Lack of good storyline.

Awesome Movie

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Ten Little Indians (1965)*** (out of 4)Ten people are taken to a large mansion in the snow-covered mountains. They all believe they're at the location for different reasons but soon they realize that someone has invited them there with the intent on killing them. One by one bodies begin to pile up while the survivors continue to guess who is doing the act.Agatha Christie's TEN LITTLE INDIANS is a story that has been told countless times over the years and it's also been ripped off in even more films. There are a few stories out there that are just so great and clever that they can be told in various fashions and no matter how many times you've seen it you can still be entertained by it. That's certainly true in this British version, which features a fine cast, some stylish direction and a nice sense of humor.The film's biggest strength are the performances, which include a great cast of character actors. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are both good in the main roles but it's really Dennis Price who steals the film as a drunken doctor. Leo Genn, Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Daliah Lavi are also very good in their roles. It's certainly very beneficial when all ten actors are strong as it really helps the story and film.The style is pretty good for this era of a film and the B&W cinematography is great as well. It's somewhat rare for a movie from this era to be in B&W but it actually adds a lot to the picture. The one flaw with the film is that at times it runs a tad bit too slow but this version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS is certainly worth watching.

Just caught this film on TLC. Oh my goodness, what a honker. Let's mention the good stuff first, however, namely a handful of English actors, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Stanley Holloway, Dennis Price and the lovely Shirley Eaton. They are fun. Watching Hugh O'Brian struggle to convey emotion -- any emotion -- is painful. the rest of the cast is almost as bad, either overacting or sounding stilted. Worse is the musical soundtrack, which sounds as if written for a comedy; it is hilariously inappropriate for the action on screen, tripping along merrily while characters are getting bumped off. There are plenty of goofs, including Shirley Eaton;s surprising change of underwear (which other reviewers have noted) and the quirky shifting from daylight to night in the plot. The earlier film version of Agatha Christie's book, "And Then Were None," is much better. Can't think of any reason to re-watch this, unless the appeal of Miss Eaton is just too hard to resist.

Yes, let's consider the 2 coy changes to the original play and 1945 (original version)title. Trouble with this little bedtime tale is that it's good for one viewing once the guilty character is revealed and then you watch & compare the different casts & variances in plot. Clearly the many curious( and awful) remakes can't touch the excellent Rene Clair version nor its cast. I once attempted a review for IMDb and it was rejected because I mentioned the original UK release title which I can produce from a newspaper of the day. It seems that "Indians" is still OK today but never the original word! Further (appro pro the original) "And Then There Were None" is still not entirely accurate where the original has 3 remaining characters (I won't say who) at the end. It is a great,fun mystery and Louis Hayward would never be allowed to sleep with June Duprez in the day.It also seems the stage (and film) resolution had to be changed since the real book ending wouldn't have worked. The con has been repeated several times since. One of the best (& unlikeliest) was that used in Fritz Lang's "Woman In The Window". I have just got through watching the 1965 UK version that DOES contain the minute break,

Based on what is probably the most ingenious whodunit premise ever created, this film animates the classic Christie story, and does so at least as well as its forerunner, "And Then There Were None" (1945).Set in a remote castle at the top of a mountain on a cold, snowy weekend, "Ten Little Indians" tells the story of ten guests invited to this place of isolation by their unknown host, Mr. Owen. As one person dies, and then another, and with no chance of escape, the remaining guests get caught up in a game of suspicion and paranoia, as they attempt to solve the basic riddle and save their own lives. At dinner, one character asks frantically: "Are we going to sit around trying to guess who is Mr. Owen while we're murdered one by one?"Pacing is perfect. Dialogue is mesmerizing. In one scene, two characters face each other in big wing chairs in a dark room with shadows, enhanced by a fire in the fireplace. One character blurts out: "Cold." The second character responds: "Yes cold, quite cold." The first character then adds: "Lonely." The second agrees: "And lonely; quite, quite lonely." The exchange thus continues: "It might not be Grohmann." "It might not be." "Then who?" "Tell me doctor, do you lock your door at night?" "Invariably; do you?" "I think I will tonight."The ensemble cast is quite good. Overall acting is memorable, if not quite award worthy. The film's score enhances the cold, snowy setting. Stark, B&W lighting, combined with a pronounced echo in the large rooms, contribute to a tone that could best be described as ... creepy.One can nit-pick this film all day. But no amount of nitpicking can deny the brilliance of Christies's underlying story premise, borrowed by innumerable films and television series through the years, including the TV reality show "The Mole". For viewers who appreciate whodunit films, "Ten Little Indians" is hard to beat.