MovieChat Forums > And Then There Were None (2015) Discussion > Almost as bad as the 1965 version.

Almost as bad as the 1965 version.

posted 9 years ago by drystyx
14 replies | jump to latest

Nothing is as bad as the 1965 version, though.

This novel is the masterpiece of Agatha Christie, and is nothing like any of her other works. I've often wondered if she really wrote it, since she never came close to this sort of free and easy communication in any other story.

It's the first fiction book I ever read on my own, and it was totally mesmerizing, even for those of us with attention deficit problems.

I could stomach the stage version. It was what it was, and the early movies weren't so bad.

It got worse and worse, with the very worst one in 1965.

Then the Russians came up with the perfect one, almost word for word in DESYAT NEGRITYAT. That one is spell binding, and as true to the book as one can probably get on film.

This one borrows a bit from the Russian version, but not enough, and all it takes from Agatha Christie's masterpiece is her racist attitude that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis had to get some inspiration from.

The only thing that worked was showing how the authority figures were so corrupt. However, the overkill on this was too expository. But it was the only thing that remotely worked.

The novel, and DESYAT NEGRITYAT, make it clear that the killer is a maniac, and that he plays God. The book shows the inner thoughts of the people on the island, all accused of murder that they got away with.

DESYAT shows more that the killer of killers is a maniac who plays God, and if he continued, would eventually condemn people who simply backed cars out of parking spaces that caused a pedestrian doctor to stop and miss a plane flight to an operation to save a life. It would have gone that far.

The book hints that it could go that far. We see the inner thoughts of the people showing there was some feeling of guilt, though even that was questionable and "second guessing" at times.

In this 2015 version, there is no "grey area". The people are notorious and as self righteous as their assassin. For example, instead of leaving 21 or so Africans to starve while taking provisions for himself and his friends, simply to survive, Lombard is now a perfect killing machine, totally Hollywood, who simply murders the Africans for money.

Lombard and Vera are really just Greek demi god heroes. Lombard is totally Odysseus, and Vera is Penelope. They are totally perfect killing machines, incapable of even sneezing, coughing, or taking one bad step.

That, of course, makes it easy to judge them for their evil, and we get the same judgment for Blore, who also changes from the book's character of a guy who frames an innocent man to get a promotion into a psycho who beats the man to death.

The first two fatality characters aren't changed too much, not enough to be bothered. The next two somewhat, but from there on, it's a totally "Hollywood safe" one dimensional story that doesn't come close to resembling the book.

The overkill here makes one think that the director, or someone who had a large input into this piece, had some serious issues, and wanted to make a personal statement against some one or some ones.

The acting was good. A waste of good acting, though. Hard to see the actors being satisfied with this piece as a whole.

This was bad. 2/10

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] mattchapsartwork 9 years ago

The 1965 one is not nearly as bad as the incoherent disaster that is the 1974 version in the Iranian hotel. Awful, awful performances and most of the deaths in the '74 bear next to no resemblance to the poem.

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

And neither the 1965 nor the 1974 version is anywhere near the utter and complete waste of film that the 1989 version is.

Two words: Frank. Stallone.

[–] evguenimlodik 8 years ago

The 1965 one is not nearly as bad as the incoherent disaster that is the 1974 version in the Iranian hotel. Awful, awful performances and most of the deaths in the '74 bear next to no resemblance to the poem.

True, but to give credit where credit is due, the 1974 version was the first one to have totally serious and grim tone. The two previous adaptations treated the story as a whimsical parlor game.

[–] caviar1234 8 years ago

True, but to give credit where credit is due, the 1974 version was the first one to have totally serious and grim tone. The two previous adaptations treated the story as a whimsical parlor game.

I agree, the 1974 version was the first one to get the tone of the story right.

[–] SuCue 8 years ago

The '65 version has the best judge (Wilfred Hyde-White) and the best Blore (Stanley Holloway) IMHO. They redeem the film a lot. Also, it's a very stylish mid century film. The sets, photography, music, etc. Worst aspects are Fabian and Dahlia Lavi, but they both die early so they don't matter that much ch.

