User Reviews

And Then There Were None is one of my favorite novels of any genre, and was one of the first "grown-up" books I read as a kid. There have been many adaptations of it for the screen, from the solid but unspectacular 1945 black and white to the occasionally too- faithful Russian version to the absolutely dreadful 80s African safari. This, in my opinion, outshines all of them, remaining more or less faithful to the story and taking elements from the previous versions and using them to far better overall effect.

The visuals are breathtaking; camera angles are brilliantly used (I particularly liked the scene of Mrs. Rogers throwing the leftover lobster carcasses over the side of a cliff), and the lighting and soundtrack give the whole production a disquieting, eerie feel to it that enhances the overall experience.

The performances of the ten leads are one and all superb, particularly Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs. Rogers, Charles Dance as Wargrave, and Toby Stephens as Armstrong. Notable among the "background players" are Rob Heaps as Hugo Hamilton and Paul Chahidi as Mister Owen's agent, Isaac Morris.

And then there's the script...

For the most part, Sarah Phelps' script is superb; more than any of the others, it gives the actors the most to work with in portraying the increasing mental stress and terror the characters are feeling. The cocaine party scene has become the most controversial in the production, but I feel that it works well, as the simmering tension among the characters finally explodes. Little touches here and there work very effectively, such as the role-reversal in Vera slapping an hysterical Armstrong after Rogers' murder. The antagonism between Lombard and Blore is the best I've seen in any of the adaptations, because there's a complexity to it that other adaptations lack.

But if I do have nitpicks, it's that, like her predecessors, Phelps changes some of the material in ways that question whether she truly thought through those changes--specifically, the crimes which have earned each of the characters a place on the island, and the degrees of severity of those crimes which dictate the order in which the prisoners are to be executed.

The biggest example is Blore's crime; instead of perjuring himself and sending an innocent man to prison, here Blore beats a young gay man to death. In the 21st century Western world, that's horrible. But as late as the 1990s, judges in the United States were jokingly asking if violence against gay men "was a crime now"; would a Victorian mind such as Mr. Owen's really view killing a "sodomite" worse than smothering an elderly woman, abandoning a servant girl, hanging an innocent man, or performing surgery drunk?

All in all, however, this is a brilliantly made film, and one I intend to watch again and again for the sheer thrill of it.

Six minutes in and I was awed by the beauty of the film. I was ready to own it. But over the next two hours I saw my hopes of a new classic crash on the shores of Soldier Island. I found myself facing the USUAL issues whenever a favorite book is turned into a movie. The scenes were beautiful, the sets gorgeous, the acting rather good, but the screen writer felt she needed to "improve" the already impeccable writing of Agatha Christie with ridiculous new takes on the characters and their pasts. Instead of a sleek study of the motivations of murderers who somehow escaped the law, the "new" story not only changed the crimes of the guests of Soldier Island, it also changed, and in some cases, completely discarded their modus operandi. Even with the changes, I was willing to give the movie eight stars, and then I started the second half. That's when the screenwriter added a cocaine party, a budding romance, and a knife-wielding bear-skin rug. At least the ending was on point (different from the book, but with the same feel and story-line) and frankly that's the only reason I'm giving this movie six stars. A quick note to all the screenwriters out there: You do not need to strengthen GOOD writing. Leave the bones of the story alone and you will have multitudes of adoring fans who appreciate the fact that you have honored the source material.

And Then Were None is one of my favourite Agatha Christie books, as well as one of my favourites of all time. The plot is simply ingenious, as well as a contender for Christie's darkest, as is the final solution (left me completely floored on first reading, though it is very difficult to pull off adaptation-wise), there is a suspenseful and ominous atmosphere evoked and the characters are interesting.

This latest adaptation of And Then There Were None is a massive improvement over BBC's previous attempt at adapting Christie (the disappointing Partners in Crime), and of the 7 adaptations it is the third best behind the 1987 Russian(the most faithful) and the 1945 Rene Clair(which had a particularly great cast) versions. Although the 1974 adaptation doesn't have a particularly good reputation- while with major flaws I don't think it's that bad-, the only one that she don't care for is the 1989 version.

