First and foremost, I am not the sort of person who throws a hissy fit if there is one change at all to a story. I'm actually the sort of person who makes a big effort to judge adaptations on their own terms. But here I can really see why people would dislike this version, adaptation-wise it is the worst based on the book and even on its own terms it's a somewhat redeemable(if not by much) mess. If it was a book I wasn't a huge fanatic about but still appreciated, I wouldn't be so worried. Here though, we are talking about a masterpiece of a book, a definite contender for Agatha Christie's(The Queen of Crime) best book.
Of the versions I've seen(1945, 1965, 1974 and this), the best by far is the 1945 Rene Clair version. While I am not a fan of the ending, though the ending of the book can be seen as unfilmable, the film really scores in the suspenseful atmosphere, the claustrophobic tension of the atmosphere, the witty script and the top-notch cast. I enjoyed the 1965 version(though I shall see it again to see if it holds up), and while it is full of major problems the 1974 film is better than I'd heard it cited to be. This version though, despite some redeeming values, I found very difficult to get into.
The redeeming qualities are these. Firstly, the locations. While it lacks that suspenseful, claustrophobic touch, they still looked lovely though you did wish for more. Secondly, the whole thing with the lions was well done I thought. Finally, there were three performances that I thought were quite good. The best of the cast was Donald Pleasance, who gives a quietly incisive and intelligent performance as the Judge. Following very close behind is Herbert Lom, whose dotty but quite touching General is the best of any the film versions of the book. Sarah Maur Thorp is a credible if occasionally too erratic Vera.
Unfortunately the rest of the cast are nowhere near on the same plane. Brenda Vaccaro doesn't do anything with her role, and it doesn't help in the slightest that Marion Marshall not only doesn't have any substance at all but also how she written gives the indication that there were two scripts crammed into one and it all becomes far too left-field. Neil McCarthy's Marston is too much of a caricature, even for a character that doesn't last very long. Warren Berlinger is not a complete disaster, but for my tastes more subtlety and less bellowing was needed for Blore. For me the Rogers were acted with no real distinction, he rather lumbering and she too shrill. Then there are the two really bad performances. The Lombard of Frank Stallone is an absolute blank, but the worst was Yehuda Efroni who goes well overboard in the over-acting department.
Marion Marshall is not the only character though who is written poorly. Every single character is like a very emotionally cold cardboard cut-out. And to make things worse, any development into their past crimes are either severely underdeveloped(ie. Vera's, too ambiguous) or badly distorted(ie. Marion Marshall, a real head scratcher that was). Some like the judge weren't even touched upon.
Any attempts for suspense are diluted quite badly here as well for many reasons, considering that was a major component of what made the 1945 film and the book so enjoyable. There's the truly unimaginative and overly-obvious camera work and close-ups. There's the melodramatic and out-of-sync reactions to the voice from the gramophone record, in by far the most badly done version of that crucial scene(done brilliantly in the 1974 film I thought). There's the often tedious pacing, I know the book unfolded slowly but that was Christie's style, the lack of anything what kept the book alive made for a very dull watch. There's the murders that came across as crude and had none of the creepiness or sense of dread they ought to have done, only Rogers' had a semblance of an eerie quality to it.
Of course you can add to these a very out-of-place Noel Coward song, if not as out-of-place as the one for the 1974 film, a very trite and stilted script and lethargic direction and you have a disappointing mess that has the locations, lions and three good(but not truly great) performances saving it from total doom. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Of the versions I've seen(1945, 1965, 1974 and this), the best by far is the 1945 Rene Clair version. While I am not a fan of the ending, though the ending of the book can be seen as unfilmable, the film really scores in the suspenseful atmosphere, the claustrophobic tension of the atmosphere, the witty script and the top-notch cast. I enjoyed the 1965 version(though I shall see it again to see if it holds up), and while it is full of major problems the 1974 film is better than I'd heard it cited to be. This version though, despite some redeeming values, I found very difficult to get into.
The redeeming qualities are these. Firstly, the locations. While it lacks that suspenseful, claustrophobic touch, they still looked lovely though you did wish for more. Secondly, the whole thing with the lions was well done I thought. Finally, there were three performances that I thought were quite good. The best of the cast was Donald Pleasance, who gives a quietly incisive and intelligent performance as the Judge. Following very close behind is Herbert Lom, whose dotty but quite touching General is the best of any the film versions of the book. Sarah Maur Thorp is a credible if occasionally too erratic Vera.
Unfortunately the rest of the cast are nowhere near on the same plane. Brenda Vaccaro doesn't do anything with her role, and it doesn't help in the slightest that Marion Marshall not only doesn't have any substance at all but also how she written gives the indication that there were two scripts crammed into one and it all becomes far too left-field. Neil McCarthy's Marston is too much of a caricature, even for a character that doesn't last very long. Warren Berlinger is not a complete disaster, but for my tastes more subtlety and less bellowing was needed for Blore. For me the Rogers were acted with no real distinction, he rather lumbering and she too shrill. Then there are the two really bad performances. The Lombard of Frank Stallone is an absolute blank, but the worst was Yehuda Efroni who goes well overboard in the over-acting department.
Marion Marshall is not the only character though who is written poorly. Every single character is like a very emotionally cold cardboard cut-out. And to make things worse, any development into their past crimes are either severely underdeveloped(ie. Vera's, too ambiguous) or badly distorted(ie. Marion Marshall, a real head scratcher that was). Some like the judge weren't even touched upon.
Any attempts for suspense are diluted quite badly here as well for many reasons, considering that was a major component of what made the 1945 film and the book so enjoyable. There's the truly unimaginative and overly-obvious camera work and close-ups. There's the melodramatic and out-of-sync reactions to the voice from the gramophone record, in by far the most badly done version of that crucial scene(done brilliantly in the 1974 film I thought). There's the often tedious pacing, I know the book unfolded slowly but that was Christie's style, the lack of anything what kept the book alive made for a very dull watch. There's the murders that came across as crude and had none of the creepiness or sense of dread they ought to have done, only Rogers' had a semblance of an eerie quality to it.
Of course you can add to these a very out-of-place Noel Coward song, if not as out-of-place as the one for the 1974 film, a very trite and stilted script and lethargic direction and you have a disappointing mess that has the locations, lions and three good(but not truly great) performances saving it from total doom. 4/10 Bethany Cox