Alicia I love this movie so much

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

maryon-1 This is certainly the best 'film of the book' there has ever been - so far. The title sequence alone deserves an Oscar, with those beautiful jade figurines disintegrating and morphing into a model of the island where it all happens.The house, the cast, the pathetically fallacious cloud formations, sunsets and dramatic weather, the costumes, hair and makeup taking each character from groomed control to dishevelled à la Marat/Sade - everything contributes to this brilliant psychological drama of Agatha Christie at her finest.The only thing missing was Agatha Christie's brilliance.There is a lack of understanding in this film of the original plot, which is not only fatal to the interpretation but is actually quite horrible. It is, in the final analysis, typical BBC. Every time the BBC dramatises a classic (Austen, Dickens, Conan Doyle...) it should have, just under the title, the words 'Loosely based on an idea by' - as a kind of caveat.Agatha Christie's book (originally titled, in the UK, as 'Ten Little Niggers', in accordance with the terminology of the time - this was after all 1939...) has a completeness and subtlety of plot which the BBC can for some reason never achieve. Every tiny detail, as in a fine tapestry, fits in with and contributes to the whole. Everything is in its place - and the reader overlooks it at their peril.So why did the BBC (in the persons of the screenwriter, director, et al.) omit things like the red oilskin curtain, the hiding of the grey skein of wool (inexpertly wound into an unusable ball by Miranda Richardson), the pooling and securing of possible murder implements, the bee, the seaweed, and so on? Why were the original murders made physical to an obviously culpable extent when the whole point of the plot is that they were not so, because they were too 'hands off'? It is, after all, in this last respect why every reader kicks themself as they turn the last page of Agatha Christie's most perfect work - because she provided not only all the clues but actually also the only possible solution, elegantly displayed along the way, for the Hastings-blind reader who missed it all. And then there's the larding of the BBC's currently in-favour - but inappropriate to the time and to Agatha Christie's oeuvre and taste - swear words. Plus the physical manifestation of the particularly favoured word between Vera Claythorne and Philip Lombard. What the fuck is all that about?. (See - doesn't add anything, does it ?) Have the BBC never heard of dramatic tension (oh, wait...)? If they'd kept faithful to the original in every respect, they wouldn't have needed to add anything as silly as a one-night stand and a few tacky close-ups of thighs, stocking tops, torsos, and cleavage. Good, verging on excellent - but in the event not good enough. Worth a watch, but not a buy.We'll just have to wait another twenty-nine or forty-one years for the next one to come along...

LordMaxentius I stumbled upon the book 'And Then There Were None' quite by accident, and having just finished reading 'Hercule Poirot's Christmas', I was interested in seeing how good Agatha Christie's 'masterpiece' was. The cover of the edition I bought advertised this TV series, and after I had finished what was truly a brilliant book, I was curious to see how well its visual counterpart held up.Having looked at the cast beforehand, I knew none of them except for Charles Dance, whom I knew to be a good actor and who seemed perfect in the role of the cunning Justice Wargrave. I wouldn't say I was worried about how well the other actors would hold up next to someone as good as him, but I did not think they would be as good as him. However, I am glad to say that I was wrong.Every single one of the cast delivered a stand-out performance. Although the final five survivors (Armstrong, Blore, Lombard, Claythorne and the judge himself) were definitely the best, the others were also really good and brought their respective characters to life extremely well. The setting is great, with an island quite akin to what I imagined when I was reading the book, and the cinematography is beautiful and sets the scene perfectly. The score, although a minuscule part of the whole, is also very good.Obviously when it comes to film or TV series versions of books, details are always changed or added for convenience, and I was a bit worried that the writers of the show might change details of plot devices and mess the whole thing up (as has already been the case with shows like Game of Thrones). But not only were the changes subtle and did nothing to negate the overall plot, I actually liked some of them(!). The idea to have the judge walk in on Vera at the last second and deliver a chilling monologue was surprisingly good, and I like it just as much as the book ending. Overall, this was a brilliant visual re-telling of what is surely one of the greatest mystery novels of all time. The cast are excellent, the cinematography and setting is perfect and the subtle plot changes do nothing but add to this masterpiece of film.10/10

matthijsalexander Let me not say too much, but just 'wow'! Not WOW with capitals, but a modest wow.I really enjoyed watching this. The characters are all interesting, the murder mystery concept scripted very well, the twist not obvious at all, but only very sharp and detail oriented persons may figure it out. The back stories provide insight in the characters which slowly reveals the whole. This mini-series has it all. Watch, but above all.... Binching required!One of those series that is best watched with the girlfriend or wife. (I have to fill up the 10 lines minimum)

devinemandate *SOME SPOILERS, none of the biggest stuff* A large part of the intrigue in Agatha Christie's original novel is that the crimes committed by the ten victims are not direct murders, untouchable by the law. MacArthur sends the underling sleeping with his wife on a mission sure to kill him; Blore sends an innocent man to prison, where he dies; the Rogers couple withholds a drug which would have saved their former employer. In this film/miniseries, MacArthur shoots the underling in the back, Blore stomps the innocent man's head to pulp, and Mr. Rogers suffocates his elderly employer while his wife watches. This is sort of fine, taking the movie on its own terms, and ignoring the changes from the novel. The same goes for Emily Brent's repressed lesbian tendencies, Rogers being physically abusive of his wife, Vera and Lombard having sex, and the significant number of delusions/visions/hallucinations that aren't present in the book.But I will NOT accept some of the utterly ridiculous things that happen in the latter portion of the story. The revolver is hidden in more or less plain sight in the mouth of a bearskin rug? The same bearskin rug appears to roar and attack one of the victims during one of the final murders? The last four victims have a cocaine and alcohol party binge? In what universe does that last make ANY sense when you'd want your wits about you? Stupid. Needless. Laughable. Literally unbelievable.The Soviet film adaptation (Desyat negrityat, 1987) remains the only one worth watching for the Christie novel enthusiast, IMO. I'd call this effort on par with the one from the 40's: sort of cute on its own terms, but a pale regurgitation of the original work. Some bonus points for keeping the novel's ending and for the somewhat interesting (non-canonical) discussion between murderer and final victim.