In the small pantheon of "movies made-for-TV, based-on-Agatha-Christie-novels, but-not-featuring-any-of-her-famous-detectives", "Sparkling Cyanide" is well ahead of "Murder is Easy", and although "The Man in the Brown Suit" has higher production values, "Cyanide" has a more engaging story. Some people have complained about the updating to the 80's, but frankly, unlike "Murder is Easy", which clumsily tried to incorporate computers into the plot, there is very little in this story that would have happened differently if it was set a few decades earlier. The direction is unobtrusive, allowing for the story and the actors to drive the film, which they do: there are plenty of suspects and red herrings, and the two leads, Anthony Andrews and Deborah Raffin, get an unforced chemistry going. Raffin is a sweet, adorable actress with a lovely smile, and I'm surprised that I'm not more familiar with her. There are some striking similarities between "Sparkling Cyanide" and "Yellow Iris", an AC short story that was adapted in a 50-minute episode of the "Poirot" series with David Suchet. The method of the murder(s) is pretty much the same, but (thankfully) the culprit(s) are different. One omission in the film is that they never fully explain how exactly the first murder was executed. But on the whole, a good offering for mystery fans. (***)
19 Reviews
Quite good
TheLittleSongbird8 March 2011
I am a fan of Agatha Christie, and I quite enjoyed Sparkling Cyanide. The 80s updating aside, the story and dialogue is fairly faithful. The locations/sets are really quite nice and the photography is good enough. Some of the hairstyles, make-up and fashions are on the tacky side, but I can live with that, if anything it added to Sparkling Cyanide's fun.
The story is intact and very interesting to watch, the final solution I feel could have been developed a little more though and could have done with being less rushed. When it comes to the pace, it probably doesn't help that the film is perhaps too short, but some of it felt a little rushed, while some of the direction is flat and the music is annoying overdoing it with the jauntiness. Although there is a bit of cheese in abundance, the dialogue is entertaining and sticks well to the story.
The acting is nothing exceptional, but it is serviceable enough. Deborah Raffin comes off best, I'd say the way her character is written and explored- she is very spunky here- is a marginal improvement over the source material, and Raffin is very good indeed. Anthony Andrews is dashing and likable and seems to be having fun.
Overall, quite good, nothing special but watchable. 6/10 Bethany Cox
The story is intact and very interesting to watch, the final solution I feel could have been developed a little more though and could have done with being less rushed. When it comes to the pace, it probably doesn't help that the film is perhaps too short, but some of it felt a little rushed, while some of the direction is flat and the music is annoying overdoing it with the jauntiness. Although there is a bit of cheese in abundance, the dialogue is entertaining and sticks well to the story.
The acting is nothing exceptional, but it is serviceable enough. Deborah Raffin comes off best, I'd say the way her character is written and explored- she is very spunky here- is a marginal improvement over the source material, and Raffin is very good indeed. Anthony Andrews is dashing and likable and seems to be having fun.
Overall, quite good, nothing special but watchable. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Who thinks he's Hercule Poirot
bkoganbing20 November 2014
I saw some criticisms over at YouTube from Agatha Christie purists who resented the American location of this made for television film. I also believe that Christie novels should always be in their original settings, but this was an all right production. And Anthony Andrews as the lead sleuth in Sparkling Cyanide is as English as you can get.
Andrews is hobnobbing with the rich and somewhat famous and strikes up an acquaintance with Deborah Raffin who is visiting her sister Christine Belford who is currently married to Josef Sommer, but deep in an affair with the married David Huffman. I've already given a few reasons for a murder and others come out during the investigation by LAPD homicide detective Harry Morgan.
Belford is victim number one as she drinks some champagne laced with cyanide at a dinner party. Later on Sommer who thinks he's Hercule Poirot gathers all the suspects together at a duplication of the same dinner party and he gets the cyanide champagne as well.
A matter as simple as the seating arrangements provides the solution.
I'm sure the original English version is better, but this certainly will do for less fussy Christie fans.
Andrews is hobnobbing with the rich and somewhat famous and strikes up an acquaintance with Deborah Raffin who is visiting her sister Christine Belford who is currently married to Josef Sommer, but deep in an affair with the married David Huffman. I've already given a few reasons for a murder and others come out during the investigation by LAPD homicide detective Harry Morgan.
Belford is victim number one as she drinks some champagne laced with cyanide at a dinner party. Later on Sommer who thinks he's Hercule Poirot gathers all the suspects together at a duplication of the same dinner party and he gets the cyanide champagne as well.
A matter as simple as the seating arrangements provides the solution.
I'm sure the original English version is better, but this certainly will do for less fussy Christie fans.
Christie in the '80s?
