Not the best film adaptation (with directorial improvisation). I don't think old Agatha Christie would have loved the movie. The film is based on the novel Ten Negroes. On a ten-point scale, I'll put two. .
If you don’t read the book and don’t watch Govorukhin’s film, perhaps not bad.
Throughout the viewing, I tried to solve this puzzle: but do not watch Govorukhin’s “10 Negroes”, even if the film “And There Was No One” were original in every sense, how would I perceive it?
It's hard to say...
The problem, indeed, is that the film is quite sharply marked by an unskillful, in my opinion, attempt to combine in one work already “ancient” era and modern realities/trends/trends. For example, cuts hearing and vision, as the main character pours modern matyuks panicked doctor. I’m not sure that in Agatha Christie’s time, all these “faqs,” even if they existed, were so easily pronounced in public by a fairly young lady in the direction of at least an older and more respectable man.
For example, if I watch Pride and Prejudice (not a movie!), I feel (albeit perhaps deceived) that I am being presented with that era, its manners, language, interiors, manners. When watching the movie “And there was no one” I definitely did not have such a feeling. At the same time, it would be one thing, if everything is forcibly “modernized”, to make the film a kind of farce mockery. But the creators in costumes-interiors-wonderfully trimmed tendrils seem to try to depict 1939, and in many respects shamelessly fly into the unsightlyness of modernity. It doesn't look good.
If we compare the movie with Govorukhin’s film, then it definitely loses in all (in all) positions. Each of the types in the Negroes is orders of magnitude better. The atmosphere. Tension. Intrigue. Detective nuances. Even horror moments. Everywhere 10:0 in favor of the Soviet masterpiece.
Example. Key gramophone scene. Even when I remember this scene, I get goosebumps every time. And this picture of still shock at the table! And here - a common voice, the heroes, instead of being covered with cold then somewhere, all ran, fussed - faded. But on how this scene is furnished, almost all further perception of the film depends.
Of course, I admit that if the viewer is completely unfamiliar with the story, the picture will be beautiful and exciting for him. Keeping this assumption in mind, I will leave the neutral color of this review.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are facing the following charges. . . 0
Definitely worth watching if you like Agatha Christie, a particular novel, detectives in particular and just good mini-series.
To my taste, this is the best visualization of the novel “10 Negroes” of all existing at the moment. Although I have a lot of respect for our 1987 film.
The quality of the shooting, the soundtrack, the landscapes of the island, the actors, all the directorial additions to the plot (minor) only give the film charm. Oh, those details! Each actor is perfectly matched for the role, writing his character as masterfully as it was not described in the original book. This is the case when the British once again proved that they can make a beautiful, sophisticated film. For those who have read it, it will be interesting to see a great visualization. For those who haven’t read or watched (God, I envy you), I would recommend starting with this series. And there is absolutely divinely shown the relationship between Vera Clayton and Philip Lombard performed by my beloved Aidan Turner.??
Cons.
Only zealous and limited fans of the original source, fans of other film adaptations and film lovers-detailers, choking with envy.
In the yard of the 30s, and eight strangers to each other crooks are invited spouses Onim for a party to the mansion on the island. Arriving at the meeting place, guests learn that the owners of the house are delayed, and the only inhabitants of the cottage are a couple of suspicious servants. During dinner, a recording on a gramophone suddenly turns on, where the voice of the announcer accuses each of the guests of previously committed murders. All present become hostages on the island, where someone secretly begins to massacre them in turn. . .
British adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Negroes", consisting of three episodes of 50 minutes. In contrast to the book, here the count is about soldiers, and the characters have undergone some changes, trying to keep up with modern trends. So the female character Vera too clearly gives feminism, and in principle often pulls on the blanket, acting as the leading in many scenes. As well as the use of drugs by one of the actors and hints of excessive faggotity in sexual preferences. Whether or not the film is beneficial to the viewer, based on his own views.
Otherwise, almost three hours of timekeeping on a rainy island fly unnoticed by dialogue, intrigue and periodic murders. The more corpses, the more narrowed the circle of suspects, causing paranoia and hysteria in the main characters.
Moral: If you have smoked heavily in the past, then I do not advise you to accept suspicious invitations to drink from strangers.
The result was a pleasant detective story with its secrets and a mysterious executioner. And those who have not seen the Soviet version of “Ten Negroes” in 1987, I advise you to first read it.
7 out of 10
Great three-part movie! Stylish, rich, multifaceted. Honor and praise to the authors that they did not turn everything into an intricate empty space, into a flat horror film for elimination, of which a great many have been shot in the history of cinema, but seriously touched on all aspects that can be found in the novel: detective, legal, social, ethical, religious, mystical, metaphysical. This is a film adaptation for those who can see, see, understand and enjoy.
Shot with the care of Hitchcock, who every composition, every detail, every stroke has always had its explanation and its reason to be in the frame. It's impossible to get away from the screen. Everything matters: replicas, reactions, emotions, actions, the objective world - paintings on walls, clocks on fireplaces, brooches on heroines and soufflé on the table. The atmosphere is created brilliantly, everything is filled with meaning, the ideas inherent in the novel are preserved (if not strengthened), and some changes to the essence of Agatha Christie’s plan did not encroach. And the most important thing is that clearly, without changing concepts, the reason for what is happening is indicated exactly from the book. A separate treasure is a fantastic cast, there is nothing to say: Aidan Turner, Toby Stevens, Miranda Richardson, Bern Gorman, in the tiny role of Paul Chahidi – they are incredible. Bravo to the entire creative team!
It was written that even if you know the plot, you will be interested to watch - no, it is not. The knowledge of the killer just kills the whole intrigue of the film. And constantly compared with our film adaptation, which is much better. I don’t recommend any strange figures...
Elegant detective film, sustained in the canons of elegant English cinematic style.
A finely constructed time era without deliberate fakes and obvious stylization, than the series with Elcur Poirot sometimes sin.
The atmosphere of mystery, impending horror takes over the viewer from the first frames.
On the screen more than once we will see a lonely island, as a symbol of doom, in the midst of sullen and boundless ocean waters. The rich uninhabited castle on it, full of secrets and omissions, threatens with imminent disaster!
It is interesting to watch for those who are already familiar with the Russian version of this plot, because here it is also a luxurious psychological drama.
Here, each of the actors will fall victim to his own vices - self-interest, lies, arrogance, cruelty and murder.
Their human stories are represented by bright heroes with convincing characters and original twists of criminal events.
