Sparkling Cyanide

Yeh, I know it's set in the 80's instead of the 40's or 50's but this wasn't that bad. In fact, some parts improved on the book. The narration in the book is a little over heated. Has a nice twist ending that unless you read the novel you won't see coming. A definite guilty pleasure indulgence. Come on, admit it, cheese like this is entertaining.

I saw some criticisms over at YouTube from Agatha Christie purists who resented the American location of this made for television film. I also believe that Christie novels should always be in their original settings, but this was an all right production. And Anthony Andrews as the lead sleuth in Sparkling Cyanide is as English as you can get.

Andrews is hobnobbing with the rich and somewhat famous and strikes up an acquaintance with Deborah Raffin who is visiting her sister Christine Belford who is currently married to Josef Sommer, but deep in an affair with the married David Huffman. I've already given a few reasons for a murder and others come out during the investigation by LAPD homicide detective Harry Morgan.

Belford is victim number one as she drinks some champagne laced with cyanide at a dinner party. Later on Sommer who thinks he's Hercule Poirot gathers all the suspects together at a duplication of the same dinner party and he gets the cyanide champagne as well.

A matter as simple as the seating arrangements provides the solution.

I'm sure the original English version is better, but this certainly will do for less fussy Christie fans.

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"

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.

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.