Ten Little Indians (1965) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
77 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
"Don't miss a film with screen greats Wilfrid Hyde-White & Stanley Holloway together - not in a million years!"
jamesraeburn200317 March 2006
Ten strangers are lured to a remote mansion on the Austrian Alps in the middle of winter. They have nothing in common except that each of them harbours a guilty secret and they have all been invited by a mysterious host (whom none of them has met) called Mr U.N Owen. The guests are Judge Arthur Cannon (Wilfrid Hyde-White), Harley Street practitioner Dr Armstrong (Dennis Price), private eye William Henry Blore (Stanley Holloway), actress Ilona Bergen (Daliah Lavi), pop star Mike Raven (Fabian), retired army officer General Sir John Mandrake (Leo Genn), engineer Hugh Lombard (Hugh O' Brien), secretary Ann Clyde (Shirley Eaton) and housekeepers Joseph and Elsa Grohmann (Mario Adorf & Marrianne Hoppe). They are curious and slightly annoyed that their host isn't their to greet them. However, after dinner and cocktails, a tape recorder bursts into life and the disembodied voice of their host accuses each of them of a past crime. Initially, they treat it as a sick joke in the poorest taste. But after Mike Raven has drunkenly sang a rendition of the Ten Little Indians nursery rhyme on the piano, he confesses to a crime before choking on his drink and falling down dead. The others realise that this isn't a joke and that their host is a psychopath delivering retribution for their sins and even more disturbingly, their killer is one of them. In addition, there is a centerpiece on the dining room table, which contains ten figurines and as they are murdered one by one in ways parallel to the old nursery rhyme, the killer removes one figurine from the centrepiece at a time.

Ten Little Indians was the third film version of Agatha Christie's marvelous mystery thriller, which was first published in Great Britain in 1939. Four years later, it was adapted for the stage by the author making its debut at London's St James Theatre in November 1943. It had been previously filmed in Hollywood in 1945 as And Then There Were None (Dir: Rene Clair) and featured an all-star cast (for the time) including Barry Fitzgerald and Walter Huston and in 1949, the BBC produced a TV version starring Bruce Belfrage and Campbell Singer. The 1965 version made a few notable changes, the most significant being the change of setting from an old house on a remote Devonshire island to a mansion on top of the Austrian Alps. The picture was actually shot in an empty mansion in Rush near Dublin, Southern Ireland. The film was produced by Harry Alan Towers whom at this time was enjoying success with the splendid schoolboy's adventure yarn The Face Of Fu Manchu, which starred Christopher Lee as Sax Rohmer's fiendish Oriental mastermind. Interestingly, it was Lee who provided the disembodied voice of U.N Owen on the tape recording heard at the beginning of the film. Towers would subsequently go on to film the story again on two more occasions. First as And Then There Were None (Dir: Peter Collinson 1975), in which the setting was changed yet again to a luxury hotel in the Iranian desert and the second time in 1989 with the drama unfolding from a big game African safari.

All in all, Ten Little Indians is quite a good film. The script penned by Towers as Peter Welbeck does reasonable justice to Christie's wonderful source novel and the change of locale does it no harm at all. A marvelous cast was chosen for the film with Wilfrid Hyde-White perfectly cast as the intelligent and resourceful Judge Cannon while Dennis Price offers a fine portrayal as the upper class Dr Armstrong. Leo Genn gives just the right amount of authority to the role of General Sir John Mandrake and Hugh O' Brien is suitably smooth as Lombard and works well with Shirley Eaton's Ann Clyde, the picture's love interest. Also of note is American pop singer Fabian who does well in portraying Mike Raven an updated version of Christie's original character called Anthony Marston in the book. The character wasn't a pop star in the book at all, but he still resembles the way that Christie described him, irresponsible, and whose only interest in life was "for kicks" as the film puts it.

