Reviews (1)

Light-Weight Fun With Dame Margaret
Dame Margaret Rutherford makes an unlikely but extremely entertaining "Jane Marple" in this film version of Agatha Christie's novel "Mrs. Maginty's Dead." In spite of considerable tampering with the character, the film is fairly faithful to the plot of one of Christie's more widely praised novels, concerning a young man wrongly suspected of murdering his landlady.

Of the four Miss Marple films starring Dame Margaret, this one shows the actress' celebrated eccentricities to their best advantage, and Rutherford fans will be delighted by her broad and extremely charming performance. Christie purists and those looking for weightier fare will be disappointed, but for some truly lightweight entertainment with a 1960s British tone, Dame Margaret and company are hard to beat. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

It's great!
When elderly spinster Jane Marple (played by Margaret Rutherford) witnesses the death of Mr. Enderby, she realizes that this is no accident. Eavesdropping at the reading of the old man's will, she overhears Aunt Cora state categorically that he was murder, and later Aunt Cora is ruthlessly murdered. There's a murder on the loose, and Miss Marple is determined to find out who it is! [Black and White, released in 1963, with a running time of 1 hour, 22 minutes.]

I must admit that my wife and I chanced across this Miss Marple movie after having become great fans of Joan Hickson's interpretation of the role, and were not too happy with it. Later, however, having accepted that this is not Joan Hickson's Miss Marple, but accepting it for its self, we came to love this movie. Margaret Rutherford brings a real presence to the role, adding a touch of humor, and making the story (based on Agatha Christie's "After the Funeral") quite entertaining.

So, if you like a good mystery, or if you like old movies, then I highly recommend this movie to you. It's great!

Margaret Rutherford is outstanding
I was very excited to find this video! I have been looking for it for over a year.

Although Margaret Rutherford is not the Miss Marple that I envisioned when reading Agatha Christie's books (Joan Hickson is much closer), I find Margaret Rutherford a delightful eccentric. She is lively, independent and forceful! She is my favorite Miss Marple!

Stringer Davis(Mr. Stringer) and Margaret are a wonderful pair. They are a delight! In addition, Robert Morely and Margaret team up for some comedic fun.

I would really like to see the four Margaret Rutherford, Miss Marple films(Murder at the Gallop, Murder She Said, Murder Most Foul, Murder Ahoy) brought out on DVD as a box set. Anyone listening?

Lightweight and Charming
Novelist Agatha Christie occasionally remarked that while she was a great fan of the actress, Dame Margaret Rutherford was NOT the Jane Marple of her novels--for instead of giving us a fluttery and demure woman, Dame Margaret played the role with considerable aplomb and considerable eccentric British humor. Chrisite purists will probably be outraged by Dame Margaret's complete reinterpretation of the character, but there is no denying that she is a great deal of fun to watch.

This particular outing finds Dame Margaret investigating the mysterious death of an elderly man and the subsequent murder of one of his heirs--an investigation which leads her, most improbably, to an inn catering to the horsey set. Although very free in adaptation, the actual plot follows Christie's novel "Funerals Are Fatal" quite closely, and a charming supporting cast--including Flora Robinson--add to the fun. Lightweight and charming.

MARPLE IS PLEASING EVEN THOUGH PLUMP
WHEN I INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED THIS FILM ON TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES, I DIDN'T LIKE MARPLE BEING SO FORCEFUL AND FAT. I HUNG IN THERE, AND BOY WAS I IMPRESSED. I EVENTUALLY ENDED UP CATCHING ALL THE MARPLES STARRING MARGARET RUTHERFORD, ALL 4 OF THEM, ON TCM. MARGARET RUTHERFORD DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB BRINGING THE BRILLIANCE OF MARPLE ALIVE, ALTHOUGH IN A QUITE DIFFERENT WAY THAN JOAN HICKSON DOES IN THE A&E SPONSORED MARPLE SERIES. THIS MARPLE IS DELIGHTFUL, PUSHY, FUNNY AND NOW MY FAVORITE MISS MARPLE ON FILM. THE OTHER FILMS ARE: MURDER MOST FOUL, MURDER AHOY, AND MURDER SHE SAID. CATCH THEM IF YOU ENJOY BRITISH MYSTERY WITH LIGHT COMEDY. ... Read more

Reviews (12)

1 of 4 good mystery films!
I have all 4 of Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple videos. If you have never seen Murder Ahoy and you like murder mysteries, then you will be hooked. You will want to get the other 3 videos. The 1st is "Murder She Said" and then "Murder at the Gallop". After that is "Murder Ahoy" and then "Murder most Foul" You will enjoy seeing Miss Marple solving the crimes and of interest is Mr. Stringer who is her Librarian friend that assists her at times. Mr. Stringer (Stringer Davis) was actually Margaret Rutherford's real life husband. Enjoy! P.S. My favorite of the 4 is "Murder She Said" but all are good.

