Christopher-Lee Movie Reviews

Charlton Heston does an admirable job as Marc Antony in this 1970 version of Shakespeare's play. Certainly you will come away from this film wishing he had performed more Shakespeare on film. However, I must admit a strong preference for Marlon Brando's performance in the same role in the 1953 version of "Julius Caesar," and especially the funeral scene where the performance of the mob is equal to that of the actor in the pulpit. It would have been equally worthwhile to see Brando attempt more of the Bard as well.

I also find that across the board the acting is slightly better in the earlier version. In this color version it is strange to see Jason Robards, Jr., who made his reputation performing the works of Eugene O'Neill on the stage, flounder so badly with Shakespeare, and I have to admit his performance gets in the way of my enjoyment of this film. Of the other actors it is interesting to see John Gielgud take on the title role since he played the lean and hungry Cassius in the earlier version, a joy to see Diana Rigg nail her significant scene as Portia, and a bit disconcerting to see so many actors who would become television stars in the years to come (e.g., Richard Chamberlain, Robert Vaugh and Carroll O'Connor).

I also prefer Joseph L. Mankiewicz's direction of the 1953 film to the work of Stuart Burge in this version. Mankiewicz also had the advantage of Academy Award-winning art direction and set decoration, which I really think overcomes the fact the later version is in color. If you are screening the entire film for students or focusing just on Antony's funeral oration, by either standard I really believe you are better served with the earlier film.

Not a bad version at all of Shakespeare's play. Most of the attention for Julius Caesar is clearly with the 1950s version, but this one holds up as well. In this version, Charlton Heston plays Antony. Others include Jason Richards (Brutus), John Gielgud (Caesar), Richard Johnson (Cassius), Robert Vaughn (Casca), Richard Chamberlain (Octavius), and Diana Riggs (Portia).

In this story, Brutus comes forth as the tragic hero who joins the conspiracy to kill the ambitious Roman, Julius Caesar. Shakespeare's story delves much into the realm of politics within the Roman society. Brutus' tragic flaw is perhaps that he sees too much of the benevolent side of people and society; he gives in to help Rome only after pondering deeply the plan of Cassius, and "trusts" Antony to not give a stirring speech (big mistake there). He still considers Caesar a "good" man, but justifies his role in the conspiracy as for the common good of Rome. A tale that definitely concerns itself with justification, or lack thereof, of removing leaders from political positions, and the consequences those actions bring unto an entire nation and their citizens.

The set design, background and acting are true to the play. One of the differences between this and the Brando version is the scene in which Caesar is assassinated. It is far more bloody and gruesome (yet the movie is rated G, go figure). Heston, as Antony, does a decent job with the "Countrymen, lend me your ears" speech, making an emotional appeal to the crowd as a friend of Caesar. He stirs up the rage among the Romans in this emotional appeal on Caesar's behalf. Eventually, he will go to war against two of the leaders of the conspiracy, Cassius and Brutus.

This is definitely worth a view, especially if you are a Shakespeare fan. This also is an excellent resource for the study of Julius Caesar.

Also Recommended: Julius Caesar (Marlon Brando version)

I thoroughly enjoy this drama by Shakespeare. I read it back when I was in high school, and have been watching the video all along since then. Sir John does a fantastic job portraying Caesar, the arrogant head of Rome whose assassination by envious conspirators leads to their own death. Charlton Heston shows us a great side of himself by playing Mark Antony. He totally steals the show. No matter what anyone said, Jason Robards is not a disgrace to Shakespeare. If research is done to the point of Brutus, it is well documented that Brutus was a stoic, one who shows great emotion ONLY within himself and does not express it to other people. His voice is very monotone and his attitude in his speech at Caesar's funeral to Portia's death remains the same. So, in all aspects, Robards portrays Brutus in a great manner. Another thing that I particularly like about the movie is that it doesn't assume that you're already read and understood the play - it gives you plenty of background and information so that you know what's going on. 5 stars from Julius Caesar!

