ada the leading man is my tpye

Interesteg What makes it different from others?

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Paul Evans Ten guests are assembled by UN Owen high up in the snow capped Mountains, in a beautiful remote house. Of the ten husband and wife 'The Grohmanns' are employed to look after the other guests. Herr Grohmann informs the men that Mr Owen (their host) will join them for dinner, it turns out that none of them has met Owen, not even Anne Clyde who's been employed as his secretary. The guests dress and assemble for dinner, they dine with 10 little china Indians, but not their host. After dinner a record is played, telling them they are all guilty of murder. After hearing the tape the guests are keen to leave, but have no option, they have to remain for the weekend. Mike Raven admits the tape message about his running over and killing a young couple was true, just after his announcement he falls to the floor dead. One by one the guest die, The setting is switched to the Alps, it manages somewhat to create a level of claustrophobia, intensified by Grohmann's demise.It is a very attractive looking film, great scenery, a wealth of attractive people including Shirley Eaton, Daliah Lavi, Hugh O'Brian and Fabian.I have often overlooked this film, favouring the versions from 1945 and 1974, but I've judged this film too harshly, it's a cracking film, the acting for the most part is excellent, the performances of Stanley Holloway and Wilfrid Hyde-White are just wonderful, they each have an abundance of charisma. The Grohmann's are perhaps a little dodgy at times, but they're enjoyable enough. I can understand why people have stated that O'Brian is a little wooden, but I would imagine he's there more so for his ruggedness then his acting.My only gripe is that some of the dialogue feels at times that it was lifted directly out of Rene Clare' adaptation. I would also love to see an adaptation that sticks to the true ending, so far it's only the Russian 'Desyat Negrityat' that I've seen (outside of the Theater) brave enough to do it.It's a very enjoyable film, full of 60's glamour, the loveliness of Shirley Eaton adds to the enjoyment. The whodunit break is so sweet. 8/10

Leofwine_draca The first of three produced versions of the Agatha Christie novel, all of them made by Harry Alan Towers on a budget. This version is a cheap, black and white tale with an effective clifftop setting, but otherwise it's business as usual for the quickie producer: there's a middling script, an all-star cast, and plenty of action to keep minds from getting too bored.I suggest that the cast is the most interesting thing about this. It incorporates short-lived singing sensation Fabian into the mix, alongside stoic American leading man Hugh O'Brian. Top crumpet Shirley Eaton and Daliah Lavi add undeniable beauty, while seasoned character actors like Wilfrid Hyde-White and Dennis Price are present lower down in the list.I quite liked this film. It's no classic for sure, but it is watchable, and Christopher Lee provides a vocal performance for one scene which adds to the atmosphere. The inclusion of a 'whodunit break' at the climax - to give viewers a chance to work out who the murderer is - is a wonderful gimmick that hearkens back to the days of William Castle. Watch out for Mario Adorf (MANHUNT IN MILAN), delightfully shifty as the butler.

Tweekums This classic story has been retold many times which is hardly surprising as it is a great murder mystery story. In this version a group are invited to a house high in the Alps by a Mr. U. N. Owen; none of them know him but in each case the reason for the invitation is plausible for either personal or professional reasons. There are seven 'guests', Mr. Owen's secretary Ann Clyde and two house keepers. The ten introduce themselves and await Mr. Owen's arrival at dinner; he is not there but he has left a message explaining why he gathered them together. He believes they are all responsible for the death of another person and he intends to punish them. At first it is just a bit creepy but when one of the group dies it gets far more sinister. As the story progresses more die; each according to the nursery rhyme 'Ten Little Indians'. At first it is assumed there must be an eleventh person in the house but soon another possibility arises; one of the ten could be the killer; this immediately causes the tension to rise further as they grow suspicious of everything anybody does.This is an entertaining version of the story; I can't say how it compares with others as it is so long since I've seen them and I've not read the book. The isolated alpine location is plausible way of ensuring the guests don't just leave and the fact that we are told that each of them has caused a death before makes them all plausible killers. The cast, which does a decent job, surprisingly features no big name actors; although Shirley Eaton may have been in the public eye at the time as this was made a year after her iconic appearance in 'Goldfinger' and Wilfred Hyde White is one of those actors who has 'been in a lot'. It is unlikely that first time viewers will guess who did it; in fact the creators are so convinced of this that there is a one minute recap before the final reveal where we are challenged to guess who did it! For the most part the film has a theatrical feel although two of the deaths, which I won't describe, are definitely cinematic. Overall this is worth watching especially if you've yet to see any version of the story.

TheLittleSongbird And Then There Were None is and has been since I was 12 one of my favourite books of all time. If there is a contender for Agatha Christie's- of whose books I'm a fan of- best book, And Then There Were None would definitely be more than worthy. When you love a book as imaginative, suspenseful, beautifully characterised and sometimes scary(Emily Brent's death for instance) as And Then There Were None, no matter how you try to judge a film on its own terms, you do hope that the book is done justice to.In terms of film adaptations though, it's been a very mixed bag. The 1945 film for me is by far the best, witty, suspenseful, splendidly cast(Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston and Judith Anderson being the standouts) and faithful to the book's spirit in general. The 1974 film is heavily flawed, namely that it does get turgid and illogical in places and Charles Aznavour is awful but it looks wonderful, has a good score, has the extra bonus of having Orson Welles as the voice of Mr Owen and has good performances from Richard Attenborough, Herbert Lom and Oliver Reed make it a film better than its reputation.Strictly speaking, it's the 1989 version that is really quite poor, with only the locations, the lions and the performances of Donald Pleasance, Sarah Maur Thorp and Herbert Lom working somewhat. I found myself very impressed generally by this version, it's second only to the 1945 film and easily the best of the remakes.The film is not perfect however. Although it is in this version where the perpetrator is the most malevolent, the ending- changed from the I think unfilmable ending of the book(someone also raised the point that Vera Claythorne's death is too much by chance in the book and I can definitely see where they're coming from)- seemed dramatically under-baked for me. The music score is too jazzy and I think lightweight, jarring with the film's tone and diluting the suspense and claustrophobia. The Ten Little Indians song is good however, though I prefer the ominously Roccoco style of the one in the 1945 adaptation.Daliah Lavi and especially Fabian give the only two performances that I'd consider bad, in Fabian's case embarrassingly bad. Lavi is a little better than Brenda Vaccarro in the 1989 film, but she like Vaccarro does very little with a character that wasn't as written as well as she could've been and the melodrama(and there is a lot considering the profession her role has) is so overcooked that it becomes painful to watch and listen to. Fabian makes an obnoxious character even more so(what the remakes have in common actually is how annoyingly the role is written and performed actually), so much so you want him dead fast.On the other side of things, this version has beautiful locations, not as claustrophobic-looking as the 1945 film but for me it didn't have the sense that it was going to present any kind of logic problems like the later versions did. The photography compliments it very well, and the same goes for George Pollock's quite studied but professional direction that does little to spoil the tension. The murders are both inventive and at times eerie, while the script is literate with a touch of drollness, the characters generally maintain interest and don't have back stories and such that feel too underdeveloped or distorted(something that the 1989 version did to truly bad effect) and the story had me gripped, and while the identity didn't come as a surprise to me as I know the story so well it is easy to see why others would feel that, when I read the book was exactly that of complete surprise.Lavi and Fabian aside, I thought the cast were very good. Taking top honours has to go to Wilfred Hyde-White, whose Judge- one of the book's most interesting characters to me and well-performed in all four versions- is incisive and quick-witted, quite possibly one of his best performances. Dennis Price's Armstrong, almost as good as Walter Huston, is an ideal match, smart, intelligent and playful(only the 1989 film has this role played badly), while Leo Genn in a commanding and touching performance is this close to topping Herbert Lom in the 1989 film(the only asset of that that is the best of anything to do with this story and its adaptations) as the General and Stanley Holloway who is very authoritative with touches of humour is the best of the actors playing Blore.Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton have been much criticised for being wooden. I actually didn't have a problem with them and found them quite appealing. O'Brian is handsome and smooth and Eaton smolders on screen and at least shows a sense of her character's predicaments. We even have the luxury of having an unbilled Christopher Lee as the voice of Mr Owen. Like Orson Welles-largely responsible for why the scene in the 1974 version in question was done so well, possibly the best done of the versions- his distinctive voice is not what you call inhuman, but there is a dignified and menacing quality to it that is enough to evoke some chills at least. The butler character is also the most interesting in this version.Overall, while flawed I liked it very much and consider it the second best version of a literary masterpiece. 8/10 Bethany Cox