Harry Alan Towers, producer of schlock and international adventure on a low budget, is the man behind this reworking of the Agatha Christie novel, alternatively titled AND THEN THERE WERE NONE. It's a highly simplistic murder mystery, about a group of disparate types being bumped off one by one, so Towers goes all out in an attempt to attract audiences.

He does this by assembling an ensemble cast of famous faces. You get a typically tough Oliver Reed as the heroic lead, and Elke Sommer as his love interest. In support we're handed the likes of Richard Attenborough and genre stalwart Herbert Lom playing against no less than two former Bond villains in Gert Froebe and Adolfo Celi. If that wasn't enough, there's a minor role for Euro crumpet Maria Rohm and some voice work for no less than Orson Welles.

Directorial duties are handled adroitly by Brit director Peter Collinson, responsible for Michael Caine classic THE Italian JOB and Hammer psycho-thriller STRAIGHT ON TILL MORNING amongst other flicks. And it's a well paced and fairly mysterious affair, strong on predictability but also atmosphere and style. It's not a film that's going to win awards or anything, but it's definitely worth a watch.

Mind you, I don't think it is the best version. That is the 1945 Rene Clair film, apart from the ending it does have a very creepy atmosphere, a witty script and a fine cast(the standouts being Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston and Judith Anderson). In short, it is one of the better Agatha Christie film adaptations there is. The book And Then There Were None is a masterpiece, if there is a contender for Christie's best book(and this is coming from a fan of Agatha Christie and most of the adaptations of her work),And Then There Were None would almost certainly be in the running.

This version is not perfect. The ending is not very logical and misses the point of the very ominous poem the story is revolved around, and the final death scene is unintentionally comical. In all fairness though the ending can be seen as unfilmable, and I think can be only done properly on stage. I personally thought that the acting was not bad at all, but there was one truly bad performance and that was Charles Aznavour. Thankfully he isn't in the film for long, but he is annoying and his song felt very out of place. The Ten Little Indians rendition with him performing it is immediately devoid of its ominous impact. People complain about the pacing, on the most part it was deliberately done and did match Christie's style but there are also lots of pauses for sometimes up to around 20-seconds that makes the film rather turgid sometimes.

However, I loved the locations, they were splendid. And the photography while conventional is good. The music is very haunting and fits the atmosphere well, especially in the famous accusatory gramophone scene. The script is not as thoughtful or as witty as in the book or the Rene Clair film, but there is still enough of both of those to make it a decent enough script, with a couple of exceptions such as the ending. The story is compelling enough with the deaths more than serviceable, though Martino's was poorly scripted and illogical(a few hours instead of days for someone to die of dehydration in a desert, really?). Ilona's death is nowhere near as creepy as the death of her novelistic counterpart Emily Brent, which is one of the creepiest deaths I've seen described in any book, but Blore's is not as convenient and perhaps a little more plausible and the General's was also very well done being the most suspenseful.

What I also liked about the story here was how suspenseful and atmospheric it was on the most part it was, and while few of the deaths match the re-occurring rhyme, I think only three of them matched, at least the basic structure and the spirit of the book remained, which to me in adaptations is more important than the details. Most of the acting was quite good, with Aznavour being the only exception for me. The best for me were a quietly commanding Richard Attenborough(like the Judge from the book come to think of it),an eerily shifty Herbert Lom(you're convinced he's the guilty party),and an understated yet heroic Oliver Reed. Gert Frobe and Elke Sommer are credible also and fairly true to their characters, Stephane Audran likewise as her charming on the outside but tormented on the inside(though Emily Brent in the book is much more interesting). Everybody else doesn't stand out as much, but it's a matter of not having much to do rather than being bad.

A contribution that I found to be outstanding was that of Orson Welles as the recorded Grammphone voice. His voice is not perhaps as inhuman as it is described in the book. What it is though is dignified and menacing, which is in my mind also what the voice should be like. Coupled with the haunting music, Welles' voice-over helped make a scene that was intensely gripping. All in all, a decent if not great film that is better than it is given credit for. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I just wanted to stand up for this version of the movie. I've read the book 'Ten little indians' and while it's set on an island and this 1974 movie is set in a desert, I feel that it is the closest to the feel of the book out of the four (?) versions I've seen. The 1945 and the 1960's movies were too light-hearted, too fluffy. This is a scary situation, with people trapped somewhere they can't leave, and one of them is taking a perverse delight in murdering them one by one. There is no room for humour in a movie like this. The 1974 movie is dark, with no needless humour injected, and this makes it feel a lot like the book did. My only grievance with the movie, is that, like all the others, it doesn't finish in the same way as the book. I'd really like to see a version that does. Oh, and Elke Sommers clothing is hideous, but that's the passage of time, more than anything. :)