Rating: 
Summary: A few words on the ending...
Review: Some of my fellow reviewers have commented that the film includes a different ending than Agatha Christie's original. It should be noted that the film simply adopts the ending from Dame Agatha's own *play* version of the story, and therefore is equally authentic. Which is "better" is, of course, purely a matter of taste. Indeed, given that the film turns the mystery on a comic edge, I feel that retaining the book's original ending would have destroyed the film's own internal consistency. The debate rages on....
Rating: 
Summary: And Then There Were Two??
Review: Doesn't have quite the same ring, does it?
After calling every video shop in town and not being able to find this, I ordered it from ..., and impatiently waited two weeks for my delivery. When it finally came, I ran inside, turned the lights off, watched it and... felt thoroughly cheated.
Its not that its a bad movie; if I hadn't read the book I guess I would've enjoyed it. But changing the end they did totally ruined for it me. This is not the way it was supposed to be.
Rating:
Summary: Book or Movie?
Review: This movie had great acting, and I think everyone should see it or read the book. The endings are slightly different. But they always are. If you want a good mystery see the movie. If you have time read the book first. The movie has a happy ending. Which is the ONLY real difference between the movie and the book.
Rating:
Summary: Murder with a Light Touch
Review: Anyone looking for an explanation of directorial touch should view this movie. It's a crackling good mystery, heightened by Director Rene Clair's exquisitely light comedic touch. The cast responds very capably with subtle tongue-in-cheek (watch Louis Hayward's many priceless expressions, or Walter Huston's slyly oafish doctor) without overdoing it. Oddly, the lighter undercurrent intensifies the suspense by making each suspect in a houseful of suspects an unlikely candidate for murder. Pacing, art direction, and crashing waves, are all expertly blended with other ingredients to produce this classic version of the much reprised Agatha Christie novel. Moreover, the movie remains an enduring testament to the artistic talents of French film-maker Clair, whose American sojourn, as the film demonstrates, was much too brief. Somehow too, I get the feeling that in Clair's touch is a movie Hitchcock would like to have made were he not so preccupied with the darkly psychological side of murder. Anyway, as the many leaden and pointless remakes have proven, this version is truly one of a kind, so don't miss it.
Rating: 
Summary: A thrilling game of the mind
Review: In this adaptation of Agatha Christie's classic novel, ten people are ferried over to Indian Island, all invited as guests of a mysterious U.N. Owen. They are greeted by the staff, Mr. and Mrs. Rogers, and after dinner, they hear a voice accusing each of them of murder and sentencing them to death. "Prisoners at the bar, do you have anything to say in your defense?"The voice turns out to be a grammophone recording (LP to those of you who want contemporary terms). The label on the record reads "Swan Song." How apropos, considering what happens during the course of the movie. Also in this house are a ringed sculpture of ten little Indians, which reminds one of the guests of the nursery rhyme of the same name. The upbeat and carefree Prince Nikita 'Nikki' Starloff, who was singing and playing the nursery rhyme on the piano, says, "I am all for crime! Here's to crime!" He downs his drink, and immediately collapses. "Just plain drunk," says Blore the detective. To which Dr. Armstrong replies, "Just plain dead." And he's just the first of many. The killings correspond to the rhyme, beginning with "Ten little Indians boys went out to dine, one choked his little self, and then there were nine." "Nine little Indians boys sat up very late, one overslept himself and then there were eight." And so on, until, "One little Indian, left all alone, he went and hanged himself, and then there were none." After each victim has been killed, one of the Indian statues is broken off and missing. It is after the third victim, General Mandrake, is stabbed with a knife, that they realize that the previous two deaths were murders, and that Mr. U.N. Owen (read, unknown) is one of them! Furthering their plight is that they are completely cut off. There are no phones, and the boat that dropped them off comes once every two weeks. The remaining survivors try to keep themselves alive, remembering the nursery rhyme, sticking together, forming alliances, and distrusting one another, but to no avail. In one scene, pairs look at one and indicate their choice of the suspect with a nod, or shake their head in disagreement at their colleague's choice. Three of the characters names have been changed. In the movie, Anthony Marston is Nikita Starloff, General MacArthur is General Mandrake, and Justice Wargrave is Judge Quincannon. Minor changes. Everybody else's name conforms to the novel. I wonder if the reason the general's name was changed from the original was due to possible associations to a certain American general currently in the Pacific Theatre during World War II. After all, this movie was made in 1945. The casting is top-notch, though, with everyone's personalities coming through without being cardboard, with Louis Hayward (Lombard), Mischa Auer (Starloff), Roland Young (Blore), and Barry Fitzgerald (Quincannon) in particular shining. And Richard Haydn plays Mr. Rogers as a ridiculous, toffee-nosed twit with a voice to match his character. There have been other versions of this classic Agatha Christie story, and while this is the best of the lot in terms of the location, sequence of events, etc. the denouement does not accurately follow that of the book, which would have made it perfect. The book's ending was what made the story a classic, and none of the future adaptations, be it the 1966, 1975, or 1989 versions, conformed to the classic ending. How frustrating!
