Warning: review may contain SPOILERS.
After reading the other reviews of this film, I went at it with really low expectations and found it better than I had thought it would be. Of course it pales alongside the first 2 versions of Agatha Christie's story. Most cinephiles rank the 1945 original version as the best while the 1965 version with Shirley Eaton(The "Golden Girl" from "Goldfinger") has always been my favorite. As of this writing, I haven't yet seen the 1989 version. 1974's "Ten Little Indians" suffers from poor production values not uncommon to low-budget international co-productions of the time period. The direction is flat and there are moments of poor acting(Elke Sommer's shoving her fist in her mouth when hearing Orson Welles' recorded voice describe her "crime" struck me as particularly funny). The whole production feels like a mid-70s TV "Movie of the Week" and suffers from a tackiness symptomatic of the decade, e.g., Charles Aznavour's tuxedo and the cheesey music score.
That stated, it doesn't really qualify as a "turkey". I'm of the school of thought that even a poor film version of a strong literary source is still going to be vastly superior to most cinematic nonsense simply because it has a better story than most of the drivel churned out by the filmmaking industry. This film is a perfect example of this. Dame Agatha's story is one of her very best and draws the viewer in despite the film's technical problems. Also, a desert hotel in pre-Islamic revolution Iran makes for a fascinating and ideal location for the story and makes it a unique and interesting time capsule. There's also novelty value for 007 fans of seeing 2 James Bond villains(Gert Frobe a.k.a. "Goldfinger" and Adolfo Celi a.k.a. Emilio Largo from "Thunderball") in the same film.
Rating: 3 out of 10 for the execution but 10 out of 10 for the story and location, making a final grade of 6 out of 10 or **1/2 out of ****.
Bottom line: This "Ten Little Indians" is OK but I recommend the 1965 version for those who are unfamiliar with the story.
After reading the other reviews of this film, I went at it with really low expectations and found it better than I had thought it would be. Of course it pales alongside the first 2 versions of Agatha Christie's story. Most cinephiles rank the 1945 original version as the best while the 1965 version with Shirley Eaton(The "Golden Girl" from "Goldfinger") has always been my favorite. As of this writing, I haven't yet seen the 1989 version. 1974's "Ten Little Indians" suffers from poor production values not uncommon to low-budget international co-productions of the time period. The direction is flat and there are moments of poor acting(Elke Sommer's shoving her fist in her mouth when hearing Orson Welles' recorded voice describe her "crime" struck me as particularly funny). The whole production feels like a mid-70s TV "Movie of the Week" and suffers from a tackiness symptomatic of the decade, e.g., Charles Aznavour's tuxedo and the cheesey music score.
That stated, it doesn't really qualify as a "turkey". I'm of the school of thought that even a poor film version of a strong literary source is still going to be vastly superior to most cinematic nonsense simply because it has a better story than most of the drivel churned out by the filmmaking industry. This film is a perfect example of this. Dame Agatha's story is one of her very best and draws the viewer in despite the film's technical problems. Also, a desert hotel in pre-Islamic revolution Iran makes for a fascinating and ideal location for the story and makes it a unique and interesting time capsule. There's also novelty value for 007 fans of seeing 2 James Bond villains(Gert Frobe a.k.a. "Goldfinger" and Adolfo Celi a.k.a. Emilio Largo from "Thunderball") in the same film.
Rating: 3 out of 10 for the execution but 10 out of 10 for the story and location, making a final grade of 6 out of 10 or **1/2 out of ****.
Bottom line: This "Ten Little Indians" is OK but I recommend the 1965 version for those who are unfamiliar with the story.