Sparkling Cyanide (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Disappointingly dull adaptation

[MattyGibbs · 5/10 · 28 December 2015]

Sparkling Cyanide is an Agatha Christie tale brought into the modern world. Unfortunately this take doesn't quite work. A football chairman's wife is murdered and there are several potential suspects.

Unlike many Agatha Christie adaptations this one has a curious lack of suspense. The characters are mainly lifeless which is surprising given the quality of the cast. This can only be put down to a poor script.

Like another reviewer mentioned, this film could have been done within the hour but is instead dragged out too long. The reveal is no real surprise and all in all I was quite pleased when it ended.

Although not terrible this is a disappointingly dull adaptation. Not recommended unless as a time filler.

not what i expected

[gbennie · 5/10 · 8 March 2008]

After reading the book years ago and seeing the 1983 film version, (which was very dated), I was looking forward to this adaptation. I really thought that this film version would do all the right things and be set in the proper 1940s era.

However, I was wrong and very disappointed at the modern take. It just did not work. The film tried to combine the traditional British aspects of the book with a modern setting, and the modern clothing really detracted from the whole atmosphere and elegance presented in the novel.

It might have been to do with the scene of Iris in the shower that put me off, which was completely unnecessary or the fact that it was too similar to the modern mysteries nowadays (like "Lewis" and "Midsomer Murders") and lacking the clever old fashioned Agatha Christie touch.

I can't remember the specific things about the cast - I do remember thinking how different Aunt Lucilla was portrayed in this version compared to the 1983 one.

My advice: if you watch this do not associate it with the ingenuity of Agatha Christie, but rather see it as just another modern murder mystery. Even the 1983 version seems to succeed this in the end, despite its 1980's touches.

It isn't very Christie, but it isn't bad

[hayesbook · 6/10 · 13 May 2019]

I never thought I'd see gratuitous (but pretty tasteful) nudity in a Christie adaptation! This TV movie feels like it was the pilot for a series, with the husband and wife team of Colonel Reece (in the original it was Colonel Race and he is unmarried) and Dr. Kendall leading us through an updated version of this story -- but it doesn't appear to have been one. To my mind, the Christie original story had more than enough fascination not to be messed with, but this movie doesn't do a terrible job of making it "2003-y" and plausible for the current day at its time. I found myself actually really liking the two "spies" who were solving the case, entirely unlike the original sleuth Colonel Race. I did not like, however, the transformation of the very interesting Anthony Brown character into the Fizz character (a footballer, which doesn't at all fit with the original story, although the actor is good). Still, it worked in its TV-movie way and the acting is pretty decent throughout. If you are looking for old-fashioned Christie, this is not it. But if you like TV movies from the 2000s that are murder mysteries, you will probably enjoy this one. Cool London locations and some beautiful wardrobe selections, too.

Tune in, turn on, switch off

[lucy-19 · 20 May 2005]

This Christie adaptation was flagged as "in a modern setting, with a contemporary twist". There was so much twist they forgot to tell the story, which is a good one. Characters were introduced briefly, with thumbnail descriptions in voice-over, instead of being allowed to show us who they were. Then the "contemporary, modern" angle was shoved in our faces. "And this is my wife, Alexandra, a high-flying barrister, you know, not like in the olden days when women didn't have jobs, and here's Rosemary's sister, who's a personal trainer to the stars and has a black footballer boyfriend, not like in the book which is old fashioned, twee, quaint and weedy and she's a debutante who possible works as a secretary." Instead of a dashing male detective we have two old buffers obviously based on Christie's characters Tommy and Tuppence - former secret service agents who are occasionally called out of retirement. Of course they have to use computers and mobile phones the second they are introduced, and get themselves offstage with "You shadow the husband, I'll go and DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE INTERNET, you know, that modern thingy that they didn't have when Christie wrote her books I mean in her day they probably sent messages by a man in a cleft stick and were hopelessly dull and oldfashioned and never never did anything interesting like having sex." Actually the original Christie story is teeming with adultery - read the book! Read the book! And then watch the enjoyable 1983 film with Anthony Andrews which has the sense to stick to Christie's story. Updating from the 50s to the 80s, and moving from England to America, makes perfect sense. But avoid the TV version with David Suchet, filmed as The Yellow Iris, which muffs the story badly, introducing an unnecessary trip to wartorn South America (!?) and not even showing the second dinner party (filling in time with an equally otiose "South American" dance rehearsal).

It's watchable.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 6/10 · 19 December 2019]

I love the novel, and I enjoyed this adaptation, the reality is there isn't much similarity, apart from a few names and scenes. The American film adaptation from the 80's was a bit more faithful, this feels more like a complete overhaul. It's a glitzy adaptation, one the Christie purists will hate, those willing to accept changes will enjoy it to some degree.

Davies and Collins do a good job as The Detectives, I particularly liked Lia Williams as Ruth Lessing. Some good scenes, and great costumes, it looks great. I applaud the writers for trying to make it relevant for a current audience, I personally favour them set in their intended eras. The best version to this day remains Yellow Iris, the adaptation featuring David Suchet as Poirot.