7 out of 10
Screening ... there are screen adaptations good, worthy, honestly following the original. There are terrible and “blood-eyed” people who want to forget by formatting their own memories. And there are quite decent ones that could be good, but did not become, because at a certain point the writers ran out of inspiration, and the producers still have a little money and not shot film that needs to be filled with something. Therefore, let’s add to the plot an unsolicited romantic (and very untenable) line, an out-of-the-box orgy of four in the style of “musell, booze and coke”, as well as a sprinkle of all the spiritual generosity of the mysticism that remained from the remakes of “The Call” or “Curse”, since small children and hands that climb out of the shells do not scare when you star in a film based on the book by Agatha Christie.
However, if you criticize streamlined and walking, then you will not reach the essence. Therefore ...
In general, I liked this version of “Ten Negroes”. A kind of mini-series that captured everything and even more that was in the book, changed something, added something, but retained the main intrigue. Watching it was interesting, especially considering that I just finished the original last night and I was horrified how curious the creators of the miniseries will follow the original source.
Well, I’m not going to say that I’m very disappointed, but... about a year and a half ago I thought the show was cool and I’m not going to delete it from the hard drive. And from about the same place, I realized that one of the plot lines had turned somewhere wrong and it would be nice to turn it back. Why vulgarize something that doesn’t need it (although I’m willing to admit that Aidan Turner has a great figure)? There have also been some changes in the death of a couple of characters (although the plot itself has not been much influenced by them). And, of course, changing the ending. For me, who knew to the smallest detail how and how everything should end, it was not a drop unexpected, although Vera was presented in a completely black light (especially considering the invented “relationship”. Although there are some relationships ... once does not count.
The acting was good - here I do not even want to find fault. It was nice to see familiar faces like Sam Neal, Miranda Richardson, Toby Stevens (though I didn’t recognize him right away) and, of course, Charles Dance! In terms of the game, I, of course, most of all “entered” Richardson, Neil and Dance – in whom, in whom, and they felt the breed. Because the rest, with all their efforts, were associated with a group of visiting Americans who lack British stiffness and British stamina (approximately like the Canterville Ghost family of Americans). You won’t get any paint on them! Despite this, all previously unknown faces also distinguished themselves well. However, either the actors were picked up so, or they were specially discharged so that between them a thread of tension was stretched, but from the very beginning they were perceived as a bunch of duplicitous villains, and knowing the background of the plot, I can say that it was generally clear who is who in this movie.
By the way, I would still focus more on revealing the reasons why the characters were victims of cruel counting, since, for example, the story of the same Armstrong could be a little better revealed. I know the reason, but it is not so obvious that there is no further explanation.
However, this does not detract from the merits of the mini-series, a good, tense atmosphere, a variety of acting and quite (though not completely) respect for the source.
So fans of the novel, and the author himself, can see and appreciate this work. Whether you like it or not, it’s up to you.
P.S. And yet, the drug orgy was clearly unnecessary! .
About five or six years ago, I was very fond of detectives and, of course, could not pass the incomparable Agatha Christie. 10 Negroes at one time conquered me, a wonderfully fascinating plot, textured characters, intrigue ... Until the end, I doubted who the killer was. And so, six years after reading this, I came across this film adaptation and decided to watch it.
Let me tell you right away that I liked the series. Perhaps if the book had been read by me recently, and the details of the plot were not safely weathered out of my head, I would have liked less (this I write, based on other reviews – many of the changes introduced seemed extremely unlucky). So, if you haven’t read the book or read it, but for a long time, then you will probably find this mini-series interesting.
Now in order. What exactly did I like?
Actors. The cast is really well selected. To be honest, initially I began to watch because of Aidan Turner, who by the way played Lombard well: such a tough and even cruel man on his mind, although it is difficult to treat him badly - the actor is too charming. And when he was walking around with a bare torso... Hmm, I got distracted. Charles Dance performed his role as a judge perfectly, although you wouldn’t expect anything else from him. Toby Stevens, Maeve Dermody and Bern Gorman were remembered for their performance, they vividly played the characters that the writer and director wanted to see from them. The other actors also played well.
Atmosphere On the Soldier's Island reigned a little mystical and eerie atmosphere, it seems, even nature caught up in horror.
Structure. The way the memories of the heroes interspersed and the veil of the mystery of their sins gradually opened was interestingly presented. It all looked concise and consistent.
Final. I really liked this interpretation of the book. The ending was clearer and brighter.
What I didn't like:
Crimes. From the very beginning, it is clear that the heroes did not come to the island so easily: everyone has some kind of sin behind them. But in this film adaptation, the crimes of the heroes were some too obvious and rude, or something, lacked some depth. As if the writer doubted that the average viewer would have enough brains to understand that the characters are to blame, if you leave the original versions of their atrocities.
Behavior. Some heroes behaved a little... too much. For example, Dr. Armstrong was incredibly hysterical, which is highly ironic given that he treats female nervous disorders. Blore is overly fussy, and Vera sometimes scares with her empty look, and sometimes she was too determined, and this slap in the face to the doctor... This is a question for the writer, not the actors. In general, their behavior was sometimes slightly hyperbolized.
Music Sometimes the background was really empty - there was not enough musical accompaniment.
In general, this film adaptation could take place in any time period, the spirit of time is somehow not particularly felt. In general, the work did not have enough depth, and the characters, although they try to reason logically to calculate the killer, do it somehow a little sluggish and seemingly without enthusiasm. As an independent work, the series is very good, a kind of mystical thriller with slightly twitchy characters, beautiful shootings and good actors. They can make a couple of nights bright. But if you are an ardent Christie fan and advocate for compliance with all the trivia from the original, then you probably will not like it very much.
Another attempt to revive the cultural heritage. Rather, it was one of the first turns, I just got to it now. Last year (at the time of writing, now - 2018), in a short period, 2 Agatha Christie films appeared on the screen at once - "Crooked House" and "Murder on the Orient Express". I didn’t watch the first one and the second one went to see the premiere. Viewing “And there was no one” I caused almost identical sensations that I felt after “Murder”.
Plot
The BBC tried to recreate the former film adaptation in a new way, but without taking as a basis the highlight – a logical chronology that did not cause questions after this or that action. “And there was no one” still calls, and quite often.
All 3 episodes you catch episodes, particles, moments and phrases that remain in the air and are simply forgotten. Such hanging guns in the plot - here and there is an episode that should catch up with tension, but it is not disclosed. “Why did she ask me to leave the door?” and so on. But even worse, it turned out to recreate the stories of the characters.
