Ten Little Indians (1989) User Reviews

While it has some redeeming values, it's still the worst version

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 6 January 2013]

First and foremost, I am not the sort of person who throws a hissy fit if there is one change at all to a story. I'm actually the sort of person who makes a big effort to judge adaptations on their own terms. But here I can really see why people would dislike this version, adaptation-wise it is the worst based on the book and even on its own terms it's a somewhat redeemable(if not by much) mess. If it was a book I wasn't a huge fanatic about but still appreciated, I wouldn't be so worried. Here though, we are talking about a masterpiece of a book, a definite contender for Agatha Christie's(The Queen of Crime) best book.

Of the versions I've seen(1945, 1965, 1974 and this), the best by far is the 1945 Rene Clair version. While I am not a fan of the ending, though the ending of the book can be seen as unfilmable, the film really scores in the suspenseful atmosphere, the claustrophobic tension of the atmosphere, the witty script and the top-notch cast. I enjoyed the 1965 version(though I shall see it again to see if it holds up), and while it is full of major problems the 1974 film is better than I'd heard it cited to be. This version though, despite some redeeming values, I found very difficult to get into.

The redeeming qualities are these. Firstly, the locations. While it lacks that suspenseful, claustrophobic touch, they still looked lovely though you did wish for more. Secondly, the whole thing with the lions was well done I thought. Finally, there were three performances that I thought were quite good. The best of the cast was Donald Pleasance, who gives a quietly incisive and intelligent performance as the Judge. Following very close behind is Herbert Lom, whose dotty but quite touching General is the best of any the film versions of the book. Sarah Maur Thorp is a credible if occasionally too erratic Vera.

Unfortunately the rest of the cast are nowhere near on the same plane. Brenda Vaccaro doesn't do anything with her role, and it doesn't help in the slightest that Marion Marshall not only doesn't have any substance at all but also how she written gives the indication that there were two scripts crammed into one and it all becomes far too left-field. Neil McCarthy's Marston is too much of a caricature, even for a character that doesn't last very long. Warren Berlinger is not a complete disaster, but for my tastes more subtlety and less bellowing was needed for Blore. For me the Rogers were acted with no real distinction, he rather lumbering and she too shrill. Then there are the two really bad performances. The Lombard of Frank Stallone is an absolute blank, but the worst was Yehuda Efroni who goes well overboard in the over-acting department.

Marion Marshall is not the only character though who is written poorly. Every single character is like a very emotionally cold cardboard cut-out. And to make things worse, any development into their past crimes are either severely underdeveloped(ie. Vera's, too ambiguous) or badly distorted(ie. Marion Marshall, a real head scratcher that was). Some like the judge weren't even touched upon.

Any attempts for suspense are diluted quite badly here as well for many reasons, considering that was a major component of what made the 1945 film and the book so enjoyable. There's the truly unimaginative and overly-obvious camera work and close-ups. There's the melodramatic and out-of-sync reactions to the voice from the gramophone record, in by far the most badly done version of that crucial scene(done brilliantly in the 1974 film I thought). There's the often tedious pacing, I know the book unfolded slowly but that was Christie's style, the lack of anything what kept the book alive made for a very dull watch. There's the murders that came across as crude and had none of the creepiness or sense of dread they ought to have done, only Rogers' had a semblance of an eerie quality to it.

Of course you can add to these a very out-of-place Noel Coward song, if not as out-of-place as the one for the 1974 film, a very trite and stilted script and lethargic direction and you have a disappointing mess that has the locations, lions and three good(but not truly great) performances saving it from total doom. 4/10 Bethany Cox

U.N Owen sets to work whilst on Safari

[Sleepin_Dragon · 5/10 · 25 August 2015]

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

The only reason to watch this film is to earn the right to pan it.

[Joern · 4/10 · 8 December 2002]

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.

More distinctive for its bad qualities than its good

[delatorrel · 3/10 · 18 November 2003]

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.

