Sparkling Cyanide

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

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.

......but, wow, are there any movies or TV shows that are more dated nowadays(in 2008) than movies made in the 80's? Dated hair, clothing, home furnishings...I was cringing at the bad hairstyles and clothes in this movie. It truly has little to do with Agatha Christie but the title and while it wasn't bad to watch, I just can't figure out why the producers had to transport it to Pasadena in the early 80's. Was it cheaper to film? What it reminded me of was an episode of Murder She Wrote, with the same types of actors etc. I've read lots of Agatha Christie's writing although I have to admit it's been a while and I'm sure this would have been a better movie with more period correct settings. It was nice to see Deborah Raffin, though--she did some great work in her career and I'm sad not to see her doing much acting lately.

Was this totally 80s cheese? Absolutely. Did I live it? Yes. Was it the best movie? No. But as someone who's late Mother loved the aforementioned Murder She Wrote and Agatha Christie, it was our fun. One of many things I watched over the last few days recovering from surgery. I watched a few times, as I always miss stuff the first time or 2. I loved Tony's character and Nancy Marchaund.... perfect. Those facial expressions. I couldn't help think Sondra reminded me if Princesses Diana, especially at Steven's political speech in the fashionable blue hat and her sad looks....it was the same time Diana's popularity was flourishing. But the biggest star was the fashion. It was nominated for an Emmy Award for fashion design. Oh the sequins and shoulder pads and hairspray. I do have to mention the main reason I rented thus film in the first place was David Huffman (Stephen). I recently discovered him while binge watching, of all things, Little House on the Prairie. I googled him and found many things he was in as well as the fact that he was murdered at the age of 39...So sad. May he RIP. His character wasn't the best, but his handsomeness is on full display. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to forgot everything going on and enjoy back campy mystery.

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.