gridoon2018
After watching this 2003 version of "Sparkling Cyanide", I dug up and watched parts of the 1983 version, to see how closely the stories resembled each other; taking into account the updated computer technology, the CCTV footage, etc. they're very close. Anyone who has not read the book and not seen the earlier adaptation will probably be surprised by the plot turns here. The direction lacks style and atmosphere, and the film often plays like a plodding police procedural that could be an extended episode of a TV series, but Christie's story is enough to pull you through. Besides, having two grandparents as the detectives is an unusual concept for a Christie film; Oliver Ford Davies and Pauline Collins make for agreeable leads. And Chloe Howman (Iris) is gorgeous from head to toe; her character has been changed to a fitness trainer, and with a body like that, you can believe it! **1/2 out of 4.
TheLittleSongbird
Sparkling Cyanide is a very good story if perhaps not one of Agatha Christie's masterpieces. The 1983 film is dated but there is something enjoyable about it, and while not necessarily a good adaptation The Yellow Iris Poirot mystery was interesting. This modern-day adaptation does look good and while both have given far better performances Oliver Ford-Davies and Pauline Collins try hard, but on the whole is very disappointing. And this is not just as an adaptation, where it is lacking both in detail and spirit to the book, this is on its own terms as well. The rest of the acting is poor(even from a talented actor like Kenneth Cranham who ends up overdoing his gruff patriarch role), nobody really being able to give credibility to their sketchily-written characters, Rosemary faring worst. The script is also very clunky, and the story is often confused, dragged out and flabby with things vaguely mentioned but rarely elaborated upon. The pace just drags with little momentum, I know most Agatha Christie adaptations and books unfold slowly but in a modern setting this approach just doesn't work, and the solution is largely unsatisfying with at least two things that don't make that much sense(that I can't mention really without spoiling it for people). So overall, a modern day Agatha Christie adaptation but without the sparkle. 3/10 Bethany Cox
wadsy333
Say what you will about Agatha Christie's prose, but at least she could cobble together a reasonable plot. There were some dreadful Christie movies made in the 1970's and 80's, mainly for the US market. However, more recent treatments for UK TV starring Joan Hickson as Marple and David Suchet as Poirot lifted the game somewhat.Sparkling Cyanide was far from being Christie's worst book. This movie, on the other hand, is a strong contender for worst adaptation of one of her books. The dialogue is so stilted that even Christie would blush and the clunking efforts to modernise the story are cringe-making. The writers clearly thought the idea of retired people using mobile phones and email so original that it should serve as a major plot line. The lead actors are miscast and, at times, look as if they are mentally firing their agents as the execrable dialogue sticks in their throats.The script is leaden, the plot turgid and the final product shameful. Avoid.
NineLivesBurra
This movie is not worth the money they spent to make it. Poirot has gone and in his place, instead of people using their little grey cells, we have people using great big grey cells which were not in use at the time Christie wrote the book. To me, a Poirot novel is all about the psychology and the use of the little grey cells and without him and them, you just have another television murder mystery like all the rest.Poirot has something more as do all of Christie's detectives and this movie just does not do anything for me. Even David Suchet's Yellow Iris was far better than this and even that was not a brilliant interpretation of this Christie novel.
AD