This is decent, but it's crying out for a quality remake. 6/10

can't remember the book so I'll just review the film

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 22 April 2021]

I read all of the Agatha Christie books so many years ago, that I actually don't know how Sparkling Cyanide was changed. I will say I haven't liked a lot of Christie adaptations.

I happen to like the actors in this one - Pauline Collins and Oliver Ford Davies, Susan Hampshire, Clare Holman, and Lia Williams, all of whom did a good job.

Collins and Davies play a Catherine and Geoffrey, a married couple who work secretly for MI5, telling their family they have other professions. When the young and beautiful wife (Rachel Shelley) of a prominent businessman dies after drinking a toast at a restaurant dinner, Catherine and Geoffrey are pressed into service.

There is a lot at stake, including the political career of one Stephen Farraday (James Wilby) who was present and perhaps was somehow involved. There are, however, plenty of suspects - the victim's sister, her aunt, her cousin, and some others who have to be checked out.

I thought this was pleasant. I have no understanding of producers and writers changing these Christie stories. This was okay but if you recall the book you'll probably loathe it.

Read the book

[jamesbernthal · 1/10 · 31 December 2003]

"Sparkling Cyanide" is one of my favourite Agatha Christie novels. So you can imagine my delight when I heard of a new film of it, starring Oliver Ford-Davis. But, alas, this does no-where near justice to the original book. They've kept about two names the same (Lucilla, Iris), added about 10 new characters, and changed most of the original characters around to fit a modern-day setting. The detectives are two elderly MI5 agents (compare that to the respectable retired colonel in the book), it just doesn't work, investigating the murder of an uneducated footballer's wife at a nightclub (compare that to the glamorous wife of a successful businessman who dies at a high-class resteraunt in the book). The solution isn't really explained at all, the interval of two years is clumsily merged into two weeks, and Rosemary Barton is portrayed as a wrist-slitting slut, a tragic loss of one of Agatha Christie's most beautiful descriptions. The only member of the cast who can act is Oliver Ford-Davis, whose talent is pointlessly wasted. Perhaps this film was meant to appeal to the younger generation. It doesn't. I represent the younger generation, this isn't right. If you've never heard of Agatha Christie before, and like things on the TV like "Silent Witness", I suppose this is aimed at you. But you won't like it. If you're a die-hard Agatha Christie fan, like me, follow the advice of Rosalind Hicks, her daughter, who hates the film, and "stick to the book".

Fair updating of the Agatha Christie novel

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 24 May 2015]

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.

Far from Sparkling

[Sjhm · 1/10 · 11 July 2010]

Dreadful, slow, flabby, "modern" updating of Agatha Christie's novel. The entire story could have been over and done with in under an hour, but this bloated modern monstrosity drags on for over two.

The problem with "updating" the storyline into the modern idiom of footballers and self-made men is that the social structure in which the original story was written has no modern equivalent. So there is no hook upon which to hang the theme.

Oliver Ford-Davies and Pauline Collins drift around in the middle of this background-less mess and there is a lot of vague talk about spies and Berlin and Cambridge. I was uncertain at one point exactly what I was watching, a bad Agatha Christie or an even worse John Le Carre.

With a script that makes little sense, and the addition of a cloyingly annoying grandchild, this is truly flat champagne.

Ultra modern, much revised Agatha Christie story

[SimonJack · 6/10 · 4 March 2024]

"Sparkling Cyanide" is a modern updated setting and considerably revised story based on a couple of Agatha Christie original works. Those being a short story, "Yellow Iris," and a later expanded novel from that story, first printed in the U. S. in 1945 as "Sparkling Cyanide." The British publication later that same year was titled "Remembered Death."

"Yellow Iris" was made into a TV movie for the Hercule Poirot series that starred David Suchet; and this film follows the later book plot that involves Colonel Race as the main sleuth and star. Two earlier films were made for TV, in 1983 and 1993. But this version underwent substantial revisions. It's in a 21st century setting, the master sleuth's name is changed to Col. Geoffrey Reece, and he has a wife and partner, Dr. Catherine Kendall.

Perhaps the idea behind such extensive revision of Christie stories, such as this, is to make them appeal more to a modern audience. I don't know, but I prefer works based on novels and stories to be in their original times. Still the ingenuity of Agatha Christie comes through in this plot, so I like it. Not as much as any of the original or earlier versions of the story.

Here's a favorite exchange of lines between Col. Reece and his spouse-partner. Col. Geoffrey Reece, "Oh, Kate, do you remember the old days? Berlin Wall?" Dr. Catherine Kendall, "Russian spies? Cambridge defectors?" Col. Reece, "Political assassinations? Libya? At least there was some dignity in that."

Can I have two hours of my life back, please?

[wadsy333 · 1/10 · 6 August 2011]

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.

Updated version of a classic Christie novel.