They live in a lawless world without consequences. Beating a boy to death in a cell? Consequences? Nope. Shoot his wife's lover? - Just in the headquarters tent. Consequences - Don't make me laugh! Bad surgeon? - Sometimes bad luck! And so on. All this nonsense spoils the final feeling, which should have been much better.
Often you wonder why the main characters do this, because there is a logical move. Drug orgy? The stupidest moment of the tape, which was supposed to show that, allegedly, the characters fell into a state of shock, but in fact after these events again there are no consequences – no one is drunk, everyone is sober.
Okay, okay, okay. The further in your head you start to parse the BBC story, the more stupid things you find. But there is also a positive side, namely
Atmosphere
Agatha Christie is a dialogue thriller. There is never an action, here the whole atmosphere is manifested due to events that periodically reach the peak. Murder is dialogue, an attempt to understand. Murder again, dialogue again. There is an emotional preparation for the inevitable, and after an explanation, preparing again for the peak.
So in terms of atmosphere, the series is good. This is facilitated by excellent camera work, visual picture, costumes, venue, music. And it is nice to watch, sometimes even more pleasant than the main characters themselves. The atmosphere of the BBC project is commendable.
Result
"And there was no one" - a good mini-series for two evenings, which does not score the tanks after watching. You can see it, but it is not the best picture for a family evening or for gathering with friends. I played "And there was no one" in the background and enjoyed watching the picture. But, if I singled out Friday and Saturday night for the series, I would be unhappy.
7 out of 10
The last black man looked tired.
And he made a new series - "And there was no one."
A big fan of the novel “10 Negroes” got to this mini-series and now has to say the following. It hurts and hurts the soul. They put bloody meat into the meat grinder and grinded it together with the novel, so that it turned out to be creepier, more pogromy, more popular. And at the same time, the very essence of the novel was lowered into the night pot.
What Agathuska wrote our dear Christie. People who have not been held accountable for their crimes. That is, either somehow evaded severe punishment (Marston, for example), or from a legal point of view, their action was not considered a crime (Emily Brent). They did something bad in life and quietly walked on, looked at magazines, drank soda, ate ice cream. Until the mysterious killer decided to stop it, and gathered them in one place for retribution. That's how it was in the novel.
I would like to ask the filmmakers: how did General MacArthur escape punishment? How is that possible? At Agatha Christie's, he sent his wife's lover on an impossible death mission, where he was killed. It's a shame, but it happens in war. The general didn't risk anything. And in the series, in order to have more thriller and less, apparently boring Agatha Christie, the general stupidly takes a gun and shoots his wife’s lover in his command tent. Right in the head. How did he explain it later? How did you get rid of the body? Washed the blood, washed the tent... This is a special tent, it stands somewhere where military operations are being conducted, there should be crowds of people, officers, this is some kind of field command post. It wasn't just the two of them. How did General MacArthur escape from responsibility for the most direct and immediate murder? Ah! Authors?
Blore. No shady dealings with some gang, evidence, and the prosecution of an innocent man. Come on, Agatha, it's not modern. Our Blore will stupidly beat the man in the cell to death. And no consequences. He says he fell in his cell. And everybody's like, right? Well, it happens. And no punishment either. Because to distinguish between the fallen man and the man who was beaten to death by hands and feet, then forensics was not able. Wasn't that what they did?
But that's not the fun part. It's interesting here. Screenwriter. Since every writer is a human being, he puts a lot of his personal stuff into the script. Your feelings, your thoughts, your vision. Because by nature he is emotional and willing to leave his mark on history. This is what screenwriter Sarah Phelps brought to the story of Agatha Christie. She brought her vision of Dr. Armstrong.
How good was Armstrong in the Soviet version. He was even sympathetic. And Sarah Phelps, apparently, all doctors are annoying, or she was offended by a boy named Armstrong. So Sarah Phelps takes a feather in her hand, dips it in ink and starts sculpting some ugliness out of Armstrong. From a reasonable and calm doctor, he turned into a real hysteria.
This is a particularly telling moment. In the novel, Vera Claythorne begins to laugh nervously and say, “Where is the apiary?” Because the count says bees. Hee-hee-ha-ha. Amstrong, cold-blooded, doctor-like, slaps her in the face. Vera calms down, mutters something like “weeds, freaked out” and goes about her business. This scene was literally transferred to the series. But by changing it dramatically. Feministic Sarah Phelps makes Dr. Armstrong hysterical, nervously laugh, and cold-blooded Vera Claythorne slaps him. What? Why would you do that? Well, you don't like this moment at Christie's, so throw it out of your script. But why would Armstrong be hysterical? Take Christie's episode, but unfold it 180 degrees. Like I've got a pen and ink - I can do what I want to do with those Armstrongs of yours and the other nasty egg-bearers, burn them all in hell. I mean, it's not like Armstrong was misrepresented or anything. He was simply destroyed, mixed with shit, turned into a miserable creature.
But Lombard in the series - as if just showing a new collection of men's underwear appeared. Really? Is that how you see an avid traveler, a risky man with no morals or morals? In your opinion, this should look like a person who tirelessly roams the continents? With that body, face, hair. Did you invite him to the role just to admire him during the shoot? I’m not a jingle patriot and I’m not saying that everything is a priori better, but how good is our Alexander Kaidanovsky as Philip Lombard. Really some thug adventurer with a dark past, on his own mind and all. Absolutely not handsome, but brutally charming. And how ridiculous in this role is the English actor-model. Fashion Lombard turned out that way. And fashion marston is also there.
Anyway, it's a terrible creation. Feminist writer created some creepy male images. Lombard is now a handsome man, as if he had just left the fitness center, where most of the time he took a picture of himself in the mirror. Armstrong is a mentally unstable hysteria. Butler Rogers is a half-maniac who keeps his wife at bay, yells and beats her. William Blore is also a maniac who beats defendants in a cell. In general, as they say, “in his work, the author imposed a lot of personal.” I can't forgive you for that.
Whether or not ... for those who, like me, were not familiar with the original source written by the inimitable Agatha Christie, I am more than sure this series will become one of the favorites. Sharp, tense in the best traditions of a true English detective. 10 suspects and 10 guilty. Who is the eleventh and, of course, the main question: who will be next?
The stunning location of the island, gloomy clouds, rainfall - all these are beautiful attributes that complement the general atmosphere of suspicion and drama.
Interesting approach to the script. Conscience. The ghosts of the past and the insanity caused by the uncertainty of the future. Good acting, despite the fact that many did not get a generous opportunity to “live” to the final. I especially want to highlight Aidan Turner, who so strongly recreated the most honest of all the “figures” and Charles Dens so skillfully enriching the picture with his presence.
