O Caso dos Dez Negrinhos

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.

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.

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.

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

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