Taraparain
Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.
Jonah Abbott
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
Billy Ollie
Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
binapiraeus
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.
louiseculmer
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.
NineLivesBurra
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.
lucy-19
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).