FEY RUTHERFORD
Although not the best of four Miss Marple mysteries done by the inimitable Rutherford for MGM British in the sixties, it's still fun. Lionel Jeffries is an amusing pain as the ship's captain driven to distraction by the nosey Jane Marple. Dame Margaret's interpretation of Marple was considered offbeat by many including author Christie because in the novels, her character was drawn quite differently; however it is Rutherford's version of Marple that millions love. Rutherford started acting late in life and had an extremely odd youth. Born May 11, 1892 to two wildly eccentric parents: her father spent six years in prison for murder and her mother committed suicide!- and we think we have problems!

It's great!
When elderly spinster Jane Marple (played by Margaret Rutherford) attends a meeting of trustees for a training ship for juvenile delinquents, and one of her fellow trustees drops dead under mysterious circumstances, she realizes that it is time for her to investigate. Boarding the ship, HMS Battledore, she soon finds out that things are positively fishy! Somebody about the Battledore is hiding something, and they are prepared to use murder to keep their secret. [Black and White, released in 1964, with a running time of 1 hour, 33 minutes.]

I must admit that my wife and I chanced across this Miss Marple movie after having become great fans of Joan Hickson's interpretation of the role, and were not too happy with it. Later, however, having accepted that this is not Joan Hickson's Miss Marple, but accepting it for its self, we came to love this movie. Margaret Rutherford brings a real presence to the role, adding a touch of humor, and making the story (not actually written by Agatha Christie, but a good mystery nonetheless) quite entertaining.

So, if you like a good mystery, or if you like old movies, then I highly recommend this movie to you. It's great!

Light Weight Fun
Based on characters created by novelist Christie but working from a completely original script, this entry in Margaret Rutherford's "Jane Marple" series finds the elderly detective aboard a ship operating as a school for troubled boys, where she uncovers--not unexpectedly--murder.

As in the other films of this series, Rutherford and the cast play the piece with a very light touch; here, however, the supporting cast is particularly noteworthy, with Lionel Jeffries a particular delight. Fans of the series will enjoy it, as will others looking for fluffy entertainment with a British sensibility.

entertainment in its truest form
These four films are true gems,and as you would expect from a gem the sparkle (like that sparkling cyanide) never fades. They are everything you'd expect from a good movie: entertaining with a good dash of suspense and humor. Margaret Rutherford has so much coined this role on film that she was a tough act to follow for actresses like Joan Hicks or Angela Lansbury in later picturizations, even though they looked and acted more like the 'real' Miss Marple as we know her from the books (or do we?). The unique thing about Margaret Rutherford is that she could act with her chin alone; among its many moods I especially cherish the chin commanding, the chin in doubt, and the chin at bay.

Fun to watch, a must-see for all ages! ... Read more

Reviews (11)

ALWAYS TEN LITTLE INDIANS
I don't agree with most of the reviews of this. I think this is a good adaptation, and is seriously over/under/adequately acted by a marvelous group of character actors. Hugh O'Brian---cast because of his darkly handsome looks; Shirley Eaton for her blonde beauty; Daliah Lavi for those eyebrows; Marianne Hoppe and Mario Adorf were splendid in their housekeeping roles; Fabian appropriately as bad an actor as singer; and those wonderful British superstars Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn and Wilfrid Hyde White hammy as they should be expected to be. The jazzy score is totally out of kilter, but it lends a kind of retrospective jolt to the senses.
Now, let's imagine TEN LITTLE INDIANS 2004--better special effects, the musical score featuring Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Pink and REM. Director would be someone like Quentin Tarantino or Brian DePalma. And think of the cast:
BEN AFFLECK - Lombard
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Vera
SEAN CONNERY - Blore
ROBBIE WILLIAMS - Marston
HALLE BERRY - Ilone
DUSTIN HOFFMAN - Dr. Armstrong
TYNE DALY - The Judge
F. LEE ERMEY - The General
BOB NEWHART & SUZANNE PLESHETTE - The Housekeepers.