On the downside, the film lacks the tension and the sense of menace that I was expecting mainly due to an unsuitable jazz style music score and while the black and white camera-work is good, I couldn't help but think that a few more shadows would have helped here and there. Director George Pollock (fresh from shooting the Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple films) shows a steady hand at the helm of the picture and brings the storyline together beautifully but he doesn't bring the same level of charm and well-meshed humor and mystery, which he brought to the Marple series here. Another slight disappointment is the climax, which resembles the happy and romantic one from the stage play. In the novel (I won't give it away for those who haven't seen the film or read the book) but there is no sense of relief at all and as a result the film isn't as dark and surprising as I was hoping it would be. I also felt that the 60-second whodunit break just prior to the ending didn't really fit in the with the general aura of the movie and seemed to be nothing more than a gimmick. Overall, however, this is still the film which I return to of one of my all time favorite mysteries because the cast play it straight here whereas in the 1945 version, they overplayed the comedy meaning that it sat uneasily with the plot and a lot of the film's thrills took place off screen which isn't the case here. And finally, I cannot resist a picture that brings such wonderful actors as Wilfrid Hyde-White and Stanley Holloway together -not in a million years!
39 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Unptretentious but Good Version of Miss Christie's Novel
ragosaal9 September 2006
If you enjoy crime mystery movies this is one to see. Based on a novel by Agatha Christie, it tells the story of ten people, all unknown to each other, that get trapped and isolated in a sort of castle on top a mountain where they have been invited by a mysterious host they don't know either. They soon realize the idea for their presence there is none other than to be executed one by one as a punishment for unclear circumstances that hurt and killed people in each one's past. They also realize that the avenging murderer is one of them, but who? Deaths start and it comes to the point in which no one -sill alive of course- trusts no one and everyone suspects everyone. The mystery's disclosure at the very end of the film doesn't lack surprise and goes along with the previous entertaining situations.

A rather unpretentious remake of "And There here were None" released in the 40's, this 1965 version turns out really good and stands far better than others that followed (in 1974 with Oliver Reed and Elke Sommer and in 1989 with Donald Pleasence and Brenda Vaccaro).

The dark atmosphere -the shooting was made in black and white- is good enough and interest doesn't fall along the whole picture, perhaps because the events move fast and the film's running time is perfect.

No doubt the very good performances of such experienced actors as Leo Genn (the General), Wilfrid Hyde White (the Judge) and Sterling Holloway (the detective) help a lot too. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton (a former Bond girl) are correct in their not much demanding roles).

If you didn't read Christie's novel you will enjoy the film and its mysterious plot, and if did read it you will enjoy the murderer's handling of facts in order to accomplish his sinister plan.

Some too casual and forced situations -necessary to sustain the plot and usual in Miss Christie's novels- do not affect the picture in all which is a real good one in its genre.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
low-budget Harry Alan Towers adaptation of the Agatha Christie classic, great cast!
django-124 October 2006
While the ending of the novel is changed in this 1965 remake of Agatha Christie's novel AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, it's still an OK murder mystery, a kind of modern version of an old dark house chiller, with an excellent cast of UK veterans and US imports Hugh O'Brian and Fabian. A mysterious "Mr. Owen" invites ten strangers, all of whom seem to be guilty of some crime, to spend a weekend in an isolated mountain home. They gradually get killed one by one. My wife felt that the only interesting character in the film was the one who is killed first (you'll have to watch it to see who that is), but I found the whole thing to be entertaining and the ending to be surprising (although the clues ARE planted, when you watch it a second time). Like any Harry Alan Towers production, this is low budget but well cast, and once again Towers wrote the script himself under his Peter Welbeck pseudonym. The recent DVD reissue of this includes the infamous "Whodunit Break" (which appeared at the film's climax in its theatrical run but was cut from all TV prints) as an "extra" but does not edit it back into the film, which is good because it would make second and third viewings of the film painful. Watch that scene once, marvel that anyone would ever attempt anything so cheesy, and then watch the uninterrupted movie again. Nice to see Shirley Eaton as always (The Girl From Rio and Su-Muru), Hugh O'Brian is a charming and masculine lead, Fabian is entertaining, and the British veterans are as colorful as you'd expect, although some Americans may have trouble telling them apart initially, except for Dennis Price. Worth renting, but I can't say it's worth fifteen dollars. Maybe $8.99 or so.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A watchable but inferior version of...
AlsExGal31 December 2022
...the 1945 classic "And Then There Were None". This one also follows the script of the earlier film rather than the Agatha Christie book. It has two cast members who recently were in box office smashes-Shirley Eaton was the golden girl in the James Bond blockbuster "Goldfinger" and Stanley Holloway had been Oscar nominated in the multi award winner "My Fair Lady". Fabian was brought in to attract the younger crowd, and he plays an obnoxious pop singer who gets dispatched early. There is some great eye candy with gorgeous blond Eaton and exotic beauty Daliah Lavi. TV star Hugh O'Brien plays the rugged macho male lead. One of the best things in this film was a well done scene where Eaton holds a gun on O'Brien, the only improvement on the original film.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Okay Little Mystery
Poseidon-331 March 2003
Agatha Christie's oft-filmed whodunnit (and dunnit and dunnit!) gets an updating here to the mid 1960's with a pretty odd international cast selection and a less skillful presentation than in the first adaptation, 1945's "And Then There Were None". Still, this is better than any of the following versions (two of which were made by this same producer, Harry Towers! Apparently, he liked the story?!) The credits open on a Swiss mountainside with the cast making it's way up to a remote castle. Sleigh ride-a-go go music plays, instantly dating the film even more than its black and white photography. The credits are fun, though, with each actor being shown along with his or her name to help keep everyone straight. Once at the top, the gathering of eight assorted personalities and the two staff members find that they have each been invited there by a person they have never met and that the person wants to pay them back for crimes they've supposedly committed, yet never paid for. Chief people include brylcreamed hunk of man O'Brian, stiff, blonde Eaton, yammering recording artist Fabian, mod-actress Lavi and wry, elderly Hyde White among others. Before anyone can really determine how to get out of the place, the first victim falls dead on the floor. They then realize that they are being offed in the manner of the famed title nursery rhyme. One by one, the murderer knocks them off until the surprise ending reveals how and why it was done. The set up is irresistible and not even a rather lame script, nor some wooden acting can mar it completely. The thing is, in a story like this, the actors are not permitted to display very much of their character, lest they spoil the mystery and ruin the ending. They all have to be simultaneous victims/suspects and all that really leaves is a lot of worried expressions. That said, O'Brian was at the peak of his handsomeness with his parade of macho sexuality "Love Has Many Faces" just around the corner. Eaton, one of the most noted Bond girls due to her gold body paint in "Goldfinger", doesn't exactly exude screen charisma, but she and O'Brian are attractive in their ski lodge wear. Fabian plays a highly annoying character and does it a bit too convincingly, creating animosity from many audience members. Lavi gets to trot around in some couture clothes while trying to balance a massive, lacquered wig on her head. The butler and housekeeper couldn't be more mismatched as a couple with her looking like his mother (and old enough in real life to be!) Of the remaining male guests, only Hyde White makes much of an impression with his customary glint in his eye, though Holloway has a few nice moments as well. Most versions are now minus the campy "murder minute" which gave audiences a chance to try to figure out who the killer was.
23 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good adaptation of a classic murder mystery
The_Void21 July 2009
It's only fair to mention that I saw the 1945 adaptation of this same story before seeing this film, so obviously the plot and characters were very familiar to me before watching. There were some changes between the two versions, however, which helps to keep things fresh...although most of the changes were for the worst. Rather than being set on island, this version sets the story on top of a snow covered mountain; while several of the characters have either had their professions changed or have been made younger than in the earlier version. The film does at least stick more rigidly to the nursery rhyme at the centre of the story. The basis of the story is the same as in previous versions, however, and we focus on ten people that have been invited to stay at a house owned by a Mr U. N. Owns. Shortly after their arrival they are played a tape made by the mysterious host; accusing them all of murder. One by one they are picked off and it's not long before the remaining guests realise that their host is amongst them.