While some may find fault with some aspects like the much talked about swearing, gruesome killings and the ending they weren't a problem personally. Some may find the violence and swearing is gratuitous, not me, while the swearing is somewhat anachronistic for Christie it does fit the characters' increasingly fragile states of mind and doesn't feel that out of place within the increasingly dire situation, Aiden Turner's much talked about sex appeal wasn't that much of a distraction either. Speaking of the nature of the killings, a few like Rogers, Blore and to a lesser extent Emily Brent (by far the creepiest murder) were pretty gruesome in method to begin with. Some may also feel the ending too drawn out or rushed (a criticism that is understandable, the ending here doesn't go through a chapter's worth of detail, so it is understandable that people wanted more explanation as to how they were chosen and why the situation happened), while there is a rather drawn out hanging it is incredibly suspenseful, the confrontation between Vera and the murderer is chilling, helped by that the murderer has never been more calm or cold in any other adaptation of this story and that Vera is at her most reprehensible (from memory it is the only adaptation to show that), a good thing as it is implied in the book that she is the most reprehensible of them all. Kudos to the writers for, while not being completely faithful, having a more faithful ending (which would have been difficult as the book's ending works brilliantly as a literary device but poses problems cinematically) than the alternate ending that half the adaptations of the book adopted.

In fact, my only complaints were that some of the crimes of the victims (McArthur's, Rogers and Blore's, whose crimes were so blatant that it was amazing that in the adaptation they didn't cause any suspicion) did go against why the murderer did kill, killing those who may not have been directly responsible for the deaths but were just as culpable, and I really did miss the build up to the death of Emily Brent, that part was one of the most nightmare-inducing of the book and would have been really effective if included.

Other than these criticisms, this adaptation of And Then There Were None was great. It is a fantastic-looking adaptation, with stylish filming and locations and lighting that looked both beautiful and effectively claustrophobic, with the house quite rightly like a character in itself. The music is suitably ominous without being overbearing, and the script has plenty of entertaining and nail-biting parts, following the creepy Nursery rhyme pretty closely (with Blore being the only exception), as well as being intelligently written. Narratively, And Then There Were None does start off a little on the slow side, but after the dinner scene it becomes captivatingly gripping, with a genuine sense of claustrophobic dread, up to the end credits. Some may find in the third episode that the drunk scene was out of place, for me while not in the book, it certainly did fit the idea of it being the remaining characters' last night and that they knew it. Which was actually one of the remarkable things about this adaptation, that as well as being a mystery it was a psychological character study too, something that not every adaptation did. What was also fun about this adaptation was having friends and family not familiar with the story, and hearing them trying to work out aloud who the murderer was and seeing them visibly taken aback at the real murderer's identity (this viewer can relate, being the same when first reading the book).

And Then There Were None, lastly, has a great cast, consisting of talented actors. This is particularly true with Charles Dance, who has a cold but understated authority, Aiden Turner, who has more than just sex appeal having also broodiness (my friends were convinced it was him, Armstrong or Vera responsible for a while), and Burn Gorman, who had a menacing but also nervous intensity. Maeve Dermody is also deserving of credit for bringing some vulnerability to Vera but also steel, and it was great to see Vera show her true colours at the end which we didn't get to see enough of in other adaptations that adopted the alternate ending. Miranda Richardson's Emily Brent is a character we feel repulsion and pity for, and while Toby Stephens may seem like he's overacting occasionally again it is perfectly fitting with Armstrong's state of mind. Douglas Booth is young, handsome and somewhat annoying, but really that's essentially what the role calls for (the only thing that's missing that was there in the other versions is a rendition of the frighteningly omnipresent poem). Sam Neill is solid as are Anna Maxwell Martin and Noah Taylor, though with comparatively little to do.

To conclude, has some imperfections here and there but still one of the better adaptations of one of Christie's masterpieces. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Ten strangers are lured to a lonely mansion on an island off the Devon coast. They have nothing in common except that each of them harbours a guilty secret and they have all been invited by a mysterious host, U.N Owen, whom none of them has met. After dinner a gramophone recording bursts into live accusing each of them of a past crime. Initially, they treat it as a sick practical joke in the poorest of taste. But, then the killer strikes and they realise that the mysterious U.N Owen is a psychopath delivering retribution for their past crimes and, even more frightening, is the reality that their murderer is one of them. One by one the guests are killed in ways parallel to the old 'Ten Little Soldier Boys' nursery rhyme, but will any of them survive?

No one has ever really come close to filming Agatha Christie's timeless mystery novel as it should be filmed. I had high hopes for this BBC TV production (aired as a mini-series over a three-week period), but the conclusion I reached after seeing it was that it was very much a curates egg. As I have found with many recent adaptations of Christie's works (including, I am sorry to say, some of the later David Suchet Poirots) the film makers have this annoying tendency to shoot them in an unnecessarily pretentious and arty farty style that really does not suit period mysteries such as this. The cinematography is rather flat and dark and this combined undermines the feeling for period detail. In addition, I felt that there was an unnecessary and unpleasant emphasis on drug taking and sex here, which I assume was done to try and update the material. I was simply thinking "Why?" Because, after all, much of Christie's material is strong enough on its own to warrant too much messing around with.

