Meurtre au champagne

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.

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.

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.

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

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).