User reviews

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.

The 1989 film has some good points, but, unlike the 1945, 1965, and 1974 versions, it grows less enjoyable with each viewing. Everything about it seems low-budget. The cast and script are undistinguished. The set is drab. The clothes look like cheap costumes. The plot takes too long to get going. Once it does, it unfolds well at first, with the early deaths resembling accidents. And, bettering all prior versions, the ending is dramatic, conveys murderous host Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

Overall, however, the storytelling is inept. Too much is out of Owen's control, such as natives cutting down the basket that carries people down from the cliff and Lombard repairing the radio. After the third death, someone abruptly announces without any discussion or reasoning that "Mr. Owen is one of us." Unlike the other versions, the characters engage in no deductive reasoning or survival techniques.

The story drags. Only making matters worse are cheap, forced attempts to gin up suspense. These include the camera suddenly coming up short on characters; a character acting "awfully nervous" for no reason; and pratfall-type death scenes, with a body tumbling down from on top of a tent, another toppling out of a closet, mouth gaping, and another slumping forward with an ax in the back of the head.

Touches that made earlier versions entertaining are botched in 1989. The other films recite the full nursery rhyme up front, creatively playing it on the piano. But this script dribbles the rhyme out line by line upon each murder. Instead, it chooses to play "Mad Dogs and Englishmen," an annoying, madcap, out-of-place Noel Coward song with no apparent connection to Christie or appropriateness to this adaptation, which has so few British characters. This film makes an embarrassing hash of the scene in which the phonograph record is played accusing each person of a past crime. Repeatedly, the person whose name is unexpectedly about to be called next happens to pipe up with some exaggerated utterance, on cue, right before being named.

The 1989 film fails to discuss some past crimes at all (doctor, judge, Lombard). It distorts others (Blore, Marshall), to no good effect. In place of Christie's subtle crime of withheld care, Rodgers merely refers to an old lady in his care who "died of a massive stroke." In the film, Marston refers to a "couple running out in front of his car," without any mention of them being newlyweds or of him driving fast and drunk. The film dumbs down the book's most complex, interesting past crime to a bland reference to a child in Vera's care drowning.

All the good lines from other versions are gone in 1989, like "a feeling that some sort of macabre joke is being played on us," "game of the mind." In 1989, other than Owen's line "My own private big game hunt," there are just limp banalities ("The devil is among us"; Our duty, that's all any of us can hope to do"; "I never bet"; "When we get out of here, I'm going to teach you to shoot straight") or lines memorable only for making you cringe (judge, "I left immediately...to relieve myself"; Lombard to Vera, "Feel it, smell it," about gun).

In 1989, the casting and acting, strong points in past adaptations, go badly awry. An exception is Herbert Lom's delightfully dotty performance as the general, better than 1945, including a touching scene with Vera explaining his past. But Donald Pleasance is adrift, mostly acting detached and insipid, then suddenly erupting in a panic outburst or frantically pawing in a snuff box. Not until his final moments on screen does he play his character coherently and effectively.

Sarah Maur Thorp brings youthful energy and emotion to the role of Vera. But her acting becomes erratic and mechanical as she turns increasingly into a mere screaming hysteric, unlike June Duprez, who keeps a strong, intelligent presence during the 1945 film.

Brenda Vaccaro's uninspired, formless performance as actress Marshall consists of sighing, huffing, lounging around, and boozing. It is unbelievable that this plump, pampered lush would go on an African safari. Her only explanation? "I was invited. I received a letter in the post."

Blore's character has always been well-defined and well-acted before. But here, played by a bit-part TV character actor, he is just roly-poly, rough, loud, and sulky. His mumbled confession of his past crime is confused and miserably ineffective.

Marston, who rushes through a 2-second singing bit, the worst musical performance of any version, is a caricature of a fop. The film fails to place him in the context of a dissolute career or even mention his penchant for liquor and fast sportscars.