I have very mixed feelings about this movie. My 6-yr old daughter loves it and strongly prefers it to the classic Rudolph with the abominable snowman. The voice acting is first-rate, especially Woopie Goldberg as Stormella. The story line has some improvements over the other Rudolph. In particular, Santa doesn't reject him and his parent's don't force him to cover his nose. I found many of the songs to be fun, too. I also liked the themes of courage and honor. Rudolph has much more character in this version than in the old classic.

My biggest complaint is that it lapses back into the sexist roles so common in kids videos. True, there is a feminist moment when Rudolph says to another buck (referring to his doe-friend, Zoe) "she's not a trophy. You shouldn't treat her like one!" But other than that, we're back to the damsel in distress story line. It might be picking nits to note that the reindeer in this movie look more like whitetail deer than true reindeer (this is common in christmas books and videos). Unfortunately, this confusion between deer and reindeer winds up giving us a sleigh that is pulled by an all-male team with antlers while the antler-less females stand by and admire them. Anybody who's actually seen reindeer knows that both the males and females have antlers. I would have prefered it if my little girl were watching a sleigh pulled by a pack of reindeer of both sexes. (Why couldn't Vixen, Dancer, and Dasher be girls?)

So, in the world of flawed kids videos, this one's not too bad, but with a little more thought, they could really have done better.

P.S. As with most videos, this one's not appropriate for kids under 5 (too much good-evil, scary stuff).

Being a long time fan of the original "Rudolph" series that airs every Christmas, this video caught my eye with its all-star cast. I believe this movie is a great triumph for Goodtimes Entertainment! I found the animation to be superb and the songs endearing. This film pulled me in from beginning to end...I kept expecting to see the original story line, but this fresh new twist I found to be very contemporary by today's standards. John Goodman and Whoppi Goldberg portrayed their characters with humor and heart felt goodness. Though I must admit there is a certain level of violence invloved, but nothing shy of what one might find in a Disney movie today. I was however upset to find that the video was not recorded in Hi-Fi Stereo. The CD sound track is wonderfully mastered in Dolby stereo. I have since bought the DVD release of this film and though the special features are not on par with other DVD manufacturers, it brought the Dolby 2.0 sound I wanted to hear. It's not 5.1 DD sound, but I'm still delighted. I spoke with Goodtimes Entertainment on numerous occasions about the production of this film and they somewhat admitted they were pushed for time on its release date. The voice synch did not get polished as others have mentioned in their reviews. I still really like the movie and stand behind my comments!

This movie is great. Very good details of the characters. I really like the movie. The sound track is hard to find, but the music is great.

"The Return of Swamp Thing" isn't anything like the original movie was. Unlike the original, "The Return of Swamp Thing" isn't exciting and it doesn't have the sense of mystery that "Swamp Thing" had. Swamp Thing tries to keep Abby Arcane (Heather Locklear) safe from her father, Dr. Arcane (Louis Jourdan), who has a plan in mind to kill Abby.

Instead of including some action packed and exciting parts in "The Return of Swamp Thing," the movie instead follows two boys who try to be funny, but they're not funny at all.

Overall, I consider "The Return of Swamp Thing" one of the most disappointing sequels ever made. If you want a good Swamp Thing movie, I'd recommend getting "Swamp Thing" and skipping "The Return of Swamp Thing."

Dr.Arcane is back,this time his stepdaughter comes to pay him a visit and hes got plans for her.Of course Swamp Things not going to let him harm her.They fall in love,that's about it.

I don't know why,but I enjoy this movie much more than I enjoy Wes Craven's version (pt.1).Maybe because of the effects and the make-up which are cool for a low-budget movie,the characters -which are more interesting and more likeable and the black humor (take the case of the asthmatic monster(!) that fights with our hero).Besides, this movie features Heather Locklear and Sarah Douglas ,good monster fights and a beautiful swamp.To top it off ,I watched part 2 much before I watched part 1.This part 2 has a great beginning,which shows parts of the Swamp Thing's best comic books accompanied by the song "Born in the Bayou",which is a masterpiece.The story : A mad scientist (who has a deadly degenerative disease) does experiments on animals and people to find a cure for his health problem which can also give him immortality and special powers.Only the Swamp thing may offer the mad genius what he is looking for.