The end was unexpected. Confusion is constant. “And there was no one left” is a series that you will watch in one evening, and which will long be given inside a keen understanding of what perfectly ordinary people are capable of.
I have read Christie’s book. I was deeply impressed, and decided not to spoil the impression by hasty acquaintance with screen adaptations, the visibility of which rarely allows you to maintain your own sense of atmosphere, necessarily generated by good text.
It wasn't until three months later, when the book's life in my mind began to fade, that I decided to try. My choice fell on the British TV series "And there was no one."
In short, I'm not disappointed. The screenplay seemed quite worthy. The tape is made bright, colorful, dynamic. Timekeeping seems optimal: not stretched, but there was a place for almost everything important. And most importantly, we managed to preserve the atmosphere of mystery, fear and intellectual challenge, psychologicalism and desperate deduction of desperate heroes.
The heroes themselves are a plus. All the actors coped perfectly, probably fully implementing the plan of the writers. But there are certain questions about this plan. In particular, is Armstrong like a reflective intellectual, painfully repentant of his grave misconduct, as it was in the book?
It seemed to me that the series lacked subtlety. Christie’s work is so crystalline that any deviations from the original are fraught with problems in the plot, unpleasantly surprising the viewer.
Here's General MacArthur. Unnatural and inadequate looks on-screen simplification of the death of officer Richmond. Could MacArthur have acted so ridiculously, rudely, in the head? Does a shot in the back violate the inner integrity of Christie's character?
It is a pity that there was no screen time to reflect MacArthur’s paternal indulgence to the Faith. In the book it was unobtrusive, but piercing and touching. A rare glimpse of humanity in inhumane conditions. If I were a writer, I would appreciate those moments.
On the other hand, some scenes of the series have nothing to do with the book - a nice bonus. That’s just this bonus would hardly please Christie and her ardent connoisseurs. I'm talking about the quartet's preposterous party, the vocabulary unacceptable to the British aristocracy of the time, the hysterical accusations of each other's heroes. Everything has to be something...more refined?
Well, a quick question for the killer. In the book, he was the Artist. Cruel, terrible, but an artist. And it is a pity that the final touch on the bloody canvas was not reflected - when the secret of a grandiose crime is fixed, sealed in a bottle and let into the sea.
The killer also needs a perverse confession. So he wants to solve his crime. That moment in the book made me think.
But let's not talk about flaws. They are still moderate, and allow you to view with interest and even benefit. The drama of the series is admirable. Particularly impressed was the story of Lombard, for whom a strange but pure and sincere sympathy arises, and the line of Faith, Cyril and Hugo. The series makes you feel what horror a person can create, and how tragically irreparable it can be.
I wanted to be different. I wanted to take responsibility for every action. I wanted to get away from the border that separates our innocent aspirations from the real crime. I wanted to, and thank you for that.
Ten soldiers, ten niggers... The point doesn't change. They disappear one by one, but leave something important behind. Some warning message, some line of a new exciting poem.
8 out of 10
In general, the British series turned out to be interesting, to some extent tense, with its gloomy atmosphere. It looks easy, in one breath, with very fast-paced events.
The series is based on Agatha Christie's "Ten Negroes." Impressions remained positive. The entire cast did not do well with their tasks. When events begin to unfold in full swing, the characters begin to suspect each other of murders, and knowing that the killer is somewhere nearby, they become doomed, because there is no escape from the island, and the killer may be among them.
Features. The prehistory of all the heroes is impressive, for in them lies the mortal deed of each of them, which is recorded and is not forgiven to anyone. Running waves on the island, thunder strikes over the house in the dark - all this perfectly conveys the spirit of the gloomy atmosphere, which grows gradually.
"And there was no one" - a detective thriller that keeps in suspense, almost to the very end. An excellent production based on “Ten Negroes”, where each character is given a punishment for his crimes. It’s an interesting movie that doesn’t waste your time on.
He who smells a sword over the neck of a criminal,
It is not for the joy of the food of Sicily.
Horace
Agatha Christie is called the queen of the detective genre. For me, she's the goddess of the detective, no less. There are many kings and queens, masters – and even more, skilled and talented writers – the more there are plenty. Christy is one and she is unique. I think if the famous Conan-Doyle and Christie fought in a duel, then the latter would prevail, if only because in addition to the twisted plot, subtle psychological exercises, the writer flavors her works with a pinch of English humor. Just a little bit, so as not to oversaturate the taste.
“And there was no one left” is the most recent version of the novel “Ten Negroes”. There is no humor in “And there was no one left” as it is absent in the novel. It's a suspense ball and horror. A sense of danger and mystery arises from the first frame. And the viewer, if he is not just closely watching the situation, but living it with the main characters, gradually covers the horror of finally conscious crime and inevitably approaching punishment.
It does not matter who is mentioned in an uncomplicated poem, a negro, as in the Soviet adaptation, soldiers, as in this film, Indians or monkeys, as in a children's count. Ten people find themselves on an island and an invisible mousetrap slams shut. These soldiers, over whose heads hangs the sword of Damocles, everything is like a selection. Vera Clayton (Mave Dermody) shows a greater presence of spirit and intelligence than some gentlemen. Sex alarmist Dr. Armstrong (Toby Stevens) hysterics on the highest notes. What a contrast to his fearless pirate Flint! The silent and respectable Judge Wargrave (Charles Dance) is exactly as Christie described him, sharp profile and owl-like sleepy eyes. Adventurer and adventurer Philip Lombard is much more advantageous than the rest of the men, for at least two reasons. The first is that he does not shake with fear, but prefers to act. The second is Aidan Turner. Finally, he can be seen in an image far from positive and exemplary (his temperamental and changeable Rosetti doesn’t count – this is a separate story). Finally charming in life, Aidan can play something that corresponds to his external data - complex, contradictory, predatory and attractive. Bern Gorman is even less likely to be seen in the roles of positive characters than Turner in a negative role, so the role of the slippery and suspicious type is his cup of tea. General MacArthur (Sam Neal) and Emily Brent (Miranda Richardson), representatives of the noble older generation, however, could not escape the childhood fear of the elusive avenger. They also looked over their shoulders and relieved the tremors in their knees, one with soldier’s bravado, the other with the piety of the righteous. Douglas Booth played the sloppy Anthony Marston. Special skill was not required from him, it was only necessary to look convincingly in the role of a young whip and spectacularly die. The stories of other heroes could be, if not justified, then tried to understand. And the sad end of a spoiled rich coutile causes, perhaps, a shrug. And finally, the couple Rogers (Noah Taylor and Anna Maxwell-Martin). Very expressive spouses, like two horses in one sled, do not escape, nor rush forward. A gifted cook and a trained butler. If only their marriage was as harmonious as the talents of servants.
