Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar 2019 is a mystery novel written by S. J. Bolton. The novel was published in 2018 and quickly gained popularity among readers, particularly those who enjoy crime and mystery genres. The story revolves around Agatha, a British archaeologist who finds herself entangled in a dangerous plot while excavating in Iraq. The novel begins with Agatha receiving a mysterious package containing an ancient artifact from the city of Ishtar.

Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar

Агата и проклятие Иштар, 阿加莎与伊什塔尔的诅咒, Η Άγκαθα Κρίστι και η Κατάρα του Ιστάρ, Agatha e a Maldição de Ishtar, Agatha y la maldición de Ishtar, Agathas gåta - Ishtars förbannelse, Agatha e la Maledizione di Ishtar, La reine du crime présente : La Malédiction d'Ishta‪r‬, 애거사와 이슈타르의 저주, Agatha i klątwa Isztar, Agatha a prokletí bohyně Ištar, Agatha a prekliatie bohyne Ištar, Agata ir Ištarės prakeiksmas, Agatha és Ishtar átka, Agata Kristi un Ištaras lāsts, 阿嘉莎與伊絲塔的詛咒

Genre

Releases by Date

Theatrical

15 Dec 2019

• Spain
• USA PG-13

03 Jan 2021

• Russian Federation

Digital

25 Mar 2021

TV

15 Dec 2019

Releases by Country

France

25 Mar 2021

Russian Federation

03 Jan 2021

• Theatrical

Spain

15 Dec 2019

• Theatrical

UK

15 Dec 2019

• TV Channel 5

USA

15 Dec 2019

• Theatrical PG-13

The novel begins with Agatha receiving a mysterious package containing an ancient artifact from the city of Ishtar. Intrigued by the history and significance of the artifact, she decides to embark on a journey to Iraq to learn more about it. Little does she know, this decision will lead her on a thrilling and perilous adventure.

Popular reviews

"Why would anyone poison and then hang a monkey?"
"Perhaps the monkey saw something?" Sequel to last year's Agatha and the Truth of Murder, but with Lyndsey Marshal replacing Ruth Bradley as the Queen of Crime turned real-life sleuth, this time solving a mystery that arises from a murdered monkey and finding romance in Iraq with toy-boy and future hubby Max, played by Jonah Hauer-King. Both are quite charming and it's nice to see the relationship of an intelligent older woman and a less intelligent younger man play out, but the screenplay by Tom Dalton (writer of the first film) is pretty risible; it's style is very much of the afternoon mystery drama series Father Brown (indeed Jack Deam who…

Ouin, ben, grosse semaine de cinéma qui s'achève. [Spoilers, I guess, mais je ne dis pas de noms d'assassin(s), je fais juste révéler un défaut dans l'intrigue] Aussi c'est jamais une bonne idée, dans ton whodunit, de faire en sorte que tous les personnages qui n'ont pas historiquement existé (et desquels on peut présumer qu'ils sont innocents car personne n'aurait toléré que la réputation respectable de ses grands-parents ou arrière-grands-parents soit entachée dans une fiction mettant en scène Agatha Christie, tel Max Mallowan qu'elle allait épouser deux ans plus tard, ainsi que Leonard et Katharine Woolley, au travers lesquels Agatha a rencontré Max et qui conduisaient réellement des fouilles archéologiques) soient impliqués de près ou de loin, et à différents…

Teresa Reviews “Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar” (2019)

Max is real, the Woolleys are real, the timeline’s close, and England had compelling reasons to exploit Middle Eastern oil reserves.

Quality of movie on its own: 2½ hatchets

So many failed opportunities and unanswered questions, yet surprisingly funny.

Also, follow Teresa’s discussion of these movie on her podcast.

This is a weird movie. It can’t decide if it wants to be a sex comedy, a second-chance-at-love romance, a mystery, or an examination of British realpolitik over vital resources. There’s also some sexism in the archeological biz and appropriation of native cultural goods being shipped off to British museums instead of remaining in the originating country’s own museums.

