Change Your Image
scott-palmer2
Reviews
The House of Exorcism (1975)
The Truth behind Two different films
I remember well in 1975 when in High School a bunch of us went to see House of Exorcism-which we all thought was better than the much overrated The Exorcist. Many years later I got a video of what was called Lisa and the Devil, which I thought was the same film under a different title. However this is NOT the case: Lisa and the Devil and House of Exorcism are two different films. When I saw the Lisa and the Devil version it had nothing to do with the film of my youth, and I was quite disappointed as I found that version quite boring-there was no possessed Elke Sommer or the Robert Alda priest character (although Telly Savalas was marvellous in both versions). Luckily a recent DVD had BOTH versions, so I was able to see the original after many years.
Unlike many of the reviews, I think House of Exorcism was the better of the two, and I am not alone, even though posted reviews seem to like the "Lisa" version better. NOW here comes the truth, which most people don't know. When the original film(Lisa and the Devil)was finished in 1973, it was shown to many distributors-none of whom thought it was any good. Two years later the "redone" version, called House of Exorcism, was made-using much of the same footage of the other film but now having Elke Sommer possessed by the devil and in hospital, and having Robert Alda as the priest who not only exorcises the devil from Elke, but also the house where she had stayed. The same distributors who had shown no interest in the other film now decided to go ahead with House of Exorcism-and the result was that it made millions (at a time when it was still only a dollar or two to see a film). The bottom line here is that millions of people went to see House of Exorcism, while nobody went to see Lisa and the Devil.
So in conclusion I guess that all the distributors, as well as millions of filmgoers, preferred House of Exorcism!
Suspense: The Red Signal (1952)
Excellent entry in Suspense series
The Red Signal was aired on January 22, 1952 and was part of the Suspense anthology series that ran on CBS TV from 1949-54. Based on Agatha Christie's short story of the same name, it is very faithful to the original and packs quite a lot of excitement into the 30 minutes it runs.
The story opens at a seance conducted by Mrs. Cattermole who while in a trance issues warnings to both Jack Trent and Sir Alington West. Dermot West, nephew of Sir Alington, is also at the seance. Later at his uncle's home he is told that Claire Trent invited Sir Alington in his professional capacity as a psychiatrist to observe one of the six others at the seance to determine whether he or she is insane. After a murder and false suspicion, the homicidal lunatic is unmasked.
Suspense was a very popular series with both early TV audiences and the critics, and this is a fine example. The series, filmed in New York-the then US capital of television, showcased the talents of some very good actors early in their careers-many of whom went on to much bigger things. In this episode the ensemble cast is uniformly excellent, especially Tom Helmore as Dermot West
The Pale Horse (1997)
Average TV Agatha Christie
Taken from the 1961 novel of the same name, this Anglia TV rendition of The Pale Horse was filmed in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Oxon, and London. Notable differences from the novel are the absence of Ariadne Oliver and some of the other characters from the book.
The story concerns young sculptor Mark Easterbrook (Colin Buchanan) who discovers a priest dying from a head wound-the man gives Mark a list of names before he dies. The police don't exactly believe Mark's story, even to the point where they suspect him in the priest's death, but Mark determines to follow up the list-which leads to other murders before he finally solves it with the aid of Kate Mercer (Jayne Ashbourne), a friend of one of the victims.
The Pale Horse is nothing superlative, rather more like average, and the two young leads are somewhat bland. The good things about this production are the photography, and very fine performances from Sir Leslie Phillips and Michael Byrne-that alone makes it worth watching. Martin Kennedy is also quite good in the small part of Tate, a tough henchman. Jean Marsh plays one of the three witches who reside at the house known as The Pale Horse.
Studio One: They Came to Baghdad (1952)
unremarkable TV version of Agatha Christie Story
They Came to Baghdad was made for TV in the U.S. as part of the Studio One anthology series. It was shown on May 12, 1952, and was based on the novel Christie wrote the previous year.
Story opens with a rather unconvincing murder attempt that goes awry, followed by a newspaper headline with a warning from Winston Churchill. Anna Scheele, Richard Baker, and Inspector Dakin are working for the "good guys," the free nations of the world. The plans of a new secret weapon has been obtained by a man called Carmichael who is supposed to meet the trio in Baghdad.