AlAnn7 August 2000
This was fun to watch, mainly because of people like Anthony Andrews whom I feel I don't see enough at best. I think it would have been far more entertaining and taken more seriously, had it not been billed as "Agatha Christie". One look at the scenery, sets, and costumes tells us that it was not set in Christie's originally-intended places nor at the times she knew. When movie-makers start toying with the author's intent, the result is questionable and sometimes disastrous. Because the cast was good, this one was not disastrous, but definitely questionable; if we tune in for a good old-fashioned Christie, we'll be disappointed because this clearly isn't it! If we view it just on its own, and don't think of it as Christie, we'll have a better chance of enjoying it on its own merit. I think it's worth a couple of hours of viewing, but I'd also recommend reading the book and trying to find a version that's truer to the original.
Very enjoyable mystery
coltras3531 July 2021
Rosemary Barton takes one sip of champagne at her wedding anniversary dinner party and then suddenly collapses dead. "Cyanide poison", the doctor exclaims. Was it suicide or murder? Rosemary certainly had her fair share of enemies. Her husband George believes it to be murder and so he gathers together the same dinner guests and recreates the party, hoping to add a surprise guest to bring the killer out in the open. Unfortunately, poor George also gets a taste of poisoned champagne and ends up taking a trip to the morgue. It is then left to Rosemary's sister Iris and private investigator Tony Browne to solve the mystery.
The suave Anthony Andrew lends a lot of charm as the sleuth who is out to catch the poisoner, and of course romances Deborah Raffin at the same time. Sparkling Cyanide might not be set in England, and of course it plays more like a soap opera, but nevertheless very enjoyable, light, brisk and there's a sense of clarity and simplicity in the execution of the story and the mystery.
The suave Anthony Andrew lends a lot of charm as the sleuth who is out to catch the poisoner, and of course romances Deborah Raffin at the same time. Sparkling Cyanide might not be set in England, and of course it plays more like a soap opera, but nevertheless very enjoyable, light, brisk and there's a sense of clarity and simplicity in the execution of the story and the mystery.
It's a decent film.
Sleepin_Dragon10 March 2016
Sparkling Cyanide was a definite favourite as a youngster, and it still holds up well today, yes the hair and makeup are very 1983, there are mullets, rouged cheekbones and printed dresses galore, but they all add to the charm of the film.
The book is rather good, it's a cleverly written story, and the changes that were made to the film actually help with the setting. A time when American producers believed anyone English needed an RP accent.
The acting is a little shaky at times. Anthony Andrews is rather good, wonderfully English. For years I was told Aunt Lucilla was a man, you'll believe most things as a child!
All in all it's a fun film, definitely better then the stale remake! For the ultimate version of this story you have to check out Poirot's Yellow Iris.
7/10
The book is rather good, it's a cleverly written story, and the changes that were made to the film actually help with the setting. A time when American producers believed anyone English needed an RP accent.
The acting is a little shaky at times. Anthony Andrews is rather good, wonderfully English. For years I was told Aunt Lucilla was a man, you'll believe most things as a child!
All in all it's a fun film, definitely better then the stale remake! For the ultimate version of this story you have to check out Poirot's Yellow Iris.
7/10
Not bad to kill a couple of hours..........
musicmike70220 April 2008
......but, wow, are there any movies or TV shows that are more dated nowadays(in 2008) than movies made in the 80's? Dated hair, clothing, home furnishings...I was cringing at the bad hairstyles and clothes in this movie. It truly has little to do with Agatha Christie but the title and while it wasn't bad to watch, I just can't figure out why the producers had to transport it to Pasadena in the early 80's. Was it cheaper to film? What it reminded me of was an episode of Murder She Wrote, with the same types of actors etc. I've read lots of Agatha Christie's writing although I have to admit it's been a while and I'm sure this would have been a better movie with more period correct settings. It was nice to see Deborah Raffin, though--she did some great work in her career and I'm sad not to see her doing much acting lately.
Cyanide in the eighties
Iain-21513 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Like most of the TV movies made from Agatha Christie's books in the eighties, this one is remarkably faithful to the source material. All the names and relationships are unchanged (I think) - they even include Sandra's parents and make them just like their literary counterparts. Yes it is updated to the eighties and yes it is re-set in America but really, apart from that, it's almost word for word from the book. The character of Iris is rather more worldly and 'spunky' than she is in the book and Deborah Raffin plays her very winningly I think. I always find that Anthony Andrews plays pretty much everything he does exactly the same and his role here as Tony Browne is no different - he's suave, charming, cheeky and rather irritating! The other players all do very well and all in all the story is very well served.
A few points knocked off because one can't escape the 'cheese' of the eighties TV movie and it's accompanying terrible music.
A few points knocked off because one can't escape the 'cheese' of the eighties TV movie and it's accompanying terrible music.
