Sparkling Cyanide

No, I have not read the book, nor read any Agatha Christie (when so many of them are done into movies? Why read?) but I would see this one on the telly years ago and I guess I strived to actually solve it to see how intelligent I was and there was no way I would have guessed the ending.

Now I don't know how it occurred in the book, but the little glitch in this movie with Nancy Marchand being the last person to leave the dinner table was about the most remarkable plot twist I have ever seen.

I really didn't follow how it could be recreated with Anthony Andrews changing his seat toward the end with only two other people, but the main dinner table scene, actually I think it was the second murder, totally blew me away.

I could have stood to watch it become a stronger focus of the story actually.

Yes, the movie is updated, very eighties. Truthfully I think I would rather have seen this story done in the thirties or forties, but if this stands as the only available imagery of this story available (apparently there was one made in 2003. I wonder if that one was any good.) then it is worth checking out if you aren't a diehard Christie fan and just like to watch a decent mystery.

It definitely was a different mystery, that's for sure.

Sparkling Cyanide was a definite favourite as a youngster, and it still holds up well today, yes the hair and makeup are very 1983, there are mullets, rouged cheekbones and printed dresses galore, but they all add to the charm of the film.

The book is rather good, it's a cleverly written story, and the changes that were made to the film actually help with the setting. A time when American producers believed anyone English needed an RP accent.

The acting is a little shaky at times. Anthony Andrews is rather good, wonderfully English. For years I was told Aunt Lucilla was a man, you'll believe most things as a child!

All in all it's a fun film, definitely better then the stale remake! For the ultimate version of this story you have to check out Poirot's Yellow Iris.

7/10

Rosemary Barton takes one sip of champagne at her wedding anniversary dinner party and then suddenly collapses dead. "Cyanide poison", the doctor exclaims. Was it suicide or murder? Rosemary certainly had her fair share of enemies. Her husband George believes it to be murder and so he gathers together the same dinner guests and recreates the party, hoping to add a surprise guest to bring the killer out in the open. Unfortunately, poor George also gets a taste of poisoned champagne and ends up taking a trip to the morgue. It is then left to Rosemary's sister Iris and private investigator Tony Browne to solve the mystery.

The suave Anthony Andrew lends a lot of charm as the sleuth who is out to catch the poisoner, and of course romances Deborah Raffin at the same time. Sparkling Cyanide might not be set in England, and of course it plays more like a soap opera, but nevertheless very enjoyable, light, brisk and there's a sense of clarity and simplicity in the execution of the story and the mystery.

This is an enjoyable film...good fluff-that's about it. I don't think the writers of the script understand what Agatha Christie had in mind. I read quite a few of her novels-and I wonder if Agatha Christie's name should be taken off the title of this film. Let's call it "Sue Grafton's Sparkling cyanide"

Sue Grafton is a great writer-her novels are always best sellers, but-no female mystery writer has ever captured the time and place settings, not to mention the scene of the crime as has Agatha Christie.

I like this film, though-but it's no Agatha Christie. I like Anthony Andrews-at least they put a British actor in this film. No matter how you slice it-in order to get the feel of what Agatha Christie put into the story-you need to read "Agatha Christie's Sparkling Cyanide" Before you bother seeing "Sue Grafton's Sparkling cyanide"

This was fun to watch, mainly because of people like Anthony Andrews whom I feel I don't see enough at best. I think it would have been far more entertaining and taken more seriously, had it not been billed as "Agatha Christie". One look at the scenery, sets, and costumes tells us that it was not set in Christie's originally-intended places nor at the times she knew. When movie-makers start toying with the author's intent, the result is questionable and sometimes disastrous. Because the cast was good, this one was not disastrous, but definitely questionable; if we tune in for a good old-fashioned Christie, we'll be disappointed because this clearly isn't it! If we view it just on its own, and don't think of it as Christie, we'll have a better chance of enjoying it on its own merit. I think it's worth a couple of hours of viewing, but I'd also recommend reading the book and trying to find a version that's truer to the original.