Mr_Blonde3
*Spoilers* This, the third remake of Rene' Clair's original 1945 film "And Then There Were None" moves the tale of 10 guilty strangers being bumped off by an unseen murderer to a lush safari in Africa, which does more harm that good.First, the good. The film does boast some worthy performances, most notably Herbert Lom as the novel's general character. Lom has the distinction of playing Dr. Armstrong, a character that lasts longer in the 1974 version. While I enjoyed his overall performance in that film, he was well cast as a doctor but an unconvincing drunk. (Ironically, in the novel, Armstrong has no qualms about drinking in public, while film adaptations make him a private alcoholic until the stuff really hits the fan) Back to Lom's performance, it's truly letter perfect. This adaptation returns the General character back to his elderly roots, and his backstory, while names are changed, is correct to the book. The General was played by men-of-action actors Leo Genn and Adolfo Celi respectively, so his original crime of killing his wife's lover was updated to him accidentally killing 5 soldiers. Lom nails the confession scene in this version. Telling Vera of his crime, he's natural, he's believable, and it's probably the most powerful scene in the film. Lom also doesn't overplay the general's dottiness. Sir C. Aubrey Smith is the only other English-speaking actor to have played the role thus far, and his malfunctioning hearing aid and overly-elderly portrayal just didn't work for me. Genn and Celi were good, but Lom nails all aspects of the role, and it's a shame he's not in the film longer.Also of note is Donald Pleasance's Judge Wargrave, one of my favorite characters from the novel. His and Richard Attenborough's portrayals remain my top two of the English versions. Barry Fitzgerald and Wilfrid Hyde-White are excellent, but the judge is far to genial in their versions, and Pleasance and Attenborough really get to play the character with a bit of the callous @sshole present in Christie's novel. Pleasance does have moments of overacting, (Most of the cast does) but overall, he's rock-solid in the role, and I really liked him. The man who originated Dr. Sam Loomis does not disappoint here.Sarah Maur Thorpe is a solid Vera Claythorne. She's not perfect, but she creates a character to root for, and she's easy on the eyes. Brenda Vaccaro is decent as the character of Emily Brent. the '45 version retains her as a spinster, while the '65 and '74 versions gave us a glamorous movie star with a checkered past with Dahlia Lavi and Stephane Audran. Here, the film tries to have the best of both worlds. She's a movie star who's found religion. Unfortunately, the mash-up isn't successful, and while Vaccaro is solid enough, the mash-up hurts her performance, though she's quite good in her own confession scene.The rest of the cast is just plain bad. The most serious offender is Frank Stallone. He looks the role, but when he opens his mouth, it's game over, and since our hero is being portrayed by the charismaless Stallone, we're left with only Vera to really root for. Stallone seems to think posturing and slyly smirking are effort enough, and it just doesn't work. Even Oliver Reed's fleshy, impish Lombard is light-years ahead of this one.Two key roles are hideously butchered, that of Ex-Inspector Blore and Dr. Armstrong (Werner here) As Blore, Warren Berlinger fares better than Yehuda Effroni, but his lack of experience shows, and he overacts, or underacts, the whole picture. However, Effroni is wildly uneven as the Doctor. Granted, it's a terrifying situation and many of the adaptations treat the potential for death without concern, but he's one note overacting, and it isn't good. The rest of the cast are average and don't make much of an impression, save for Paul L. Smith, who leaves a sour one. He joins Effroni on the overacting train and plays Rogers as a complete @sshole. It's not good.Christie wisely set her tale on a remote island cut-off from civilization in a mansion. Setting the film in Africa has a certain novelty, but it kills much of the suspense. The most laughable moment comes after a "search" is done for their missing, murdering host and they decide the killer is one of them. Setting the novel at an isolated mansion allows that conclusion to be drawn. There are limited places to hide. But on safari? There's no way to accurately search the entire area and assure yourself that no one else could be hiding. Those who griped that it was unbelievable having the characters make the same claim after searching the massive hotel in the '74 version need only watch this film for a different perspective. Even that was more believable than this.Also, the film botches the red herring. One character in the novel, and all prior film adaptations, disappears, and is assumed to be the killer until the body is discovered later. Here, they find the corpse immediately, so that element of suspense is totally wasted. And where does one hide from the killer? By tying the tent flaps closed? There's worse cinema out there, far worse. If you're a fan of Pleasence or Lom, they make the film worthwhile, or if you're a completest, you could do worse. The 1987 Russian adaptation "Desyat Negrityat" is flawless and Rene' Clair's version is tops of the English language versions, but this one is entertaining enough if you've got time to kill.I own it, I've watched it more than once. No Oscars will be handed out, but it was enjoyable to my own tastes.
Edward J. Cunningham
Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" is one of the most famous mystery books every written, and may be the best mystery book of all time. Unfortunately, we may never see a movie that truly does justice to this great work. Even the so-called classic version of 1940 ruins the book by imposing a "happy ending." To the filmmakers' credit, under the Hays code it may have been impossible to show the original ending in the book. However, the makers of the remakes have no excuses. And since the same man-- Henry Alan Towers--has produced all the remakes and they all have the same ending, Christie fans can only hope that someone who truly cares about this book will buy the rights from his family when he passes away, since it's obvious he will going to do the right thing.If I have to rate this film, I would charitably give it a "7" only because I haven't seen it. And why should I bother to see it? This isn't the book I read in junior high school and fell in love with. It's a retread of what Hollywood thinks the public really wants from this book. You don't need an exotic location like Iran or the Safari desert to make this book interesting. Just use a small island, a good cast, and an outstanding director who knows how this book should be filmed. My first choice would be Christopher Nolan who directed "Following", "Memento", and the remake of "Insomnia."There is one ray of light in the darkness of "Ten Little Indians" remakes, and that is the new film "Identity." While that film strays farthest from the letter of Christie's book than any of the official movie versions, I believe it remains closest to her spirit. More thinking clearly went into this film than went into any of the other versions of "Ten Little Indians"....P.S. Anybody who thinks that a book or film with an ending similar to what happens in the book "And Then There Were None" is boring should ask themselves if a happy ending would have improved "Hamlet" or "King Lear."