Poor dramatisation of a worthy novel
ce8ctdow4 November 2006
Dire. Eighties TV at its worst.
Anthony Andrews oozes smarm, thank goodness he turned down the role of Remington Steele. Frankly you'd want to give him a good slap. Pamela Bellwood could have been back on the Dynasty set. Its all big hair, big shoulder pads and industrial quantities of make-up. Harry Morgan is the best actor on set but this drama shows him going through the motions, he is worthy of far, far meatier material.
Christie deserves better, TV companies have done justice to her other period novels by setting them when they were written, why have none of them done so with Cyanide? Life is too short, read the book instead.
Anthony Andrews oozes smarm, thank goodness he turned down the role of Remington Steele. Frankly you'd want to give him a good slap. Pamela Bellwood could have been back on the Dynasty set. Its all big hair, big shoulder pads and industrial quantities of make-up. Harry Morgan is the best actor on set but this drama shows him going through the motions, he is worthy of far, far meatier material.
Christie deserves better, TV companies have done justice to her other period novels by setting them when they were written, why have none of them done so with Cyanide? Life is too short, read the book instead.
Agatha Christie's low standard picture!!!
elo-equipamentos5 February 2019
Often the immortal Agatha Christie's novels were adaptated to big screen in successfully, not this one without a propper Poirot this picture drifts and reach nowhere, the lack of a true star to hold the story and too many characters inflate the plot of useless way, the leading character Anthony Andrews doesn't delivery what we'd expected, and his romantic pair, the skinny Deborah Raffin was another bad choice, thereby the picture was a flop, as Agatha's trademark there are an endless of fake clues around to puzzle us, still a bit enjoyable for a movie mystery, but certainly our Agatha roll over in his tomb after that!!!
Resume:
First watch: 1991 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6
Resume:
First watch: 1991 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6
Everyone of the characters listed are not the ones that were the original players.
sheliawells8253 April 2021
I would have given this 10 stars, but putting the wrong list of actors in this movie was totally blindsided. I recognized several of the actors, such as Alexander Lawrence, played by Clare Holman, and Colonel Geoffrey Reece, played by actor Oliver Ford Davies were not listed. That should not have been a big oversight on any one director/producer. All of the actors are incorrectly listed...
Murder She Wrote meets Dynasty
ceciliawinterhalder1 March 2021
Was this totally 80s cheese? Absolutely. Did I live it? Yes. Was it the best movie? No. But as someone who's late Mother loved the aforementioned Murder She Wrote and Agatha Christie, it was our fun. One of many things I watched over the last few days recovering from surgery. I watched a few times, as I always miss stuff the first time or 2. I loved Tony's character and Nancy Marchaund.... perfect. Those facial expressions. I couldn't help think Sondra reminded me if Princesses Diana, especially at Steven's political speech in the fashionable blue hat and her sad looks....it was the same time Diana's popularity was flourishing. But the biggest star was the fashion. It was nominated for an Emmy Award for fashion design. Oh the sequins and shoulder pads and hairspray.
I do have to mention the main reason I rented thus film in the first place was David Huffman (Stephen). I recently discovered him while binge watching, of all things, Little House on the Prairie. I googled him and found many things he was in as well as the fact that he was murdered at the age of 39...So sad. May he RIP. His character wasn't the best, but his handsomeness is on full display. I would recommend this film to anyone who wants to forgot everything going on and enjoy back campy mystery.
I thought this was fun
Movie_Man 5007 January 2002
Yeh, I know it's set in the 80's instead of the 40's or 50's but this wasn't that bad. In fact, some parts improved on the book. The narration in the book is a little over heated. Has a nice twist ending that unless you read the novel you won't see coming. A definite guilty pleasure indulgence. Come on, admit it, cheese like this is entertaining.
80's tack but great for Anthony Andrews fans
suewhitfield4 November 2006
I'm only giving this 10 because I love Anthony Andrews. And Colonel Potter from MASH is in this too! Hurrah!
It's a typical 80's murder-mystery. Fun, tacky, full of shoulder pads and bad hair. But Anthony Andrews looks as lovely as ever. So....what's a girl to do?
The plot isn't blindingly obvious which is good. I'm not sure the transfer of events from England to the US really works, but I'm sure they had good commercial reasons for doing so. If you're a fan of the 80s you'll love it. There's even an actress from Dallas in there! It's pure eighties-fest and if you like Anthony Andrews and heavy eye makeup you'll love it!!
It's a typical 80's murder-mystery. Fun, tacky, full of shoulder pads and bad hair. But Anthony Andrews looks as lovely as ever. So....what's a girl to do?