Agatha Christie in each of her works not only interests the reader with a mystery, a mystery, but also quietly, without dullness, tries to refresh some moral dogmas. In "Ten Negroes" she was raging not in a joke. Here it is no longer just Poirot who exclaims, with her finger raised, "I will not let evil prevail!" and Miss Marple does not shake her head in mute disapproval and condemnation of the atrocity. Here fate itself accuses, persecutes and punishes. The creators managed to convey this eerie atmosphere of fateful end, fear and inevitability. And viewers who are familiar with the content of the novel will get no less pleasure from viewing than those who did not flip through its pages. Because this bestiary on the screen turned out to be really exciting.
Sex, drugs, very loud jazz, boys are bloody in the eyes and my favorite word from historical cinema, which does not lose its relevance either in Ancient Rome or in the burning Moscow of 1812, and in general in any serial era.
What is the 3-episode adaptation of Agatha Christie’s novel “10 Negroes” from the BBC?
To a famous joke:
- Is it true that Rabinovich won the Volga in the lottery?
- That's right. Not Rabinovich, but Ivanov. And not the Volga, but a hundred rubles. Not the lottery, but the cards. He did not win but lost.
Let’s say the word “Negro” was thrown out of this song by the politically correct world long ago. Strangely, the title hasn't yet been replaced by "10 White Heterosexual Men," which no one would take offense at. Besides, I'd prefer the whole company to come to the White Heterosexual Island, which would be ridiculous. But they come to Soldier's Island, which would make sense only if they filmed the game "Battleship".
Soldier's Island looks very sinister. A crow from Game of Thrones even flies over it in slow-motion mode. The house looks very sinister too. The most sinister, of course, looks like Charles Dance in the role of Judge, however, he is not in charge.
The main one is a man with a torso from the series Poldark, for which everyone else also undresses, but modestly walks in robes while this friend walks in a towel.
While the artist with a torso shows what he was paid a fee, the creators of the series change the morally outdated realities of Agatha Christie to new, relevant ones.
Instead of a calm, collected, intelligent doctor – a drunken hysteria, attacking women’s rights.
Instead of a slippery, but quiet butler, a brutal beating wife who strangled the hostess with a pillow (Noah Taylor).
Instead of a religious old maid, an old lesbian pedophile is also, however, religious, since in 2015 it would be ridiculous not to expect a religious character not to be a pedophile.
Instead of perjury for money – selfless beating to death defenseless gay stupid evil police officer (Bern Gorman).
Instead of ladies and gentlemen, "shit," "piss," "fuck" and "bastard."
Instead of trying to investigate, there's yelling, running, fussing and a cocaine orgy with dancing.
Instead of the torments of an unclean conscience, the bloody dead are still in the same slow-motion mode, replacing in the series psychology, atmosphere, suspense and in general everything that can not be replaced by Poldark’s torso and Vera Claythorne’s red swimsuit.
In the end, only the general, the character Sam Neal, was lucky. Firstly, he was given to say the lines from the book, and secondly, quickly mowed, lucky bastard.
Alas, before his death, he also had to undergo an operation to change eras: instead of ambiguously sending his wife's lover into a dangerous operation - a shot in the forehead, direct, simple, rude and stupid, like this series.
Don't look.
Otherwise, like me, you will sit and think that humanity will one day die, sticking wet fingers into the last electrical outlet working on Earth, left over from those days when people still had brains.
And no one will.
Find 5.. more precisely 105 differences —An old story with new holes
This is the amazing case when the film is filled with more details than the book (fortunately, the genre of the mini-series allows you to unfold).
I watched hot on the trail, immediately after reading the original, because, probably, especially acutely perceived all the differences.
The director attributed additional characteristics (usually negative) to each character in order to enhance the emotional experiences of the audience.
And most of the time, I didn't like the directorial digressions. Perhaps they really gave the picture more dynamics, drive, but the shade was negative. And that’s pretty much the impression.
Was it necessary to make doctor Armstrong a complete alcoholic and a tantrum with tremors of hands, from Rogersk - a tyrant and strangler, and from Lombard - a butcher ... I do not think ... given the fact that according to the author's idea, the peculiarity of all crimes was precisely that they can not be prosecuted, almost none of the criminals (in the original) did not kill with his own hands (except for Anthony Marston - he ran over children in his car and Dr. Armstrong, who in a drunk state unsuccessfully operated on a woman):
- The Rogers deliberately did not give the sick hostess the necessary medicine, and did not strangle her.
- General John MacArthur did not shoot his wife's lover, but "only" sent him into a military operation from which he never returned.
- Emily Brent, here without much change, except for the fact that her maid drowned, and not threw herself under the train – apparently the director wanted more blood,
- Blore did not beat the defendant, but only gave false testimony against him, which led to imprisonment in hard labor and death.
Lombard condemned 20 natives to starvation in the desert. A bastard, of course, but not a butcher.
Instead of a psychological detective with very life-like realistic characters, we got a bloody thriller with 10 nuts in the lead roles.
It was not very plausible and therefore not too exciting ...
Sometimes, it even seemed that the director forgot the plot and supplemented it with his fiction as best he could, changed events and characters in places.
And the drunkenness with drugs, dancing and passionate sex at the place where, according to all the rules of the genre, the most intense and dramatic stage should be – completely confused me.
In general, if you leave the original storyline of Agatha Christie aside, you will get quite an interesting movie with a high-quality picture.
But immediately after reading the book, I do not recommend watching this film - most likely you will not enjoy, and only you will wonder why everything is turned upside down. Find 5.. more precisely 105 differences
To be fair, one change I really liked was the way the killer exposed himself.
I was wondering how this mystery would be solved. I didn’t like the original ending of the letter very much. So there is a clear plus in the pocket of the director / screenwriter.
One little soldier boy left all alone
He went and hanged himself and then there were none.
Around 2010, British television began to successfully master high-definition standards, supplementing them with camera work methods borrowed from the segment of cinema that is called indie (before mass distribution, the shifted focus and original interpretation of the concept of “symmetry” with respect to close-up could be seen exclusively in Sundance’s program shows). The reorientation is easy to trace even to the average viewer, for example, on such series as Whitechapel and Luther, whose first seasons were performed standardly, and the finals were staged in accordance with the innovative approach of technical teams, which spread not only to the original prime-time drama, but also used totalitarianly: for the film adaptation of classical works, including for the television production of one of the pillars of modern detective - "And there was no one left." Agatha Christie.