Oh, now, there's something to think about!

Just have fun watching these guys having fun.

Enjoyable version of my favorite Christie
First off, I'm a huge Christie fan, and Ten Little Indians is my favorite of her stories. This is a solid, enjoyable retelling of the story, though it lacks the top drawer quality of the 1939 original. The entire 39 cast was terrific. This one has some great performances, some competent ones, and some laughably bad ones. Standout in this cast are Wilfrid Hyde White as the Judge, Stanley Holloway, Daliah Lavi, Shirley Eaton, and Hugh O'Brian. Equally bad are Fabian as the playboy, and the butler, can't remember the actor's name. The butler delivers some lines as though he's sleepwalking, and overacts at other times. I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying that Fabian's performance is so over-the-top grating that's its a relief when he's the first character to drop.

Other interesting developments-though still tame by today's standards, this version has considerably more sex and violence than the original, in which most of the bodies were kept offstage. In this one, most of the murders occur on camera, including one in which a character plummets to their death in a cable car, a spectacular development not in the book. Indeed, Christie's murders were usually very clean, a gun, a knife, poison. Not something as pure Hollywood as this. The fact that this death also bears no resemblance to the nursery rhyme, a key plot point in all versions of the story, doesn't seem to bother the screenwriter at all. Oh well.

One other interesting change-the spinster character of the book and original movie is changed here and in the other remakes to a glamorous actress. Although Christie purists will probably be upset, I don't think it did any harm, particularly since I enjoyed Daliah Lavi's performance.

All in all, this production is flawed, but still entertaining and well worth seeing, especially if your a Christie fan. Not as good as the 39 version, and much better than the God-awful 1975 and 1989 remakes.

it is a good movie
hey, its a good movie. all you freaks who read the book and don't want to deviate, get over it. and for those who believe '45 is better, you're just nostalgic. aside from lombard (better in '45),each of the characters is better than other versions, especially hyde-white as the judge.

Mixed results trying to realize story's potential
The 1965 film is enjoyable and energetic. The characters are well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than elsewhere, like the maid, butler, and spinster Brent, revamped as conceited actress Ilona and given a different, but entertaining, character and past crime. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be; the film nicely places that character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians. The film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between characters are more heated and less dainty than in 1945, as they should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted, as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as energetic, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the distinctive Brent.

Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, are changed in 1965 to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer. Showing the killings on screen in a visually interesting way can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make them seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

As in 1945, attempts to make characters comical or appealing sap the suspense. The final scene has more explanation than in 1945, but remains thin and undramatic. Again, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. Ironically, it is left to the weak 1989 version to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

By comparison to its predecessors, the 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the lighthearted opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, dread, intensity, and suspense, elements too much neglected before. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are filmed. The characters are more serious. For example, Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. In their short screen time, the maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery.

However, overall, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful that it tends to be sterile and uninvolving. The movie lacks wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. Its only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour, as a re-named Marston, performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding actors play their parts with authority and more like real people than caricatures. Even so, they are unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Huston's buffoonery and charm or Price's vanity and arrogance, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impish, bizarre performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the 1965 version, but loses something in the translation of even that imperfect script. Some of the more memorable dialogue is cut. By 1974, Lombard is not even given a career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is used to kill, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate that it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating the circumstances, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to the 1945 version's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

Wow...
I thought "And Then There Were None" was a bad adaptation...then one just flat out stinks.

Seriously, do not waste any time with this film. Please follow my advice. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Witty, silly good fun
Hilarious good fun with the grand Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple posing as an ill tempered maid to get to the bottom of a murder she witnessed on a train. Full of wonderful English characters, improbable situations, and a real sense of the ridiculous. Good therapy for anxious times.

The redoubtable Rutherford excels as Marple
She may not be what Agatha Christie envisioned as a sleuth, but, for my money, Margaret Rutherford does a splendid job. She went on to be featured in three more films, all featuring her skilled and captivating interpretation of Christie's elderly detective.