Doesn't succeed, but doesn't fail

[Steven H. Price · 22 May 2001]

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

Weak

[grantss · 4/10 · 24 April 2016]

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.

A few flashes of potential, but ultimately a poor adaptation

[Jimmy-128 · 4/10 · 25 December 2011]

This is the first "grown-up" mystery I ever read, and it remains my absolute favorite to this day--which is why whenever I encounter a new film adaptation, I keep hoping it would do the book justice--but none of them ever do, and this particular version is the worst of the lot.

The story should be familiar to everyone: ten people are assembled in an isolated location, are accused of murder by their unseen host, and are executed one by one, with the methods of their deaths corresponding to a child's nursery rhyme. And one thing this version does have going for it is that it avoids tampering with the rhyme as the 1965 and 1974 versions do. Likewise, the crimes each of Mr. Owen's guests have committed also remain largely unchanged from the novel (the sole exceptions being Blore's and Marion Marshall's).

But what makes this version so thoroughly unwatchable is how badly the plot is served by the locale, and how badly one has to stretch credulity to believe that something like this could happen as the script writers tell us it does. For example, in her first scene, Mrs. Rodgers complains about "lions and tigers" all around the camp, and later, during the search for Mr. Owen, several characters see one--and yet, immediately afterward, one of the characters is willing to spend the night on an isolated hilltop, without any fear of becoming a lion's midnight snack. In fact, we never see or hear the lions at all after the search; once they've served their purpose of creating tension during the scene in question, they apparently vanish into thin air.

Another reviewer has pointed out that too much is out of Mr. Owen's control, and that's 100% accurate; there's simply no way Mr. Owen could have arranged for all of this, especially so far from his home country. The character has no contacts nearby, no agents, nobody to set up the safari, no way to get the natives to isolate the doomed party, no way of making sure everyone meets the end s/he deserves. Moreover, Owen is strangely passive throughout the story; he doesn't set in motion the chain of events that lead to the fifth, sixth, and seventh murders, but relies entirely on chance and opportunism, and it's simply impossible for him to commit the second.

Lombard is finally the soldier of fortune he is supposed to be, rather than the engineer of previous adaptations--but it completely strains credulity to the breaking point to think that he would not have had his own supply of ammunition, rather than having to filch Marston's. And when Lombard finally succeeds in radioing for help, and is told that a rescue plane would be launched "in the morning," it doesn't occur to him to tell whoever's sending it that four people have already died and they need that plane NOW. He takes the delay far too passively for a man of his temperament--or at least, for a man of what his temperament should be.

The acting is uneven among all the actors, with the sole exceptions of Neil McCarthy, Sarah Maur Thorpe, and Yehuda Efroni--and in Efroni's case, it's because he's uniformly bad from start to finish. His caricature of a performance starts out as distracting and ends up being just painful to watch.

Finally, the international cast of characters - three English, five American, one Romanian, one German - is a problem that plagues all four English-language adaptations and especially this one, because how would Owen even have heard about all of them in the first place? The whole point is that no one knows that these people have committed murder; all of the deaths in their pasts have been put down either to accident, natural causes, or the normal course of war or the legal system, but Owen, owing to his position *in his own society,* is able to find people to tell him what really happened. How would Owen have discovered the "truth" about the deaths of both Beatrice Taylor and Heinrich Domeratsky - deaths that take place 6500 miles and 15 years apart?

Dull, static, and unfortunately inept.

[harryharman1996 · 3/10 · 13 July 2013]

This film is the weakest of the Harry Alan Towers' adaptations of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians". This is a shame, as it is the most recent film we have of this book, although we all pray that there will be another film in the future. Everything about this film has more weak points than strong. The casting is dull and uninteresting. The setting is bizarre. The script is slow and lacks energy. It looks, in all honesty, more like an amateur production. However, I shall go through things fairly chronologically:

The setting is possibly the weirdest of any of the films. A mansion in the Swiss Alps (1965) was believable, an ornate palace in Iran (1974) was a little more difficult to comprehend, but this is beyond both. There is very little claustrophobia felt, possibly because they are pretty much always in the open air, but also because of the method of transport. In the original novel and 1945 film, the guests travel by boat across a particularly choppy sea. In the 1965 film, they travel by cable car, which is later sabotaged. The 1974 film probably has the most isolated feel, because they arrive by helicopter in the middle of nowhere. In this film, the guests arrive by foot, and, although it looks desolate and seems isolated, it doesn't look impossible for anyone to escape – it looks as though at least one person is going to manage to make a run for it. None of the characters fit into the setting, either; why the elderly Judge Wargrave and General Romensky are there is a mystery.

The acting is, to put bluntly, poor. This is not necessarily the fault of the actors, as the script itself is slow and seems pregnant, as if something should be happening, but never actually does happen. By contrast, the deaths happen at lightning speed, and we rattle through the first five murders, without any deductive reasoning or hypothesising taking place in between. The acting doesn't really convince. Donald Pleasance appears less authoritative than any previous Judge Wargrave; he is bumbling, forgetful, slow, and weary, and not really very believable as a judge. Frank Stallone gives a dull, static performance as Lombard, speaking his lines as if he's reading the news. Sarah Maur Thorp is refreshing as Vera, but her overacting becomes irritating, and by the end, her high-pitch scream becomes incredibly annoying. Brenda Vacarro is a good actress, but she is let down by the fact that she is playing a bland, substanceless character, fading actress Marion Marshall. Yehuda Efroni gives a bizarre interpretation of the doctor; instead of the wise portrayals of Walter Huston and Dennis Price, he appears positively half-witted and childlike – he sulks like a schoolchild at dinner on the first night of the safari, for no reason. Herbert Lom is not given very much to do, but his exposition sequence, when he reveals to Vera his past crime, is excellent. Sadly, he dies just as we grow to like him. Warren Berlinger, like Brenda Vacarro, is given a dull character with little/no substance at all. His performance is gruff, grumbly, and inaudible. Neil McCarthy plays Anthony Marston as a foppish spoiled brat, and while his characterisation is not bad, his fast-paced music number "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" is pointless and random. Paul Smith overacts as Mr Rodgers, to the point where we don't really feel sorry for the death of his wife, played by Moira Lister. Lister's performance is screechy but entertaining, but unfortunately she does very little in the film. The past crimes are a mess. Some are not mentioned at all (judge, doctor, Lombard), and the rest are just vague. Blore's confession is quiet and muffled. Vera's crime, the best the book had to offer, is changed to a one-liner about a boy she looked after drowning. Marston mentions a couple run down by him, with no mention of him being drunk, or even the victims being young children. Marion Marshall's crime is also vague and confusing – we just hear that she pushed her lesbian lover into a swimming pool. The Rodgers' crime is, like Vera's, distorted. Rodgers mentions that they looked after a woman who died – that's it.

This film takes ages to get going – we have to sit through the entire journey to the campsite, watching everyone engaging in everyday conversation, little bursts of talk followed by more scenery and elephants. Although Africa is beautiful, and elephants are quite interesting, I think it would have been better to have the focus on the characters and their backstories. Then, after so much wasted time, we suddenly get death after death after death after death after death…the whole thing is poorly paced. The scene involving the gramophone record is distorted as well. The voice is not the clear, booming voice it is in the novel, but instead a raspy, slow, accusatory sound crackling from the record player. And somehow, the person who is about to be accused next happens to utter something silly and mechanical before being named by the record.

At least the ending is exciting and dramatic, unlike any previous films, but unfortunately it doesn't hold water – why did Lombard wait several minutes before bursting into the tent and saving the screaming Vera? I have read elsewhere on IMDb that there was an original script using the novel's original ending, which was binned just before production began. Where is this script? It is unlikely that we will ever know now.

This film has never been released on DVD, but is available on VHS, should anyone have a VHS player. It is also currently unavailable on YouTube, despite being available just a few months ago.