The film feels very upper class and all the guests are well dressed and polite. The script is very similar to the earlier adaptation and so I would imagine that both versions stick very closely to the original literature. The cast is rather good and each actor fits into their role well. Standouts for me include Daliah Lavi, who plays an actress and is very sexy - and Mario Adorf who plays the butler. Eurocrime fans may recognise him as the pimp from the masterpiece The Italian Connection. The deaths are rather well handled and we see a bit more than we did in the earlier version; although 'less is more' is still very much the order of the day. Deaths include stabbing, falling off a cliff and someone has a stuffed bear dropped on their head. I was hoping that the film may have changed the ending, but unfortunately it sticks to the original story on this point so it wasn't much of a surprise for me. Still, this is a rather decent adaptation of the classic story; although I'd certainly recommend 1945's And Then There Were None over this version.
16 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
ten people gathered in an isolated mansion in winter are killed one by one
dougbrode13 March 2006
As in Agatha Christie's original, ten people converge on an isolated place only to learn that they are stuck there and will be killed one by one. During the first ten minutes, Fabian portrays a Playboy and his performance is so dreadful that you thank heaven when he sits down at a piano and begins to perform, only to quickly realize he's an even worse singer than actor! Happily, he's the first to 'go,' and from then on, things get considerably better. A focus on three old English gents played by Leo Genn, Wilfred Hyde White, and Leo Genn - each more brilliant than the next - allows a film that appeared ready to flop to truly take off. Hugh O'Brian is acceptable as the hero, but most of his mannerisms are far too reminiscent of Wyatt Earp on TV. But don't turn it off - at least not if you are among us who consider Shirley Eaton (The Goldfinger girl) the most underrated blonde beauty ever. She is dazzling, and even appears in skimpy black lingerie near the film's end. When Hugh lifts her up in his arms, it's hard not to wish you had been born Hugh O'Brian. Never in a class with the earlier version, AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, but solid enough - once Fabian's out of the picture.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Drop dead!"
bensonmum21 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Ten Little Indians may not be the best or most faithful Agatha Christie adaptation, but I've always enjoy it. The problem with Ten Little Indians is that it suffers from one of the same flaws that plague most films based on a Christie work – plot holes. The viewer is required to accept some of the most astounding coincidences in order to move the plot along. How does the killer seem to know exactly how everyone will respond to a given situation? If you stop and think about it, you'll quickly realize it's all fantasy with little in the way of reality. For example, when the eight "little Indians" split up in pairs to search the house, how fortunate for the killer that every person loses his/her partner thereby throwing suspicion on everyone. That doesn't mean it's not a lot of fun, but you've got be willing to make some mighty big leaps in logic.