Revenge western starring Raquel Welch as the title character, victim of a vicious assault by outlaws led by Ernest Borgnine. All credibilty goes out the window five minutes into the movie when it becomes clear the bad guys are comic relief villains. The "rape" sequence, meant to set up the story plays like a rejected scene from an old sitcom, thus the viewer is not given the opportunity to have any emotional involement with Hannie.
For those of you who are still interested, Robert Culp mentors Welch so she can get revenge; and Christopher Lee shows up in yet another movie which wastes his talents. Pretty routine stuff, but at least its better than Welch's MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. (Is it possible for movies to get any WORSE than that?) Welch should have just shot the varmits at the start and mosied off into the sunset. Doesn't evoke fond memories of THE WILD BUNCH or Leone's DOLLARS trilogy.

The "rape revenge" story has been told many times in the past, but I doubt few films have ever portrayed it with comedic elements.

The villainous trio of Ernest Borgnine, Jack Elam, and Strother Martin can never seem to rob banks right. After another failed attempt, they happen upon Raquel Welch after they murder her husband in cold blood. After raping her, they leave her for dead, burning down her home. She escapes wearing just a blanket, and meets up with bounty hunter Robert Culp. He agrees to show her how to shoot, so she can exact her revenge. Her gunfighting technique is tested when she helps Culp fight off bandits while they are visiting Christopher Lee, a gunsmith who fashions Caulder a custom revolver. Eventually, Culp and Welch meet up with the three villains, and a lot of people die.

To highlight the good first, Robert Culp is such a natural actor, it is a shame he has had to resort to trash like the "Silent Night, Deadly Night" series as of late. His Thomas Price character is sympathetic and tough, without being another superhero cowboy who never gets hurt or never has a feeling. Christopher Lee is a revelation as the gunsmith Bailey. Taken out of his usual horror film, he shows he can really act without having to pop fangs in his mouth or wrap himself in toilet paper and limp after turn of the century archaeologists. His role is brief, but good. Burt Kennedy, a veteran Western director, knows his stuff. The gunfight at Lee's home is as well shot as any action sequence today, without relying on special effects or CGI. The obligatory romance between Welch and Culp is also handled very well, as they tentatively fall for each other.

The three brother rapists, played by the usually reliable Martin, Elam, and Borgnine, are written like they just stepped out of a Marx Brothers or Three Stooges movie. They spend most of their scenes either arguing like five year olds, or blowing innocent people away. As a viewer, you already hate them enough for their crimes without the screenwriter having to resort to weak "funny" scenes to show how awful they are. I was not sure if this was a drama, or a weak Western comedy along the lines of "Dirty Dingus Magee," especially when the soundtrack sometimes does the "funny music," accentuating the "funny" rapists' actions.

Poor Raquel Welch. She is gorgeous, but the director and writer did not have enough confidence in her to fully write a character for her. In her first few scenes, she does not have any dialogue! Most of her scenes involve a peek-a-boo game of showing various parts of her body without resorting to full nudity. Fine for a comedy, but I did not think we should be ogling a recent rape victim and widow.

The introduction of a mysterious man in black (no, not Johnny Cash) to help Caulder was probably supposed to bathe the film in an air of mysticism, but the stunt feels weak and half thought out. His presence is never explained, as if the writer wanted the viewer to draw their own conclusions. As Welch begins gunning for her prey, she keeps having flashbacks to her rape and hearing Culp's advice in her ears during the gunfights. The screenwriter hits us over the head with this over and over again, but decides we are smart enough to analyze a character who shows up for no other reason than to get Welch out of a jam. Poor judgement on the writer's part.

