ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

GazerRise Fantastic!

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

gridoon2018 This Russian adaptation of one of Agatha Christie's most famous stories is highly acclaimed, especially by Christie purists, mainly for sticking to her original book ending, which is more grim, and more logical, than the "revised" one which Christie herself wrote for the stage version, and which all other film adaptations so far have used. It also deserves praise for its great location, and for the depth (and ambivalence) given to Vera's character. But the film is also plodding, talky, and overlong; it's more labor than fun to watch. Of course I don't expect this story to be a barrel of laughs, but a little more life and humor might have helped. And what might have helped even more are decent English subtitles - this being a hard-to-find movie, I had to settle for what I could get, which was nearly incomprehensible subtitling by someone for whom English was probably the fourth language. **1/2 out of 4.

Jim Longo This is the only movie adaptation of Agatha Christie's landmark story that stays true to the novel's ending, and for that, many people are willing to overlook its flaws. But the flaws are there, largely due to the language barrier, and it keeps this from being the perfect Christie adaptation that it could have been.Very little has been cut from the book, so that anyone who owns a copy of the book can practically dig out their copy and recite the dialogue word-for-word. And by the time the fifth murder happens, you're tempted to do so. The adaptation goes beyond faithful into slavish, and you can practically put your brain on autopilot.Moreover, whoever did the subtitles either has never read the book or is simply not familiar enough with English to do a good job. When Rogers greets the guests upon their arrival in the novel, for example, the scene is presented from Anthony Marston's point of view, and Marston is not paying attention, so Rogers' dialogue comes out (deliberately, on Christie's part) choppy and missing some words ("What was it the butler chap was saying? Mr. Owen...unfortunately delayed...unable to get here till to-morrow."). The translator evidently thought that that was how English is constructed, and repeats Rogers' words exactly.But while not everything has been cut, some material has been...and some of that is important. In both novel and film, after the accusation scene, it's revealed that Mr. Blore is traveling under an assumed name, "Mr. Davis", from South Africa. But while the novel gives us a scene where he introduces himself as Davis, the film doesn't--so the "revelation" doesn't have the impact it should.Even more important is the second murder--it hinges on the poisoned drink being left where anyone could tamper with it. However, in the film, the drink isn't administered, so the second murder is impossible.Another, minor point is Anthony Marston's confession. He describes as what happens as "beastly bad luck", at which point someone asks, "For them, or for you?" Marston's next line is cut from the film--"Well, I was thinking - for me - but of course, you're right, Sir, it was damned bad luck on them." This is the key to the whole character--Marston isn't the kind of person who actively does wrong, he simply does and thinks about it afterwards, if at all.Still, as one other reviewer has mentioned, this is the adaptation that "goes there". The final murder is absolutely chilling. But it could have been so much tighter, and it's not.

ddconey As a film unto itself, this adaptation stands as a well made movie. The production values compare quite favorably with western mystery films (not being much a Russian film buff this was a concern of mine before getting the DVD). Taken as a film this is a well made, well acted and 'good looking' effort. I didn't even mind the subtitles (which usually drive me to distraction). The one 'compliant' I would offer is that the subtitle translations are a little stiff (for lack of a better term). The language is very stilted and often humorous, but they are done well enough that you get the gist of what the actors are saying --- especially if you have read the original book or seen any of the earlier versions of the story.Regarding the inevitable comparisons to the earlier adaptations of Christie's story (I have only seen the 10 Little Indians from the 60's and And Then There Were None from the 40's), this version is much closer to the original story. This is a much darker adaptation then these earlier efforts and hence not as 'fun' to watch. This film demands more work from the viewer than those earlier, lighter versions. Where those earlier films provided some comic relief (in the person of the bumbling, drunken butler in And Then There Were None and the ham handed sexual relationship in 10 Little Indians) this film has none of that. This is a serious mystery with serious portrayals.One caveat I might offer (especially in this age of political correctness) is that the statues in this versions are of black children. I mention this only because some may find offense in this aspect of the film.Other than this I would highly recommend this film to any serious mystery buff or follower of Dame Christie's work.

Galina I re-watched this disturbing, slow but riveting movie last night and it is still one of the most impressive, darkest, and truthful adaptations of Agatha Christie's mysteries. It is not only the mystery but also a very convincing journey into the minds and souls of ten characters, the victims who found themselves trapped on the isolated rock of an island. One of them took upon him/herself to become the jury and the executioner for these ten who never met before but who have in common one dark secret - all of them might have committed a murder in the past.I saw this film first time on the big screen in the theater in Moscow back in 1987 when it was released. It is very dark, violent, and atmospheric. The film follows Christie's novel (not the play) truthfully including the pessimistic ending, original politically incorrect title, and set design. The film was shot at the Crimea peninsula on the Black Sea and the breathtaking ominous view of the mansion sitting on the large cliff is a shot of the famous castle Swallow's Nest. Another Crimea's landmark that was used in a movie is the Vorontov Estate in Alupka. The front facade is built in the 16Th -- 17Th-century Neo-Gothic or Tudor style by the request of its first owner, Russian general M.S. Vorontsov who was brought up in England and loved English style in architecture. Film director Stanislav Govoruchin had invited very talented and popular actors for the parts. Just one example. Philip Lombard was played by Aleksandr Kajdanovsky - a friend of Sergei Parajanov and Andrei Tarkovsky who is well known to the movies fans as Mr. Stalker himself from Tarkovsky's film of the same title. The rest of cast played their parts well with Vladimir Zeldin as Old Justice Wargrave, Mikhail Gluzsky as General Macarthur, and strikingly beautiful Tatyana Drubich as Vera Claythorne especially memorable.I recommend the film to all fans and admirers of Agatha Christie, the Queen of mysteries. "Desyat Negrityat" is not the only Russian screen adaptation of a Christie's novel. I also remember and recommend "Tayna chyornykh drozdov" (1983) ... aka "Secret of the Blackbirds" which is based on the Miss Jane Marple's novel "A Pocketful of Rye".