That was an excellent one.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Agatha Christie tale of 10 people invited to an isolated place , hovering around mouthing chunks of exposition while waiting to get murdered . The guests discuss and argue each other , only to find that an unseen person is killing them one by one . Just before the gripping climax of the film , you will be given sixty seconds to guess the killer's identity! The film will pause and on the screen you will see clues to help you decide who the murderer is...but the person in suspect is always the person who is murdered next . There is no way for any of them to flee , so they set about attempting to determine who their hidden host might be and where he might be hiding.Whodunit in which have been invited ten people who are strangers to each other , when they are all gathered, they hear from their host that each one of them has in someway caused the death of an innocent person and that justice had not be served in their cases , the guests are being killed off one by one . Average fourth adaptation , this one totally mucks up the story , switching from an isolated island to African landscapes located in the sabana . The original script was much more faithful to the original Agatha Christie novel with the setting on an island and the original grim conclusion of the book ; however, producer Harry Alan Towers changed it at the last second when he realized that it would be cheaper to shoot in the African outback and that the novel's ending is less marketable than Christie's happier resolution from the play version of the story . Excruciantly boring and dull rendition with silly characters and slowly paced . Most actors are mediocre and unknown , though there are tree important players as Donald Pleasence , Brenda Vaccaro and Herbert Lom who had acted in a previous remake playing the doctor . The whole cast overacts abysmally and playing cardboard roles against poor scenarios and some old tents . This low-budgeted picture is a real tedium and tiring ; sticks with the original version . The motion picture was regularly directed by Alan Birkinshaw who was in South Africa filming various films for producers Avi Lerner and Harry Alan Towers such as Masque of the Red Death , The House of Usher , Horror Safari and this ¨Ten little Indians¨ filmed with similar artistic and technician team .This is one of the innumerable versions based on Agatha Christie famous novel . The best version (1945) resulted to be the classic by Rene Clair with Barry Fitzgerard , Roland Young , June Duprez , Mischa Auer , C Aubrey Smith , Judith Anderson and Richard Haydn ; furthermore , 1965 version set in Austrian Alps by George Pollock with Hugh O'Brian as Hugh Lombard , Shirley Eaton as Ann Clyde , Fabian as Mike Raven , Leo Genn as General Mandrake as Stanley Holloway as William Blore , Wilfrid Hyde-White as Judge Cannon and Daliah Lavi as Ilona Bergen . And 1974 rendition set in remote Iran by Peter Collinson with Charles Aznavour , Maria Rohm , Adolfo Celi , ElKe Sommer , Stephane Audran , Alberto De Martino , Richard Attenborough and Herbert Lom .

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.

Possible spoilersI'd give this film 7/10 although I can fully understand why below it has been labelled as the worst adaptation ever. The story is so magnificent that it should get 10/10 regardless of how many remakes there are. What I know about film production you could write on the back of a postage stamp, but even I could make a pretty impressive attempt of putting Ten Little Indians to film.So, that it only scores 7/10 is more of a criticism than you would first think. It's not all bad, I didn't mind Stallone as Lombard as much as others, Pleasance is terrific at the end, the use of the lions was well thought out & the character Vera is again well converted. Most of my criticisms have been mentioned here already.Both this version (1989) and the 1945 version were roughly the same length ie 100 near minutes yet bizarrely & I'm not sure exactly how, the superb 1945 version seems to fit twice as much into it, and a lot more from the novel. Almost every character is fully developed there, whereas in this version, I didn't find one single character who we got to know & understand to the level we should have done. Some of there reasons for being there were tedious.Main problems were right from the start, all the extras, African tribesman & naked women lost the isolation factor. The good thing about the book & 1945 version was the quietness & lack of life in the surroundings. Nor could I understand the exact reasoning behind the lift being cut. The surrounding was impressive but even allowing for the lions you would still have expected at least one person to have done a runner from the area. I wasn't sure why a couple of characters had their names altered, why the doctor was foreign nor did the Doctor seem to build up a good enough relationship with the judge to forge the plan. Not enough attention was paid to the rhyme, Noel Cowards' song seemed out of place, and the Marion Marshall character had no substance whatsoever. The Rogers relationship seemed unconvincing & most of all, while not every murder warranted a flashback to see how it was committed, the Elmo Rogers death was crying out for one. He claimed to be off to the hill to keep watch & a frail old judge axes a 20 stone man. How? Was he asleep? Well then show us. The whole film just seemed very cheap & looked like a draft version, but with a story as good as this, it will always carry it.A low 7/10

Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" is one of the most famous mystery books every written, and may be the best mystery book of all time. Unfortunately, we may never see a movie that truly does justice to this great work. Even the so-called classic version of 1940 ruins the book by imposing a "happy ending." To the filmmakers' credit, under the Hays code it may have been impossible to show the original ending in the book. However, the makers of the remakes have no excuses. And since the same man-- Henry Alan Towers--has produced all the remakes and they all have the same ending, Christie fans can only hope that someone who truly cares about this book will buy the rights from his family when he passes away, since it's obvious he will going to do the right thing.If I have to rate this film, I would charitably give it a "7" only because I haven't seen it. And why should I bother to see it? This isn't the book I read in junior high school and fell in love with. It's a retread of what Hollywood thinks the public really wants from this book. You don't need an exotic location like Iran or the Safari desert to make this book interesting. Just use a small island, a good cast, and an outstanding director who knows how this book should be filmed. My first choice would be Christopher Nolan who directed "Following", "Memento", and the remake of "Insomnia."There is one ray of light in the darkness of "Ten Little Indians" remakes, and that is the new film "Identity." While that film strays farthest from the letter of Christie's book than any of the official movie versions, I believe it remains closest to her spirit. More thinking clearly went into this film than went into any of the other versions of "Ten Little Indians"....P.S. Anybody who thinks that a book or film with an ending similar to what happens in the book "And Then There Were None" is boring should ask themselves if a happy ending would have improved "Hamlet" or "King Lear."