Enemy agents discover a girl, one Victoria Jones, who bears such a resemblance to Miss Scheele that they dupe her (Jones that is) into accompanying them to Baghdad. Edward Goring, the chief bad guy, has gained the trust of Miss Jones, and when she arrives at the Baghdad hotel she discovers a hotbed of spies and intrigue. Carmichael shows up, is fatally shot by the bad guys, but not before he leaves a cryptic clue with Miss Jones-thinking she is Anna Scheele. When Baker, Dakin, Jones and Scheele all get together at the end, they discover the clue is actually a coded message in the stitching of Carmichael's scarf.
This convoluted and confusing adaptation does little justice to a somewhat brilliant novel by the Queen of Crime. Performances in general are average, and June Dayton is often irritating and at times unbelievable. Only Bramwell Fletcher as Inspector Dakin gives a decent performance. An interesting curio this, perhaps in part due to the fact that it's the only attempt to ever put this novel on either large or small screen (maybe someone will do it again sometime, especially since nearly 60 years have passed).
Neudacha Puaro (2002)
Interesting Russian Poirot
Like three other Russian films made in the 1980s (A Pocket Full of Rye, Ten Little Indians, and Peril at End House), this one-based on the novel The Murder of Roger Ackroyd-remains quite faithful to Christie's original story. Although none of these productions were "authorized" (they were made without the consent or permission of the Christie Company or Estate)they are all nonetheless well-made and close to the written works.
Following the murder of Sir Roger Ackroyd, Poirot enlists the aid of butler Parker and Flora Ackroyd to reconstruct the crime. When asked how many glasses were on the tray the butler brought the victim the night he was murdered, he is surprised the answer was two, but the butler tells Poirot "I always brought him two glasses." Poirot explains at the end of the film that the murderer has to fit certain criteria-six points in all. The killer had to know Ackroyd had a dictaphone, had to have a receptacle to hide same, had to have been at the Three Boars Inn, needed a mechanical type mind, had to have an opportunity to take the murder weapon, and finally needed access to Ackroyd's study after he was dead.
Konstantin Rajkin makes a very fine Poirot, and also Sergei Makovetsky is good as Dr. Shepherd. The latter actor is known as The People's Actor of Russia, and has won numerous film and theatre awards. This film was selected Picture of the Year by the Russian Film Academy. It also has great cinematography and period settings. If you can find a copy it's well worth the time to watch it.
The Brute Man (1946)
Rondo Hatton's Finest Hour
Rondo Hatton was a former reporter who began acting in films in 1930 when he was covering a film being made in Florida. During the 30s and 40s he was mainly seen in small roles, often as hulks, due to his large body size and the fact the he had contracted acromegaly after being gassed during the first world war. In 1944 he was cast as The Hoxton Creeper in a Sherlock Holmes film, The Pearl of Death, and achieved brief stardom-or at least cult stardom-until his early death from a heart attack at age 52 in 1946 (he had suffered a milder heart attack the previous year as a direct result of his condition).
In this, one of his last films, not only does Hatton get the starring role, he has a great deal of dialogue and proves that he could be a good actor when given the chance. It is unusual for audiences to feel as much sympathy for a killer-especially one who has killed several times-but we do for Hatton. His scenes with Jane Adams, playing Helen, the blind piano teacher, are especially moving. Helen sees the inner man without being able to see the physical one, and although as I said he's a killer he gives the impression of a very human, tragic figure. Helen wants to touch his face, but he won't let her; this gives one a strong impression of a mirroring of the life of the actor himself. Just like the character he plays, Rondo Hatton was an athlete when younger, and excelled at football.
All of the cast play their parts well. Donald MacBride, frequently cast as the dumb cop, plays a very canny and intelligent one here, and he's ably supported by Peter Whitney-looking handsome and slim!-as Police Lieutenant Gates. The photography is well-done-especially considering the budget (or lack thereof) and there are some nice angles and lighting, especially when Hatton is prowling around the city.