The thing I enjoy most about Ten Little Indians is the ensemble cast. For the most part, it's made up of some terrific character actors given a chance to shine on their own. Leo Genn, Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White, and Dennis Price are all an absolute joy and more than make up for the leaden performances of Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton. It's too bad these two have more screen time than any of the other actors.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Ten little Indians went out to dine.... wonderfully stylish film.
Sleepin_Dragon25 October 2015
Ten guests are assembled by UN Owen high up in the snow capped Mountains, in a beautiful remote house, one by one they die.

The setting is switched to the Alps, it manages somewhat to create a level of claustrophobia, intensified by Grohmann's demise.

It is a very attractive looking film, great scenery, a wealth of attractive people including Shirley Eaton, Daliah Lavi, Hugh O'Brian and Fabian.

I have often overlooked this film, favouring the versions from 1945 and 1974, but I've judged this film too harshly, it's a cracking film, the acting for the most part is excellent, the performances of Stanley Holloway and Wilfrid Hyde-White are just wonderful, they each have an abundance of charisma. The Grohmann's are perhaps a little dodgy at times, but they're enjoyable enough. I can understand why people have stated that O'Brian is a little wooden, but I would imagine he's there more so for his ruggedness than his acting.

My only gripe is that some of the dialogue feels at times that it was lifted directly out of Rene Clare's adaptation. I would also love to see an adaptation that sticks to the true ending, so far it's only the Russian 'Desyat Negrityat' that I've seen (outside of the Theater) brave enough to do it.

It's a very enjoyable film, full of 60's glamour, the loveliness of Shirley Eaton adds to the enjoyment. The whodunit break is so sweet.

8/10.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining version of a Christie classic
ODDBear21 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The second film version of the celebrated Agatha Christie novel; this British adaptation is splendidly handled and wonderfully entertaining for fans of the book.

The setting has been changed from a mansion on a remote island to a mansion on top of a mountain but it works well enough. A few changes here and there are made, most relatively successful but some are not (a really out-of-place fistfight, for one) and overall; "Ten Little Indians is a good mystery.

It does suffer somewhat from a very boring (and jazzy) music score, which actually diminishes suspense instead of increasing it. Some performers here are not up to the task and the revised ending (which Christie herself made when adapting the book for the stage) is present here instead of the strikingly sombre one in the book.

The mountain surroundings are visually striking, the mansion is creepy (there's a particularly good scene in a cellar) and the kills are splendidly done. For fans of the book this is a must see; though I still prefer the original 1945 version a bit more.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Lackluster murder mystery thriller
Woodyanders1 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Ten complete strangers get together for a posh weekend at a remote castle located in the Swiss Alps. Someone starts bumping them all off one at a time. Blandly directed by George Pollock, with an overly talky and insipid script by Peter Yeldham and hack producer Harry Alan Towers, a plodding pace, a wildly out of place and inappropriate groovy jazz score by Malcom Lockyer, a crippling dearth of both tension and momentum, murder set pieces that for the most part are flatly staged, and an isolated snowy setting that fails to add any much-needed suspense or spooky atmosphere, this strictly middling affair barely makes the grade as a merely acceptable diversion. Fortunately, the able all-star cast do their best with the mediocre material, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Wilfrid Hyde-White as the shrewd, affable Judge Arthur Cannon, the delectable Shirley Eaton as sweet, fetching secretary Ann Clyde, Hugh O'Brian as the brave and dashing Hugh Lombard, Stanley Holloway as no-nonsense Detective William Henry Blore, Leo Genn as the ramrod General Sir John Mandrake, Dennis Price as the suave, boozy Dr. Edward Armstrong, and Daliah Lavi as classy, glamorous actress Ilona Bergen. Moreover, Ernest Steward's crisp black and white cinematography looks nice, Fabian as brash pop singer Mike Raven compensates for his poor acting by belting out a hearty rendition of the classic nursery rhyme prior to meeting a welcome immediate untimely end, the ravishing Eaton heats up the screen with her smoldering presence and strips down to black undies at one point (yum!), there are a few witty lines of dialogue sprinkled throughout, and the revelation of the killer's true identity is a genuine surprise. However, this movie overall is far too pedestrian and unmemorable to rate as anything more than a merely passable time-waster.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One Of The Best Murder Mystery Plots Of All Time
thompsonkeng2 February 2001
Also known as "And Then There Were None" and other titles, this Agatha Christie murder mystery centers around one of the most clever, if not the most clever, plots of any of her many works. In typical Agatha Christie style, the story twists and turns in unexpected directions, and you either give up trying to identify who the murderer is, or you are surprised that the murderer is someone whom you least expected. It's then fun to go back and see how you missed the subtle clues pointing to the real murderer.

