Meurtre au champagne

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).

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 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".

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.

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.