Note: This film was actually made at Universal, who sold the rights to it to PRC shortly after it was completed (and Rondo Hatton died).
Run a Crooked Mile (1969)
Great suspense, intrigue, and mystery
Run a Crooked Mile was a film made for TV and filmed in England and Europe with a cast mainly of British actors. Although made by Universal's TV branch-which probably explains the two leads are Louis Jourdan and Mary Tyler Moore-it plays as good as a theatrically made film.
Jourdan plays a London-based mathematics teacher who, when following a car that sideswiped his, arrives at Buckley Manor, where he stumbles on a group of wealthy financiers manipulating the gold standard. Confronting one of them later, he is struck on the head. When he wakes up he discovers that two years have passed, he's now in Geneva, married, and is in hospital recovering from a fall off his polo pony! Of course he's now called Tony Sutton instead of Richard Stuart. The next step is to make ANYONE believe him, as almost everyone Jourdan comes into contact with is part of the conspiracy. He eventually returns to England and exposes the crooks.
This is a film that really should be released commercially by Universal (along with other of their great made for TV films). Other comments call for a remake, but this film is so good that it NEVER should be remade! The photography is great and so are the performances from top to bottom. We sympathize with Jourdan and he's quite good in the film, and also Mary Tyler Moore gives an unusually good performance. Best in the cast is the great Wilfrid Hyde-White as Dr. Ralph Sawyer, and also Stanley Holloway in a smaller part as a caretaker. Also excellent are Alexander Knox as Sir Howard Nettleton, Terence Alexander as Private Eye Peter Martin, Laurence Naismith (Lord Dunsford), Ronald Howard (Inspector Huntington), and Norman Bird (Sergeant Hooper).
Trevor Wallace wrote a brilliant script, it's a pity he died so young and wrote so few film scripts. There are many memorable quotes (like Hyde-White to Jourdan: "I had two great vices-poetry and gambling. Poetry enriches the soul; gambling depletes the bank account.") or when Holloway is talking to the police-trying to tell them Jourdan must be crazy: "Maybe you can find some little green men in the drive too!"
Endless Night (1972)
Excellent psychological thriller
Endless Night is a very fine, interesting, and unusual film-just like the novel on which it was based. It seems amazing that this under-appreciated film, which follows Christie's novel closely, was never released theatrically in the U.S.
Acting is very good for the most part; Hayley Mills is good in a somewhat difficult role, as is Hywel Bennett. These two had starred together in several films over the previous five or six years, and work well together. As always, George Sanders is great, as is Leo Genn in a comparatively small role as a psychiatrist-one wishes both of them had more screen time. Britt Ekland also turns in one of her better performances as Greta.
Other actors in the film of note are Peter Bowles, Lois Maxwell, Aubrey Richards, Ann Way, Helen Horton, Walter Gotell and David Bauer. Allso good are Patience Collier as Miss Townsend, and Madge Ryan as Hywel Bennett's mother. Per Oscarsson as architect Santonix is the only weak spot in the cast; he often mumbles his lines and is difficult to understand.
Endless Night is a very good film that deserves a lot more attention and recognition than it received at the time of its somewhat limited release. Fortunately it has been released on video and later DVD and is not difficult to find. Fans of Agatha Christie will enjoy it and also anyone who likes a well-made psychological thriller.
Seven Dials Mystery (1981)
Very faithful adaptation
Fans of Agatha Christie's novels will be pleased with this 1981 TV film, which nearly exactly sticks to the original 1929 written work. A good period atmosphere with nice outdoor filming, as well as good casting also helps.
Harry Andrews is as always great, here he plays Superintendent Battle (one of the rare times we see the character on film)and also Sir John Gielgud. Cheryl Campbell is fine as Lady Eileen and James Warwick-soon to appear as Tommy in the Partners in Crime series, is also winning in the role of Jimmy Thesiger. Representing the older generation Terence Alexander, Leslie Sands, and Noel Johnson are excellent, and the younger crowd is well-played by Lucy Gutteridge, John Vine, Robert Longden, and Christopher Scoular.