The film, though lightweight in suspense and complexity, is still entertaining enough to recommend. Composer Ron Goodwin makes intriguing and inspired use of what is obvious "The Marple Theme". It is interspersed throughout in various forms, adding to the enjoyment of the film.

It's great!
When elderly spinster Jane Marple (played by Margaret Rutherford) witnesses a woman being stangled on a train, she demands quick action from the police. However, when they find nothing to substantiate her claim, she is dismissed, leaving her to find the murderer herself. Taking a job as a maid at Ackenthorpe Hall (the only place she can find where the body might have been hidden), she quickly finds the body, but finding the murderer, that will be much hard...and more dangerous. [Black and White, released in 1962, with a running time of 1 hour, 27 minutes.]

I must admit that my wife and I chanced across this Miss Marple movie after having become great fans of Joan Hickson's interpretation of the role, and were not too happy with it. Later, however, having accepted that this is not Joan Hickson's Miss Marple, but accepting it for its self, we came to love this movie. Margaret Rutherford brings a real presence to the role, adding a touch of humor, and making the story (based on Agatha Christie's "4:50 From Paddington") quite entertaining.

So, if you like a good mystery, or if you like old movies, then I highly recommend this movie to you. It's great!

(As an interesting aside, Agatha Christie liked Margaret Rutherford's interpretation of Miss Marple, and considered herself a fan. After watching this movie, though, she approached Joan Hickson (who played a minor role in this movie) and told her that someday she would play Miss Marple!)

A Different Kind of Miss Marple
Margaret Rutherford stars as a different kind of Miss Marple in this adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel. Jane Marple sees a young woman strangled on a passing train, but since no dead body ever turns up, she's dismissed as a dotty old woman confusing reality with the mystery books she loves to read. With the help of a bookstore owner companion, she determines where the body must have been dumped, and she then joins the household (of the estate owning the property) as a maid/cook to prove that what she saw really happened. It's an unpleasant place to work and live, and it seems obvious that something sinister is going on. The emphasis of this film is on light humour and entertainment, rather than the more serious approach of a typical Christie mystery. Rutherford is a game choice for the role, clearly having a good time dashing about. She's not how I pictured Miss Marple, but she's fun to watch. The supporting cast aren't given much opportunity to develop characters, and I can't say the mystery had me riveted (I correctly guessed the killer, although I couldn't fill in all the details). But the movie was entertaining and I enjoyed the tone and approach. I hope to see more of the Rutherford/Marple mysteries.

Light Weight But Fun
Dame Margaret Rutherford is scarcely the Jane Marple of Agatha Christie's novels, but she and her fellows are a lot of fun to watch in this reasonably faithful adaptation of Christie's THE 4:50 FROM PADDINGTON.

In general, the story of the film concerns an elderly woman (Rutherford) who sees a murder in passing train. When the police refuse to believe her, she elects to solve the mystery herself, and worms her way on the grounds of an estate where she believes the body has been buried by posing as a maid. Rutherford is at her eccentric best, and the cast follows suit; the result is very whimsical and extremely lightweight, but fun nonetheless. Christie fans (purists excepted) will enjoy the fun, as will those who like truly light entertainment in the British style. ... Read more

Description

Remake of Agatha Christie's "Ten Little Iindians."Ten people are invited on an African safari and find themselves being picked off one by one by a mysterious killer. ... Read more

Reviews (11)

ALWAYS TEN LITTLE INDIANS
I don't agree with most of the reviews of this. I think this is a good adaptation, and is seriously over/under/adequately acted by a marvelous group of character actors. Hugh O'Brian---cast because of his darkly handsome looks; Shirley Eaton for her blonde beauty; Daliah Lavi for those eyebrows; Marianne Hoppe and Mario Adorf were splendid in their housekeeping roles; Fabian appropriately as bad an actor as singer; and those wonderful British superstars Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn and Wilfrid Hyde White hammy as they should be expected to be. The jazzy score is totally out of kilter, but it lends a kind of retrospective jolt to the senses.
Now, let's imagine TEN LITTLE INDIANS 2004--better special effects, the musical score featuring Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Pink and REM. Director would be someone like Quentin Tarantino or Brian DePalma. And think of the cast:
BEN AFFLECK - Lombard
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Vera
SEAN CONNERY - Blore
ROBBIE WILLIAMS - Marston
HALLE BERRY - Ilone
DUSTIN HOFFMAN - Dr. Armstrong
TYNE DALY - The Judge
F. LEE ERMEY - The General
BOB NEWHART & SUZANNE PLESHETTE - The Housekeepers.