The 1966 movie version is often compared unfavorably to the original, 1945, movie version. Frankly, I prefer the 1966 movie, which is more contemporary in style, and the actor's accents are easier to understand.

"Ten Little Indians" takes place in a castle on a mountaintop in winter. The "castle" has an echo which when combined with the cold and lonely atmosphere, and sometimes sinister lighting, makes for a creepy setting. Thankfully, the movie was shot in black and white.

The acting is quite good, for the most part. But the main reason to see this movie is because of the unique plot puzzle.

The cinema has made many other Agatha Christie movies, two of the best being "Witness For The Prosecution" (1957), and "Murder On The Orient Express" (1974). But none can compare, in my opinion, with the clever plot of "Ten Little Indians".
30 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Films, like the book, unable to fully realize idea as a story
delatorrel18 November 2003
The 1965 film is enjoyable and entertaining, but it is worse in some respects and better in some respects than the book and 1945 film. They are all best discussed together. Unfortunately, neither Christie nor the filmmakers succeeded in turning this captivating but confining plot idea into a truly fulfilling story.

Once the book establishes its clever, imaginative premise, the story becomes thin and formulaic. The characters are superficial, and there is no lead character to care about. There are only two real plot twists. One creates a major logical problem, which the book acknowledges and tries to overcome by weakly suggesting that the ploy would trick or "rattle" the murderer. Neither the book nor the films has anything serious to say about the powerful themes of survival, justice, and criminality that are at the heart of the story.

The 1945 film, and to a lesser extent the 1965 film, develop the plot better in some ways than the book. While as tightly written, the 1945 film is richer than the book in deductive theories, in taking stock at each stage of the story, and in survival techniques. Its dialogue seems sharper than the book's and provides some memorable lines. Both films play the Ten Little Indians nursery rhyme on the piano, which brings it to life and sets the stage for what is to come.

Both films have strong casts. In the 1945 version, many characters seem as smart, strong, or distinctive as in the book, or more so. They are more entertaining. Generally, the films do a better job than the book of showing the characters interact. Except for the 1989 movie, the films make more of an effort to explain the relationship that develops between two characters.

In the 1965 film, the characters are also well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than in the book or other films, like the maid, butler, and conceited actress Ilona. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be. The film places the character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians.

The 1965 film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between the characters are more heated and less restrained than in 1945, and should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and

Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as vigorous, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the spinster Brent, a distinctive character.

The 1965 film tries to show the killings on screen in a visually interesting way. This can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make the murders seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

The book sketches the guests' past crimes in summary fashion. They vary widely in originality, depth, and genuineness. The films handle the crimes even less effectively. The 1945 movie presents the general and his past crime in an obscure, lifeless way; even the weak 1989 film does better. The 1945 version waters down Brent's past crime. It makes a ludicrous change to the judge's, which is fortunately changed back in 1965. The 1965 film changes Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, in 1965, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer.

In changing the story to allow characters to survive, both the 1945 and 1965 films distort characters' identities and/or crimes in fundamental ways. In the process, they replace the book's most complex and interesting past crime with one that is bland, superficial, and false. This confuses the meaning of the host's actions, although it does suggest, but not develop, a new theme of false accusation not present in the book.

Generally, the attempts made in both early films to make the characters entertaining come at the expense of their plausibility as villains and of the story's seriousness. Characters confess their secrets and treat the horror unfolding around them as if it were a parlor game. Mischa Auer's farcical, clownish performance is a disaster. The character was poorly drawn to begin with, and the 1945 film does a particularly poor job of presenting his past crime. This is only the most extreme example of a general problem with taking such a lighthearted approach to a fundamentally serious story. Attempts to make characters comical or appealing also sap the suspense in the 1965 version.

