Dalbert Pringle In this fast-paced (and fairly entertaining) "whodunnit" from 1965 - The characters in this one's story are, literally, dropping like flies (left, right, and centre).Set at a remote castle atop a steep mountain cliff - (Where the game of death gets underway) - Everybody is suddenly under suspicion and the mad race to uncover the true identity of the mysterious "Mr. Owen" escalates the drama into a literal frenzy of false leads and erroneous accusations.Based on Agatha Christie's 1939, mystery novel "And Then There Were None" - "Ten Little Indians" features an all-star cast headlined by Hugh O'Brian, Shirley Eaton, and (1960's pop idol) Fabian.

alcorcrisan In spite of a rather significant departure from the original ending of the book (which I was still able to enjoy in my childhood with the original title, still immune to the so-called political correctness unfortunately so prevalent nowadays!), this turns out to be the best of the film adaptations done so far. The Austrian setting works perfectly, to say nothing of the exquisite (grey) cat. All cats are grey in the dark, as the saying goes... Almost 50 years after its original release, the movie has a fortunate new lease on life, thanks to its availability in DVD format. The actors preserve a certain innocence of the mid-60-s, which gives the movie an added note of freshness and originality.

TheLittleSongbird And Then There Were None is and has been since I was 12 one of my favourite books of all time. If there is a contender for Agatha Christie's- of whose books I'm a fan of- best book, And Then There Were None would definitely be more than worthy. When you love a book as imaginative, suspenseful, beautifully characterised and sometimes scary(Emily Brent's death for instance) as And Then There Were None, no matter how you try to judge a film on its own terms, you do hope that the book is done justice to.In terms of film adaptations though, it's been a very mixed bag. The 1945 film for me is by far the best, witty, suspenseful, splendidly cast(Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston and Judith Anderson being the standouts) and faithful to the book's spirit in general. The 1974 film is heavily flawed, namely that it does get turgid and illogical in places and Charles Aznavour is awful but it looks wonderful, has a good score, has the extra bonus of having Orson Welles as the voice of Mr Owen and has good performances from Richard Attenborough, Herbert Lom and Oliver Reed make it a film better than its reputation.Strictly speaking, it's the 1989 version that is really quite poor, with only the locations, the lions and the performances of Donald Pleasance, Sarah Maur Thorp and Herbert Lom working somewhat. I found myself very impressed generally by this version, it's second only to the 1945 film and easily the best of the remakes.The film is not perfect however. Although it is in this version where the perpetrator is the most malevolent, the ending- changed from the I think unfilmable ending of the book(someone also raised the point that Vera Claythorne's death is too much by chance in the book and I can definitely see where they're coming from)- seemed dramatically under-baked for me. The music score is too jazzy and I think lightweight, jarring with the film's tone and diluting the suspense and claustrophobia. The Ten Little Indians song is good however, though I prefer the ominously Roccoco style of the one in the 1945 adaptation.Daliah Lavi and especially Fabian give the only two performances that I'd consider bad, in Fabian's case embarrassingly bad. Lavi is a little better than Brenda Vaccarro in the 1989 film, but she like Vaccarro does very little with a character that wasn't as written as well as she could've been and the melodrama(and there is a lot considering the profession her role has) is so overcooked that it becomes painful to watch and listen to. Fabian makes an obnoxious character even more so(what the remakes have in common actually is how annoyingly the role is written and performed actually), so much so you want him dead fast.On the other side of things, this version has beautiful locations, not as claustrophobic-looking as the 1945 film but for me it didn't have the sense that it was going to present any kind of logic problems like the later versions did. The photography compliments it very well, and the same goes for George Pollock's quite studied but professional direction that does little to spoil the tension. The murders are both inventive and at times eerie, while the script is literate with a touch of drollness, the characters generally maintain interest and don't have back stories and such that feel too underdeveloped or distorted(something that the 1989 version did to truly bad effect) and the story had me gripped, and while the identity didn't come as a surprise to me as I know the story so well it is easy to see why others would feel that, when I read the book was exactly that of complete surprise.Lavi and Fabian aside, I thought the cast were very good. Taking top honours has to go to Wilfred Hyde-White, whose Judge- one of the book's most interesting characters to me and well-performed in all four versions- is incisive and quick-witted, quite possibly one of his best performances. Dennis Price's Armstrong, almost as good as Walter Huston, is an ideal match, smart, intelligent and playful(only the 1989 film has this role played badly), while Leo Genn in a commanding and touching performance is this close to topping Herbert Lom in the 1989 film(the only asset of that that is the best of anything to do with this story and its adaptations) as the General and Stanley Holloway who is very authoritative with touches of humour is the best of the actors playing Blore.Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton have been much criticised for being wooden. I actually didn't have a problem with them and found them quite appealing. O'Brian is handsome and smooth and Eaton smolders on screen and at least shows a sense of her character's predicaments. We even have the luxury of having an unbilled Christopher Lee as the voice of Mr Owen. Like Orson Welles-largely responsible for why the scene in the 1974 version in question was done so well, possibly the best done of the versions- his distinctive voice is not what you call inhuman, but there is a dignified and menacing quality to it that is enough to evoke some chills at least. The butler character is also the most interesting in this version.Overall, while flawed I liked it very much and consider it the second best version of a literary masterpiece. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Neil Doyle TEN LITTLE INDIANS benefits from making good use of the original Agatha Christie story while making changes that don't detract from one's enjoyment of the puzzling mystery. And the fact that it includes some highly enjoyable performances from WILFRID HYDE-WHITE, DENNIS PRICE and STANLEY HOLLOWAY makes it worth watching for the cast alone.Others in the cast are less noteworthy, including HUGH O'BRIAN in the romantic lead and SHIRLEY EATON, who are somewhat less convincing as the hardiest survivors of a plan to do away with ten people at an isolated mansion where they have gathered for a dinner party.LEO GENN and MARIO ADORF are also well used as unfortunate victims of a wealthy man's determination to get rid of his household guests by murdering them one by one. Since this version concentrates more on the mysterious circumstances of each guest and omits a rampant use of comic touches that filled the Rene Clair version (AND THEN THERE WERE NONE--1945), it stays an absorbing who-dun-it until the final scene.Crisply photographed with some stunning B&W photography of exteriors and interiors, it somehow is not quite as entertaining as the original version starring Louis Hayward and June Duprez with memorable performances from a cast that included Judith Anderson, Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald.None of the performances here are memorable, but most of them hit the mark. Mario Adorf makes an interesting butler, his gloomy personality a stark difference to the sort of butler Richard Haydn played in the original. And changing the locale of the story to a mountainous retreat in the dead of winter doesn't affect the story in negative way at all.Summing up: Good, but still not as effective overall as the 1945 version.