I find it quite hard to review this film, it's one of those I got into as a kid, and it's always difficult to be mean about your childhood films.The book, is perhaps my all time favourite novel, so it's pretty difficult to do it badly, or is it? There have been several adaptations, 1945, 1965 and 1974's versions were all different, but no matter how much they veered from the script they all managed to retain the suspense and sense of claustrophobia, aided both by direction, and more basically the locations. The Jungle setting doesn't really work on the same level somehow. The sets look pretty cheap, as do some of the costumes, Frank Stallone, Brenda and Sarah look pretty tatty in some parts.It's not all doom and gloom though, some of the acting is rather good, and whilst I don't particularly like some of the characters the acting is not at fault. Donald Pleasence is the high point, he is particularly good, Herbert Lom is good too, even though I loathed his character. I thought Sarah Maur Thorp was fair as Vera, she had an English delicacy.Some actors were rather badly cast, firstly, Yehuda Efroni is actually irritating as the Doctor, I couldn't wait for him to go. As for Frank Stallone I can think of no other reason for him to be there other then for his beefy looks, he does lots of intense pouts, but adds little. The Rogers were the worst culprits for overacting.I struggle to believe how 'Owen' could have committed some of the murders, they seem a little far fetched, Mr Rogers in particular, although I enjoyed the finale, it's well acted and there is a sense of terror.I long for the day when someone sticks to the original ending, if only a producer would have the bottle. It's a fun film, a bit cheap, but some interesting surprises in store for the first time viewer, I still enjoy it despite its flaws 5/10

OK, this is not as wonderful as the original 1945 b/w film nor as enjoyably trashy as the 1966 remake. (The less said about the 1974 version the better.) The overall cast in this version is good, the score is surprisingly sophisticated, and the direction restrained. If you want a popcorn film for a lonely or rainy Saturday night, then check it out.Would be a nice idea if someone were to release a DVD set of all of the adaptations of the novel.FYI, there is a recent BBC Radio adaptation of the novel with the original ending. You may find it on amazon.com.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!First, I need to correct one notion put forth by the previous critic: the "happy" ending to the theatrical versions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS or AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was not something that the filmmakers arbitrarily added to make people feel good watching it. It was, in fact, written by Agatha Christie herself when she adapted the story for the stage. This was done for two reasons. First, she wanted people to enjoy the play even if they've read the book. She wanted them to be surprised anew, something she did with every play she adapted. Second, she knew that what worked and satisfied in a novel may not work or satisfy in dramatic form, and I agree with her. I mean, how can you argue with her level of success.Now, to the 1989 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS: This is NOT the best screen version of the story, but it still genuinely surprises. It was the first version I'd seen and I was truely shocked when th ekiller was revealed. I enjoyed the adaptation and the cast. My only complaint is that having the story take place in a remote location in Africa it loses the sense of claustraphobia that other versions had. For better adaptations I recommend the 1945 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE or the 1965 TEN LITTLE INDIANS. The stage version is also wonderful- and lets not forget the book!

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."