A conductor quizzes Agatha about her purpose in Iraq. That’s a lot to pack into 95 minutes. Wait! There’s also animal cruelty so be forewarned. Although according to everyone but Katherine Woolley, Ella the monkey was a vicious, flea-ridden pest and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Plus, a touch of Grand Guignol here and there.

Does this mashup work? Not really. The tone is wildly uneven and the bizarre, tinkling piano background music doesn’t help.

Let’s begin by examining what’s real. Agatha’s divorce from Archie became final in October 1928. Archie married Nancy Neele one week later. Agatha was struggling to rebuild her life, get back to writing, and had ideas for books other than mysteries. Those ideas eventually became her six Mary Westmacott novels, published between 1930 and 1956.

Max Mallowan outhunks Indiana Jones. In late 1928, she rode the Orient Express to Istanbul where she was introduced to archaeologists Leonard and Katherine Woolley. They invited her to return and visit their dig in 1930. That’s when she met Max Mallowan, 13 years her junior. He was not investigating the theft of stolen relics and never a target for murder. He was instantly attracted to Agatha but she was more hesitant because of their age gap.

The red-hot Woolleys The Woolleys did not have a noisy, red-hot, sheet-scorching sex life. Apparently, their marriage was never consummated, due to Katherine’s health problems (she may have had Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, causing her to be born without a uterus). Katherine did have a reputation for being forthright, charming, difficult, dangerous, and manipulative. She’s the model for Lovely Louise Leidner, the victim (because she had it coming) in Murder In Mesopotamia (1936).

The Woolleys did major excavations at Ur in Iraq. The British had a strong presence there, having essentially squeezed a number of disparate, smaller states into one, larger, restive country they administered. The British government knew there was oil under the sand and they wanted it to fuel British warships and industry. The British consulate was large and powerful, with fingers in many pies and deals operating within deals.

Agatha reading “Lady Into Fox” The novel Agatha is reading is real. It’s Lady Into Fox (1922) by David Garnett (1892-1981). An early fantasy novel, a young woman is transformed into a fox and tragedy ensues.

After that, well, what you see was dredged up from the sand. If you’re thinking this film is accurate, maybe it is but only for a parallel universe about six or seven universes away from our own.

For example: Agatha might have enjoyed noisy, red-hot, scorched-sheet sex with Max but she would have never discussed it with anyone. As a well-bred Victorian lady, she wouldn’t have jumped him within a few days of meeting and inside an underground tunnel, either.

During the Great War, she didn’t work only in the hospital pharmaceutical wards. She worked in the wards, tending wounded soldiers with all the mess that entails. In her autobiography she recalls taking amputated limbs to the incinerator. You think she’d have the vapors over dissecting a monkey? And wouldn’t know the difference between a kidney and a liver? Not a chance.

There are also problems with the core mystery. There aren’t too many people involved. Obviously, Agatha, Max, and the Woolleys are not suspects. That leaves Lucy Bernard, her husband Sir Constance Bernard (the script gave him a poor first name), Marmaduke/Lord Ponsonby, Pearl Theroux, and Ezekial.

None of these people got enough screen time. Lucy’s cheating on Sir Constance but with who? Since Max is our hero, he’s off the list. Katherine’s keeping Leonard busy. That leaves Marmaduke and Ezekial. In her spare time, Lucy is also stealing the dig finds for resale on the black market.

It’s doubtful Lucy’s sneaking around with Ezekial. He’s both a native Iraqi and a representative of the native government, trying to keep an eye out for stolen antiquities. Marmaduke is the only man standing. I’m assuming that’s how Agatha worked it out but she never explains her reasoning. We never see a single scene where Lucy and Marmaduke even speak to each other so how did she know?

How did Marmaduke, an American, become Lord Ponsonby and the financier behind the dig? There should have been more explanation, maybe involving Lucy so we could accept they were having an affair and not just because of process of elimination.

Pearl Theroux talks about her troubles to Agatha. Pearl Theroux — young, pretty, female, African — complains of being ill-used by Katherine. She’s relegated to being the dogsbody, doing the most menial work or so she says. But we never watch Katherine order her about, fetching tea or shawls. Like Lucy and Marmaduke, Katherine and Pearl don’t even speak to each other.