Agatha Christie's house in Devon-Greenway-was used in this production. The period costumes are excellent, as are the tech credits. It is obvious that a lot of care on all fronts went into the making of this production. Most of the same people were responsible for making the TV film Why Didn't They Ask Evans? the previous year.
The Man in the Brown Suit (1989)
Woodward great in okay film
The Man in the Brown Suit is the last of some 1980s TV movies made as US/UK co-productions for CBS TV. Changing the location to Cairo (the film was actually shot in Madrid and Cadiz) does the story no harm. Ken Westbury's beautiful photography of cascading waterfalls and other lush scenery is certainly an asset, and Alan Shayne's high production values make the film worth watching. The script is fairly well-written by Carla Jean Wagner.
Once again, second-tier American TV actors associated with current or recently past CBS productions, are included (as well as Tony Randall). Stephanie Zimbalist is a little too cutesy at times, while Rue McClanahan thinks this film is another episode of The Golden Girls. Ken Howard is bland and mediocre at the best of times.
On the other hand the aforementioned actors' British counterparts show them what acting is all about. Best in the cast is Edward Woodward, a great talent who gives a splendid performance. Woodward had just finished a five-year run on CBS as Robert McCall in "The Equalizer," and that may have had something to do with him being in this film (lucky for us!!!). Simon Dutton, who was starring as Simon Templar in TV films of "The Saint" at this time (1988-89) is quite good as "the man in the brown suit." And Nickolas Grace is also quite effective as secretary Guy Underhill.
Warner Brothers' TV policy was to cast actors who were identifiable to TV audiences in the U.S, which does not mean they chose people of great talent or suitability to the roles. They should have taken a lesson from the BBC, Thames TV, London Weekend TV and ITV, all of whom flawlessly cast their productions with actors reflecting the character of their parts, capturing the wonderful flavour of Agatha Christie's writing.
Love from a Stranger (1937)
Brilliant Rathbone in Excellent film
Anyone who is familiar with Basil Rathbone's film career will know that he was a great actor-the best Sherlock Holmes and even into his 70s in films that some may consider beneath his talents, he nevertheless kept the viewer's attention.
Here in Love From a Stranger, Rathbone's character study of the suave, mentally deranged man who has married and killed three women begins slowly and builds up to a tense finish. He skillfully avoids the pitfalls of overacting which might normally come to an actor not possessed of Rathbone's talents.
By the time the film is nearly over we are at a nerve-breaking tension; the powerful final scene when Carol (Ann Harding) realizes what her husband is about to do,and tricks him into believing she has poisoned his coffee, is quite gripping. The only weak point in the film is that it seems hard to believe, given the temperament of Gerald Lovell (Rathbone), that he would simply die of fright.
The supporting cast gives solid performances, and it's of interest to see Joan Hickson, who would gain fame as Miss Marple five decades later, playing Emmy the maid. This film was remade in Hollywood in 1947, and TV versions of it include 1938, 1947, 1958 (all BBC) and 1967 (in Germany).
Note: Frank Vosper, the actor and playwright who starred in Love From a Stranger on stage in 1936 (and whose adaptation of the story has been used for all the film and TV based on the Christie work-originally called Philomel Cottage) died mysteriously in 1937, when he either jumped, fell, or was pushed off a transatlantic liner. After much media speculation his death was finally ruled an accidental drowning.
And Then There Were None (1945)
Best Hollywood film of Agatha Christie novel
This is one of the best screen adaptations made from an Agatha Christie story. Based on the best-selling single mystery novel ever written, it tells the story of ten people invited to a lonely island off the English coast by an unknown host. Soon after arriving, the guests are accused of past crimes that have gone unpunished, and begin being murdered, one by one, according to the nursery rhyme Ten Little Indians.
A fantastic cast of Hollywood character stars, two of which were Academy Award winners (Barry Fitzgerald and Walter Huston) are assembled, and it was directed by noted French Helmer Rene Clair.
Unfortunately the time it was made (1945) prevented the filmmakers' adherence to Christie's ending of her novel-they used the same ending that Christie adapted for the stage in 1943. Not until 1987 (in Russia) was the film made with the original novel's ending.