[–] CharlesTheBold 9 years ago

DESYAT shows more that the killer of killers is a maniac who plays God, and if he continued, would eventually condemn people who simply backed cars out of parking spaces that caused a pedestrian doctor to stop and miss a plane flight to an operation to save a life. It would have gone that far.
=======================================
In that case it was "DESYAT" that

[–] CharlesTheBold 9 years ago

I can't make head or tail of your complaint.

===
This one borrows a bit from the Russian version, but not enough, and all it takes from Agatha Christie's masterpiece is her racist attitude that Adolph Hitler and his Nazis had to get some inspiration from.
===

Actually it cut out most of the racism (leaving enough in to make the characters unsympathetic) and it took a lot from the masterpiece. And Hitler got his "inspiration" from traditional German xenophobia, not from Christie.

===
The only thing that worked was showing how the authority figures were so corrupt. However, the overkill on this was too expository. But it was the only thing that remotely worked.
===

I would say that everything "worked".

===
The novel, and DESYAT NEGRITYAT, make it clear that the killer is a maniac, and that he plays God. The book shows the inner thoughts of the people on the island, all accused of murder that they got away with.

DESYAT shows more that the killer of killers is a maniac who plays God, and if he continued, would eventually condemn people who simply backed cars out of parking spaces that caused a pedestrian doctor to stop and miss a plane flight to an operation to save a life. It would have gone that far.
===

That's just reading Russian-style metaphysics into the story. Wargrave is a vigilante, pure and simple.

===================================================
instead of leaving 21 or so Africans to starve while taking provisions for himself and his friends, simply to survive, Lombard is now a perfect killing machine, totally Hollywood, who simply murders the Africans for money.
======================================================
I don't see much difference. He went to Africa to exploit the natives and did so.

=========
Lombard and Vera are really just Greek demi god heroes. Lombard is totally Odysseus, and Vera is Penelope. They are totally perfect killing machines, incapable of even sneezing, coughing, or taking one bad step.
================
Actually, if I remember right, Marston is the one that the book compares to a Greek demigod with no conscience.

===========
The overkill here makes one think that the director, or someone who had a large input into this piece, had some serious issues, and wanted to make a personal statement against some one or some ones.
===============
I can't make any sense of this. You think he has "issues" but you can't figure out what they are?

[–] drystyx 9 years ago

Your first complaint is ludicrous, and has no rationality behind it, even Hitler's inspiration being from only one source. Major fail.

Your second complaint is that the "overkill" on the corrupt authority figures wasn't overkill, and I'll accept that, but I still believe it was so expository that no creative writing group would not have a collective wince upon viewing it.

Your third complaint is actually agreeing with the statement, since a "vigilante" always keeps going to extremes, and eventually does exactly that, find excuses to lynch someone.

Your fourth complaint is one that I'm sure you will see doesn't work if you think about it. In the book, Lombard and a few friends have just a few provisions, and they do a cowardly thing in abandoning the natives, and in the book he does rationalize it as believing Africans don't feel as bad about death as Europeans, while in the movie he doesn't rationalize a thing. In the movie, he just downright murders them, premeditated, for money. In fact, this is a big difference with Blore and Vera as well.

Your fifth complaint is not even addressing what I said. You go to the book, where Anthony is the Greek god. I said that the movie turns Lombard and Vera into the Greek (demi) god and goddess characters. Everything Lombard does is almost exactly what Odysseus does. Anthony does have no conscience in both movie and book, and I even stated that the first fatality characters were well connected to the book, but the movie definitely depicted Lombard and Vera in that role of Greek demi god and goddess.

