...e poi, non ne rimase nessuno

This pretty mediocre remake has a very strange feel to it. The main reason for this is the setting. Filming was done in a very plush Iranian hotel and the film was set in the present day rather than the 1930's. The result is a rather kitsch 1970's thriller and it would be interesting to see what Agatha Christie thought of it. The story needs very few actors to perform in the film which explains the reason why the producers were able to afford such an impressive cast list on an obviously tight budget. Interestingly, Charles Aznavour makes an appearance and unnecessarily plugs his (then) new single during the after-dinner scene. Thankfully, we are spared from any more of his singing because he dies shortly afterwards. On a passing note, one of the most amusing death scenes in cinema history is provided by Richard Attenborough who plays the judge.

The Locale,Direction and Updating of the classic Agatha Christie tale have one by one destroyed this adaptation of the novel.

The first version of the book,1945's And Then There Were None was a classic,the 1966 adaptation was of passing interest...even the 1989 version had it moments but this 1975 version is a botched job. Not only is the cast turning in "take the money and run" performances,they are in the wrong roles,this makes the killer obvious from the beginnig of the investigation. And one side note...the 1945 film retained the character of religous fanatic Emily Brent portrayed perfectly by Judith Anderson,each subsequent version has cut this wonderful role,replacing her with a rather uninteresting movie star (played dreadfully in this version by Stéphane Audran).

My advice: avoid this film. Read the book,then watch the 1945 version.

This is the fourth remake of "Ten Little Indians" (There is a live television version of the story that aired in 1959.)I actually found this version of the story quite good.(even buying it against the advice of the previous reviews to avoid it like the plague!) The performances of the main actors in the cast could be stronger, but they were good enough that the unmasking of the murderer is a surprise(Although I knew which character it was from the start, having previously seen the 1989 version with Donald Pleasence and Herbert Lom-who is also in the 1989 version as a different character!) The setting has moved from an island mansion to an Iranian hotel. (Which isn't a bad idea at all) and the time frame has been moved to the 1970s. Oliver Reed leads the cast as the suspicious Lombard, Elke Sommer is his love interest, And Richard Attenbourough is inspired casting as the hanging Judge.Attenbourough,however, is not the only great casting idea. Herbert Lom is also a great choice as the formerly alcoholic Doctor Armstrong. The movie also features previous James Bond villains Gert Frobe as Blore, and Adolfo Celi as the General. The basic plot (for those who aren't familiar with it) Is this: Ten people, who are strangers to each other, are invited to a "Party" for different reasons. They are later accused (from a tape voiced by Orson Welles) of crimes that they have committed that they have (according to their "Host")gotten away with. After a few of them are picked off, according to the nursery rhyme "Ten Little Indians" the remaining survivors realize that the killer is one of them. Faced with that fact, the remaining number must try to figure out which of them is the guilty one, before the killer can say......."And then There Were None"

Definitely worth a look.

8/10 or *** out of ****

Agatha Christie's 1939 story idea captures the imagination. Ten strangers who each, in different ways, have gotten away with murder gather by invitation at an isolated mansion. Then their unknown host U.N. Owen systematically and mockingly murders them one by one. The idea was adapted into a film in 1945, 1965, 1974, and 1989. Unfortunately, neither Christie nor the filmmakers succeeded in turning this captivating but confining plot concept into a truly fulfilling story.

The book's premise is clever. Careful attention is paid to plot detail. Compared to the films, the book's assortment of past crimes and depictions of the characters' attitudes toward them are more varied, subtle, and interesting. The book is the least sentimental about the characters, treating them vaguely and suspiciously. It maintains more of a sense of intensity and purpose than the films. It details why and how Owen carried out the scheme.

However, once the book establishes its imaginative premise, the story becomes thin and formulaic. There is little plot or character development. The storytelling seems flat, frigid, and, at times, slow-paced. There is no lead character to care about. The characters and their past crimes are sketched in summary fashion, and vary widely in quality. There are only two real plot twists. The second creates a major logical problem, which the book acknowledges and tries to overcome by weakly suggesting that the ploy would trick or "rattle" the murderer. The guests' murders are designed to follow the nursery rhyme and little more. Some cosmetic frills aside, the killings show, in themselves, no special cunning, skill, strategic advantage, or plausibility. Owen strikes crudely without detection too effortlessly.

Worst of all, the book (and each film) has nothing serious to say about the powerful themes at the heart of the story. The story is inherently an observation of human nature in a desperate situation. How do the characters behave? How do they try to reason, to survive? Also by its very nature -- as the book's last pages show -- this is a morality play. How is each character a "criminal" and "beyond the law"? Does each get "justice"? Is justice the point, or simply a "lust" to torture and kill? Is the story about breaking the law or enforcing it, about mistakes or abuses in pursuing justice? None of this is meaningfully explored.

In some respects, the films are worse and better than the book. The lighthearted approach of the 1945 and 1965 adaptations is entertaining, but comes at the expense of the story's plausibility and seriousness. Characters confess their secrets and treat the horror unfolding around them as if it were a parlor game. The 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the comical opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, menace, and suspense. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are depicted. The characters are more serious. They are played, with authority, more like real people than caricatures. Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as actress Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. The maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery (the 1989 adaptation ends well but is low-budget and generally inept).

Overall, however, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful it can feel sterile and uninvolving, lacking in wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. The only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding cast is unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority, reserve, and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Walter Huston's buffoonery and charm in 1945 or Dennis Price's vanity and arrogance in 1965, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer, unflatteringly filmed, makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impenetrable, impish performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the imperfect 1965 script, and loses some memorable lines in the translation. Also, by 1974, Lombard has no career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is let loose, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to 1945's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment, and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words, rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

I don't understand some people, they think just because the film is a sequal it will be bad. Most everyone hates this version but i enjoyed it better than the original. Technically if you want the best version get the 1966 version with Hugh O'Brian. Actually none of the versions follow the story correctly. Everyone is suppose to be murdered. I've read the book. But this version, although not very strong is very entertaining, the murders are more explicit, and many of the actors are very good. Elke Sommer, Oliver Reed, Richard Auttenbourgh, Herbert Lom, Maria Rohm and many others. Don't be confused by the people who say this movie sucks, it's a good film.