To me, this movie is perfection.

People are voting emotionally.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

This film is the weakest of the Harry Alan Towers' adaptations of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians". This is a shame, as it is the most recent film we have of this book, although we all pray that there will be another film in the future. Everything about this film has more weak points than strong. The casting is dull and uninteresting. The setting is bizarre. The script is slow and lacks energy. It looks, in all honesty, more like an amateur production. However, I shall go through things fairly chronologically:The setting is possibly the weirdest of any of the films. A mansion in the Swiss Alps (1965) was believable, an ornate palace in Iran (1974) was a little more difficult to comprehend, but this is beyond both. There is very little claustrophobia felt, possibly because they are pretty much always in the open air, but also because of the method of transport. In the original novel and 1945 film, the guests travel by boat across a particularly choppy sea. In the 1965 film, they travel by cable car, which is later sabotaged. The 1974 film probably has the most isolated feel, because they arrive by helicopter in the middle of nowhere. In this film, the guests arrive by foot, and, although it looks desolate and seems isolated, it doesn't look impossible for anyone to escape – it looks as though at least one person is going to manage to make a run for it. None of the characters fit into the setting, either; why the elderly Judge Wargrave and General Romensky are there is a mystery.The acting is, to put bluntly, poor. This is not necessarily the fault of the actors, as the script itself is slow and seems pregnant, as if something should be happening, but never actually does happen. By contrast, the deaths happen at lightning speed, and we rattle through the first five murders, without any deductive reasoning or hypothesising taking place in between. The acting doesn't really convince. Donald Pleasance appears less authoritative than any previous Judge Wargrave; he is bumbling, forgetful, slow, and weary, and not really very believable as a judge. Frank Stallone gives a dull, static performance as Lombard, speaking his lines as if he's reading the news. Sarah Maur Thorp is refreshing as Vera, but her overacting becomes irritating, and by the end, her high-pitch scream becomes incredibly annoying. Brenda Vacarro is a good actress, but she is let down by the fact that she is playing a bland, substanceless character, fading actress Marion Marshall. Yehuda Efroni gives a bizarre interpretation of the doctor; instead of the wise portrayals of Walter Huston and Dennis Price, he appears positively half-witted and childlike – he sulks like a schoolchild at dinner on the first night of the safari, for no reason. Herbert Lom is not given very much to do, but his exposition sequence, when he reveals to Vera his past crime, is excellent. Sadly, he dies just as we grow to like him. Warren Berlinger, like Brenda Vacarro, is given a dull character with little/no substance at all. His performance is gruff, grumbly, and inaudible. Neil McCarthy plays Anthony Marston as a foppish spoiled brat, and while his characterisation is not bad, his fast-paced music number "Mad Dogs and Englishmen" is pointless and random. Paul Smith overacts as Mr Rodgers, to the point where we don't really feel sorry for the death of his wife, played by Moira Lister. Lister's performance is screechy but entertaining, but unfortunately she does very little in the film. The past crimes are a mess. Some are not mentioned at all (judge, doctor, Lombard), and the rest are just vague. Blore's confession is quiet and muffled. Vera's crime, the best the book had to offer, is changed to a one-liner about a boy she looked after drowning. Marston mentions a couple run down by him, with no mention of him being drunk, or even the victims being young children. Marion Marshall's crime is also vague and confusing – we just hear that she pushed her lesbian lover into a swimming pool. The Rodgers' crime is, like Vera's, distorted. Rodgers mentions that they looked after a woman who died – that's it.This film takes ages to get going – we have to sit through the entire journey to the campsite, watching everyone engaging in everyday conversation, little bursts of talk followed by more scenery and elephants. Although Africa is beautiful, and elephants are quite interesting, I think it would have been better to have the focus on the characters and their backstories. Then, after so much wasted time, we suddenly get death after death after death after death after death…the whole thing is poorly paced. The scene involving the gramophone record is distorted as well. The voice is not the clear, booming voice it is in the novel, but instead a raspy, slow, accusatory sound crackling from the record player. And somehow, the person who is about to be accused next happens to utter something silly and mechanical before being named by the record.At least the ending is exciting and dramatic, unlike any previous films, but unfortunately it doesn't hold water – why did Lombard wait several minutes before bursting into the tent and saving the screaming Vera? I have read elsewhere on IMDb that there was an original script using the novel's original ending, which was binned just before production began. Where is this script? It is unlikely that we will ever know now.This film has never been released on DVD, but is available on VHS, should anyone have a VHS player. It is also currently unavailable on YouTube, despite being available just a few months ago.

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

In spite of being one of the famous stories ever written, there aren't *that* many movie versions of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Indians". I know of about eight film versions, but none of them are famous classics or widely acclaimed titles. This late 80's version is only the second adaptation that I've watched and, just like that other one from the early 70's (listed here as "Ein Unbekannter rechnet ab") it wasn't much more than an amusing but unmemorable whodunit flick. The difference between this version and the original novel is that the isolated setting isn't a creepy mansion on an island, but the dry African Savannah. Ten completely unrelated people are lured to Africa through various tricks, like having won a safari or being offered a job as tour guide, by the mysterious Mr. Owen. On the first evening, after diner, they listen to a recording of a voice accusing each and every one of them of having committed a murder in the past without being trialled for it. From that moment onwards, one guest after the other dies in mysterious circumstances and the 'accidents' are always similar to the lyrics of the nursery rhyme "Ten Little Indians". It looks as if their host Mr. Owen is playing a game with them. Or maybe Mr. Owen doesn't exist at all and the killer is someone within the group. As stated above, this version of "Ten Little Indians" isn't the least bit spectacular or fantastic, but it's definitely compelling while it lasts and there are a handful of worthwhile moments of suspense. Some of the death sequences are quite eerie, like the victim whose found with an axe stuck in the back of his skull. Director Alan Birkinshaw apparently likes re-adapting classic stories, since he also directed versions of Edgar Allan Poe's "The House of Usher" and "The Masque of the Red Death". I haven't seen those, but I've seen a film of his called "Horror Safari" and that one was really poor. For "Ten Little Indians", he could count on a fairly terrific cast including the always reliable Donald Pleasance, Paul L. Smith, Brenda Vaccora and Herbert Lom (who coincidentally also starred in the 70's version). Heck, even Frank Stallone was decent and luckily enough he didn't sing.

I have to disagree with some of the comments made about this movie. It wasn't that bad, garrunteed it wasn't the greatest, but it still was good. The best version is the 1966 version with Hugh O Brian and Shirley Eaton. Just because the setting is changed people think it was a bad version. Each of the 5 version of Ten Little Indians has their strong points. I say go out and rent this one. It has some scary moments in it.