Your last complaint wants me to be behind the scenes to identify who has the issues. I could only guess, but it's evident from the changing of the murders from "accidentally on purpose" to blatant killings shows that someone has issues. It could be with a certain police detective, or a certain woman resembling Vera, but it's somewhere, and it's obvious.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] CharlesTheBold 9 years ago

I said that the movie turns Lombard and Vera into the Greek (demi) god and goddess characters. Everything Lombard does is almost exactly what Odysseus does. Anthony does have no conscience in both movie and book, and I even stated that the first fatality characters were well connected to the book, but the movie definitely depicted Lombard and Vera in that role of Greek demi god and goddess.
================
I still have no idea what being a "demigod and goddess" means, and I wrote several term papers on Greek mythology in college. Lombard does "almost exactly what Odysseus does"? Does that mean he's a liar and schemer? Then say so.

I could only guess, but it's evident from the changing of the murders from "accidentally on purpose" to blatant killings shows that someone has issues.
======================

Don't know what "has issues" means, or why it is bad. Maybe they just wanted more blatantly guilty characters. Maybe they think an audience would interpret the degree of guilt in the original story differently. As it was, several readers on this site thought that interpreting the old lady as a murderer ( rather than callous self-righteous hypocrite) was a stretch.

[–] Eddie C. 9 years ago

Actually, this movie corrects one small flaw in "Desyat Negrityat." In that movie, and I believe in every other film version, the primary motivation of Wargrave was that he wanted to kill off deserving criminals who got away scot free before he died of cancer. That is NOT his motivation in the book.

The production understands that Wargrave is a sadist. He takes pleasure in killing others. Making Edward Seton a serial killer highlights that this is what Wargrave secretly wishes to be. The only difference is that Wargrave only wishes to exercise his bloodlust on other killers who deserve it. Basically, he's like "Dexter".

I think for all the differences that the Russian version veers off from the book, that version remains the most faithful adaptation and I equally admire it. But I think that THIS version is true to the book's SPIRIT, and in some ways is more faithful than the Russian version.

[–] CaptainLombard33 8 years ago

I agree with some of what you're saying, but I disagree that Wargrave idolizes Seaton or wishes to be a serial killer. He does admit freely he was sadistic growing up, but hand in hand with that urge was the belief that no innocent be harmed by him. He chose the profession of law because it allowed him to sentence people to death, satisfying his sadistic urge, but with a clear conscience, as those he sentenced to death were, as far as he could interpret from the law, guilty of crimes deserving of being put to death. He says that in the epilogue.

After he gets his cancer diagnosis, he's all but given up on life until the chance meeting with someone who gives him information about one of the people who eventually get invited to the island as a victim. From there, Wargrave's motivation is indeed the fact that he wants to kill a group of guilty people before falling to cancer. In the epilogue, he even states that "He would LIVE before he died." But he's got a strong sense of morality. While he wants to experience the opportunity to kill by his own hands, rather than sentences, he will not touch a single victim who is innocent, which he again outlines in the epilogue.

When the gramophone record plays, Wargrave says in the epilogue that he watched the faces of everyone intently when their name and charge were read, and was 100% convinced that everyone he invited was guilty of the crime they were accused of, and thus he could be assured that every victim he killed was within the lines of his personal morality, that only the guilty were to be punished.

Both this and Desyat Negrityat were true to the book's spirit. Desyat a bit moreso, as that group, with the novel's own backstories, were truly all guilty of crimes that the law could not touch. In this version, there's several who were guilty who the law COULD have touched, such as Blore and General MacArthur, had they gotten involved.

[–] pedroquintaoo 8 years ago

I agree with you!
This adaptation is so bad, presumptuous, boring and a bit predictable.
I found that Charles Dance was the killer when he said that had cancer, I followed the logic that he was judge and getting revenge of the "sins" of his guests.

[–] prinzHSV 8 years ago

that is the same logic as saying Lombard is the killer since he killed 21 people before and he got used to it

[–] CharlesTheBold 8 years ago

This adaptation is so bad, presumptuous, boring and a bit predictable.
I found that Charles Dance was the killer when he said that had cancer, I followed the logic that he was judge and getting revenge of the "sins" his guests.
=======================
Wouldn't the same logic ( it must be the judge obsessed with punishment) apply to the original novel and make it predictable as well?