Worst of all, in 1945, the climactic scene in which Owen's identity, means, and motives are revealed is short, sedate, droll, and unsatisfying. In 1965, the final scene has more explanation, but remains thin and undramatic. In both films, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. It is left to the otherwise flawed 1974 version to capture more of the tone and intensity of the book and to the generally inept 1989 film to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects that a deadly serious killer has been at work, conveys a sense of Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.
26 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
terrible version of a great story
AlloTBNO525 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I love Agatha Christie's original novel "And Then There Were None" but this movie version is terrible. I don't mind the fact that they changed the setting to a mountain in the swinging sixties, but this movie is silly on so many levels because of the changes. Most of the fault lays on the silly performances. One that stands out is the wooden and emotionless Hugh O'Brien as Lombard.Lombard is supposed to be a dashing and cool headed hero. However O'Brien is completely void of any emotion as people drop dead around him bringing it to the point of being ridiculous. No one can possibly remain that calm with people constantly dying around him. There is lots of silly dialogue such as after the first death a woman cries "he's dead drunk" and a man replies "not drunk, just dead." Charchters are changed to absurd cardboard cutouts. Reckless party boy Anthony Marston is now the lead singer of a rock band who ran over a newlywed couple. The most unforgivable change was the change of religious fanatic Emily Brent who pushed her maid to suicide, who is now an actress responsible for killing her rich husband. The stiffness of the majority is somehow balanced by the horrendous overacting of the maid and butler. The final straw was the cheesy ending which sadly is used in most versions were the secretary and the adventurer survive and fall in love and live happily ever after, replacing the darker and much more powerful ending of the book. Not recommended for hardcore Agatha Christie fans.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Decent Remake
Eric-62-23 September 1999
The first remake of the 1945 classic "And Then There Were None" is a fairly decent effort. While all of the wonderfully sly wit is gone this time, and the locale has been shifted from an island to a mountain resort (resulting in some characters having different nationalities this time) the results are still quite credible. The cast is good, with golden girl Shirley Eaton of "Goldfinger" fame looking quite lovely as the female lead. It's also amusing to see "My Fair Lady" almuni Stanley Holloway and Wilfrid Hyde-White together again in a completely different kind of film and setting. Just like the original, the identity of the killer (and I won't say who!) comes as a surprise because the performer gives a brilliant performance that makes it hard to link that performer with the one who committs all the murders beforehand. All subsequent remakes of this story have been awful. The original is still the best, but this one is okay to look at.
25 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Frustrating.
planktonrules7 June 2021
In some ways, the liberties they took with "Ten Little Indians" are reasonable. After all, the old British title for the film is something I can't even say on IMDB, as it violates their standards. Suffice to say, instead of 'Indians', the title involved a very derogatory word for black people. This sort of change I clearly understand. What I do NOT understand is completely changing Agatha Christie's ending to the novel...completely. Instead of the dark ending I expected, the film had a tacked on happy ending sort of thing!! Who would want that?!?!

Aside from the foolish decision to change the ending, most of the film is just fine. I didn't think they needed to add American characters, especially the flavor of the moment, Fabian. I have nothing against him...but he and Hugh O'Brian seemed out of place with an otherwise British cast. Overall, a decent version of the story but I'd stick with just reading the book.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A guilty pleasure- cheesy but very entertaining murder mystery
mlraymond1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The modernized Sixties characters are nowhere near as interesting as their more subdued Forties counterparts, and the acting isn't as good as in the 1945 version. But the isolated castle on an inaccessible mountain top makes a good replacement for the island of the original, and is quite spooky in its cold marble halls and vast staircases. One half expects Max Schreck's Count Orlok to appear at any moment.

There are some genuinely suspenseful moments and the black and white photography is effective. The sense of unseen menace in the dark corners and echoing rooms of the castle is tangible and the best thing in the movie.

The comical drunken butler of the original is here replaced by a surly thug, who gets into an unintentionally funny brawl with hero Hugh O'Brien. The two slug each other all over the castle and up and down a huge staircase, with O'Brien finally beating the crap out of the obnoxious servant. This is quite entertaining in its own right, but is totally out of character with the sedate British atmosphere of the original.

Nearly every poster has commented on what a relief it is that the annoying Fabian character gets knocked off first. I agree, but would also point out that his character is a lot closer to Christie's original conception than the ludicrous Russian poseur of the 1945 film.Dennis Price is suitably sly and deceptive as the alcoholic doctor, with Wilfrid Hyde-White nearly stealing the picture with his dignified portrayal of the judge; responding to the drunken Fabian's merry remarks about enjoying the mystery with the statement " At our time of life, sir, we are hardly interested in " a gas", as you put it." Even without the corny " whodunit break" at the end, apparently edited from most prints nowadays, this movie is good fun, and actually somewhat better than one might expect. A good movie for anyone in search of a guilty pleasure.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Mister Owen requests the pleasure of your company......
ulicknormanowen24 March 2020
The 2015 BBC miniseries overshadows every other version of Agatha Christie's classic ; every previous version,but the Russian one (1987) ,was based on the play the writer wrote with some change ,because during the war, such a pessimistic black ending was not tolerable .