Nevertheless, this version is still worth checking out because there are many positive aspects about it to write home about too. Commendably, it returned the story to its original Devon coastal setting: in previous adaptations we have had the Austrian alps, a luxury hotel in the Iranian desert and an African big game safari. Another big plus about this version is that we get Christie's original climax as opposed to the romantic one from the stage play and so often used in many film adaptations. Without spoiling it for you, the novel's ending was very dark and there was no sense of relief at all and the way it is depicted here ensures that the suspense and fright aspect reaches fever pitch just like it did in the book.

The cast are truly superb with Charles Dance of particular note as the intelligent, resourceful and rather cunning and ruthless Judge Lawrence Wargrave. Toby Stephens makes a fine Dr Armstrong; Miranda Richardson is excellent as Emily Brent: a woman whose religious mania brought about the suicide of a pregnant teenager in her charge whom she threw out due to her puritanical beliefs. But, the very best performance comes from Maeve Dermody as Vera Claythorne; a former governess whom has had to live with the horrifying ordeal of a little boy in her charge who drowned. She feels guilty even though she herself nearly died in a desperate attempt to save his life. Not only did the incident cost her her job, but also her lover, the little boy's uncle Hugo. We later discover that that there was a rather more dark and sinister side to her past, but the actress handles both emotional sides to her character beautifully: the fragile, guilt stricken side and the much more cold blooded and unsympathetic one we discover later on.

There is some admirable tension generated in the way that the ten people condemned to die by their invisible murderer keep mulling over in their minds the terrible things they did that landed them into their terrible predicament. All of the actors convincingly portray the manner in which their uneasy alliance to protect each other and unmask their killer gradually falls apart as a result of their fear, paranoia and sense of self preservation getting the better of them. Of course, that is what the cunning U.N Owen was banking on all along.

All in all, this adaptation does have major flaws that will disappoint those who have read and enjoyed Christie's timeless mystery novel. But, it has enough strong points of its own; not least returning to Christie's original harrowing climax and the best efforts of a first rate cast ensure that this is still essential viewing for Christie fans.

*SOME SPOILERS, none of the biggest stuff* A large part of the intrigue in Agatha Christie's original novel is that the crimes committed by the ten victims are not direct murders, untouchable by the law. MacArthur sends the underling sleeping with his wife on a mission sure to kill him; Blore sends an innocent man to prison, where he dies; the Rogers couple withholds a drug which would have saved their former employer. In this film/miniseries, MacArthur shoots the underling in the back, Blore stomps the innocent man's head to pulp, and Mr. Rogers suffocates his elderly employer while his wife watches. This is sort of fine, taking the movie on its own terms, and ignoring the changes from the novel. The same goes for Emily Brent's repressed lesbian tendencies, Rogers being physically abusive of his wife, Vera and Lombard having sex, and the significant number of delusions/visions/hallucinations that aren't present in the book.

But I will NOT accept some of the utterly ridiculous things that happen in the latter portion of the story. The revolver is hidden in more or less plain sight in the mouth of a bearskin rug? The same bearskin rug appears to roar and attack one of the victims during one of the final murders? The last four victims have a cocaine and alcohol party binge? In what universe does that last make ANY sense when you'd want your wits about you? Stupid. Needless. Laughable. Literally unbelievable.

The Soviet film adaptation (Desyat negrityat, 1987) remains the only one worth watching for the Christie novel enthusiast, IMO. I'd call this effort on par with the one from the 40's: sort of cute on its own terms, but a pale regurgitation of the original work. Some bonus points for keeping the novel's ending and for the somewhat interesting (non-canonical) discussion between murderer and final victim.

When first published near simultaneously in the UK & USA at the end of 1939 beginning of 1940 "And Then There Were None" - as the book was titled for the American market - was acclaimed as a breakthrough by aficionados and critics alike of the murder mystery genre. Agatha Christie had broken many of the unwritten narrative storyline rules thought previously necessary for successfully writing a murder mystery. Rules that she herself used when writing. Such as ... The need for a detective character on hand to help solve the mystery for the reader ... The need for opposing protagonists - every character is a protagonist in the assembled cast ... The need to illicit sympathy from the reader for the plight of some of her characters - not a necessary requirement when all are guilty ... Other than the ending, the need for surprise - from the outset all concerned are made aware of their fate ... The need to provide either true or false clues / hints - no need to do so when there is no detective character on hand to interpret them for the reader.