Due to the aforementioned positives, I do slightly recommend "Hannie Caulder," but do not watch this for a positive Western female role model. This is definitely a chauvinistic idea of a vengeful, beautiful female gunfighter.

This is rated (R) for some physical violence, strong gun violence, strong sexual violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.

This western is centered on three outlaws, three brothers who skim the frontier, as much as they can, and they can very little. They kill for pleasure and also to compensate their inability at robbing a bank properly or attacking a stage coach successfully. They are flunkies in the field. They run into a stagecoach station and they kill the station master, rape his wife and burn the station to the earth. Then the wife who wants vengeance runs into a bounty hunter. She will learn the trade and go through with her vengeance. The details create the suspense of the film and give it a real deep emotional value. The film also reveals how these outlaws could survive easily in some western cities because the local sheriff had an agreement with them : no trouble and he would disregard the WANTED notices, till something happens. Raquel Welch embodies her part with conviction.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

"The Gorgon" is a curious mixture of elements, as the spirit of the sole surviving gorgon sisters of Greek legend rises again to plague a Balkan village at the dawn of the 20th century. Peter Cushing is featured prominently as the village doctor who is trying to cover up the fact that villagers are being turned to stone under every full moon for mysterious (and possibly sinister) reasons. Christopher Lee and Richard Pasco play scholars devoted to ending the Gorgon's reign of terror.

"The Gorgan" contains a number of truly chilling moments, with lighting, camera work, and performances by all featured actors being of top quality for Hammer efforts. Yes, there are some plot threads left dangling, and the film loses a little bit of steam toward the end--when the mystery of the Gorgon is all but solved but the story STILL doesn't go to its resolution--but the final confrontation between Cushing, Pasco, Lee, and the Gorgon is one of the most dramatic endings to a Hammer film outside some of the 'Dracula' series.

Definately a worthy effort that's well worth watching if you enjoyed any of the 'Frankenstein' pictures, or even Hammer's 'Hound of the Baskervilles.'

The Gorgon, an atmospheric, melancholy little film, reunited the three main talents behind the initial wave of Hammer horror film-actors Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, and Director Terence Fisher-for the first time since 1959's The Mummy. The screenplay by John Gilling, a talented Hammer writer and director, emphasizes the doomed love between Carla and Paul at the expanse of the monster tale, a choice that was particulary congenial to Fisher's gentle romanticism. The screenplay was heavily rewritten by Anthony Hinds, and Gilling, never shy in interviews, once called the resulting film "abysmal," stating that Hind's interference "murdered what might have been a very good movie." While this judgment seems too harsh, the script as filmed does feel like a patchwork. To cite just one example, we never learn who hanged Bruno or why. Whats more important, the love story isn't really developed fully enough, although fine acting by Barbara Shelley and former Royal Shakesperean Richard Pasco goes a long way toward filling in the gaps. In particular, Pasco's measured, careful performance and magnificently resonant voice make him fitting company for Cushing and Lee. Unfortunatley, the gorgon makeup is a bland and clumsy rendition of the traditional character of myth, which is to say a woman in a nightgown with several rubber snakes in her hair-not exactly a blood-curdling sight. As for the stars, there's an odd and refreshing role reversal; for a change, Cushing gets the sketchy, unrewarding role, although he ably conveys Namaroff's cold-fish nature. Lee is always more intresting when playing againsit type, and here he's clearly having a good time as the hero, blustering and using his physically imposing quality to memorable effect. Also worth noting is James Bernard's haunting score, which is subtler and more finely textured than most of his works for Hammer. The Gorgon was a personal favorite of Terence Fisher's, and something of a comeback film, he hadn't mad a movie for Hammer since the crtical and box-office failure of his Phantom of the Oprea, two years before. Despite it's effects problems and a lack of overt horror thrills, The Gorgon deserves credit as an ambitious attempt to create a new and different monster for the screen. In it's best moments, The Gorgon weaves a rather sweet spell of wistfulness and regret that makes it Fisher's most dream-like, and one of his most noteworthy efforts.

