Load of rubbish!!

Excellent, a Must See

Am I Missing Something?

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Charles Aznavour, Maria Rohm, Adolfo Celi, Stéphane Audran, Alberto de Mendoza, Richard Attenborough, Gert Frobe, Herbert Lom, Oliver Reed and Elke Sommer are summoned to a hotel in Iran by the mysterious U.N. Owen (get it?) and all accused of having murdered someone. They start getting bumped off one-by-one and realize that one of them must be Owen. This pan-European production (English, French, German, Italian and Spanish money went into it) of the Agatha Christie chestnut has a great cast but is a really slow and listless adaptation. Harry Alan Towers seems to have little thought or resources into this one after coming up with the idea and casting it ... he even used exactly the same script as his 1965 version.

The Agatha Christie classic remade for the second time; this time the setting is the Iranian desert and a huge mansion in the middle of it.This strange fusion of Christie's classic and obvious giallo influences is a fun ride for those who really like the story. The story undeniably is great; 10 strangers on a remote place start dying one by one and soon it becomes apparent that the killer is one of the group.Most viewers will know the story by heart. The story's execution is what's important here. It basically follows the book; the murders happen in the same order while the method differs somewhat, the murderer's the same and the conclusion is the same as Christie devised in her version when she made it into a play (which, funny enough, renders the title quite pointless).The setting is quite strange but the mansion fits the bill well enough, the actors are a curious assembly of notable Brits and Europeans and the overall feel of the film is certainly Italian/Spanish. I tend to think of Dario Argento at the helm, Bruno Nicolai composing the score, an older Mario Bava assisting with cinematography and Dardano Sacchetti writing the script. It's certainly reeking with giallo influences throughout.In the end; this version is more or less pointless and doesn't add anything of value not already existing in the other two versions. But that doesn't mean it isn't entertaining. It is.Now I just want to track down the Russian version if I can; where "And then There Were None" actually has some meaning.

If you haven't seen this film, then make sure you do. Based on the classic book 'Ten Little Indians', the film takes you on a ride of exciting suspense, murder and paranoia. The acting is top notch with Oliver Reed putting in one of his best performances, the charismatic Englishman, cool and classy yet with a hidden menacing undertone. The haunting music is superb throughout. It connects the movie together well and is assisted by the brilliant editing. Simple and set mostly in one place, this movie will make you not want to look away and will seem over before you know it. (always the sign of a good film, I reckon) Well cast and with some exceptional character acting, this is one you really ought to see. 10/10!!

... or rather a nightmare.******* SPOILERS ***************************** Some reviewers emphasize the apparent logic flaws of the script, and they're right: why did the guests accept that crazy invitation, why can't they organize themselves properly to survive or pay attention to the (very spare) clues they have, why does Mr Owen leaves some deaths (Martino's, Ilona's and the expected Lombard's death) to excessive chance, why do the guests accept so easily the fact there's no-one else in the house... OK.The guests' behaviour is sometimes far from logic, indeed, but these people make the experience of TOTAL FEAR, a feeling new to them. And fear paralyzes thought. If Armstrong had thought twice, he wouldn't have been influenced by the judge's remark about lights being constantly switched on and off which means they're both innocent. That remark doesn't prove anything, but we know that because we're sitting comfortably in our chair, while the doctor is sweating like a pig and begs the judge to spare him if he's Mr Owen. All characters end up acting like beasts in a trap. They sweat, they plead, they become violent, but they never think. They're as despicable as in the novel, and very well played by all for that reason.The only character who sits back before it's too late and re-thinks all the story over is Morley / Lombard. In the end he's got 3 seconds to find a plausible explanation, and does so. The rest of the guests are doomed from the beginning - or they think they are.That's why things are so easy for Mr Owen all the way through.Every character experiences the ultimate nightmare: the one which happens in real life. All the more that Mr Owen seems to be some sort of God, an almighty, elusive son of a b...: he sees Martino dying in the desert, he knows exactly where the General is in the ceiling (and that Ilona's not with him anymore), he pours cyanide in Raven's glass and lets him live long enough to confess his hideous crime... He's the eye in the sky, and the mouse under the bed in the same time. Take the camera angles: they suggest that someone is alternatively watching from above and below. The camera is rarely at the characters' level. This is no 70s' gratuitous gimmick, it's here for a reason. Mr Owen is no real being, he's the dust under the carpet, he's the walls, he's the ruins outside. He's everything, everywhere.Like a false God. But too self-assured, too confident in his abilities, in the superiority of his mind. He neglects the final step of his scheme and doesn't care to watch through Morley's shooting by Vera Clyde. What a mistake.Mr Owen doesn't exist, he's just a symbol of evil. A superior evil: bright, cold-blooded, paranoid, bloodthirsty. An enemy of mankind in the vein of Hitler, only to a lesser scale.The place where all the story takes place doesn't exist either: a 50-rooms palace in the middle of the desert, with no road, no life hundreds of miles around? Well...If you're not convinced, think of all the gaps that were not filled by the director - on purpose. What was the mysterious way of escape Martino was searching? How did Mr Owen made his way through the house without never being seen or heard? What story will the two survivors tell the police when it arrives: the truth (with what proof?)or will they invent a new story, accusing one another so that no-one will be able to incriminate any of them (good luck!)? All these points are not explained. Flaws? Who thinks Peter Collinson was dumb enough not to realize these flaws would show? They are here to suggest the viewer that he's not just watching another whodunit, but some surrealistic drama. Think about it, when you wake up in the morning, can you make perfect sense to all the dreams you made? Isn't it more important to analyze the impression they left on you? Like in the best giallos, some points remain blurred, some mechanisms are unclear, but it's not the point. We're not talking about logic here, we're talking about human weaknesses. A recurrent theme in Peter Collinson's movies, never treated as efficiently as in this first-rate chiller.