Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar

It has all the trappings of a pretty period drama, and it probably wasn't cheap to make, but the plot and the dialogue are absolute drivel. Jonah Hauer-King is a tasty piece of eye-candy but ogling him is the only pleasure to be had from wasting your time with this.

I couldn't help but think of the many Poirot movies set in the middle east. Those were imbued with sound, heat, mystery, etc. Of these exotic locations. Poirot always insistent on pursuing his british/belgium idiosyncrasies while trying to enjoy his "vacations " which was always interrupted by a wonderful murder. (See Death on the Nile).

This is the complete opposite. The first part of the movie focuses on christie trying to imbue her novels with "romance." She is encouraged by new friends to go to Iraq, and it is downhill from there. The Christie actress is bland, the murder of someone is not clear...apparently the monkey imbibed the poison.. The rest of the ensemble (except for young Max) is boring and unforgettable. Even the scenery is dusty and boring. There didn't seem to be any music or sound effects to heighten our attention to murders or significant scenes.

Watch the first of these Christie driven movies. The one that depicts Christie when she disappeared for a few weeks, made a couple of years back. That actress successfully depicted Agatha as a serious author, but with a lovely sparkle underneath. There is no sparkle here.

Her fictional works are do much more interesting than this. I find her to be most annoying especially with her deliberate lack of sharing her thoughts, for 'dramatic effect'. Give me Ms Marple anytime.

Lyndsey Marshal has a history with Agatha Christie adaptations and I believe she was a good fit for the character of Agatha in this film. However the character itself was a bit too bland. Also the story was showing random people getting killed without telling us anything about them. Agatha's lack of emoting combined with the overall care free reaction to murder of just about everybody made the film feel implausible.

Now, the acting was decent for all, without it being stellar in any way, but it was really difficult to empathize with any of the characters or feel for the history or culture of Iraq. And to top it all off, they added the artificial character of Pearl, whose only reason for existence seemed to be being an educated and attractive Black young woman who had a few scenes to complain about not being taken seriously, then proceed to be irrelevant to the story.

Bottom line: the storytelling felt amateurish and failed to compel me in any way. Too bad, because the acting was good.

Channel 5 make another original Agatha Christie mystery movie featuring Agatha Christie turned crime investigator. This way they do not have to deal with any copyright issues relating to Marple or Poirot.

Agatha Christie (Lyndsey Marshal) has divorced her husband and gone to an Iraqi archaeological site to seek inspiration to write romance stories.

Instead she finds love with a younger man. Max Mallowan (Jonah Hauer-King) an archaeological assistant is found by Christie after he is shot. The real life Mallowan actually ended up marrying Christie.

Christie also stumbles into murder then a monkey who has been poisoned and later found hanged.

Of course this could easily be a Poirot mystery. The desert, Babylonian artefacts being looted, a tablet containing a curse, an arrogant American tycoon and oodles of death, but that character is under copyright.

So Christie and Mallowan try to unearth the killer and also find time for some hanky panky. At times it comes across as Carry on Follow that Camel with a randy couple on the excavation site and some double entendres.

This looks more expensive than last year's Agatha and the Truth of Murder. It has been filmed in Malta. It was also more playful and lighter in tone in than the previous movie. I am not convinced that it actually made it a better film. I think Marshal fitted the part better than the previous actress.