Ten Little Indians

I find it quite hard to review this film, it's one of those I got into as a kid, and it's always difficult to be mean about your childhood films.

The book, is perhaps my all time favourite novel, so it's pretty difficult to do it badly, or is it? There have been several adaptations, 1945, 1965 and 1974's versions were all different, but no matter how much they veered from the script they all managed to retain the suspense and sense of claustrophobia, aided both by direction, and more basically the locations. The Jungle setting doesn't really work on the same level somehow.

The sets look pretty cheap, as do some of the costumes, Frank Stallone, Brenda and Sarah look pretty tatty in some parts.

It's not all doom and gloom though, some of the acting is rather good, and whilst I don't particularly like some of the characters the acting is not at fault. Donald Pleasence is the high point, he is particularly good, Herbert Lom is good too, even though I loathed his character. I thought Sarah Maur Thorp was fair as Vera, she had an English delicacy.

Some actors were rather badly cast, firstly, Yehuda Efroni is actually irritating as the Doctor, I couldn't wait for him to go. As for Frank Stallone I can think of no other reason for him to be there other then for his beefy looks, he does lots of intense pouts, but adds little. The Rogers were the worst culprits for overacting.

I struggle to believe how 'Owen' could have committed some of the murders, they seem a little far fetched, Mr Rogers in particular, although I enjoyed the finale, it's well acted and there is a sense of terror.

I long for the day when someone sticks to the original ending, if only a producer would have the bottle.

It's a fun film, a bit cheap, but some interesting surprises in store for the first time viewer, I still enjoy it despite its flaws 5/10

In spite of being one of the famous stories ever written, there aren't *that* many movie versions of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians". I know of about eight film versions, but none of them are famous classics or widely acclaimed titles. This late 80's version is only the second adaptation that I've watched and, just like that other one from the early 70's (listed here as "Ein Unbekannter rechnet ab") it wasn't much more than an amusing but unmemorable whodunit flick. The difference between this version and the original novel is that the isolated setting isn't a creepy mansion on an island, but the dry African Savannah. Ten completely unrelated people are lured to Africa through various tricks, like having won a safari or being offered a job as tour guide, by the mysterious Mr. Owen. On the first evening, after diner, they listen to a recording of a voice accusing each and every one of them of having committed a murder in the past without being trialled for it. From that moment onwards, one guest after the other dies in mysterious circumstances and the 'accidents' are always similar to the lyrics of the nursery rhyme "Ten Little Indians". It looks as if their host Mr. Owen is playing a game with them. Or maybe Mr. Owen doesn't exist at all and the killer is someone within the group. As stated above, this version of "Ten Little Indians" isn't the least bit spectacular or fantastic, but it's definitely compelling while it lasts and there are a handful of worthwhile moments of suspense. Some of the death sequences are quite eerie, like the victim whose found with an axe stuck in the back of his skull. Director Alan Birkinshaw apparently likes re-adapting classic stories, since he also directed versions of Edgar Allan Poe's "The House of Usher" and "The Masque of the Red Death". I haven't seen those, but I've seen a film of his called "Horror Safari" and that one was really poor. For "Ten Little Indians", he could count on a fairly terrific cast including the always reliable Donald Pleasance, Paul L. Smith, Brenda Vaccora and Herbert Lom (who coincidentally also starred in the 70's version). Heck, even Frank Stallone was decent and luckily enough he didn't sing.

For the most part this film is populated by some wonderful character actors.

Agatha Christie's original storyline is beyond reproach.

With building blocks like that to work with it's a wonder that director Alan Birkinshaw wasn't able to deliver something a little closer to the quality that thousands of Agatha Christie fans have come to expect. "Ten Little Indians" failed at nearly every level, from a poor script, to inept blocking and unimaginative camera angles, to cheap dime store sets and props, to trying to sensationalize Christie's wit by replacing it with crude graphic violence.

There have been other film adaptations of "Ten Little Indians" all of them head and shoulders above this one. On three prior occasions I've tried to sit through this film but without success. Today, just after having seen "And Then There Were None" (an excellent adaptation of "Ten Little Indians") Birkinshaw's version came on and I determined to sit through it all the way. My reward for that ordeal was to have the right to pan it publicly.

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!

there have been three (3) remakes of And Then There Were None, my question is WHY? the original version, except for the hockey hollywood type ending, was well nigh perfect. Agatha Christie wrote a fantastic mystery yarn of ten people brought to an isolated island, and eliminated, one by one, until "there were none". the book needed an epilog to explain the solution to was seemed a supernatural tale of punishment. i can understand why Ms Christy's tale had to be somewhat edited for the screen, as there were several overt racist comments and attitudes that had to be expunged. i likewise understand the hollywood need for a happy ending at all times, though i don't agree with that premise. the original And Then There Were None had a superb cast and original story. the only problem is the happy ending, which was a hollywood decree. this film did not need one remake, much less three. i can never understand why the powers that be continually insult the intelligence of their audience, but it seems to be an ongoing problem with them.