MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!
First, I need to correct one notion put forth by the previous critic: the "happy" ending to the theatrical versions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS or AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was not something that the filmmakers arbitrarily added to make people feel good watching it. It was, in fact, written by Agatha Christie herself when she adapted the story for the stage. This was done for two reasons.
First, she wanted people to enjoy the play even if they've read the book. She wanted them to be surprised anew, something she did with every play she adapted.
Second, she knew that what worked and satisfied in a novel may not work or satisfy in dramatic form, and I agree with her. I mean, how can you argue with her level of success.
Now, to the 1989 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS: This is NOT the best screen version of the story, but it still genuinely surprises. It was the first version I'd seen and I was truely shocked when th ekiller was revealed. I enjoyed the adaptation and the cast. My only complaint is that having the story take place in a remote location in Africa it loses the sense of claustraphobia that other versions had.
For better adaptations I recommend the 1945 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE or the 1965 TEN LITTLE INDIANS. The stage version is also wonderful- and lets not forget the book!
First, I need to correct one notion put forth by the previous critic: the "happy" ending to the theatrical versions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS or AND THEN THERE WERE NONE was not something that the filmmakers arbitrarily added to make people feel good watching it. It was, in fact, written by Agatha Christie herself when she adapted the story for the stage. This was done for two reasons.
First, she wanted people to enjoy the play even if they've read the book. She wanted them to be surprised anew, something she did with every play she adapted.
Second, she knew that what worked and satisfied in a novel may not work or satisfy in dramatic form, and I agree with her. I mean, how can you argue with her level of success.
Now, to the 1989 version of TEN LITTLE INDIANS: This is NOT the best screen version of the story, but it still genuinely surprises. It was the first version I'd seen and I was truely shocked when th ekiller was revealed. I enjoyed the adaptation and the cast. My only complaint is that having the story take place in a remote location in Africa it loses the sense of claustraphobia that other versions had.
For better adaptations I recommend the 1945 AND THEN THERE WERE NONE or the 1965 TEN LITTLE INDIANS. The stage version is also wonderful- and lets not forget the book!