How did Ella the monkey get the strychnine? Agatha’s deduction that Ella was poisoned made sense. It’d be darned difficult to hang a monkey; the beast will bite and claw and fight and climb up the rope and throw its poo at its hangman. But taking strychnine? My first thought was Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. That monkey was poisoned because it ate poisoned dates. But we never see dates or any other toxic treat.

How did the dynamite get into the tunnel where Agatha and Max were locked in passionate embrace? Who put it there? We never find out.

What to do … In fact, there seemed to be a lot of secret tunnels. At one point, Max and an Arab digger end up in a tunnel, the Arab identifies a relic as resembling one that had already been found and suddenly, they’re surrounded by crated, stolen antiquities and there’s Max’s employer. He’s dying, supposedly bitten by a poisonous snake. In a tunnel.

There’s also the title. The Curse of Ishtar implies that there’s supernatural elements. That there’s an amulet or talisman of great power that will rain down destruction on the unworthy. There’s a big black piece of pottery that Max’s employer’s holding. Leonard reads the inscription to Agatha and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the plot at all, other than in the most metaphorical of senses.

Is the Curse of Ishtar the black, poisonous fluid seeping from the earth? Is it oil? I guess that’s what they meant. If the script wanted to make a point about money, greed, and oil combining into a toxic stew that poisons everything it touches, then it did it badly.

This should have been better. The material is there; second chance at love, naughty monkeys, imperial intrigue, adultery, and murder. The film looks good on paper but on celluloid it doesn’t amount to a hill of sand.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)

Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar review - A cut-price Christie for Christmas is still quite a treat

Agatha Christmas, more like. The Queen of Crime isn’t far behind Dickens as the most festive of authors. Despite only rarely using seasonal settings in her stories, “A Christie for Christmas” was the name given to her tradition of publishing a new novel each December for much of her career. Screen versions have also become synonymous with the holiday period, ideally suited to family viewing with a tin of Quality Street passed from lap to lap.

Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar (Channel 5) wasn’t an adaptation of one of her books - which frankly would have been preferable - but found Christie herself as the protagonist of a fresh feature-length mystery.

Without the rights to Christie’s own works, Channel 5 are pumping out a lucrative little production line of these fictionalised biographical dramas by writer Tom Dalton. The Blitz-set Agatha and the Death of X arrives in 2020, while Agatha and the Truth of Murder was the station’s top-rated show last Christmas and has already sold to 139 territories. There’s gold in that there Agatha.

This frothy, flapper-flavoured film began in winter 1928, with our heroine (a feisty yet superbly sensitive portrayal by Lyndsey Marshal) bruised by her divorce, struggling with new-found fame and contemplating swapping detective novels for romances - much to the horror of her publishers. Agatha impulsively decided to escape to Iraq to join an archaeological dig - where, naturally, she soon found herself unravelling a string of murders. Talk about a busman’s holiday.

In the process, she teamed up with idealistic young treasure-hunter Max Mallowan (Jonah Hauer-King), who helped her crack the case while flirting incessantly. The couple fell into a sweetly hesitant love affair and, despite the 14-year age gap, would later marry happily in real life. Christie contentedly called them “companion dogs”, which always struck me as rather lovely.

Working out whodunit turned into the usual country house parlour game, only this time relocated to a stucco-walled colonial lodge. This was a tangled web of jealous rivals, looted antiquities, oil fields and corrupt diplomats. While wily Agatha and winsome Max “followed the clues” (and snogged in Babylonian tombs), the body count mounted. Even a pet ape was murdered. Monkey business was afoot.

Marshall made a hugely likeable Christie and had sparky, screwball-style chemistry with Hauer-King, who is carving out a niche as the dashing but kind-hearted hero of period romps after similar roles in Howards End, Little Women and World On Fire. He must have a face that says retro romance and a body that suits breeches.

This fictionalised tale played fast and loose with history. The script’s swearing and more racy scenes - notably the Carry On-style antics of a sexually voracious ex-pat couple and Christie initiating congress in the catacombs (what would Miss Marple say?) - felt gratuitously crowbarred in to spice things up for contemporary audiences.