Rating: 4 1/2 out of 5

Grade: A- 92%

There were 3 sisters who lived in the Ancient Greek: Medusa,
Megera and Astherno.They died.But Megera's soul came here,
to the city of Vandorff.People have lived in the Castle of Brosky
but up to the present moment her, Megera.
It has been stablished a love triangle:Carla, Namaroff and Heitz.
Heitz met Namaroff in the castle.One was determined to meet Carla
and the other to kill Megera.A fight began.Namaroff attacked
Paul Heitz using a sword.Heitz used a large lamp.While they were

fighting, Megera was going down the stairs.Namaroff knocked down
Paul Heitz.He fell down with a groan.Namaroff faced Megera.
He became a statue.Meister arrived later.He killed Megera using
a sword.The sword was scattered away on the floor.Megera's soul
has gone away and Carla became free.There was nothing that Meister could do.Fisher used a combination of Greek mithology
and the terror in the eighteen century to perform this film.

This is the third installment of the Richard Lester Musketeer's films. Based largely of Dumas' "Twenty Years Later," Lester was able to gather the original cast like Michael York, Oliver Reed, Frank Finlay, and Christopher Lee to name a few. Chamberlain also is in the film and new additions are C. Thomas Howell and Kim Catrall.

York and Reed give strong performances. Finlay is again in great form as well as is Christopher Lee. Howell and Catrall give fine performances but lack the same chemistry as the original cast.

Lester still loves the action-slapstick comedy routine and for the most part it works, but on a lesser scale than the first two. The fight scenes are delivered well enough but this film never gives the same great action/romantic adventure as the others and therefore waarents a three stars. It is good enough to watch once, but unlike the first two, which can be viewed over and over again, never beckens the viewer to return to this movie.

It was good to see the 'boys' in action again. The 'twist' of Athos and Arimis not trusting d'Artagnan was good. Otherwise, most of it was boring. I loved the 3 and 4 Musketeers, the 3 being my favorite.

The Return of the Musketeers is the fourth remake of the Alexandre Dumas novel "The Twenty Years After.(A Russian and Italian version stayed closer to the original novel Milady had a son Mordaunt nee John Francis de Winter.The French made a 1955 version which like this version changed Milady's son into a daughter.This is a great follow-up to The Three and Four Musketeers.Being that Faye Dunaway was killed off in the Four Musketeers.Kim Cattrall is excellent as a foil for the Musketeers as Milady and Rochefort's illegitimate daughter after the Four Musketeers for having her mother executed (rightfully,so.).The acting,sets and costumery are great.It's a shame that Oliver Reed and Roy Kinnear are now deceased they could have been back for a fourth film based on the Musketeers final years-The Man in the Iron Mask.A great trilogy if there ever was one.At least the Russians filmed the 3 works.

I thought "And Then There Were None" was a bad adaptation...then one just flat out stinks.

Seriously, do not waste any time with this film. Please follow my advice.

The 1965 film is enjoyable and energetic. The characters are well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than elsewhere, like the maid, butler, and spinster Brent, revamped as conceited actress Ilona and given a different, but entertaining, character and past crime. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be; the film nicely places that character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians. The film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between characters are more heated and less dainty than in 1945, as they should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted, as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as energetic, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the distinctive Brent.

Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, are changed in 1965 to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer. Showing the killings on screen in a visually interesting way can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make them seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

As in 1945, attempts to make characters comical or appealing sap the suspense. The final scene has more explanation than in 1945, but remains thin and undramatic. Again, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. Ironically, it is left to the weak 1989 version to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

By comparison to its predecessors, the 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the lighthearted opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, dread, intensity, and suspense, elements too much neglected before. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are filmed. The characters are more serious. For example, Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. In their short screen time, the maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery.