Indeed, Agatha Christie wrote in her autobiography "I had written the book And Then There Were None because it was so difficult to do that the idea had fascinated me. Ten people had to die without it becoming ridiculous or the murderer being obvious. I wrote the book after a tremendous amount of planning, and I was pleased with what I had made of it. It was clear, straightforward, baffling, and yet had a perfectly reasonable explanation; in fact, it had to have an epilogue in order to explain it. It was well received and reviewed, but the person who was really pleased with it was myself, for I knew better than any critic how difficult it had been. I don't say it is the play or book of mine that I like best, or even that I think it is my best, but I do think in some ways that it is a better piece of craftsmanship than anything else I have written."

While having few equals when creating narrative story lines, critics of Agatha Christie (myself included) have frequently pointed to her use of stereotype one-dimensional characters. This becomes particularly evident when her work is adapted for the three- dimensional medium of film and TV thereby removing the need for a reader's imagination. Though spread over a mere 272 pages, the book And Then There Were None avoids the need for detailed characterisation because of such a strong narrative plot that drives the story along ably supported by a relatively large ensemble cast. However, this particular filmed TV version still felt the need to support certain characterisations by the liberal use of flashbacks which I found irritating at times. But then again, this was done inform viewers coming to the story for the first time and not for the benefit of those familiar with the book and / or previous adaptations.

Being that there have been a fair few attempts in the past to put variations of And Then There Were None on film. Though this is first time a faithful-to-the-book English language version has been filmed. Previous efforts have tended to pass-over or attempt to mitigate away certain unsavoury aspects of the characters while sanitising elements of the ultimately doom-laden outcome of the story. It could be argued that this particular version is somewhat bleaker and leaves less to the viewer's imagination than that of the book. It certainly comes across as more graphic than other gentler adaptations I have seen.

In particular, Charles Dance (as Judge Wargrave) and Burn Gorm (as former policeman William Blore) play malevolent menace better than most. While not previously aware of Australian-born Maeve Dermody (as Vera Claythorne), she convincing plays the conniving femme fatale character - methinks a good piece of casting. Though in all honesty, one could have cast any good looking actor as Philip Lombard, the ne'er-do- well soldier of fortune. I suspect Aidan Turner got the part because of his popularity with female viewers as the titular lead of the current TV series Poldark and, very much a blatant casting appeal to pull in a female audience. A little gem of a performance was that of Anna Maxwell Martin as the timidly dominated servant and cook Mrs Rogers. Unfortunately for her, she was not required to hang around for too long being the second of the 10 to be bumped off - but, what she called on to do, she made the most of.

The somewhat disappointing omission for me that appears at the end of the book but was left out of this adaptation was the epilogue. While Agatha Christie felt the need to add an epilogue as an explanatory device for the reader, I suspect the use of flashbacks negated the need to visually include it. That minor gripe aside, if anyone can do a better filmed telling of this complex and much applauded murder mystery in less than three hours of screen time then I can't wait to see it.

This three part drama is set on a remote island off the coast of Devon in the 1939. Ten people have been lured there by Mr U. N. Owen and his wife; two as staff, eight as dinner guests. Things are strange from the start as there is no sign of the hosts… they only get weirder at dinner when a record is played; a voice accuses each of the ten of causing the death of others; either deliberately or due to their actions. All but one deny the crimes they are accused of. Inevitably tempers flare but anger turns to fear when one of them chokes and dies. Things get even more stressful in the morning when a second death occurs; two things are quickly noted… the deaths seem to fit in with those in the poem 'Ten Little Soldier Boys', a copy of which is in every room, and two of the ten soldier figures have disappeared from the table. As time passes more characters die in ways mirroring the rhyme and the survivors start to think that the killer must be one of the group. We also see a series of flashbacks that show us the truth about the crimes they had been accused of… all of them are guilty; the only questions are will anybody survive and which of the ten is the killer?

There have been many adaptations of this story, most based upon the play rather than the book and the ingenious plot has been used in other stories… even an episode of 'The Avengers'. These adaptions have generally been rather fun… this version deliberately is not fun; once the action on the island begins there is constant tension, a feeling of claustrophobia and a constantly increasing sense of paranoia. The more we learn about the guests the less pleasant they seem; they have all acted in a way that suggests they are capable of killing… although in some cases the true scale of what they did isn't apparent until the end. The cast, which includes Maeve Dermody, Toby Stephens, Anna Maxwell Martin, Charles Dance, Burn Gorman, Aidan Turner, Miranda Richardson, Sam Neill, Douglas Booth and Noah Taylor as the ten suspects/victims do a great job making their characters believable in the extreme situation. Overall I found this utterly gripping and having not read the book I was genuinely surprised by the ending… don't think you know how it ends if you've seen other versions!