The adaptation of the novel, which changed its name twice due to changes in the direction of tightening, for the sake of removing social contradictions, the norms of etiquette was handled by Sarah Phelps, who had previously shifted to the 16:9 format “Great Expectations” by Charles Dickens. Creative approach to the classics of literature Phelps is that it, firstly, considers the viewer an individual educated, and, consequently, knows the content of the basic funds of European culture, and, secondly, this scriptwriter does not have unjustified ambition and does not make attempts to bring new meanings where it is impossible, since it is made by the genius of the author of the original source, and is engaged in the creation of an elegant addition in the form of illustrative aesthetics of the novel, constructing the entourage, providing invaluable assistance to the reader’s imagination. It is the reader, because “And there is no one left” does not consider as the target audience those who need explanations after the name of this detective, who has the title “World’s Favourite Christie”, is declared.
A classic story, a kind of slasher for aristocrats of taste, in the case of a film adaptation for an average viewer, would consist of 10 episodes, each of which would be dedicated to one of the characters and extremely exploit the ideal algebraic schematism that underlies the plan of detective Miss Christie, for the sake of creating a thriller. However, the general timekeeping of “And there was no one left”, divided into three parts, a little does not reach up to 3 hours, and does not focus on murder and suspense, preferring the demonstration of luxury and decadence, the last entertainment of August 1939 (this is one of the key edits made by Phelps in the book source), then removed from the chess game of the Old World the generation of the conditional Bertie Worcester.
Sarah Phelps does not eliminate the motives and subtext of the original text, presenting a sufficient exposure of both characters and the philosophy of “And there was no one left”, representing the entire palette of vices from arrogance to greed in their everyday existence. But, the dominant party is given to external splendor, acquiring in the TV version “And there was no one left”, thanks to the production artists, quite certain images. The main of which is a house on an island off the coast, which is the central location of the story, made in beige colors, disturbed only by 10 decorative figures made of green stone, erected in the center of the dining table of the main hall, embodying the funny in form and terrifying in fact poem “Ten Little Soldier Boys”, and at the same time giving marketers the basis for the strategy of promoting the project – promotional materials are made using images of these statuettes.
But the apotheosis of Phelps’ efforts, realized with the help of editors and operators, are captured atmospheric phenomena in the form of flashes of lightning, a low cloudy sky, gray arrays of sheer rocks and landscapes that would cause envy among the best marine painters. Turning the story of 10 strangers into an ordinary detective of a closed room has already been possible both in the cinema and on the stage, but no one has yet supplemented the virtuosity of Agatha Christie’s intelligence with the help of a voluminous and detailed illustration of the composition “And there was no one left”, so complex that she forced Christie to resort to additional proofreading, rewriting and reducing the characters from 12 to 10.
A beautiful visual addition to a classic detective would be incomplete without a well-chosen cast. The cast of “And there was no one left” includes not only superficially spectacular and / or classically beautiful characters, but, without exaggeration, consists of the color of the British stage – from master Charles Dance to rising star Aidan Turner. Of course, some complaints cause Move Dermody in the central female role, as she very much loses to screen partners not relatively dramatic play, but not having a beauty equivalent to the data, for example, Toby Stevens, as if descended from photographs of the time of the novel (presenting not old-fashioned, but embodying the image of a real man, making question the trendy ideals of the look of modern hipsters), while her Vera Clayton, according to the laws of the genre, should be bright.
During the Second World War, English performances based on “And there was no one left” according to the realities ended in a happy end, but this did not become a reason for criticism and discontent even of a small part of the public. Today, in some way, uncritical for the complex plan of Agatha Christie, edited by Sarah Phelps, the plot “And there was no one left”, together with her position that the viewer should not explain well-known plots, causes some dissatisfied exclamations due to lack of intelligence and / or everyday racism, which does not allow to understand the methodology used by the writer, and the “important” absence of the word for the letter N.
However, unable to reflect, fortunately, the minority, because “And there was no one left” fought for the ranking leadership in its air slot with the Christmas series “Downton Abbey”, and showed one of the best results among British teatime entertainment programs in recent years. The only rebuke on the part of Agatha Christie fans in particular and the thinking public in general may be the condemnation of some liberties (F-word) and lexical shortcomings present in the series ("to my wife and I", etc.), but it can be assumed that such strict standards will soon become retrograde due to changing language norms, and therefore the claims can be regarded as untenable.
The brilliant Agatha Christie created a puzzle novel that is interesting to read every time - whether it is the first or the hundredth. And, like many of the West End's excellent plays, "And There Was No One Left" did not require, but allowed the possibility of expanding into a plane of pure aesthetic pleasure, adding shades and semitones, textures and landscapes. Sarah Phelps has actualized the potential for the question “How well do you know the person next to you?” to gain not only an intellectual but also a sensual dimension. And now Dr. Edward Armstrong turns into a red-haired handsome man in a boiled white suit, and Vera Clayton plunges into the dazzling depths of sea blueness in order to start a chain of events that ends with the line “and then there were none.”
Perhaps viewers who do not know the denouement of the notorious detective Agatha Christie (or the eponymous film Stanislav Govorukhin) "Ten Negroes", it will be really interesting to puzzle over the main mystery of the Soldier's Island (in the original, however, Negro). But I was really excited to see something different in this series. Namely, the psychological tension between people who quickly realized that they are doomed to death. And the executioner is among them. It is this entanglement, in my opinion, that initially attracts attention to the original work and this is what distinguishes it from the numerous series of "Saws" and other horror trinkets, in which the main question is not "Who?" (after all, this someone somewhere, "behind the glass"), but "How?" (in the overwhelming majority, "How the most beautiful and correct couple will get out of the house / cage / lift / cube, etc."). But in this case, the most important and interesting thing would be to watch how tension grows in the ever-narrowing circle of suspects, how people begin to test each other, look for the “enemy”, how numerous skeletons fall out of closets and how completely disoriented individuals (let’s not forget that the vast majority of them are ladies and gentlemen) show their true face, driven by the instinct of self-preservation.
Is it all in the designated miniseries? Technically, yes. But in fact, not quite. Because almost everything I wrote above, even if present in the frame, but presented not psychological, and mechanical side. Instead of suspicion, open hostility. Instead of trials and attempts to identify the killer – searches in personal belongings. Instead of throwing out skeletons, flashbacks explaining guilt (but not remorse). Instead of tension, aggression.