"Good Movie" Reviewer Needs to be Imprisoned

[TeeHeeHee86 · 3/10 · 10 February 2005]

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!!!

7/10

[Gubby-Allen · 7/10 · 9 January 2004]

Possible spoilers

I'd give this film 7/10 although I can fully understand why below it has been labelled as the worst adaptation ever. The story is so magnificent that it should get 10/10 regardless of how many remakes there are. What I know about film production you could write on the back of a postage stamp, but even I could make a pretty impressive attempt of putting Ten Little Indians to film.

So, that it only scores 7/10 is more of a criticism than you would first think. It's not all bad, I didn't mind Stallone as Lombard as much as others, Pleasance is terrific at the end, the use of the lions was well thought out & the character Vera is again well converted. Most of my criticisms have been mentioned here already.

Both this version (1989) and the 1945 version were roughly the same length ie 100 near minutes yet bizarrely & I'm not sure exactly how, the superb 1945 version seems to fit twice as much into it, and a lot more from the novel. Almost every character is fully developed there, whereas in this version, I didn't find one single character who we got to know & understand to the level we should have done. Some of there reasons for being there were tedious.

Main problems were right from the start, all the extras, African tribesman & naked women lost the isolation factor. The good thing about the book & 1945 version was the quietness & lack of life in the surroundings. Nor could I understand the exact reasoning behind the lift being cut. The surrounding was impressive but even allowing for the lions you would still have expected at least one person to have done a runner from the area. I wasn't sure why a couple of characters had their names altered, why the doctor was foreign nor did the Doctor seem to build up a good enough relationship with the judge to forge the plan.

Not enough attention was paid to the rhyme, Noel Cowards' song seemed out of place, and the Marion Marshall character had no substance whatsoever. The Rogers relationship seemed unconvincing & most of all, while not every murder warranted a flashback to see how it was committed, the Elmo Rogers death was crying out for one. He claimed to be off to the hill to keep watch & a frail old judge axes a 20 stone man. How? Was he asleep? Well then show us.

The whole film just seemed very cheap & looked like a draft version, but with a story as good as this, it will always carry it.

A low 7/10

Serviceable version

[gridoon2024 · 5/10 · 5 January 2012]

Out of the five theatrical versions of this famous Agatha Christie tale (perhaps her most famous ever, along with "Murder On The Orient Express"), I have only seen two: this 1989 one and the 1974 one. Comparing them, this one lacks the elegance of the other one, suffers from a terribly generic music score, and about half the cast will have you wondering "Who ARE these people?"; if you're used to seeing star-packed Agatha Christie adaptations, be prepared for one where you may never have seen some of the cast members before. But even the most recognizable names are not at their best here. I do want to single out two actors: Paul L. Smith, who will always be the revolting prison torturer of "The Midnight Express" in my mind and only has to show his towering frame to be scary (though his unexpectedly soft voice makes him sound dubbed at times!), and Sarah Maur Thorp, who creates possibly the only likable character in the bunch. The idea of the group voting anonymously on who they think is picking them off is an interesting one, but the film goes nowhere with it. On the positive side, there is some nice (though limited) African scenery, a very effective corpse-discovery scene (I don't want to give it away, but it involves an axe....), and an arguable improvement on how a certain event plays out at the end, though this version, just like the older one, would benefit from following Christie's original book ending instead of her revised play one. ** out of 4.

Far better than I expected

[bige70 · 8/10 · 26 January 2013]

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!

PC culture and all that

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 14 February 2021]

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.

Based on a novel and subsequent stage play by Agatha Christie about a unseen killer who sequentially knocks off the visitors

[ma-cortes · 4/10 · 1 September 2012]

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 .

Strange place for murder!

[Quint-7 · 10 September 2000]

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!

Ten Little Indians, One Little Star

[blitzebill · 1/10 · 7 May 2019]

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??

Don't bother

[CabbageCustard · 2/10 · 7 September 2022]

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.