Having watched several adaptations of one of Agatha Christie's best novels (and my personal favorite, too), all ranging from decent to terrible - I recall one with Sylvester Stallone's brother set in the African savanna (?) - this is probably the most faithful and effective.

Production values are solid, the soundtrack atmospheric and the cast fine, with the always excellent Sam Neill and Charles Dance; Emily Blunt-lookalike Maeve Dermody gets the most screentime as Vera. I also appreciated that the ending, while not identical to the novel's, is consistent with it - I've always found it much stronger than the lighter one Christie herself wrote for the stage play.

There are a couple of minor missteps here and there: for example, I miss the characters trying to gather clues about future threats from the creepy poem. And showing in the prologue a perplexed actor hired to read the famous sentence against the guests, as he believes it's for a play? Way to make it less creepy. It worked so much better as the mysterious, unidentified voice of doom.

Still, this is minor stuff. A fair adaptation.

7,5/10

....we 're in Hell and we're punished for what we have done" says detective Blore .It echoes to another of Lombard's sentence "I'm the only one telling the truth in a room full of liars" .Both lines were not taken from the book,but they could ;actually the mercenary tells it ,but in a much more polite way:"what a duty-loving law-abiding lot we all seem to be!Myself excepted!'

Agatha Christie's finest work had something supernatural,eerie,not only because of Emily Brent repeating quotations from the Bible ,but also in its inexorable progression.It's a grim tale ,the one Christie book which used to make shiver when I was 14 .No Poirot,no Marple will come to the rescue in this God-forsaken world.

I do think that this is the best version of my favorite thriller I have ever seen.I saw five of them before ,including a stage production;the only one that came close to Christie's atmosphere was the 1987 Russian version -which bore the infamous initial title-and I daresay the BBC version was influenced by it:the flashbacks concerning Vera and Emily were already here.It was faithful like a dog to the book (except for Vera's rape by Lombard)

The BBC tried to update the novel,to modernize its old-fashioned ways;most of the time it succeeds :Marston's fondness for coke should not shock people as I read it:don't they forget that "the murder of Roger Acroyd" (1926) featured a junkie,the governess's son at that?Turning Brent into a repressed lesbian and Blore in (maybe) a closeted gay who beats a homosexual suspect to death ,why not? And the sexual attraction between Lombard and Vera begins on the train when the hunky gun for hire watches the secretary's legs ;anyway,in 1965,golden girl Shirley Eaton had sex with Hugh O'Brian ;ditto in 1974 for Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed.The only scene which does not work is the "coke and booze" fest/orgy ,except if we take literally Blore 's words about Hell (which came the last morning anyway). More minor changes were made ,to tease the reader:after Rogers's death, Vera's and Armstrong's roles are reversed :He has a nervous breakdown and the girl slaps him in the face .

Apart from this over-the-top extravaganza,all that remains is splendid indeed ;the three- hour length should not put off the viewers:whereas the precedent versions used to botch the psychological side -with the exception of the Russian effort- ,in Phelps's screenplay ,they are no more cardboard characters ,no more poor victims of a serial killer called Ulick Norman Owen ,but monsters (see the death of Mrs Brady or Armstrong's gory flashback) The ending is faithful to the book ,with an element taken from the play;it's rather smart,and makes Vera even more hateful.

The cast is close to perfect and all the actors must be praised ;Charles Dance told that they got on very well and it shows in their work.

This is a house full of ghosts ,alive or half-dead ,and other ghosts sometimes coming

from long ago and far away.

A must for Christie's fans.

Unusually vivid and red-blooded adaptation of one of Agatha Christie's most iconic books.

There are a number of small discrepancies between series and book : some of these discrepancies are fully justified, such as a removal of the original (and deeply racist) title, while other seem arbitrary or just silly. However, as a whole the adaptation is remarkably faithful to Christie's work, especially when it comes to honoring the ambition, originality and precision of the plot. Christie's book was an intellectual "tour de force" and the series fully honors and highlights this fact.

The series also understands that showing is better than telling, wisely avoiding the pitfalls of "people telling stories or anecdotes while other people sit and listen".

Moreover, the series - and this is truly refreshing - does not shy away from showing the violence inherent in the book. It's a breath of fresh air, after o so many Christie adaptations where even the most violent of crimes or the most devastating of tragedies are swathed in yards of calico. It's nice to possess a sense of reserve or delicacy, but what's the use of staging works which consist solely of old ladies drinking tepid tea and chattering about Unfortunate Events ?

Good direction, good acting, good locations, good costumes and - of course ! - an excellent plot : go and watch "And there were none".