Rating:
Summary: Quick overview
Review: I won't run over the plot of the film, other critics will do that for me. This is a superb version of the Christie novel (although just like all other versions of the story, the ending has been changed to an 'upbeat' one). The casting is superb, I especially liked the performance of the butlet type character...V.Amusing !! The setting is true to the original novel (unlike later versions which move the scene to ski lodges, deserts, large hotels etc.) and there is a wonderful 'claustraphobic' atmosphere to the whole thing. Well worth a look if you are a Christie fan, although I hope one day someone will make a version with the exact ending of the book.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Film Version of the Chrisite Classic
Review: Agatha Christie's 1930s novel AND THEN THERE WERE NONE told the story of ten unrelated people who are lured under various pretexts to an island resort; once assembled, they discover they have been brought to the island by a mysterious homocidal maniac who accuses each of them of having escaped punishment for a past murder--and who then proceeds to pick them off one by one as the ever dwindling party rushes to unmask the hidden killer in their midst. Nothing like the novel had been seen before, and it was a popular sensation. So much so that Christie herself adapted the novel to the stage. In creating the script, Christie discovered that the novel's uncompromising tone and shocking conclusion did not translate well to the stage, and the final script was considerably lighter and had a considerably softer conclusion. When performed, the script was played as much for comedy as for suspense--and proved as popular as the novel. A film version became inevitable. Countless novels, plays, and movies have borrowed the premise Christie presents in AND THEN THERE NONE, and there have been at least four film versions (most often known as TEN LITTLE INDIANS) of the original work. All of these versions rely more upon the play script than the novel, offering a mix of comedy and suspense, and by far and away the best of them is famed French director Rene Clair's 1940s version. Brilliantly played by an ensemble cast of famed character actors including Judith Anderson, Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston, C. Aubrey Smith, and Roland Young, Clair creates a stylish, somewhat surrealistic romp that satirizes British "stiff upper lip" sensibilities with florishes of black comedy while quietly building a sense of increasing unease. From a modern standpoint, the Clair version seems more comic than suspensful; few will find it in the least unnerving. This does not, however, change the fact that it is a tremendous amount of fun to watch. The film creates an air of old-fashioned mischief that is compulsively enjoyable, and even if a contemporary director decided to have another go at the material it seems unlikely that any cast to equal this could be assembled. If you're prepared for a witty amusement, AND THEN THERE WERE NONE is recommended. I don't usually comment on the quality of DVDs unless there is a glaring issue--but since there are several DVD versions of this film, and some have been poorly reviewed, I will specify that I purchased the VCI edition. (The cover of this particular edition is yellow with the faces of the characters appearing in a V-shaped "wedge.") When the DVD began to play, the VCI logo was very distorted; when the DVD changed over to the menu, however, the picture became stable. When I ran the movie, I found the titles had a bit of a flicker, but this quickly vanished; as for overall quality, the picture and sound quality are rather poor as the movie begins but quickly corrects to an acceptable--although not excellent--level.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent movie!!
Review: This remains one of my favorite Christie novels (right beside "Curtain"), so the opportunity to see it on film was a great blessing! The film is fairly faithful to the book, with the only major deviation being the ending (which is too bad, considering Christie's ending was really what made the novel so good). It's still a good movie though, and really enjoyable. I highly recommend it, though I'd also recommend you read the book so you can see how a truly good ending can be written.
Rating:
Summary: Sharpness, contrast and scratches...
Review: About the IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT DVD edition of "And then there were none"... This new edition of "And then there were none" is very good, specially if you compare it with the MADACY one. The image is very sharp and its contrast is excellent. Probably the restoration team has mastered on high quality video an old commercial film print, because the contrast is very deep, as usual on the exhibition copies, but there is a problem with it: the celluloid is very dirty, full of scratches and, in the opening title sequence, it is completely unsteady. The sound is also just a bit rough, but it is very good anyway. And a very important detail: it is perfectly sychronized. In the MADACY edition it was a bit previous to the image. In general terms, it is much better than the other editions in image and sound. Bravo! (About the movie, you can read my MADACY edition previous review).
Rating:
Summary: "Restored original???????"
Review: Film has intrigued me for a long time (since I first saw it as a kid in the 40's). Even this latest DVD needs much more serious restoration than it received. Better contrasts between black and whites, but the film is still dirty and unsteady. Both problems are correctable with today's computer technology. Present issue is not worth the extra bucks. Wait for a good restoration.
|
