What a waste of my time!!!

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Before I saw this Russian version Desyat Negrityat, the best adaptation was the 1945 Rene Clair film, which I consider one of the best Agatha Christie film adaptations there is. The 1965 version was very good, 1974's was okay though heavily flawed and apart from a couple of redeeming values 1989's was barely passable. I had heard so much about the 1987 Russian version, all great stuff just in case you're wondering, and I am so glad that I finally saw it, as it is as brilliant as everybody says. The subtitles are rather stilted and even a few sentences behind towards the end and perhaps the murderer's identity could have been revealed just a little later than it was, but compared to how much in the film's favour there is they weren't enough to ruin the film.This is indeed the most faithful adaptation of the book, which is saying a lot actually. The book is one of my favourite books ever and a contender for Agatha Christie's best. While there are a couple of changes and additions, namely the sex scene, which I found both erotic and mad without feeling out of place, this is as faithful as you can get as an adaptation of Christie's work. All the names are intact in Desyat Negrityat as is the location, how the murders are committed, the past crimes and the grim original ending. So much so, it is like the book itself come to life, while it was very true to the spirit of the book even the 1945 film didn't manage to achieve that. But aside from being faithful, Desyat Negrityat succeeds brilliantly on its own terms.When it comes to the dialogue, it is not just word-for-word(apart from Anthony Marston's reply to who had the most beastly luck, which said a lot about his character) but maintains the thoughtful, occasionally humorous and beautifully developed prose of the book. The film is long- just over two hours- and does unfold slowly, but considering the author's style and how much there is in terms of characterisation and insight these were necessary. For me though, because of how engrossing everything was those 2 plus hours flew by. It was also fascinating how we could see the character's thoughts, something that none of the other adaptations did, while the murders, especially Emily Brent's, were very creepy. Whether the ending comes as a surprise to people depends on their familiarity with the book, it wasn't a surprise to me admittedly but it is always intriguing at what the adaptation does with building the suspense and how it executes the solution.In this regard, Desyat Negrityat does wonderfully. It sticks to the grim tone of the book, and it is very suspenseful, helped by the stunning and appropriately claustrophobic locations and photography. Before now, I thought the book ending was unfilmable, which was why a less downbeat ending was written for the stage I believe. The latter I can see why it was done and it has grown on me overtime having for some time being underwhelmed by it, but apart from Vera's death perhaps being too much by chance the book ending feels as though it has more time to explain everything. Desyat Negrityat proves that the book ending actually can be done if in the right hands. The characters are very true to their book counterparts and developed very well, these characters are not ones you necessarily root for but then again I don't think that was the intent.On top of this, the music score is very spooky and ominous, without giving anything away or overbearing what's going on. The poem the mystery is revolved around is as omnipresent and fear-inducing as it ought to be. The direction never allows the mystery, suspense and tension to let go, while the acting is excellent, those for Judge Wargrave, Dr Armstrong and Emily Brent being the standouts though Vera Claythorne's actress is strikingly beautiful without being overly so. Not just that, but, although the 1945 film was close to perfect(1965 had two bad performances but the rest were fine, 1974 was a mixed bag and 1989 had only three actors that were halfway decent), it's the only one where nobody is bad. Certainly the only adaptation where the Anthony Marston character isn't annoying. Overall, the best version, just brilliant. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Having seen all the four British adaptations of Agatha Christie's bestselling novel 'And Then There were None' AKA 'Ten Little Indians', I decided to turn my attention to the Soviet adaptation of this great work-'Desyat Negrityat'. For me, the biggest lure of this film was the fact that, unlike the English adaptations, it retained the dark and disturbing ending of the original work.As I had expected, this film WAS a much more faithful adaptation of the book than any other, in EVERY respect. And therein lies one of its faults. With virtually every scene in the novel included, the pacing off this film suffers, especially in the first half; there are long stretches of expository dialogue which, while informative vis a vi the plot, leaves the viewer yearning for action. Where the film succeeds however, is firstly, in the setting-the sheer modern simplicity of the house on Indian Island belies the horrifying deaths which occur within its walls one after the other, a juxtaposition which is chilling indeed. Secondly, unlike any of the other adaptations, this film does a great job exploring the inner torment and psychological conflicts of the characters under siege...the character of 'Vera Claythorne' in particular; adding a depth to the story lacking in previous theatrical renditions.On the whole, 'Desyat Negrityat' has its flaws, but it is a great watch nonetheless...and leaves one hoping for an English adaptation of the novel that is nearly as faithful!