The plot isn't blindingly obvious which is good. I'm not sure the transfer of events from England to the US really works, but I'm sure they had good commercial reasons for doing so. If you're a fan of the 80s you'll love it. There's even an actress from Dallas in there! It's pure eighties-fest and if you like Anthony Andrews and heavy eye makeup you'll love it!!
A work of Sue Grafton, not Agatha Christie
jaybabb30 April 2000
This is an enjoyable film...good fluff-that's about it. I don't think the writers of the script understand what Agatha Christie had in mind. I read quite a few of her novels-and I wonder if Agatha Christie's name should be taken off the title of this film. Let's call it "Sue Grafton's Sparkling cyanide"
Sue Grafton is a great writer-her novels are always best sellers, but-no female mystery writer has ever captured the time and place settings, not to mention the scene of the crime as has Agatha Christie.
I like this film, though-but it's no Agatha Christie. I like Anthony Andrews-at least they put a British actor in this film. No matter how you slice it-in order to get the feel of what Agatha Christie put into the story-you need to read "Agatha Christie's Sparkling Cyanide" Before you bother seeing "Sue Grafton's Sparkling cyanide"
Sue Grafton is a great writer-her novels are always best sellers, but-no female mystery writer has ever captured the time and place settings, not to mention the scene of the crime as has Agatha Christie.
I like this film, though-but it's no Agatha Christie. I like Anthony Andrews-at least they put a British actor in this film. No matter how you slice it-in order to get the feel of what Agatha Christie put into the story-you need to read "Agatha Christie's Sparkling Cyanide" Before you bother seeing "Sue Grafton's Sparkling cyanide"
A Mystery From a Purse Knocked Off a Table
richard.fuller111 April 2004
No, I have not read the book, nor read any Agatha Christie (when so many of them are done into movies? Why read?) but I would see this one on the telly years ago and I guess I strived to actually solve it to see how intelligent I was and there was no way I would have guessed the ending.
Now I don't know how it occurred in the book, but the little glitch in this movie with Nancy Marchand being the last person to leave the dinner table was about the most remarkable plot twist I have ever seen.
I really didn't follow how it could be recreated with Anthony Andrews changing his seat toward the end with only two other people, but the main dinner table scene, actually I think it was the second murder, totally blew me away.
I could have stood to watch it become a stronger focus of the story actually.
Yes, the movie is updated, very eighties. Truthfully I think I would rather have seen this story done in the thirties or forties, but if this stands as the only available imagery of this story available (apparently there was one made in 2003. I wonder if that one was any good.) then it is worth checking out if you aren't a diehard Christie fan and just like to watch a decent mystery.
It definitely was a different mystery, that's for sure.
Now I don't know how it occurred in the book, but the little glitch in this movie with Nancy Marchand being the last person to leave the dinner table was about the most remarkable plot twist I have ever seen.
I really didn't follow how it could be recreated with Anthony Andrews changing his seat toward the end with only two other people, but the main dinner table scene, actually I think it was the second murder, totally blew me away.
I could have stood to watch it become a stronger focus of the story actually.
Yes, the movie is updated, very eighties. Truthfully I think I would rather have seen this story done in the thirties or forties, but if this stands as the only available imagery of this story available (apparently there was one made in 2003. I wonder if that one was any good.) then it is worth checking out if you aren't a diehard Christie fan and just like to watch a decent mystery.
It definitely was a different mystery, that's for sure.
Anthony Andrews was Hilarious!
ldinkins8 November 1999
OK, I may be biased, because I would watch Anthony Andrews read from the phone book. I thought the film was a nice bit of 80s fluff. I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to how far it ventured away from the author's intention, but it is a nice way to spend a couple of hours. No, you won't find this on PBS' Mystery! series, but its a cute little made for TV mystery. And Anthony Andrews' droll delivery is well worth the price!
A bland wallow
lucy-6612 November 2001
If you want to wallow in 80s blandness, dive into this movie. An updated Christie that already looks extremely dated. The hair! The make-up! And above all the cloooooothes! The heroine plays her big scene in a .... white crocheted top!!!!! One of the actors is Pamela Bellwood from Dynasty - get the picture? The climactic scenes are set in a cheesy restaurant with a tacky floorshow (I'd love to see the menu), and everybody's bedroom looks like a hotel suite. Actually, all involved do a good workmanlike job of telling the story and there's not a little humour provided by the likes of Aunt Lucilla and the tarty girl who's taken up painting by numbers. Will we ever wear scarlet sequins and navy eyeshadow again? xxxxxxxxx
No match to the novel.
MrGreen171 October 1999
This rather poor video was a cheap make of the excellent novel by Dame Agatha Christie. It was updated to match the current time period when the film was made, and therefore, was too modernized for my taste. If you do watch it, don't let it alter your opinion of the book if you haven't yet read it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