[louiseculmer · 8/10 · 16 August 2017]

Beautiful Rosemary Barton , wife of wealthy George Barton, dies by poison at a dinner party, and as one of the guests is a government minister who was having an affair with Rosemary, Colonel Geoffrey Reece (Oliver Ford Davies) and his wife Dr Catherine Kendall (Pauline Collins) are called on to solve the mystery. Although some of the characters are very different from the ones in the book, the basic plot remains the same, as does the identity of the murderer. The detectives, Reece and Kendall, have replaced the novel's Colonel Race (contrary to what another reviewer seems to think, Sparkling Cyanide is not a Poirot novel) but I didn't mind that as I found their characters very entertaining, rather reminiscent of the elderly Tommy and Tuppence, especially as their children are, like Tommy and Tuppence's offspring, unaware of the exciting activities of their parents. I would have liked to see them in some more adventures. I suppose it's too late now for a spin off series.

A disappointing adaptation

[len74-796-648813 · 2/10 · 7 April 2019]

Pauline Collins & Oliver Ford Davies are unconvincing as a couple. There's no personal chemistry between them. They have more of a working relationship than a personal one. The "technology" used is questionable & an unnecessary addition to the tale. The majority of acting was forced & wooden & there were a lot of unnecessary filler scenes that did nothing to enhance the flow. I love Agatha Christie & was really disappointed by this version.

Only Pauline and Oliver halfway save this film

[binapiraeus · 5/10 · 22 August 2017]

This is no doubt one of the most disastrous Agatha Christie adaptations ever made. Just like the 1980s' US TV movies ("Murder in Three Acts" and "Murder Is Easy" were the worst examples), it simply 'adapts' the action, the characters and everything else to the present, including the most hideous hairstyles and clothes. Not one bit of love or even respect for the First Lady of Crime shows throughout, and there's not even any suspense to speak of - in a murder mystery, if you please! The only ones who make something halfway decent out of this film are the protagonists, Pauline Collins and Oliver Ford Davies - it takes really great actors to deliver such performances in a film like this.

As far away from sparkling as you could possibly go

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 3 February 2013]

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

Ignore the "Agatha Christie" part in the title

[melee3 · 5/10 · 5 August 2021]

Just know that this is "based on" an Agatha Christie story, but without the "sparkle" of a real Christie story. Colonel Race is such an interesting character in her books and I can see him being like he was portrayed in this movie, I just wish it hadn't been quite so silly and poorly executed. And why in the world a nude scene had to be thrown in for absolutely no reason is beyond me. What was the purpose of showing Iris throwing off her robe to get into the shower? Just for some titillation? Definitely took a star off for that.

Deliciously Evil

[sexy_pisces_gal · 10/10 · 1 July 2005]

Pauline Collins, Oliver Ford Davies head an all star cast as the husband and wife secret service agents, including Jonathon Firth and Susan Hampshire in this classy adaptation of the 1983 smash.

When the beautiful and wealthy Rosemary Barton (Rachel Shelley) is poisoned with Potassium Cyanide in her glass of champagne at posh nightclub among friends, it seems as if no one had the opportunity, or the motive to do the deed. Which leads the couple to consider the history of suicide. As the ageing detectives uncover a secret affair with a government minister (James Wilby) a secret abortion, two scorned women (Lia Williams, Clare Holman) and a sister, (Chloe Howman) who stands to inherit her fortune. The wise Doctor and the gruff and grumpy Colonel realise they are dealing with a dangerous and psychotic killer and must work around the clock, and rely on some unorthodox methods to reveal their identity.

When Rosemary's much older and much wealthier husband, (Kenneth Cranham) is also murdered in the same circumstances, the detectives are set on a different track for the motive for the killings. With potential embarrassment for the government looming the detectives must face a race against time to prevent the killer killing a third time.

one to avoid if you want to see Poirot and "ze leetle grey cells" at work

[NineLivesBurra · 2/10 · 28 May 2011]

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.

Pass the Cyanide, Please

[frieda-92366 · 5/10 · 18 March 2024]

Halfway through this mess, I took a moment to read the reviews. Because I wondered if I had misunderstood who had authored the story. Surely it wasn't A. Christie. I have read most of her work and seen dozens of adaptations, and this lackluster flavorless version certainly did her no credit. What is lacking is: the story. There is too much emphasis on grousing old men and totally unconvincing spies and women in their underwear. It doesn't hold together. With such a great cast, I thought how can it NOT be at least entertaining for 90 minutes. But weaving through unlikely affairs and abortions and what could not possibly pass for political intrigue (even in the capable hands of Pauline Collins & Oliver Ford Davies) left me with no appetite for more by the time the second party fare was laid out. I'm going to go back, read the book, and see what Christie's story was really about. Because I don't see how this could be it.

A most unusual elderly couple try to solve this mystery.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 6 March 2024]

George and Rosemary Barton are a couple of elderly secret agents! Well, their job would appear to be working with MI-5 (the British version of the FBI), though exactly which government agency they work for is a mystery. Whatever the case, the pair are asked to investigate a sudden death. Why is this so important to the government? Well, one of the suspects is a government minister and another is an incredibly rich and powerful man.

As to the death, it appeared to be a poisoning, as when a group of folks were making a toast at a party, the lady died almost instantly after she drank her champaign.

This is a very enjoyable made for TV movie based on an Agatha Christie novel. The mystery is good and mysterious and the couple investigating the case were a lot of fun. Well worth seeing and one that keeps you guessing.