That however, is not a major flaw in the film. The two most notable problems are the unnecessary comedy elements, and the give-away ending about 10 minutes before the film actually ends. Some of the casting was less than perfect-especially Mischa Auer's middle-aged Russian Prince, but at least he's the first to die. Peter Lawford would have been a far better choice for the character as Christie wrote it. The Richard Haydn drunken butler bit may be amusing, but to keep the audience on the edge of their seats at all times, one needs to create a BELIEVABLE atmosphere all the way through the film. How would people react if this was a real-life situation? Is there anything funny about murder? Fitzgerald and Huston are quite good, although the former is not exactly the "reptilian old man" Christie wrote (Wilfrid Hyde-White was more precise in the 1965 remake), and the latter began a bit of eye-rolling and speech-slurring when drinking more and more (unlike Dennis Price in the 1965 version-he was EXCELLENT). Louis Hayward is not as strong as Lombard should have been (and a bit too sarcastic)and Roland Young is amusing as Blore, but that's not the way Christie wrote it. Sir C. Aubrey Smith however is exactly the way Christie wrote the General, and there could have not been a more perfect choice. Likewise the servants, played by Queenie Leonard and Richard Haydn. The latter is fine up until the drunk scene-unnecessarily comic.
June Duprez is not bad as Miss Claythorne, although the screenwriters made her appear like an imbecile whenever the gun came into play. After one of the guests is shot, she sees the gun on the stairs. Rather than pick it up, she points at it and says "look!," while Hayward grabs it. A bit later, Hayward gains access to her room by passing the gun to her through a window-then she lets him in. Anyone in that situation would have at least checked to see if it was loaded...A few minutes later she is carrying the gun rather loosely at her side, and when it points towards Roland Young she allows him to make an extremely theatrical gesture and put his hand on it, shoving it away from himself. Finally (and this is the most stupid thing) when it appears that there are only two people left alive-Duprez and Hayward-she still has the gun. On the beach she moves about six or eight feet away from him, pointing the gun at him and telling him to keep away. The next scene-seconds later-he is standing RIGHT NEXT TO HER. He then takes hold of the arm with the gun, pushes it aside, and tells her "Now shoot me." She replies "But it won't hit you," to which he says "That's what I mean, and don't be frightened when I fall." This is where they screwed up the ending. Because the next we see, the camera pans back into the house, where we see Hayward and Duprez in long shot. A little Indian figure breaks and eerie whistling commences. That tells the audience that someone is in the house. So when Duprez walks in and confronts the real murderer (and sees a noose hanging from the ceiling), there is no surprise. Likewise when the murderer tells her how and why it was done, and that he's about to take poison, and that she might as well hang herself now because "the only living person found here with nine corpses will certainly be hanged." WE know that's not true, because Hayward will walk in at any minute. They did it perfectly 20 years later-we KNOW Shirley Eaton has shot Hugh O'Brian dead, so when she walks in (and virtually the same thing happens) the murderer's speech has great meaning, and we wonder if she really will hang herself.
But in spite of these flaws, And Then There Were None is still the best film made in Hollywood, and there is much to recommend it. Having spoken to five of the cast members, they all agreed it was great fun to work on, and it's definitely worth watching.
Dead Man's Folly (1986)
could have been much better
Thank God that at least ITV will soon remake this film with David Suchet-the REAL Poirot. Ustinov like always plays Poirot as the untidy, overweight and sloppy Columbo type character, and Clive Donner seems to be directing a comedy at times. The TV Poirots made with Ustinov are a bit more comedic (unlike the way Christie wrote them) than the cinema versions he appeared in. Unfortunately this film was made as a UK/US co-production and CBS TV was involved, hence the casting of Jean Stapleton-one of the worst performances ever-screaming hysterically at times and calling Poirot "Her-cu-lee." (Near the end of this film Ustinov says her instincts at times are "excessive and stupid," and later says to her "You irritate me."-like she irritates the viewer!!!).
However in spite of these flaws, Dead Man's Folly has a good many things going for it-the filming in England at the stately home, a decent script, fine camera-work and editing, and very good performances by Constance Cummings, Tim Piggot-Smith, Susan Wooldridge, Kenneth Cranham, Nicolette Sheridan, and Jimmy Gardner in the smallish role of Old Murdell.
