Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar

This, the second story to imagine authoress Agatha Christie to be caught up in a murder mystery of her own, sees her travelling to Iraq to stay with friends at an archaeological dig. Before she gets there young archaeologist, Max, finds a body. This is put down to a snake bite but it soon becomes apparent that something is afoot. When Agatha arrives she finds Max injured by a bullet wound in the head and not long afterwards when she gets to the house where those involved in the dig are staying a pet monkey is found hanged! She thinks this is more than mere animal cruelty so, with the help of Max, performs an autopsy. The results make her certain that the dead man was killed something other than a snake. In the investigation that follows she grows close to Max while exposing a plot to steal artefacts and ultimately identifying the killer.

If you can get beyond the conceit of placing a real crime writer in a fictional murder mystery this rather fun. This fictionalised Agatha is a good protagonist and the mystery provides plenty of suspects. As well as the central mystery there is a degree of romance which doesn't distract from the main story. The thing that surprised me most about this production was the degree of humour; there were laughs from start to finish. These were unforced rather than obvious gags and added to my enjoyment. The cast is solid, most notably Lyndsey Marshal who is charming as Agatha and Jonah Hauer King, who plays Max. Obviously it couldn't be filmed in Iraq but the Maltese locations used have a suitably Middle Eastern look. Overall I'd certainly recommend this to fans of classic murder mysteries.

I couldn't help but think of the many Poirot movies set in the middle east. Those were imbued with sound, heat, mystery, etc. Of these exotic locations. Poirot always insistent on pursuing his british/belgium idiosyncrasies while trying to enjoy his "vacations " which was always interrupted by a wonderful murder. (See Death on the Nile).

This is the complete opposite. The first part of the movie focuses on christie trying to imbue her novels with "romance." She is encouraged by new friends to go to Iraq, and it is downhill from there. The Christie actress is bland, the murder of someone is not clear...apparently the monkey imbibed the poison.. The rest of the ensemble (except for young Max) is boring and unforgettable. Even the scenery is dusty and boring. There didn't seem to be any music or sound effects to heighten our attention to murders or significant scenes.

Watch the first of these Christie driven movies. The one that depicts Christie when she disappeared for a few weeks, made a couple of years back. That actress successfully depicted Agatha as a serious author, but with a lovely sparkle underneath. There is no sparkle here.

I had some expectations for this, largely due to Ms Marshal's presence, and it does indeed have several high values.

But it has three features which spoiled it for me: the weirdly soporific sound quality; the dismal pacing; the, let's face it, dreadful script; the cringe-inducing stabs at romance for the lead character; these four chief weapons; -- yes, after watching it, one feels one has been entertained by the Spanish Inquisition.

This was slow and plodding. It managed to make 95 minutes feel like 3 hours. The main actress playing Agatha lacked charisma and it had a bit of an amateur feel to it, although it was made as a TV movie. On the plus side, the production values were very good, so it was a shame that it wasn't a better script with a bit more drama and played less flat. This is probably the dullest Agatha Christie related movie that I have ever seen. At least the ones made in the 80s were entertaining.

Lyndsey Marshal has a history with Agatha Christie adaptations and I believe she was a good fit for the character of Agatha in this film. However the character itself was a bit too bland. Also the story was showing random people getting killed without telling us anything about them. Agatha's lack of emoting combined with the overall care free reaction to murder of just about everybody made the film feel implausible.

Now, the acting was decent for all, without it being stellar in any way, but it was really difficult to empathize with any of the characters or feel for the history or culture of Iraq. And to top it all off, they added the artificial character of Pearl, whose only reason for existence seemed to be being an educated and attractive Black young woman who had a few scenes to complain about not being taken seriously, then proceed to be irrelevant to the story.

Bottom line: the storytelling felt amateurish and failed to compel me in any way. Too bad, because the acting was good.