However, overall, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful that it tends to be sterile and uninvolving. The movie lacks wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. Its only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour, as a re-named Marston, performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding actors play their parts with authority and more like real people than caricatures. Even so, they are unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Huston's buffoonery and charm or Price's vanity and arrogance, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impish, bizarre performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the 1965 version, but loses something in the translation of even that imperfect script. Some of the more memorable dialogue is cut. By 1974, Lombard is not even given a career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is used to kill, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate that it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating the circumstances, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to the 1945 version's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

I don't agree with most of the reviews of this. I think this is a good adaptation, and is seriously over/under/adequately acted by a marvelous group of character actors. Hugh O'Brian---cast because of his darkly handsome looks; Shirley Eaton for her blonde beauty; Daliah Lavi for those eyebrows; Marianne Hoppe and Mario Adorf were splendid in their housekeeping roles; Fabian appropriately as bad an actor as singer; and those wonderful British superstars Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn and Wilfrid Hyde White hammy as they should be expected to be. The jazzy score is totally out of kilter, but it lends a kind of retrospective jolt to the senses.
Now, let's imagine TEN LITTLE INDIANS 2004--better special effects, the musical score featuring Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Pink and REM. Director would be someone like Quentin Tarantino or Brian DePalma. And think of the cast:
BEN AFFLECK - Lombard
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Vera
SEAN CONNERY - Blore
ROBBIE WILLIAMS - Marston
HALLE BERRY - Ilone
DUSTIN HOFFMAN - Dr. Armstrong
TYNE DALY - The Judge
F. LEE ERMEY - The General
BOB NEWHART & SUZANNE PLESHETTE - The Housekeepers.

Oh, now, there's something to think about!

Just have fun watching these guys having fun.

I thought "And Then There Were None" was a bad adaptation...then one just flat out stinks.

Seriously, do not waste any time with this film. Please follow my advice.

The 1965 film is enjoyable and energetic. The characters are well-cast, especially the doctor, judge, Blore, and general. Some are more feisty than elsewhere, like the maid, butler, and spinster Brent, revamped as conceited actress Ilona and given a different, but entertaining, character and past crime. Only in this film are the maid and butler convincingly menacing. Fabian is obnoxious as a re-named Marston, but he is supposed to be; the film nicely places that character in a dissolute career, and he gives the best piano rendition of Ten Little Indians. The film livens up the methods and depictions of the murders. It changes some words of the nursery rhyme, but it closely adheres to its own version, right down to a bear statute toppled onto one character. Interactions between characters are more heated and less dainty than in 1945, as they should be, given the events.

However, the 1965 film is not as tightly and richly told, nor as well-acted, as the 1945 version. Hugh O'Brian and Shirley Eaton are appealing and have strong screen presence. But their Lombard and Vera seem relatively superficial and wooden. He does not give as smart and layered a performance as Louis Hayward, nor is she as strong as June Duprez. Dennis Price and Wilfrid Hyde-White each strike a better balance between seriousness and playfulness in their roles than did Walter Huston and Barry Fitzgerald, but are not as energetic, commanding, and entertaining. Ilona is amusing, but exaggerated, and displaces the distinctive Brent.

Lombard's past crime, and even more harmfully the general's, are changed in 1965 to something trite and unexplained. To no effect, Lombard is changed from explorer to engineer. Showing the killings on screen in a visually interesting way can be dramatic and vividly convey murderous host Owen's malice. But it can also make them seem implausible, as when Owen brandishes a hypodermic needle from across a room at one fully aware victim, who simply sits there, mouth gaping.

As in 1945, attempts to make characters comical or appealing sap the suspense. The final scene has more explanation than in 1945, but remains thin and undramatic. Again, Owen has a weary, rational, amiable armchair chat with the final victim precisely when the character should come alive as someone triumphantly and credibly capable of inflicting such horror. Ironically, it is left to the weak 1989 version to provide an ending that is dramatic, reflects Owen's menace and lunacy, and most fully explains Owen's behavior.

