Add a Review

  • Shown recently as part of an ITV3 season of films to do with Agatha Christie I really shouldn't be surprised by the quality of this documentary because this is the same channel that has given us the mostly terrible Marple series of films. The title is the first clue that this is a desperately populist film that is more about trying to liven it up than it is do a good job as a documentary. Thus we have three experts made to sit in a darkened room pretending to work on computers while a woman brings them files. It is a silly effect and it does feel rather pointless.

    There is some value in the computer analysis of Christie's writing style but dressing it all up like this just devalues it because it is all a bit, well, "w*nky"! The contributors do mostly talk about the subject in knowledgeable and interesting but the film never lets it get away from being presented as something all very mysterious and special that requires people in dark rooms working with computers to get to the bottom of it. This leaves the film exposed because the material isn't there to support this approach and I must admit that it all ended up feeling a bit silly. It would have been much better to have presented a straight documentary on Christie's style and leave out all the nonsense in the presentation and delivery.

    It doesn't help that Lumley narrates as if she was doing a documentary on the most shadowy, sinister and important period of history – she is a big part of the film leaning this way. A poor documentary then that puts more effort into creating a ridiculous air of tension and mystery rather than just delivering an interesting discussion of the style and popularity of Christie's writing.
  • Is there a code? Perhaps, but these people certainly have not discovered it. I've never seen such a load of hogwash in my life, complete rubbish. Not one shred of sense or scientific method. I'm astonished that this film was allowed to be made. These people are shameless.
  • drednm22 October 2021
    Overhyped nonsense.

    You won't learn a thing from this drivel. Suchet swans about with a couple of writers and a gardener as they babble on about Christie without adding a penny's worth of information to what we already know.

    The photo of the 4- or 5-year-old girl with a dog is clearly closer to 10. The handwritten stuff from a 4- or 5-year-old girl clearly is not from a kid of that age. It's all faked.

    The visit to the artist who never met Christie is a waste of time.

    They gloss over her work as a chemist's assistant and use of poisons in her books. THAT might have been interesting, but instead they visit a gardener who yaps on about peach and cherry pits. And? The connection to Christie is what?

    Basically this ends up as a travelogue ... and a boring one at that.