives!!! 🤗
The current Poirot actor makes him so full of himself. In the short stories Hastings calls it a ‘innocent vanity’ trait. In other words, he doesn’t know when he’s doing it. Think Sheldon Cooper in season 1 of big bang theory.
I really enjoyed the movie but it had nothing to do with the actual story. Well some of the names were the same and that’s about it.
David Suchet and Zoe Wanamaker did a great adaptation of the original story. This one was new and original and I liked it a lot. Just not Agatha Christie
Yeah, it was a huge departure from the source material, but not a bad film by any means
@@TheNerdDoc I honestly enjoyed it more than I expected.
I might have missed something, but how did they explain a psychic lady speaking with the voice of the dead daughter and who did Poirot see in the mirror?
The person in the mirror was the dead daughter. They didn't explain how she was speaking in the voice of the daughter, similar to how they didn't explain Poirot seeing the daughter's ghost push the mother.
The logical explanation is simply that the psychic mimicked a young girl's voice, and in the excitement of the event the mother thought it sounded close enough to be convinced by it. As I recall, only the mother mentioned the voice, while the ex-fiancée and the doctor should've been able to recognize it as well, but didn't have the same reaction as the mother.
@@TheNerdDoc Perot explained seeing the daughter himself. He was drugged.
@@MFPhoto1 Yes, but he saw the daughter push the mother. That's a very unique coincidence to see the daughter floating there, then actually push the mother just as she slipped and fell. That's very different from hearing noises and seeing someone in a mirror
@@TheNerdDoc It could have been an illusion suggested by the story of the girl's death. But I would have to re-watch to check it out.
They do leave both events kind of ambiguous if you think about it. They established pretty well that the medium was a fake, so I would think if she really got possessed she would be much more scared. On the other hand she could have just faked the voice asking the guard what she sounded like. Now when it come to the ending yes Poirot was under the influence so there is a chance it wasn't there. Her turning around like that is something she would have done when she bumped into the railing. So that is as possible as what Poirot saw. Also when dying you can also see strange things so I'm told, which would explain the underwater part.
Watched the movie yesterday. Overall an enjoyable movie with a great cast and the right eerie atmosphere, but the main point that made me and my husband scratch our heads was the "OMG the Americans brought Halloween here, we're going to wear masks and costumes, what a fun and totally new experience!". In VENICE? A place famous for its MASKS and its CARNIVAL?
Yeah... I guess maybe it was just that the Americans brought it there on October 31st? As you rightfully pointed out, that's been a thing in Venice forever
Ikr...also idk if it's common elsewhere but where im from no priests or nuns would be involved in this celebration. They are specifically against it
Carnival was forbidden by 1800. Something like Halloween wasn't allowed until the allies took back Italy. The allies had Halloween so they brought it back. 30 years after the war they started to bring back Carnival too. If you notice many of the kids wore religious outfits? This is because they intertwined it with faith, so despite Italy being so overly religious, Halloween became largely accepted. Especially since it was just another new kind of celebration to enjoy after the war. and yes yes I know technically Italy was part of the axis powers. They were quick to stop the fighting for many reasons, so eventually became occupied by the Germans.
they shouldn`t have made Ariadne Oliver double cross Poirot. they`re better as friends. I`ve seen the poirot serie with David Suchet, with Zoe Wanamaker as Ariadne Oliver, they`re so much fun together.
Couldn't agree more. I thought that was a very weird choice, especially if they wanted to continue the series with a fourth film
Elephants can remember, Cards on the table, The third girl..... all great. they`d all make great films@@TheNerdDoc
We appreciate your insights on a Haunting in Venice. You'll always have our support.
Thank you so much. I appreciate that! New profile picture too? :)
Watched it at the cinema on Monday... lovely escapism ..dont take it too seriously and you will enjoy
I liked this far better than Death on the nile. It might be up there with Orient express, but not quite. All good stuff.
true story and Kenneth Branagh is amazing
I think do evil under the sun in 1953
Oh that would be a good one!
These 3 movies average out to about a "B". Also whatever character development he experienced in Death on the Nile were gone by the beginning of this movie.
It was almost like they ignored Death on the Nile
@@TheNerdDoc I didn't love that movie was so long. The Orient Express one is still my fav but they're all pretty mediocre. The original Murder on the OE is better.
@@HappyHighwayman I agree with all of that. I am curious to see if we'll get another one, if they're reboot, or if they're just done with these for awhile
I'd always assumed that Christie's works were realist, till I read a few short story collections, and discovered that she had dabbled in supernatural elements earlier in her career. As a result, I was okay with hints of the supernatural, besides which, we are permitted to think it was all just that funny honey.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie. Brannagh finally felt like Poirot, rather than just an actor playing a part, and the essentially new story ensured it was intriguing. Besides, what a great setting for anything mysterious. Pity he had to have a falling out with his old friend. Maybe, at this point, it would be good to leave it as a trilogy, although I'd watch more if they were made.
I think I'm also okay with leaving it as a trilogy. If they made more though, where would you want them to go with it? Which story next?
@@TheNerdDoc to tell the truth, I've read a lot of Christie short stories, but not much of Poirot in particular. Seen some of the British TV episodes. Maybe something set back in the UK could be good - maybe The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (but with a more generic movie name).
@@originaluddite Going back to the UK would be a nice change. Give us a more grounded take on the character.
Just watch the Halloween party poirit adaptation. It’s much more faithful to the book
this gonna be a hit
There isn't much competition, so that's a good sign. I just hope horror fans aren't expecting too much from it, while Agatha Christie fans are put off by the horror vibes from the trailer. That would be my only worry there. The marketing for this has been a bit misleading.
Is it worth watching?
@@lostsoul4317 Doc voice so calm I fell asleep after he told us about the girl who died because she said she was there 😂 my mistake (she said she knew who it was)
@@lostsoul4317 I have to finish the vid. Then I can answer that
@@lostsoul4317absolutely not. Sadly I just watched it.
just saw this
10 little Indians I'd like to see made .
That would be an interesting story to tell, but I think the concerns about the original name of the book would prevent Disney from wanting to make it. If that was the only Agatha Christie story left, I could see them trying it, but since there are still so many I think Disney will stay away from it.
They actually did do this movie. It's called and then there were none it's a Mini series I believe, I watched the blue ray recently
The David Suchet version is better 😁
The movie was pretty enjoyable up until the big reveal. Both the motive and the method was kinda bland. It was just not dramatic enough or even clever.
How about murder in Mesopotamia?
I liked the movie, but I am a fan of Kenneth Branagh. It has been a long time since the read the books but I am a fan of Agatha Christie & since when does Hollywood or other movie companies fallow the books completely.
I enjoyed it WAY more than the last two of these Poirot adaptations
The reactions have been pretty mixed, but it seems like this is either someone's favorite, or the worst of the three. No one is putting it in the middle at all 😅
Just saw it, not really a theater movie more of a good HBO movie
Do you feel the same about the other Agatha Christie movies, or do you just prefer big spectacle movies for the theaters? I kind of feel like this one is a bit more spectacle. Hard to say...