harryharman1996
This film is the weakest of the Harry Alan Towers' adaptations of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians". This is a shame, as it is the most recent film we have of this book, although we all pray that there will be another film in the future. Everything about this film has more weak points than strong. The casting is dull and uninteresting. The setting is bizarre. The script is slow and lacks energy. It looks, in all honesty, more like an amateur production. However, I shall go through things fairly chronologically:The setting is possibly the weirdest of any of the films. A mansion in the Swiss Alps (1965) was believable, an ornate palace in Iran (1974) was a little more difficult to comprehend, but this is beyond both. There is very little claustrophobia felt, possibly because they are pretty much always in the open air, but also because of the method of transport. In the original novel and 1945 film, the guests travel by boat across a particularly choppy sea. In the 1965 film, they travel by cable car, which is later sabotaged. The 1974 film probably has the most isolated feel, because they arrive by helicopter in the middle of nowhere. In this film, the guests arrive by foot, and, although it looks desolate and seems isolated, it doesn't look impossible for anyone to escape – it looks as though at least one person is going to manage to make a run for it. None of the characters fit into the setting, either; why the elderly Judge Wargrave and General Romensky are there is a mystery.The acting is, to put bluntly, poor. This is not necessarily the fault of the actors, as the script itself is slow and seems pregnant, as if something should be happening, but never actually does happen. By contrast, the deaths happen at lightning speed, and we rattle through the first five murders, without any deductive reasoning or hypothesising taking place in between. The acting doesn't really convince. Donald Pleasance appears less authoritative than any previous Judge Wargrave; he is bumbling, forgetful, slow, and weary, and not really very believable as a judge. Frank Stallone gives a dull, static performance as Lombard, speaking his lines as if he's reading the news. Sarah Maur Thorp is refreshing as Vera, but her overacting becomes irritating, and by the end, her high-pitch scream becomes incredibly annoying. Brenda Vacarro is a good actress, but she is let down by the fact that she is playing a bland, substanceless character, fading actress Marion Marshall. Yehuda Efroni gives a bizarre interpretation of the doctor; instead of the wise portrayals of Walter Huston and Dennis Price, he appears positively half-witted and childlike – he sulks like a schoolchild at dinner on the first night of the safari, for no reason. Herbert Lom is not given very much to do, but his exposition sequence, when he reveals to Vera his past crime, is excellent. Sadly, he dies just as we grow to like him. Warren Berlinger, like Brenda Vacarro, is given a dull character with little/no substance at all. His performance is gruff, grumbly, and inaudible. Neil McCarthy plays Anthony Marston as a foppish spoiled brat, and while his characterisation is not bad, his fast-paced music number "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" is pointless and random. Paul Smith overacts as Mr Rodgers, to the point where we don't really feel sorry for the death of his wife, played by Moira Lister. Lister's performance is screechy but entertaining, but unfortunately she does very little in the film. The past crimes are a mess. Some are not mentioned at all (judge, doctor, Lombard), and the rest are just vague. Blore's confession is quiet and muffled. Vera's crime, the best the book had to offer, is changed to a one-liner about a boy she looked after drowning. Marston mentions a couple run down by him, with no mention of him being drunk, or even the victims being young children. Marion Marshall's crime is also vague and confusing – we just hear that she pushed her lesbian lover into a swimming pool. The Rodgers' crime is, like Vera's, distorted. Rodgers mentions that they looked after a woman who died – that's it.This film takes ages to get going – we have to sit through the entire journey to the campsite, watching everyone engaging in everyday conversation, little bursts of talk followed by more scenery and elephants. Although Africa is beautiful, and elephants are quite interesting, I think it would have been better to have the focus on the characters and their backstories. Then, after so much wasted time, we suddenly get death after death after death after death after death…the whole thing is poorly paced. The scene involving the gramophone record is distorted as well. The voice is not the clear, booming voice it is in the novel, but instead a raspy, slow, accusatory sound crackling from the record player. And somehow, the person who is about to be accused next happens to utter something silly and mechanical before being named by the record.At least the ending is exciting and dramatic, unlike any previous films, but unfortunately it doesn't hold water – why did Lombard wait several minutes before bursting into the tent and saving the screaming Vera? I have read elsewhere on IMDb that there was an original script using the novel's original ending, which was binned just before production began. Where is this script? It is unlikely that we will ever know now.This film has never been released on DVD, but is available on VHS, should anyone have a VHS player. It is also currently unavailable on YouTube, despite being available just a few months ago.
bige70
I like a bit of Christie, and love a lot of old dark house mysteries, and body count films are okay too. Should'nt really be able to go wrong here! Most criticism seems to be about the change of setting to an African Safari, and I agree, this really does lose some of the creepy atmosphere, just as the 74 version did with its proximity to a desert near Istanbul (was it??? Please feel free to put me right on that.) However, Harry Alan Towers produced 3 separate versions of this tale and, whilst I agree that the 1945 Rene Clair directed version is the best hands down, for setting, for staying true to the source material, for direction, at the same time, the others can also boast some great performances from actors you have just got to love. My first experience of the story was with the 1974 version starring Ollie Reed, Richard Attenborough, Herbert Lom, Gert Frobe. I was in my teens and it had me gripped. Last year I bought it on DVD and could see the weaknesses. However, I still love it. Still great actors and I love Peter Collinson's directorial work. The 65 version that Towers produced also took liberties with setting ( a ski lodge ) but at least, in black and white? maintained the big old house creepiness. This final version was the one I failed to track down until now... Acting-wise, you've got Donald Pleasence (sublime), Herbert Lom (brilliant but underused), Frank Stallone (not great but solid enough), Brenda Vaccarro (dependable) and Paul L Smith (crazy over actor, but always entertaining). The actors unknown to me were either great or acceptable. The new setting maintained the sense of isolation, the general story remained the same and, best of all...the director Alan Birkinshaw, managed to avoid what he did with Killer's Moon (1979) and Don't Open Till Christmas (1984) - which is to say, he didn't show off the directorial aplomb of a gorilla with a super 8 camera and a machete. Is it the best version - no! Is it fun - yes! Die-hard anoraks can weep and wail and gnash their teeth but I'd sooner have three reasonable film versions than none at all and, like a fellow poster, I think that giving Pleasence a crack at this one is always going to be worth it!
Quint-7
Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians has been set in some strange places. This version is no exception. Instead of being set in a Ski resort/castle, or a Hotel in the desert, this version has them on Safari in the middle of Africa! While this would not be my first choice of setting, it's actually pretty good. The acting is not the best, but it's still watchable. This is the first version Saw, basically because Herbert Lom was in it, and I was suprised when the murderer,(I can't say who)was revealed. This version, however, did something that the 1966 and 1974 versions didn't. they actually changed the dialog. Anyone who has seen the 3 previous versions (I have seen all four)will certainly remember the 2 englishmen on an island story . While I can't lie and say this is the best of the versions, it's still one you should see!trivia: This is Herbert Lom's second appearance in a Ten Little Indians movie. He played Dr. Armstrong in the previous version!
