If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

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

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!

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

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!