That's the director of this film.Those of us who read the novel before we saw the film will be pleasantly surprised by this film.We know that there have been many Hollywood versions of the Agatha Christie murder mystery. Each worse the one before. The worst was easily the one with 1960s morality and preaching.AN THEN THERE WERE NONE, which had numerous subtitles deemed derogatory today, but looked upon with tea party innocent acceptance then, is easily Christie's masterpiece. It is the story which is retold in almost every TV action series in one form or another, in which an isolated group of people, in this case ten, are killed off one by one, realizing that their murderer is one of them. It is the basis for NINE DEAD, SAW, most horror films, and most reality shows.Christie's words flowed in this book as she never had them flow before or after. It was her magical work. One could wonder if this was the same author of the other Christie books. This was easy reading. You could pore through every word, and remember every word.Christie was so gifted, and her obvious jealousy of the stunning brunettes holds her back, but that is all that holds her back. This novel was a masterpiece.Now, for the remarkable news. GOVONUKHIN is the director of this masterpiece. He carefully kept nearly every word intact. It flows and looks perfectly period piece British. There are times that his directing will astound students of the art.The ten people are portrayed with magnificence. The setting, the atmosphere, everything, is as close to the book as one can do in a reasonable time frame.In case you haven't heard, the ten characters are all accused by their unknown host of murders for which they were not penalized for. The book makes it clear, as does the film, that these aren't what are viewed as murders, but a subtle sort of murder. The main character, Vera Claythorn, for example, was watching over a young boy, and relented one day in letting him swim to far out in the ocean, and failed to save him. Philip Lombard, the one described as wolf like in the book, abandoned twenty Africans in a safari (I believe in the book it was 21, and actually Lombard was one of about three who abandoned them) in a situation in which they would all starve, but there were provisions for a few.In British tradition, Lombard's view that Africans didn't mind dying is met with weak resistance by some of the others, though not totally accepted by the group as a whole. Christie is insightful enough to point out that it is indeed the religious fanatic, Emily Brent, who is the one that is most troubled by Lombard's easily dismissal of humans who are different.The third central character, Blore, is bearlike in the book, yet much like Lombard in character. Here, he and Lombard are much blonder, and even more alike, but it really enriches the theme of the British social order, and works exceptionally well. In all of literature, there are probably not two characters more definitive of "frenemies" than these two, and perhaps they are the two original "frenemies".I could elaborate on the ten characters, but it is better to let the viewer do that. It isn't a spoiler to say that the principal three are fascinating. Their British superiority glows in a realism that will amaze you. The killer is even more spine tingling in his realism than the caricatures of modern horror.This is an awesome film. And kudos to a director, but also to the entire troupe of actors, stunt men, down to the cue card holders, because this team was a winning team. This is so much like the book, that I can't say to read the book first, but either way, you'll enjoy it, I'm sure.I don't know what more I can say. It's hard to describe how great this piece is, and I am afraid of the usual letdown if I laud it too much, for you'll expect too much. Simply expect a well told story, and take the ride.

I believe listing just one, single thing about this adaptation that makes it the best ATTWN adaptation would be doing this film a great injustice, so it's difficult for me to find a place to begin. I suppose I'll start by describing the plot in case there's anyone who's been living under a rock: Ten strangers are gathered to an isolated location, are informed by a gramophone record that they're all murderers who will receive swift retribution, and are killed off one by one in accordance to the gruesome nursery rhyme, Ten Little Indian--sorry, Ten Little Negro Boys. Call the title (which translates to Ten Little Negro Boys) politically incorrect, but the original title was politically incorrect. Call the characters nasty, but they were nasty in the book. Call the ending depressing, but the ending was depressing in the book. Call this movie a lot of things, but never call it unfaithful. Unlike the other adaptations, which watered down the things that made Agatha Christie's original story a masterpiece, this adaptation is not afraid to go there. It's not afraid to expose the plot for what it is or the characters for whom they are, which is what makes it stand out from the other adaptations. For instance, take Vera Claythorne. The other adaptations portray her as a bright-eyed, oh-so-innocent young lady who would never do anything bad, never. Here, she only LOOKS innocent, but as revealed in her flashbacks, she is anything but. Tatyana Drubich captures the character of Vera Claythorne perfectly, portraying her as a cold-hearted monster in her flashbacks when she's allowing her pupil to swim out to sea and drown, and then portraying her as a human and sympathetic character when she has her breakdown at the end, realizing that although Cyril had her lover's money, he was only an innocent child who hadn't yet lived his life. In the book, the characters merely speak of nightmares they had; in the movie, you see them. For instance, Lombard dreams of traveling through a jungle, only to be confronted by a large tribe man whom Lombard fights off. The tribe man falls and has a blank, horrible look on his face. Lombard opens his mouth to scream but can't (you know that awful feeling dreams?) and wakes up sweating and takes a drink. Basically, the movie is extremely faithful to the book, taking only one, major liberty: The infamous bedroom scene between Lombard and Vera, a scene that gives me the chills because what happens between them borderlines between an intense love-making session and rape. It shows the characters at their maddest, showing two people who were having a civilized conversation at the beginning of the movie now behaving like rabbits in mating season, and the two actors play the moment beautifully. (I have to wonder, though, would Agatha Christie view it that way?) And last but not least, there's the part that many users have mentioned already but I might as well mention it: Instead of using the romantic, happy ending from the play, this version uses the dark, downbeat ending of the novel, which is what gives this adaptation its reputation for being unafraid to 'go there'. It goes to show that Stanislav Govorukhin read the novel, not the play, and saw a potentially great ending for a great movie. (Besides, a happy ending for Lombard and Vera in this adaptation would be kind of awkward, considering, you know, that little moment of insanity) Overall, this is a superb adaptation that deserves its reputation amongst Agatha Christie fans.