I've never gone much for my compatriot René Clair's highly praised "and then there were none" (1945) ; both Louis Hayward and June Desprez lacked charisma as Lombard and Vera ;on the other hand Judith Anderson as Emily Brent ,Walter Huston as the doctor and Barry Fitzgerald as the judge were excellent.

George Pollock 's effort has improved with time ; Hugh O'Brian and golden girl Shirley Eaton make an attractive pair , with plenty of go ,even though their characters names have been changed (Hugh for Philip , Anne Clyde for Vera Claythorne . ) But the really good performances come from the old guard : Stanley Holloway , Dennis Price ,Wilfrid Hyde-White ,leo Genn.....All are seasoned thespians who sometimes give a tongue-in -chick touch in this macabre story.Too bad spinster Brent was ruled out : imagine Margaret Rutherford (who played Miss Marple)! Instead we've got starlet Daliah lavi , wearing a heavy wig,as an actress(?) .As for Fabian, as I cannot say something nice...

The setting is beautiful ,and the mountain is as effective as an island : the cable-car crashing into the precipice is even impressive for the time.Good use of the nursery rhyme melody which comes back as a sinister leitmotiv.

When I saw the movie in a theater a long time ago,there was the "murder minute" , which showed short scenes to help the audience find the culprit and ended with a wry "no,no you won't find out";since it was deleted.Perhaps wisely ,because the novel is one of the 10 (you read well) best-sellers of all time ,and most of the audience know the whodunit.(in the video game ,they changed the identity of the killer).
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A respectable - if unremarkable - version
gridoon202430 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a pretty good screen version of the classic Agatha Christie story: it successfully conveys the atmosphere of paranoia and suspicion among the "Ten Little Indians", and will probably surprise those (few?) still unfamiliar with the plot. If the whole enterprise is a little by-the-numbers, at least it follows the numbers adequately. The casting is generally OK (the breathtaking Shirley Eaton appears in her underwear twice, by the way!), and some of the deaths (the cable car in particular) are memorable. The main setback of this film - as with the underrated 1974 version - is that it follows Christie's somewhat forced "happy ending" that she wrote for the stage rather than her original nihilistic ending from the book. **1/2 out of 4.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Hills Are Alive With The Sound Of Murder.
hitchcockthelegend16 May 2014
Much like the filmic adaptations of Agatha Christie's stunning source novel, a literary work that added the killer to serial, the Ten Little Indians rhyme has quite a few versions. I mention this because the core essence of the source, both in written rhyme and filmic celluloid, is always what shines through. The films vary in quality, though each one does bring its own ideas to the adaptation, George Pollock's 1965 version is a dandy, though not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.

The story is relocated to a remote snowy mountainside. Ten people have gathered there, either as servants or guests invited by the mysterious U.N. Owen. Once all gathered under one roof, a tape recording reveals that all the guests are guilty of despicable crimes, and thus must pay the price. Cue the now standard formula of each member of the ten getting bumped off as suspicions and panic begins to arise. With each death comes the removal of a model Indian from a circular display laid out on the lounge table.

Thus we have a serial killer whodunit (whosedoingit?) in full effect. The deaths are inventive, with some carrying genuine suspense and chills into the bargain, and although the final reveal lacks credibility, it has the requisite surprise factor to not disappoint genre fans. The beauty here is in the cast list, where for fans of British classic cinema it's a roll call of greats. Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Dennis Price (whose visual reactions here are ahem, priceless) and Leo Genn lead the male British front, while Shirley Eaton fights the British girl's corner with sauce and sizzle. Supplementing the Brits for an overseas audience, is pop star Fabian, Hugh O'Brian and Daliah Lavi. The latter of which also raises the temperatures considerably.

Where the pic falls down badly, apart from Fabian's poor acting that is, is with the visual ascetic served up by Pollock and his cinematographer Ernest Steward. The mansion where the plot unfolds is ripe for much shadow play and creaky corridors, the story kind of demands that the old dark house staples are adhered to. Sadly this area is rarely born out, making it a very wasted opportunity to lift the film to better heights. Still, as stated previously, the source material is timeless and for fans of such fare it's hard not to feel tingly as the conclusion draws in.

If the divisive "one minute audience break to discuss who we think dunit" that stops the film before the reveal seems a bit William Castle lite, then so be it, but it's still fun and shows a willingness by the makers to involve the audience fully in the murderous malarkey. I wonder what Agatha made of it?