Paul Smith as Rodgers tries to let his hulking body do his acting for him, as Moira Lister, the wife, does with her shrill voice. He lumbers around scowling and bellowing laconically. She overacts as a loud, whiny motormouth. Their characters and relationship are not remotely believable.

Apparently, Frank Stallone's only qualification for Lombard was being a "hunk." His weak, vacant expressions and flat delivery are evident from his very first line. His acting is exemplified by the scene in which he shoves a pistol in Vera's face and cocks the trigger, oblivious that he has already started mouthing the line, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to scare you." Stallone's constant, supposedly sly, cocky grins destroy any sense of suspense. His only explanation for being there: "Owen had already paid [a friend's] way out, so I came instead."

Worst of all, Yehuda Efroni ruins the important character of the doctor. His bizarre, introverted, bug-eyed portrayal lacks any air of authority, intellect, charm, or even social skills. Through a heavy accent, he either stammers or, like a snapping turtle, spits out snippets of inarticulate dialogue. At one point, he cackles, at another acts befuddled, for no reason at all. Unlike any prior version, the doctor has no rapport with any other character.

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

Agatha Christie tale of 10 people invited to an isolated place , hovering around mouthing chunks of exposition while waiting to get murdered . The guests discuss and argue each other , only to find that an unseen person is killing them one by one . Just before the gripping climax of the film , you will be given sixty seconds to guess the killer's identity! The film will pause and on the screen you will see clues to help you decide who the murderer is...but the person in suspect is always the person who is murdered next . There is no way for any of them to flee , so they set about attempting to determine who their hidden host might be and where he might be hiding.

Whodunit in which have been invited ten people who are strangers to each other , when they are all gathered, they hear from their host that each one of them has in someway caused the death of an innocent person and that justice had not be served in their cases , the guests are being killed off one by one . Average fourth adaptation , this one totally mucks up the story , switching from an isolated island to African landscapes located in the sabana . The original script was much more faithful to the original Agatha Christie novel with the setting on an island and the original grim conclusion of the book ; however, producer Harry Alan Towers changed it at the last second when he realized that it would be cheaper to shoot in the African outback and that the novel's ending is less marketable than Christie's happier resolution from the play version of the story . Excruciantly boring and dull rendition with silly characters and slowly paced . Most actors are mediocre and unknown , though there are tree important players as Donald Pleasence , Brenda Vaccaro and Herbert Lom who had acted in a previous remake playing the doctor . The whole cast overacts abysmally and playing cardboard roles against poor scenarios and some old tents . This low-budgeted picture is a real tedium and tiring ; sticks with the original version . The motion picture was regularly directed by Alan Birkinshaw who was in South Africa filming various films for producers Avi Lerner and Harry Alan Towers such as Masque of the Red Death , The House of Usher , Horror Safari and this ¨Ten little Indians¨ filmed with similar artistic and technician team .

This is one of the innumerable versions based on Agatha Christie famous novel . The best version (1945) resulted to be the classic by Rene Clair with Barry Fitzgerard , Roland Young , June Duprez , Mischa Auer , C Aubrey Smith , Judith Anderson and Richard Haydn ; furthermore , 1965 version set in Austrian Alps by George Pollock with Hugh O'Brian as Hugh Lombard , Shirley Eaton as Ann Clyde , Fabian as Mike Raven , Leo Genn as General Mandrake as Stanley Holloway as William Blore , Wilfrid Hyde-White as Judge Cannon and Daliah Lavi as Ilona Bergen . And 1974 rendition set in remote Iran by Peter Collinson with Charles Aznavour , Maria Rohm , Adolfo Celi , ElKe Sommer , Stephane Audran , Alberto De Martino , Richard Attenborough and Herbert Lom .

I like a bit of Christie, and love a lot of old dark house mysteries, and body count films are okay too. Should'nt really be able to go wrong here! Most criticism seems to be about the change of setting to an African Safari, and I agree, this really does lose some of the creepy atmosphere, just as the 74 version did with its proximity to a desert near Istanbul (was it??? Please feel free to put me right on that.) However, Harry Alan Towers produced 3 separate versions of this tale and, whilst I agree that the 1945 Rene Clair directed version is the best hands down, for setting, for staying true to the source material, for direction, at the same time, the others can also boast some great performances from actors you have just got to love. My first experience of the story was with the 1974 version starring Ollie Reed, Richard Attenborough, Herbert Lom, Gert Frobe. I was in my teens and it had me gripped. Last year I bought it on DVD and could see the weaknesses. However, I still love it. Still great actors and I love Peter Collinson's directorial work. The 65 version that Towers produced also took liberties with setting ( a ski lodge ) but at least, in black and white? maintained the big old house creepiness. This final version was the one I failed to track down until now... Acting-wise, you've got Donald Pleasence (sublime), Herbert Lom (brilliant but underused), Frank Stallone (not great but solid enough), Brenda Vaccarro (dependable) and Paul L Smith (crazy over actor, but always entertaining). The actors unknown to me were either great or acceptable. The new setting maintained the sense of isolation, the general story remained the same and, best of all...the director Alan Birkinshaw, managed to avoid what he did with Killer's Moon (1979) and Don't Open Till Christmas (1984) - which is to say, he didn't show off the directorial aplomb of a gorilla with a super 8 camera and a machete. Is it the best version - no! Is it fun - yes! Die-hard anoraks can weep and wail and gnash their teeth but I'd sooner have three reasonable film versions than none at all and, like a fellow poster, I think that giving Pleasence a crack at this one is always going to be worth it!

As this film opens a group of travellers are heading to a remote location in the African bush. Each of them has been invited to go on safari there by a mysterious Mr Owen. As they reach their destination they are abandoned by their native porters. At first the ten of them are merely irritated but become more concerned when a record is plays; the recorded voice accuses each of them of murder. Soon afterwards the first of them dies; in a manner that matches the titular rhyme. He won't be the last to die and it isn't long before the guests start to suspect each other.

I thought this was a decent enough film even though it has a low budget feel. It may have been shot on location in Africa but the action seldom leaves the confines of the camp. I suspect most people will be familiar with the story but if you aren't there is a nice twist. The cast does a decent enough job; Donald Pleasence and Herbert Lom are the best known of them; both are fine here but have done better work. The central story is good but takes a while to get started. There is a good sense of paranoia as each survivor starts to suspect each of the others... and there are good reasons to believe any of them could be the killer. Overall I'd say that this was okay but not the best version I've seen.

I am not going to sit here and go on yet another tirade on how sub par this 1989 version of Agatha Christie's novel is. We all know! I do not even mind that we have some (albeit CRAZY) fans of this film that think it is a true masterpiece. But the reviewer who wrote "Good Movie" and rated this film 10 stars needs to be thrown in jail, never to see the light of day again.

Obviously, there are people on here who do not take movies or these open forums seriously. If you liked the movie, fine. (Actually, I do feel it is much better than the horrendous 1974 version). But 10 stars out of 10!!! Even if this film wasn't based on a classic Christie novel, it would still NEVER, EVER deserve to be garnered with that amount of stars. What do you rate "Gone With the Wind" if you rate this campy, TV movie 10 stars? And to say that it is BETTER than Ms. Christie's novel. That comment made me regurgitate my entire lunch about 5 times. Better than the novel... I could at least respect, if still disagree, if this commentator had said they liked the original film version better than the novel. But this tepid piece that plays like a middle school drama club production? AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

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!

Why oh why does Hollywood have to muck up decent originals with remakes?

Do they think a newer version will improve on something previously done?

Do screenwriters think they can do better on a book converted into film than prior scripts?

Do we have to see classic films ruined by this stupid notion forever??

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.

This movie was SO bad, that a moments, I thought it might be a parody. It was ALMOST a "so bad, it's good" kind of movie, but it falls short. G m gThis is not one of Agatha Christie's better works, but this adaptation would have her spinning in her grave. Not only is the setting of the story random, it's kind of offensive. It's set on "safari" in "Africa," though no safari activities seem to take place and the "natives" (they don't bother giving them a nationality) don't speak a language. They simply click their tongues. Not as PART of the language, but as the entire language! Just...ignorant and offensive. This was the moment when I thought they might be going for comedy...but no.

The cast is a mess, ranging from Donald Pleasance to Frank Stallone (the less talented brother...), yet they all turn in shockingly bad performances. When Brenda Vacaro delivers the strongest performance in a movie, you know you're in trouble.

I've already wasted 101 minutes watching this movie and another 3 writing this review. I will give it no more of my time.

DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE.

Agatha Christie - well as source material I reckon. And let me say that I do like crime movies who involve a whodunnit mystery. So I may be already a bit enticed ... more than others probably. Also quite fun to see Sly Stallones brother in this and who he is and what he plays. Now PC culture may have issues with the title and I am actually surprised that in the 80s that still was a thing that was being said ... actually I am not too surprised, still just saying.

In Germany they translated the ten little indians story in something ... one may call even more sinister. It involves the derogatory term that starts with an "N" - I'm not going to use it - I doubt they would use it in movies nowadays either. Actually they didn't even use it back then (which also would make no sense if you really think about it), this movie was called "Deadly Safari" - already translated. And gives you the same amount of what is about to happen here as is the original title ... just less offensive. Not the best adaptation, but still decent enough to say the least.

In the original story whose title I cannot repeat due to IMDB standards*, a group of people find themselves invited to an island off the English coast. Once there, they learn that their host, whoever he or she actually is, has invited them there under false pretenses. Instead of a job or a free trip as they've been told, they are told via a phonograph that they are ALL killers and have been judged by their unknown host! The record promises to punish them all...and one by one, they are killed off by an unknown assailant.

In "Ten Little Indians" (1989), it's obvious the filmmakers were making the film on the cheap. First, unlike earlier incarnations, instead of an all-star cast, it's mostly C-list actors. Second, to save a few bucks, the story is set in the South African wilderness! This choice is odd, as one of the invited guests might have been able to run away to safety...something you couldn't do on an island with no boats.

Despite it being done on the cheap, is it any good? Not especially. While it's not terrible, the odd locale and cheapo cast make it vastly inferior to other film versions I've seen. I especially liked René Clair's 1945 version (the first) is the best and can't see why you would want to see this 1989 version...especially since it changes the ending to the original story.

*If you are curious, see Wikipedia's article on the movie. Near the start of the article, it gives the name of the original novel...and it's about as politically incorrect as you could guess!

while the setting and some casting decisions were at the least ,odd it is not the worst adaptation of the film,that is reserved for the updated,mod 1966 version with richard attenborough and oliver reed. at least the time period is correct,donald pleasence,herbert lom and neil mcCarthy are good and the end credits feature noel coward's mad dogs and englishmen. its not a good christie adaptation and frank stallone is abhorrent as lombard but at least i sat through it longer than the 1966 remake. tension wavers back and forth and also, if everyone doesnt know who the killer is by the 4th film version they must have been stranded on a devonshire island!

I have seen quite a few adaptions of Agatha Christie novels on the screen, some good and some less so, but this has to be the worst of them.

This is set in Africa, but is definitely and obviously done on the cheap, I doubt this production ever came anywhere near the Serengeti. There is a monkey, however, and some African noises in the background but more than that is required to give this drab-looking movie any semblance of authenticity. There are a couple of well-known, talented actors, but they can't do much for this dud. They seem to acting on Valium anyway. Generally speaking, the acting here is very pedestrian.

It takes a rare talent to take an Agatha Christie story and completely remove all the tension and suspense, but the writers, director and producers of this movie have successfully done so.

Give it a miss.