Ten Little Indians

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.

You could spend hours thinking up reasons as to why Harry Alan Towers (or Peter Wellbeck, as he is sometimes credited) has stuck with "Ten Little Indians" through 3 remakes. It can't be the money. Maybe he wanted to travel, and decided what the heck, as long as I'm here, why don't I film another version of "Ten Little Indians". Or, maybe he feels a need to remake the movie once every 10 or so years. You could fault him for causing people to lose interest in the story, because most reviewers think the remakes were awful. I don't fault him. If it wasn't for Towers, I would not have been able to see my favorite murder mystery filmed with some of my favorite actors, including Herbert Lom, Richard Attenbourogh, Donald Pleasence, and Oliver Reed. Most people think this is the worst of the versions. Personally, I enjoyed it, and I will tell you why. It isn't the best. Rene Clair's "And Then There Were None" is the best. I won't for a minute say that it isn't. But I still found enjoyable things in this movie. I'll begin with the cast:

Donald Pleasence: Excellent casting. When I read the book(which I did before I saw the movie) He is Exactly what I pictured the Judge would look like. And I thought that Pleasence gave a strong performance. This boost my rating of this version.

Brenda Vaccaro: She was okay. I didn't like her or dislike her. she doesn't add or subtract anything form my rating.

Frank Stallone: I'm sorry, but Stallone was a bad choice. While I won't say that Stallone is a bad actor, since I haven't seen him in any other movies, I did not think he was good in this movie. He had no charisma. Louis Hayward gave a good performance. Hugh O'Brian(When the role was americanized) gave a good performance. Oliver Reed(though contrary to most reviews) gave a good preformance. Stallone does not. This does subtract from my rating.

Herbert Lom: Here's where my review becomes biased. I could never say anything bad about Herbert Lom. He has kept me more than entertained thoughout the Pink Panther series. And he is Great as the General. He looked, and portrayed the role exactly as it needed to be portrayed. However, he is not given enough to do. Lom has a great talent when he is allowed to showcase it, and Towers does not give him much of a chance. I wish that Towers would have cast him as Blore, or the Doctor(which he played in the 1975 version) or heck, even the Judge. I personally don't think his age would have been a problem(You should see him in "Son of the Pink Panther"). But sadly, Towers did not. however, his being cast in this version ups my rating.

Sarah Maur Thorp: She was good. I think she gave a stronger performance than Brenda Vaccaro did to!

Warren Berlinger: I thought he was nicely cast as well. He gives a strong performance, and I enjoyed him in this film.

Yehuda Efroni: He wasn't bad, but he wasn't good. I have mixed feelings. It would have been interesting to see what Lom would have done with the character if he had been in the role.

Neil McCarthy: I liked him. For having a small role, I thought McCarthy's performance was one of the best of the bunch. Due to that fact, I enjoyed the character.

Moria Lister: She was average. She said her lines and got out of there. (And I was glad when she did!)

Paul L. Smith: Overall, He was okay. He did have a tendancy to overact though.

Overall, despite some less than spectacular performances, I enjoyed the film. I didn't mind the setting being Africa either. If you like the story, you should see this version.

I give it a 8 out of ten

I have to disagree with some of the comments made about this movie. It wasn't that bad, garrunteed it wasn't the greatest, but it still was good. The best version is the 1966 version with Hugh O Brian and Shirley Eaton. Just because the setting is changed people think it was a bad version. Each of the 5 version of Ten Little Indians has their strong points. I say go out and rent this one. It has some scary moments in it.

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!

Ten people are invited on a safari in Africa. One by one they are killed off. Clearly one of them is the murderer. But which one?

Fairly weak adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel. Not at all intense, and the intrigue is very diluted. Pretty much a paint-by- numbers rendition. Bland, unimaginative direction.

Consequently, the actors appear to be sleep-walking for most of this. No spark at all. Dead giveaway that this isn't exactly going to be Citizen Kane - it stars Frank Stallone, Sylvester's even less talented brother.