All together now, "Ten little Indian boys went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were Nine…" 7.5/10
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A group of total strangers thrown together in a mountainous castle with no escape from a murderer
Mickey-23 November 1998
"Ten Little Indians" is a remake of an earlier film, "And Then There Were None." This film, like the previous version, will leave the viewer guessing until the last as to which of the strangers is the actual villain of the piece. A ring of Indian statues, 10 in number, begins to have the members broken off as each member of the cast is done in. Each of them had had some crime in their past that they had not been taken to account for, and now, each of them is being made to forfeit his/her life since they escaped legal means. Ultimately, in order to escape the death sentence, some attempt to trust the other members of the group, but the question still rides, "Who is the real murderer, and upon whom does one trust?' if one wishes to leave the castle alive.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Ten New Ways To Grow Old
writers_reign20 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Like the earlier version of Agatha Christie's novel this remake takes similar liberties with the 'perfect' crime. Writing, Directing and Acting are all undistinguished and the cast is typical of low-budget product at the time; a couple of one-time leading men on the way down, a couple of excellent character actors, a couple of recent flavour-of-the-month ephemerals and the obligatory 'pop' singer. If any of them include this drek on the CVs they are indeed desperate. The story is familiar both to Christie readers and film buffs who saw the first version so basically all that is new is the setting, now a château reachable only by cable car in place of an island off the English coast. Ten wooden indians congregate in reel #1, two wooden indians are left at the end. There will be a paint-drying watch at Tuesday's matinée. Be there, it has this beat six ways from the middle.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Humorous, glamorous, and very very very 1960s.
harryharman199612 July 2013
The 1965 film version of "Ten Little Indians" is incredibly entertaining. Despite not sticking to Agatha Christie's original novel, it is a product of its time: the characters, style, setting, script, and general feel of the whole movie is very 1960s. Like the 1945 film, it takes a more light-hearted approach to the story, which despite stretching the credibility of the story, makes for highly entertaining watching.

The moving of the action from Indian Island to a beautiful mansion in the Swiss Alps is not such a silly idea as some people make it out to be; the Alps are incredibly attractive and appealing, and the characters actually fit into the setting. The casting is strong, and there is a good blend of youth and experience. Hugh O'Brian's Lombard is dashing but can appear aggressive, and he gives the impression of being a 'special guest star'. Shirley Eaton plays Ann Clyde with poise and level-headedness, but in this respect she is playing a very different character to the one Christie created! Fabian is very funny as Mike Raven, a spoilt, arrogant playboy. British screen veterans Leo Genn, Stanley Holloway, Dennis Price, and Wilfrid Hyde-White give the film a very British feel, however, Genn and Holloway seem a little restricted in their characters. Price is believable as an arrogant surgeon who believes himself to be cleverer than anyone else there. Hyde-White shines as Judge Cannon, with a retiring 'old and wise one' characteristic. Daliah Lavi overacts a bit as Ilona Bergen, the film's biggest step away from its source material, but she is very beautiful and well cast as a femme fatale movie star. As the servant couple, Mario Adorf and Marianne Hoppe are quite humorous in their stereotypical husband-and-wife arguments in the kitchen.

To fit the attitude of the 60s, quite a few changes were made: the omission of sinister old woman Miss Emily Brent and the replacement of her with glamorous Ilona Bergen; and the alterations to some of the murders, including a cable car calamity, a rather spooky stabbing scene, and someone being pushed down the mountainside. The chemistry between the actors is fantastic - Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White work well together as the judge and the doctor, as do Leo Genn and Daliah Lavi, two characters who have an unexplained history together. However, the strongest pairing is that of Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton, who seem perfectly matched and it is simple to imagine them running off and getting married once the story finishes.

Overall, this film is very different to Christie's original novel, but it is entertaining and intriguing as a film in its own right. It certainly betters the subsequent 1974 and 1989 films.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good movie... but not like the original
ketchupaintbad7213 January 2002
This second adaption of 'Ten Little Indians' is good but not as good as the 1945 'And Then There Were None.' This movie has good acting and all that, but it changes the plot around and it is not as perfect as it was in the original. One of the best things about it, however, was when Fabian choked, I'm sure it was because he was such a bad singer. He did have some good lines though.

Also, this film took more from the original movie than it did from the actual book; such as the general being stabbed instead of hit over the head, and some of the names being changed.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
And Then There Were None....
strong-122-47888512 March 2018
In this fast-paced (and fairly entertaining) "whodunnit" from 1965 - The characters in this one's story are, literally, dropping like flies (left, right, and centre).

Set at a remote castle atop a steep mountain cliff - (Where the game of death gets underway) - Everybody is suddenly under suspicion and the mad race to uncover the true identity of the mysterious "Mr. Owen" escalates the drama into a literal frenzy of false leads and erroneous accusations.

Based on Agatha Christie's 1939, mystery novel "And Then There Were None" - "Ten Little Indians" features an all-star cast headlined by Hugh O'Brian, Shirley Eaton, and (1960's pop idol) Fabian.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed