I have no idea what movie the other commentators on this site saw, but I think this 1970's adaptation of Agatha Christie's classic, "Ten Little Indians/ And Then There Were None" novel is terribly dull and, at some points, painful to watch.
As an Agatha Christie fan, I had my uncle searching for years (literally) for this version on VHS and finally received it as a present about 6 years ago. I am glad to have it as a collectible, but as art or entertainment, it is a DUD! The acting is bland and inept (something people seem to mistakenly perceive as drama), the concept is ridiculous (an Iranian desert? Come on!!!), the action/suspense is close to being non-existent, and nearly all of the dialogue is copied, line for line, from the much superior 1966 film version (though without any hint of character or meaning.) A wonderful facet of Christie's writing is that she was incredibly detailed and serious in her intentions, but kept a keen wit about her. The supposedly buffoonish, comic antics of the earlier films some of the other commentators have written about fit in well with the plot. It added a macabre sense of black humor. This is Agatha Christie we're talking about, not Herman Melville. Christie's writing was never dry or stiff. Unfortunately, this movie is!
And who came up with the idea that each character had to be of a different nationality? There were no Russians, Italians, or Germans in Christie's novel. It's one thing to add a bit of diversity, but all those clashing accents! I felt like I was in a United Nations meeting. This film version is even worse than the latest rendition, 1989's TV movie-of-the-week, where the setting is moved to an African jungle. The acting is actually better in the 1989 version than this one.
As an Agatha Christie fan, I had my uncle searching for years (literally) for this version on VHS and finally received it as a present about 6 years ago. I am glad to have it as a collectible, but as art or entertainment, it is a DUD! The acting is bland and inept (something people seem to mistakenly perceive as drama), the concept is ridiculous (an Iranian desert? Come on!!!), the action/suspense is close to being non-existent, and nearly all of the dialogue is copied, line for line, from the much superior 1966 film version (though without any hint of character or meaning.) A wonderful facet of Christie's writing is that she was incredibly detailed and serious in her intentions, but kept a keen wit about her. The supposedly buffoonish, comic antics of the earlier films some of the other commentators have written about fit in well with the plot. It added a macabre sense of black humor. This is Agatha Christie we're talking about, not Herman Melville. Christie's writing was never dry or stiff. Unfortunately, this movie is!
And who came up with the idea that each character had to be of a different nationality? There were no Russians, Italians, or Germans in Christie's novel. It's one thing to add a bit of diversity, but all those clashing accents! I felt like I was in a United Nations meeting. This film version is even worse than the latest rendition, 1989's TV movie-of-the-week, where the setting is moved to an African jungle. The acting is actually better in the 1989 version than this one.