Witness for the Prosecution (1982)
Excellent remake
This 1982 TV film boasts a grand cast (with a notable exception), good camera-work, sets, and lighting. The 1957 version made in Hollywood cast Hollywood actors-most of them British residents. The exception to that was Tyrone Power, although there was no mention in the original story of Leonard Vole being an American. This remake follows suit by casting Beau Bridges as Vole-a great mistake. Whereas Power gave an excellent performance, Bridges is weak and is easily dominated by the talents of the other actors.
Sir Ralph Richardson gives a fine performance, playing barrister Sir Wilfred Robarts with a charm and whimsicality that was his trademark. Deborah Kerr is also quite good as the nurse-a definite improvement from Elsa Lanchester's annoying performance in the earlier film. For a reason unknown to many people, producers of film adaptations of Agatha Christie stories seem to think comedy elements are necessary when the genius of Christie was creating taut, dramatic, mysterious, and dangerous situations-mostly dealing with murder, and there's nothing funny about that. Some may see it as "entertaining," but these elements are totally unnecessary and mostly out of place (and not believable either).
This version took pains to cast truly great actors in even the smaller parts. The legal profession is represented by such distinguished persons as Donald Pleasence, Michael Gough, David Langton and Richard Vernon, and Peter Copley played the doctor. Even the servant Janet McKenzie is played by none other than Dame Wendy Hiller! Diana (later Dame Diana) Rigg is also quite good as Romaine (they restored the character's original name), although unlike Marlene Dietrich she had to assume the German accent.
Norman Rosemont, who was responsible for making many of the best TV movies during the 1970s and 80s, produced this one.
Ein Unbekannter rechnet ab (1974)
Too bad James Mason moved
In October 1974 Variety announced that producer Harry Alan Towers was to begin filming his second version of Ten Little Indians in Iran. This was confirmed at the Tehran Film Festival, which was endorsed by the Shah of Iran. It was to be filmed mainly at the fabulous Shah Abbas Hotel. Confirmed actors included Oliver Reed, Herbert Lom, and James Mason (who was cast as Judge Cannon).
Unfortunately James Mason relocated to Switzerland for tax purposes just before the film was to begin, and had to bow out. He was replaced by Richard Attenborough-a great actor (Attenborough was knighted the year after this film was released-for his acting, as he had only directed two films up to that time). Although Attenborough has the best role in the film-and arguably gives a fine performance, one wonders what it would have been like had the marvellous Mason taken the part.
All in all this is a pretty good film-the story can't be ruined (although they tried their best in 1989 to do just that). Herbert Lom is always worth watching, and Oliver Reed gives an understated, subtle performance. Alberto De Mendoza and Maria Rohm (wife of harry Alan Towers) are good and believable sinister as the servants. Stephane Audran is also quite good, looking charming and elegant, and Charles Aznavour gets to sing one of his own songs as well as "Ten Little Indians." Orson Welles also lends dignity as the voice of Mr. Owen, although there's an annoying music playing while he's denouncing the guests. The film was co-produced and financed with multiple countries, and did its best box-office in Spain, where it took in 30 million dollars. There was also a "foreign" version with about 10 minutes added, including several other actors, but no one seems to know how to get hold of it.
Once again, one wonders what it would have been like with James Mason, and possibly a few other British actors playing Blore and the General-the way Agatha Christie wrote it.
Ten Little Indians (1959)
not bad but not the best version
This TV version of Agatha Christie's best-selling novel was filmed in 1945 and shown on TV in England in 1949, as well as 1959. In fact, the 1959 TV version aired in the U.K. a mere five days before this one was shown in the U.S.
The story remains faithful to Christie's original work for the most part; action is set on Indian Island where ten strangers have been invited for a weekend by an unknown host. They are all accused of past crimes, and are murdered on by one, according to the nursery rhyme.
The difference in the ending here is that Lombard, who has apparently been shot by Miss Claythorne, is actually NOT dead and arrives on time to shoot the real murderer to death, just before he attempts to hang the final victim.
The technical credits and direction are very good, as is the acting from the superb Barry Jones and Romney Brent. Kenneth Haigh, James Kenney and Peter Bathurst are also good. The one poor acting job comes from Nina Foch as Miss Claythorne, often overacting. It doesn't help that she's close to 10 years older than Kenneth Haigh, as she is supposed to be the "love" interest here-she seems more like his mother! All in all, a quite good production-unfortunately however it was done in slightly under an hour-some times we have one body discovered within seconds of another-it should have really been at least 90 minutes long.
Ten Little Indians (1965)
Possibly the Best screen adaptation of an Agatha Chrtie novel
Harry Alan Towers (who died a month ago) bought the rights to this story in the early 1960s and made a truly great film in 1965 (He subsequently made it again in 1974 and 1989). The novel on which it is based was made into feature films five times and for television 5 times.
Comparisons between all the film/TV adaptations are many-most feel that the 1945 And Then There Were None with Barry Fitzgerald, is the classic and best film. However, there were far too many unnecessary and unbelievable comedy elements in that film. Also, June Duprez as Miss Claythorne, behaves like an idiot every time she is seen to hold the gun (The first time she sees it on the ground she points at it, and shouts "look!" instead of picking it up! Next Louis Hayward gains access to her room by passing it through a window to her-she never checks to see if it's loaded. Then carrying it loosely at her side she allows Roland Young to make a very theatrical gesture and point it away from himself. And finally she allows Hayward to knock her arm aside-when seconds before she was circling around him a good six or eight feet away from him! Aside from the changes of location and several characters, this version keeps the suspense going throughout, and all the characters behave as if they are truly in fear and danger. There are excellent performances given by Wilfrid Hyde-White, Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, and Leo Genn. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton work well together, and have a definite spark, unlike Louis Hayward and June Duprez in the 1945 film. Mario Adorf and Marianne Hoppe play the Austrain couple rather than the English retainers in the novel and first film version. Daliah Lavi's character was changed to a minor international film actress-which was in essence what Lavi herself was. Fabian's character was exactly the age as Christie wrote it, except they didn't have rock 'n roll singers in 1939 when she wrote the book. However, he was amoral and obnoxious, just like Christie wrote it.
The major flaw in the 1945 film was the ending (here comes the spoiler). In the brilliant 1965 version we get a "double shock," which continues until less than a minute before the film ends. In 1945 Louis Hayward tells June Duprez (after slapping her gun-holding arm aside!) to shoot "and don't be frightened when I fall." So long before the film ends the audience KNOWS Hayward isn't dead, and when the camera pans back and we see a little china Indian breaking and hear the eerie whistling, we know that someone is alive in the house. So when the murderer confronts her and says "you might as well hang yourself now, because the only living person found here with nine corpses will certainly be hanged" the viewing audience knows Hayward is going to walk in any time.
Not so here. We are convinced that Shirley Eaton has shot Hugh O'Brian dead, so when she meets the murderer, his speech has much more meaning. At this point we wonder if she will actually put the noose around her neck-even if she convinces the authorities she didn't organize the other deaths-she did in fact murder Lombard. So what will she do? Aside from some great acting from most of the cast, the film has crisp black and white photography and fine editing. There is nothing comical about the situation in this story-murder isn't funny. Some may say that Witness for the Prosecution was a great film, but Elsa Lanchester's loony over-the-top nurse character (which was not in the story) ruins it, as it is unbelievable and out of place. Hercule Poirot has been mishandled on screen numerous times (Thank God for David Suchet, but that's TV). Peter Ustinov played him as an overweight buffoon (like most everything else he did) and Lieutenant Columbo with his sloppy appearance.
Ten Little Indians, this 1965 film boasted really fine performances from the likes of Hyde-White, Price, Holloway and Genn. Price as Dr. Armstrong never changed throughout-like a true alcoholic. Walter Huston in 1945 started rolling his eyes and slurring his speech the more he drank. Also in 1945 the drunken butler routine was a bit overdone. Not to mention the "secret ballot voting" for the murderer. All in all, the 1965 version has more mystery and suspense. See as many versions as you can, and maybe you will agree.