Pleasance and Lom are standouts in an overall weak adaptation of one of Christie's most famous novels

[Mr_Blonde3 · 5/10 · 15 April 2014]

*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.

Forgettable, but nevertheless entertaining Agatha Christie adaptation

[Coventry · 5/10 · 30 March 2011]

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.

Kill just one more please, me.

[bombersflyup · 1/10 · 17 October 2021]

Ten Little Indians is one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Atrocious casting, writing and acting, no imagination and no enjoyment to be had. I fell asleep through some of it to be honest, so bloody dull. Though I'm quite sure I didn't miss anything. Why'd the fat guy always have a grin on his face and like why's he married to an elderly woman anyway, blah.

If you can tolerate the overacting, it definitely has its charms

[hendersoncontrell · 6/10 · 10 January 2023]

I love Agatha and this story and this version can't be properly reviewed without comparing it to the others. The 1945 version is a classic and I LOVE the 1965 version so you'll hear no blasphemy on that from me. I'd place the 1989 version third, ahead of the 1974 one, which is generally poor. The 1989 version is tough to review because it's so uneven. It suffers from some very severe, laughable bouts of overacting, mostly by Paul L Smith, who I've never been a fan of because he, well, overacts. The caricature doctor and Herbert Lom also ham it up, possibly without knowing they are. The performances are borderline campy but the movie also takes itself very seriously. Donald Pleasance steals the show in a villain role he seemed destined to play. His Wargrave at the end is actually pretty chilling. He also DEFINITELY knows he's in a campier version because it's obvious along the way. I also enjoyed Sarah Thorp's Vera. I think her performance deserved a better film. The acting weak link is poor, wooden, generally talentless Frank Stallone who, thankfully, has very little screen time. Did they cast him as a favor to Sly? I liked Warren Berlinger's Blore. He has a really nice acting moment when he's confessing his crime against Landor. The major positive for the film is it's the best horror film version. 1965 has some great chills but 1989 amps up the creepy music, mood and, especially, the violence. There's more blood spilled in this one than the others combined. The film's weakness is its tone. It's so campy in so many places but it's taken so seriously! You get the feeling they thought they were making a dramatic masterpiece, which is a shame because there are several comedic moments which could have fit in nicely with the drama if they were acknowledged as such! Still, I think it's a fun watch if you love Agatha and the story and look for the positives.

Why was this made?

[xavrush89 · 3/10 · 11 November 2003]

Nothing here has been improved upon from the original the first remake, and if you've seen either, then this is completely unsatisfying. Of all the actors in it, Brenda Vaccaro is the only one I think anyone would rent or tune in to see, not that this does her or anyone else in the cast justice. There is not one moment that you won't be wishing you were watching the original.

moderate film at best

[peacham · 9/10 · 21 July 1999]

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!

Watch the 40s or 60s version FIRST!!!

[rlamybarlow · 5/10 · 16 August 2021]

Better than the 80s version but oof so much different than the first 2 versions.

Not the BEST version, but still packs surprises

[filmbuff-63 · 18 July 2003]

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!

First, I need to correct one notion put forth by the previous critic: the "happy" ending to the theatrical versions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS or AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was not something that the filmmakers arbitrarily added to make people feel good watching it. It was, in fact, written by Agatha Christie herself when she adapted the story for the stage. This was done for two reasons.

First, she wanted people to enjoy the play even if they've read the book. She wanted them to be surprised anew, something she did with every play she adapted.

Second, she knew that what worked and satisfied in a novel may not work or satisfy in dramatic form, and I agree with her. I mean, how can you argue with her level of success.

Now, to the 1989 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS: This is NOT the best screen version of the story, but it still genuinely surprises. It was the first version I'd seen and I was truely shocked when th ekiller was revealed. I enjoyed the adaptation and the cast. My only complaint is that having the story take place in a remote location in Africa it loses the sense of claustraphobia that other versions had.

For better adaptations I recommend the 1945 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE or the 1965 TEN LITTLE INDIANS. The stage version is also wonderful- and lets not forget the book!