By comparison to its predecessors, the 1974 film took a decidedly different tone, for good and ill. Gone from both 1945 and 1965 is the lighthearted opening sequence and its catchy, upbeat music. The 1974 film has no opening music, just simple credits and silence invaded by the sound of an approaching helicopter. Its storytelling is cold and clinical. This matches its setting -- a palatial, ornate, immaculate hotel, shuttered and alone amid ruins in the Iranian desert.

The 1974 movie captures more of a sense of fear, dread, intensity, and suspense, elements too much neglected before. This includes the selection of Orson Welles to narrate the tape recording charging the guests with past crimes and also the way in which the killings are filmed. The characters are more serious. For example, Richard Attenborough's judge is more stern, less folksy, than in prior versions. Stephane Audran is excellent as Ilona, radiant and charming on the surface but troubled and lonely at the core. In their short screen time, the maid and butler are believable as hard, smooth con artists. In this important sense, the 1974 version is truest to the book and to those who want to see it presented as a serious mystery.

However, overall, the 1974 film is less substantial and entertaining than prior versions. The storytelling is so spare and unartful that it tends to be sterile and uninvolving. The movie lacks wit, ingenuity, eloquence, and energy. Its only moment of real charm comes early and abruptly, when Charles Aznavour, as a re-named Marston, performs a song, "Dance in the old-fashioned way," with Audran looking on, enchanted and lovely. By contrast, Aznavour's rendition of Ten Little Indians is disappointing. At "six little Indians," he starts pounding the piano keys and shouting the words, only to let the music die out in anticlimax before "one little Indian."

The outstanding actors play their parts with authority and more like real people than caricatures. Even so, they are unable to breathe much life into the characters or interactions. Herbert Lom lends an air of authority and intelligence (perhaps too much) to the doctor. But his restrained, stiff performance lacks any truly memorable quality, like Huston's buffoonery and charm or Price's vanity and arrogance, and he is unconvincing as a drunkard. Adolfo Celi can do nothing much with his role, and Gert Froebe little more with his. Elke Sommer makes no impression as Vera and has no chemistry with Oliver Reed. Reed gives an impish, bizarre performance as Lombard.

The 1974 film copies from the 1965 version, but loses something in the translation of even that imperfect script. Some of the more memorable dialogue is cut. By 1974, Lombard is not even given a career. The 1974 film is least faithful to the nursery rhyme. Events are out of Owen's control, as when a snake is used to kill, an uncertain murder weapon; one character simply wanders off into the desert; and another screams when a candle blows out, in prior adaptations a diversion engineered by Owen. The location is so faraway and desolate that it raises questions about why the guests would be willing to go there, without at least investigating the circumstances, and how Owen could have made the arrangements. The film lapses back to the 1945 version's short final exposition scene. Re-writes to reflect the end of hanging as a form of capital punishment and to make Owen choke out incoherent last words rob that crucial scene of even the inadequate dramatic effect of its predecessors.

I don't agree with most of the reviews of this. I think this is a good adaptation, and is seriously over/under/adequately acted by a marvelous group of character actors. Hugh O'Brian---cast because of his darkly handsome looks; Shirley Eaton for her blonde beauty; Daliah Lavi for those eyebrows; Marianne Hoppe and Mario Adorf were splendid in their housekeeping roles; Fabian appropriately as bad an actor as singer; and those wonderful British superstars Dennis Price, Stanley Holloway, Leo Genn and Wilfrid Hyde White hammy as they should be expected to be. The jazzy score is totally out of kilter, but it lends a kind of retrospective jolt to the senses.
Now, let's imagine TEN LITTLE INDIANS 2004--better special effects, the musical score featuring Christina Aguilera, Clay Aiken, Pink and REM. Director would be someone like Quentin Tarantino or Brian DePalma. And think of the cast:
BEN AFFLECK - Lombard
JENNIFER LOPEZ - Vera
SEAN CONNERY - Blore
ROBBIE WILLIAMS - Marston
HALLE BERRY - Ilone
DUSTIN HOFFMAN - Dr. Armstrong
TYNE DALY - The Judge
F. LEE ERMEY - The General
BOB NEWHART & SUZANNE PLESHETTE - The Housekeepers.