Oh, now, there's something to think about!

Just have fun watching these guys having fun.

Enjoyable version of my favorite Christie
First off, I'm a huge Christie fan, and Ten Little Indians is my favorite of her stories. This is a solid, enjoyable retelling of the story, though it lacks the top drawer quality of the 1939 original. The entire 39 cast was terrific. This one has some great performances, some competent ones, and some laughably bad ones. Standout in this cast are Wilfrid Hyde White as the Judge, Stanley Holloway, Daliah Lavi, Shirley Eaton, and Hugh O'Brian. Equally bad are Fabian as the playboy, and the butler, can't remember the actor's name. The butler delivers some lines as though he's sleepwalking, and overacts at other times. I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying that Fabian's performance is so over-the-top grating that's its a relief when he's the first character to drop.

Other interesting developments-though still tame by today's standards, this version has considerably more sex and violence than the original, in which most of the bodies were kept offstage. In this one, most of the murders occur on camera, including one in which a character plummets to their death in a cable car, a spectacular development not in the book. Indeed, Christie's murders were usually very clean, a gun, a knife, poison. Not something as pure Hollywood as this. The fact that this death also bears no resemblance to the nursery rhyme, a key plot point in all versions of the story, doesn't seem to bother the screenwriter at all. Oh well.

One other interesting change-the spinster character of the book and original movie is changed here and in the other remakes to a glamorous actress. Although Christie purists will probably be upset, I don't think it did any harm, particularly since I enjoyed Daliah Lavi's performance.

All in all, this production is flawed, but still entertaining and well worth seeing, especially if your a Christie fan. Not as good as the 39 version, and much better than the God-awful 1975 and 1989 remakes.

it is a good movie
hey, its a good movie. all you freaks who read the book and don't want to deviate, get over it. and for those who believe '45 is better, you're just nostalgic. aside from lombard (better in '45),each of the characters is better than other versions, especially hyde-white as the judge.

Mixed results trying to realize story's potential
The 1965 film is enjoyable and energetic. The characters are well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than elsewhere, like the maid, butler, and spinster Brent, revamped as conceited actress Ilona and given a different, but entertaining, character and past crime. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be; the film nicely places that character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians. The film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between characters are more heated and less dainty than in 1945, as they should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted, as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as energetic, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the distinctive Brent.

Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, are changed in 1965 to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer. Showing the killings on screen in a visually interesting way can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make them seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

As in 1945, attempts to make characters comical or appealing sap the suspense. The final scene has more explanation than in 1945, but remains thin and undramatic. Again, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. Ironically, it is left to the weak 1989 version to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

By comparison to its predecessors, the 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the lighthearted opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, dread, intensity, and suspense, elements too much neglected before. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are filmed. The characters are more serious. For example, Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. In their short screen time, the maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery.

However, overall, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful that it tends to be sterile and uninvolving. The movie lacks wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. Its only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour, as a re-named Marston, performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding actors play their parts with authority and more like real people than caricatures. Even so, they are unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Huston's buffoonery and charm or Price's vanity and arrogance, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impish, bizarre performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the 1965 version, but loses something in the translation of even that imperfect script. Some of the more memorable dialogue is cut. By 1974, Lombard is not even given a career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is used to kill, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate that it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating the circumstances, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to the 1945 version's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

Wow...
I thought "And Then There Were None" was a bad adaptation...then one just flat out stinks.

Seriously, do not waste any time with this film. Please follow my advice. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Light-Weight Fun With Dame Margaret
Dame Margaret Rutherford makes an unlikely but extremely entertaining "Jane Marple" in this film version of Agatha Christie's novel "Mrs. Maginty's Dead." In spite of considerable tampering with the character, the film is fairly faithful to the plot of one of Christie's more widely praised novels, concerning a young man wrongly suspected of murdering his landlady.

Of the four Miss Marple films starring Dame Margaret, this one shows the actress' celebrated eccentricities to their best advantage, and Rutherford fans will be delighted by her broad and extremely charming performance. Christie purists and those looking for weightier fare will be disappointed, but for some truly lightweight entertainment with a 1960s British tone, Dame Margaret and company are hard to beat. ... Read more