As a result, what could (and should) become the finest psychological thriller (and only in this form to be successful in the next retelling of the known history), in fact, is a qualitatively illustrated summary - a list of events and a list of sins, which, alas, is not scary, and not fascinating.
In 1943, Christie wrote a play based on her favorite novel. The play (for reasons of political correctness) had a different name. Negroes were replaced by Indians for the same reasons. That didn't change the point. The changes are not limited to this.
The great detective left the unquestionable conquered peak, and (perhaps following the lead of the public, perhaps returning to her unbroken roots) created a completely melodramatic story. This, too, could not be considered important, but here it appears, that has a direct bearing on the subject of our conversation.
It was (since 1945) the time of film adaptations. As should be expected, however, the novel was considered too sharp and nervous for the viewer, brought up on the Hayesian vegetarian codex.
And, accordingly, the play was filmed. At first, the matter was not spoiled, since the director of the first film adaptation was René Clair, who, perhaps realizing that there is a great risk of sitting in a puddle for the sake of stroking the viewer on the wool, saved his brainchild with subtle irony. And the movie is good.
The play, however, was later filmed three more times. It was all boring and secondary. And most importantly (as the gracious reader probably guesses) the Ten Negroes themselves had to wait for Stanislav Govorukhin and the Soviet viewer, who did not yet know that “Negroes” is an offensive word.
Until recently, the film adaptation of Govorukhin remained the only adaptation of the novel, and excellent. However, as Shafranek said, “Everything is well known.”
And so, it seems that by the 125th anniversary of the author’s birth, the British came to their senses, remembering that this novel is still a classic that should be respected.
Of course, political correctness is still there. Although, perhaps, this is just an account of the peculiarity of the viewer, accustomed to perceive the novel under this title. In favor of political correctness, however, says that the blacks on the dish replaced, albeit not the Indians.
Some lovers of the novel can attribute to the disadvantages of staging a change in the motivations of the characters. The motivations of Emily Brent, Lombard and Blora are really different. But this may be due to the fact that the audience is no longer herbivorous.
The actors are fine. I especially want to mention Douglas Booth, Maeve Dermody and Charles Dance. Noah Taylor as Rogers is also superb and, most importantly, unexpected: a butler with the face of a propaganda minister.
The film is sarcastic (unlike the novel and the Soviet adaptation). If Govorukhin made a film about Wargrave turning his own death into a famous Beethoven theme, then Craig Viveiros made a film in the genre of black comedy. And very subtle, requiring knowledge of the source.
In the process of viewing, two very important things are revealed. First and foremost, the movie is interesting to watch. Not because this is another adaptation of the novel you have long been waiting for, but because you are immediately caught up in what is happening. So much so that Marston's death becomes almost unexpected.
Second, you realize that the quality of the film will be determined by whether Wargrave's motive is fresh compared to the original motive and the judge's motive from the Soviet film adaptation. In other words, will there be a third? What will be the main meaning of the judge’s actions? The problem of the originality of the motive in the detective is the most difficult. There are fewer of them than the methods of murder or potential suspects. Task solved brilliantly. Judge Charles Baines' motive is not the same as his two magnificent predecessors. Base's Wargrave is different. And that’s pretty much why it’s a black comedy. It has a completely different meaning.
Summing up, we can say that with the advent of this film adaptation, the following clearly emerged: there is a play and four adaptations of it, the first of which is good. And there is a novel and two beautiful, not inferior to each other film adaptations.
“10 Negroes” or now “And there was no one” is one of the most successful works of Agatha Christie, which should not be mentioned, talking about the great writer. It is proud that one of the best adaptations of this detective is a Russian series. However, now the UK can boast modern, but nevertheless quite high-quality work.
What I liked about the series:
3 episodes of 50 minutes - just what you need to have time to tell everything and not much delay. I believe that the story was told from beginning to end without significant omissions and without long boring dialogues.
The cast. I almost always mention caste in my reviews, it was also not without this. I believe that all the Negroes, or rather in our case, the soldiers, were perfectly matched. I would like to mention Charles Dance as a judge because, in my opinion, this role was written specifically for him. Although perhaps my opinion is a bit subjective after watching Game of Thrones.
What I didn't like:
I couldn't give the series a rating of 10 because I didn't like everything.
- Lubricated end. And although the series is very similar to the original, it was the end that the creators decided to “fix” a little. And they didn't do that at all. It would be better to leave everything as it is in the book.
Special attention to Vera Claythorne. When watching episode 3, it began to seem that this story is not about 10 strangers, but about Vera Claythorne and only about her. Her story was told with special charm and special care, while the rest were only mentioned or not fully disclosed.
In general, I would recommend watching all lovers of detectives. Agatha Christie has created a truly impressive work that you want to read again and again, and the film adaptation of which every time you wait and every time you are afraid that you will be disappointed in the next actors and directors. I think “And there was no one” is the place to be, but a little disappointed in the end, because the Soviet series it was so powerful and memorable, and this one it is a little blurred.
9 out of 10
This mini-series, released under the curtain of the fifteenth year, somehow finally, with hopeless certainty, demonstrated the limits of the capabilities of the tenderly and biasedly beloved Air Force company. It turned out that this company is able to shoot qualitatively in an exceptionally narrow gap of the space-time continuum. National inconvertibility, however, we forgive them with ease, razluli-raspberry based on "Doctor Zhivago" or "War and Peace" has always been perceived with understanding and awareness of British superiority before us: an Englishman, they say, a sage, to help in the work, invented a car, and our Russian peasant, if you cannot work, will tighten his native "Dubina". The temporary limitations of the Air Force competences by Victorianism, with minimal regency and Edwardianism, are much more difficult to understand and forgive. Especially when it comes to such a crystalline, so clear in structure, such an incomparably cinematic classic as Agatha Christie’s “Ten Negroes.”
To call the greatest masterpiece of Lady Agatha postmodern language, of course, does not turn, but the fact remains: her ten characters she brought to the reading court ten types of native literature together with their closet skeletons. Here the governess, who has been infringed in her femininity, at the same time a retrograde and a Georgesandka, and the colonial adventurer who turned the burden of whites into racial indulgence, and the unclaimed sexual energy of the old maiden sublimated to cruel bigotry, and a military general with utilitarian notions of jettlemenism, a hook-working judge, a psychopathic policeman, a mindless playboy, a doctor choked with his own respectability, a couple of trained servants. The novel was published in November thirty-ninth, two months after the outbreak of the war. Killing one by one of her heroes, Christie seemed to remove entire social groups from the literary and historical map of the world: indeed, none of them survived the Second World War. Britain was semantically empty, as the Negro island was deserted, each of those who once lived at the top of its food chain received, like the guests of the anonymous, for their sins. The genius of the novel is not so much in the jewelry-built intrigue as in this historical insight, a black silhouette darkening the Roman granites.