Oh, now, there's something to think about!

Just have fun watching these guys having fun.

Here is one of the most unusual movies I've ever seen. Grover and his sister Stacey put together a home movie featuring some of their parents' best moments as an eighteenth anniversary present. They soon find out that something is wrong after their parents give them the news of their impending seperation. After his best friend "tips him off", so to speak, Grover and Stacey come up with a novel plan.

The kids decorate the basement to look like Hawaii, where their parents spent their honeymoon. But after Mom and Dad start quibbling over the anniversary cake, Grover decides to take matters into his own hands by locking his parents in the basement. He figures that after a night alone together, Mom and Dad will be able to work out their problems once and for all.

It doesn't work that way, of course. The hilarity level of the movie just gets higher and higher after some of Grover's friends lock their parents in the basement with his own; what starts with a "prison sentence" turns into a all-encompassing group therapy session as all of the parents get to know one another while plotting a means of escape.

The reason I'm only giving this movie four stars is because of the happy Hollywood ending. Not to give more of the plot away, but the plan winds up working, which is not at all typical of real divorce cases. I'm also tempted to call this film a black comedy, since watching it caused me to laugh at things which I wouldn't normally find funny. But maybe that can be a good thing sometimes.

If you have kids fourteen and under, I think they'll really enjoy this movie. Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Pollak play a couple who get locked in the basement by their children because the children think they need to spend more time together. Soon other kids decide their parents need some "time out" too, which leads to many very funny situations between the kids and their parent-hostages. Our children loved seeing Jennifer Love Hewitt, one of the stars of "Party of Five," and we really enjoyed Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Pollak, and Jennifer Tilly. A lot of fun! END

Why do people put their reviews on here and explain the entire movie? Dude, just give your opinion of the movie! :) This movie rocked, because I love the interaction of the kids, and they seem mean in what they do, but truly have great intentions. Classic storyline, too bad it wasn't popular.

Here is one of the most unusual movies I've ever seen. Grover and his sister Stacey put together a home movie featuring some of their parents' best moments as an eighteenth anniversary present. They soon find out that something is wrong after their parents give them the news of their impending seperation. After his best friend "tips him off", so to speak, Grover and Stacey come up with a novel plan.

The kids decorate the basement to look like Hawaii, where their parents spent their honeymoon. But after Mom and Dad start quibbling over the anniversary cake, Grover decides to take matters into his own hands by locking his parents in the basement. He figures that after a night alone together, Mom and Dad will be able to work out their problems once and for all.

It doesn't work that way, of course. The hilarity level of the movie just gets higher and higher after some of Grover's friends lock their parents in the basement with his own; what starts with a "prison sentence" turns into a all-encompassing group therapy session as all of the parents get to know one another while plotting a means of escape.

The reason I'm only giving this movie four stars is because of the happy Hollywood ending. Not to give more of the plot away, but the plan winds up working, which is not at all typical of real divorce cases. I'm also tempted to call this film a black comedy, since watching it caused me to laugh at things which I wouldn't normally find funny. But maybe that can be a good thing sometimes.

If you have kids fourteen and under, I think they'll really enjoy this movie. Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Pollak play a couple who get locked in the basement by their children because the children think they need to spend more time together. Soon other kids decide their parents need some "time out" too, which leads to many very funny situations between the kids and their parent-hostages. Our children loved seeing Jennifer Love Hewitt, one of the stars of "Party of Five," and we really enjoyed Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Pollak, and Jennifer Tilly. A lot of fun! END

Why do people put their reviews on here and explain the entire movie? Dude, just give your opinion of the movie! :) This movie rocked, because I love the interaction of the kids, and they seem mean in what they do, but truly have great intentions. Classic storyline, too bad it wasn't popular.