Waste of time

From my favorite movies..

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

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.

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.

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.