Watch And Then There Were None For Free

Pretty Good

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Third film version of Agatha Christie's mystery whodunit (following 1945's "And Then There Were None" and 1965's "Ten Little Indians") has a seemingly disparate group of people flown out to an ornate but empty hotel in the Iranian desert by an unknown benefactor. Once settled in, the group learns they do have something in common: at one time in their lives, each was responsible for the death of another person--and none of them paid the price for their crimes. Not badly made or cast, just deadly dull; even the curious new location isn't used to any advantage. Peter Collinson directs without invention or energy. Script by Erich Kröhnke, Enrique Llovet and Peter Welbeck (a pseudonym for Harry Alan Towers, who also produced) is awfully similar to the screenplay for the 1965 version, coincidentally also co-written and produced by Towers. NO STARS from ****

Mind you, I don't think it is the best version. That is the 1945 Rene Clair film, apart from the ending it does have a very creepy atmosphere, a witty script and a fine cast(the standouts being Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston and Judith Anderson). In short, it is one of the better Agatha Christie film adaptations there is. The book And Then There Were None is a masterpiece, if there is a contender for Christie's best book(and this is coming from a fan of Agatha Christie and most of the adaptations of her work), And Then There Were None would almost certainly be in the running.This version is not perfect. The ending is not very logical and misses the point of the very ominous poem the story is revolved around, and the final death scene is unintentionally comical. In all fairness though the ending can be seen as unfilmable, and I think can be only done properly on stage. I personally thought that the acting was not bad at all, but there was one truly bad performance and that was Charles Aznavour. Thankfully he isn't in the film for long, but he is annoying and his song felt very out of place. The Ten Little Indians rendition with him performing it is immediately devoid of its ominous impact. People complain about the pacing, on the most part it was deliberately done and did match Christie's style but there are also lots of pauses for sometimes up to around 20-seconds that makes the film rather turgid sometimes.However, I loved the locations, they were splendid. And the photography while conventional is good. The music is very haunting and fits the atmosphere well, especially in the famous accusatory gramophone scene. The script is not as thoughtful or as witty as in the book or the Rene Clair film, but there is still enough of both of those to make it a decent enough script, with a couple of exceptions such as the ending. The story is compelling enough with the deaths more than serviceable, though Martino's was poorly scripted and illogical(a few hours instead of days for someone to die of dehydration in a desert, really?). Ilona's death is nowhere near as creepy as the death of her novelistic counterpart Emily Brent, which is one of the creepiest deaths I've seen described in any book, but Blore's is not as convenient and perhaps a little more plausible and the General's was also very well done being the most suspenseful.What I also liked about the story here was how suspenseful and atmospheric it was on the most part it was, and while few of the deaths match the re-occurring rhyme, I think only three of them matched, at least the basic structure and the spirit of the book remained, which to me in adaptations is more important than the details. Most of the acting was quite good, with Aznavour being the only exception for me. The best for me were a quietly commanding Richard Attenborough(like the Judge from the book come to think of it), an eerily shifty Herbert Lom(you're convinced he's the guilty party), and an understated yet heroic Oliver Reed. Gert Frobe and Elke Sommer are credible also and fairly true to their characters, Stephane Audran likewise as her charming on the outside but tormented on the inside(though Emily Brent in the book is much more interesting). Everybody else doesn't stand out as much, but it's a matter of not having much to do rather than being bad.A contribution that I found to be outstanding was that of Orson Welles as the recorded Grammphone voice. His voice is not perhaps as inhuman as it is described in the book. What it is though is dignified and menacing, which is in my mind also what the voice should be like. Coupled with the haunting music, Welles' voice-over helped make a scene that was intensely gripping. All in all, a decent if not great film that is better than it is given credit for. 7/10 Bethany Cox

This mediocre version of Agatha Christie's famous thriller has already been discussed extensively on this site and there is not much that I can add.It undoubtedly suffers from its ill-matched international cast, flying in to do their cameos and flying out again, without having time to build up any chemistry together. Moreover, any movie that casts Oliver Reed as a hero is always going to be in trouble. There are some gaping holes in the plot, which other reviewers have noted, but I suspect that these are the result of cuts being demanded by the producer in order to bring this somewhat torpid picture down to a releasable length.All this is fairly obvious, but I am surprised that nobody has commented on the curious way in which this movie was filmed. One reviewer did mention the large number of low angle shots (the camera is rarely above waist level) but that seems almost conventional besides Collinson's unaccountable decision to film the whole movie as a succession of lengthy takes in extreme long shot. This is particularly noticeable in the scenes in which the actors are dispersed over the huge hotel lobby and conversations take place so far from the camera that you are not always sure who is actually talking. In these wide angle, deep focus shots the camera is often completely static for a minute or more before tracking slowly around the edges the action. Occasionally, someone will walk right up to the camera and loom ominously over the audience before moving away again, but Collinson rarely cuts into the master shot in order to let us see a close up or a reaction.I cannot recall any other commercial movie being shot or edited in such a primitive way since the very early days of Silent cinema.Collinson was no novice when he made this movie, so all this must have been a deliberate decision on his part. I can only speculate about what he was trying to achieve. Perhaps he was bored with 'claustrophobic' thrillers and wanted to try and make one that was 'agoraphobic' instead. Maybe years of working in television had made him sick of shooting all those 'talking heads' and he wanted to see if he could tell a story without them. Who knows?Whatever his reasons might have been, I don't think this experiment really worked. The camera is so remote from the action that I found it difficult to get involved, either with the characters or what was happening to them. The picture has its moments of tension but overall it has a soporific, drifting, enervated feel that ultimately lulls you into indifference.On the other hand, its stylistic peculiarity might be the only reason to bother watching it today

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.