Such anachronisms were offset by plentiful playful references to Christie’s life and works. The narrative nodded to her novels Murder in Mesopotamia and They Came to Baghdad. This Agatha journeyed east on the Orient Express, which doubtless inspired another idea, and ultimately decided to publish her passionate prose under the pen name Mary Westmacott, under which Christie really did release romantic novels.

Hercule Poirot was never mentioned by name, just as “our Belgian friend”, “the fat little detective” and “an asexual reasoning machine”. Charmed, madame, I’m sure. When Agatha kept her counsel, Max exclaimed in frustration: “It’s like you deliberately hold back information for maximum dramatic effect.” Well, quite.

She was even shown sending a telegram to fellow crime writer (and qualified doctor) Arthur Conan Doyle to ask his advice on poisons. Christie would later acquire her own expertise by working in a hospital pharmacy during the Second World War, putting her knowledge to good use in her later novels.

It was a neat and jolly enough premise but sadly, the ideas were superior to their execution. Christie’s deceptively clever plotting is precision-tooled and this pastiche, perhaps inevitably, felt like a pale imitation. Several characters didn’t ring true, narrative twists didn’t convince and the rushed resolution didn’t entirely hang together. This Christie copycat was far inferior to the real deal.

Still, it was undemandingly cosy, middlebrow fare, reminiscent of Midsomer Murders with sand between its toes or a period Death In Paradise. And after another tumultuous week out there in the real world, who wouldn’t want that of a pre-Christmas Sunday evening?

As Agatha delves deeper into her research, she discovers the existence of a curse surrounding the artifact. According to local legends, anyone who possesses the artifact will be cursed with misfortune, illness, and even death. Determined to uncover the truth, Agatha disregards the warnings and continues her investigation. Throughout the story, Agatha encounters numerous obstacles and dangers, including a suspicious local guide, a powerful crime syndicate, and a series of unexplained accidents. As the plot thickens, Agatha finds herself caught in a web of deceits and treachery. With each twist and turn, she gets closer to unraveling the mystery behind the curse of Ishtar. The novel masterfully combines elements of history, archaeology, and suspense, keeping readers on the edge of their seats. Bolton's vivid descriptions and gripping narrative make it easy for readers to immerse themselves in Agatha's world and follow her every step of the way. Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar 2019 offers a unique blend of ancient legends and modern-day intrigue. It showcases the author's skill in crafting a captivating mystery, with surprises at every turn. This novel is a must-read for fans of crime fiction and those who enjoy a thrilling, fast-paced narrative. Whether you're a fan of Agatha Christie or a newcomer to the world of mysteries, Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar 2019 is sure to leave a lasting impression..

Reviews for "Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar 2019: The Perfect Game for Puzzle Enthusiasts"

1. Jane - 2 stars

I was really excited to watch "Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar" as I'm a big fan of mystery movies, but this film failed to live up to my expectations. The plot was weak and predictable, leaving no room for suspense or surprises. The characters were one-dimensional and lacked depth, making it difficult to care about their fates. The pacing was also off, with certain scenes dragging on while others felt rushed. Overall, I was left unimpressed and disappointed by this film.

2. John - 1 star

"Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar" was a complete waste of time. The acting was mediocre at best, with the actors delivering their lines without any conviction or emotion. The dialogue felt forced and unnatural, making it difficult to become invested in the story. Additionally, the cinematography was lackluster, with poorly executed shots and bland visual effects. The plot was unoriginal and lacked any real depth, making it hard to stay engaged. I would not recommend wasting your time on this film.

3. Sarah - 2 stars

As a fan of Agatha Christie's works, I was excited to see "Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar," but unfortunately, it fell flat. The writing was subpar, with weak dialogue and a predictable storyline. The characters were poorly developed, and I found it hard to connect with any of them. The pacing was inconsistent, with certain scenes dragging on for too long while others felt rushed. Overall, this movie failed to capture the essence of Agatha Christie's stories and left me feeling unsatisfied.

The Enigmatic World of Agatha and the Curse of Ishtar 2019