The filmmakers were fatally past these insights. The thirty-ninth year, marked by the date of the events described by Sarah Phelps, hangs in a vacuum: the story she told could have happened under Victoria, Edward, and Elizabeth II. Dissatisfied with the old-fashioned types, the screenwriter stuffed into their flashbacks the most vulgar, modernizing cuts, completely killing the effect of household retro - the most valuable thing Christie has at all. Phelps has no agony of the old world, the old world has died hopelessly, its sins are ridiculous, its repentance is aimless. The unproven crimes of the characters, the horror of this unprovenness, the inability to live under the yoke of unredeemed guilt - all this overlaps with the same for all characters hipster psychosis questioned standard of consumption. The casting itself, in which the life expectancy of the hero is inversely proportional to his ordinal number in the acting scoreboard about ranks, completely kills the novel intrigue: from the first frames it is clear that the most famous of the lyceums will be the insidious villain. But most importantly, Sarah Phelps betrays her film adaptation of an unwritten moral law, which her colleagues from the Air Force used to honestly follow: sun, burn the present in the name of the future, but have mercy on the past! She does not pity the past, does not forgive, does not even understand his value.
A small island gradually becomes uninhabited (short summary)
As a child, I had three favorite books that I reread from time to time: Alice in Wonderland and Beyond the Looking Glass, Winnie the Pooh and More, and Ten Negroes (four of Lady Agatha’s novels, of which only one was worthy of my attention). Fun fact: all three books come from Albion. I only noticed this when I was writing this paragraph. But screenwriter Sarah Phelps before the start of work on the next adaptation of the iconic novel of the detective queen did not read. I don't know how she got along with Alice and Vinnie, but it's not a very encouraging start.
In general, the plot remained suspiciously intact: a handful of strangers arrive for a pleasant pastime on the Negro island (let’s leave tolerant deflections aside and use canonical designations), where they are methodically sawed by a cunning and insidious killer. The killer, as usual, crowded among the guests and they are trying to calculate him while he narrows the circle of suspects. Surprisingly, Ms. Phelps didn’t change the cast, completely change their motivation and background, or make someone else the killer. No, she didn’t do any of this, apparently condescendingly deciding that the classic plot would work, except that a few insignificant details need to be improved. Where Mrs. Phelps got the confidence that her edits will undoubtedly improve the story is unknown. How it is unknown why she did not go boldly to the end and did not act in the manner described above – did not rewrite radically. If she thinks she can make the text better, let her do it globally. What's the big deal?
Militant feminism strikes a blow by hiding behind the labors of a worthy woman. Even during the viewing, the thought crept in that a woman put a manicure hand here. The gender shift is very bulging - Vera Claythorne takes on too many functions of other characters. Now she's as judicious as a judge, then she slaps the doctor for a tantrum, which is reversed in the book, then replaces Miss Brent in the kitchen. The writer's seal is too obvious and it's depressing. Faith is certainly not the last person on the island, ironically, but it is not the central figure of the narrative.
It is true that some of Ms. Phelps' decisions are interesting, if not good, such as the interpretations of Mrs. Rogers and Dr. Armstrong. It is a pity that the few finds of the screenwriter that there are, are drowning in the swamp of the wildest, hopeless obscurantism. Ms. Phelps, in an effort to give relevance to the work, strives to shove all modern (read: understandable to the viewer) vices at once - from non-traditional orientation to drug addiction. Of course, Lady Agatha did not know anything about her contemporaries and customs, Mrs. Phelps knows better what was accepted then and what was not.
But spot trampling on the spirit of the times is nothing compared to undermining the fundamental basis of the novel – the crimes of the heroes. The book clearly stated that the heroes cannot be prosecuted from a legal point of view. It is difficult to formulate a crime, which was the main reason for the choice. Negligence, accident, inaction – each crime was either manslaughter or the result of specific circumstances. Even the only one who admitted his guilt, Lombard did not kill anyone - he left people to their mercy, fleeing with supplies. Why it was necessary to destroy the moral and ethical basis of one of the characters is not clear. And it's kind of weird that a writer would neglect such an important detail. This nuance is a big drawback.
The production isn't so straightforward either. Caste boasts both successful images (Judge Wargrave, Rogers) and unsuccessful ones (Emily Brent and Blore). Disgusting abstract figures do not correspond to the zeitgeist and are more like the works of some Papuans who portrayed their tribe (which would be useful with the original name). Field shootings sometimes please good shots, but in terms of involvement in the atmosphere, hopelessly lose to Govorukhin’s film. But the costumes were successful, but how else in a costumed British series?
Unacquainted with the original source person, if there is one, at one time it may seem that the nature of what is happening on the island has supernatural, paranormal roots. The decision is controversial, but executed diligently. And in general, the series is done diligently, but watch it only for a change, as another reminder of a good story (still spoil “Ten Negroes” is not given to everyone). But as a first acquaintance with the classics, it is highly recommended.
I love Agatha Christie very much, although this is what she always avoided. It gave me a sacred terror. But the new adaptation and the presence of Aidan Turner in it aroused my curiosity, and I decided to watch it.
Impressions are the most positive. All three episodes watched with bated breath as the action unfolded on screen. The work of the actors and director, and the entire team, is beyond praise. Not without cruelty, not without blood, but in moderation.
Vera, the judge and, of course, Philip Lombard were very pleased. He was amazing! A beautiful embodiment of the image. The image is bright, lively and very vicious. It is negative that the character beats over the edge, but it is impossible not to respect him, and personally I still sympathized with him.
For lovers of good detectives and just a good movie I highly recommend.
Never read the works of Agatha Christie, and the film adaptation saw the corner of the eye. But the story “Ten Negroes” a year ago was very interesting. Having decided not to watch any film adaptations, I read the book first. It was an exciting, intriguing and frightening journey through the pages of Agatha Christie’s book. Island, 10 people, 1 killer, oppressive atmosphere, raging waves, danger, animal fear. In short, I really liked this psychological thriller story.
And now comes December 2015 and Britain shows the world another adaptation of this work with a great cast. And you know, I was bored to watch... And not because I knew who the “maniac” was, but because there was no dynamics in the series, there was no tension. The writers decided not to include the original plot and denouement of the work “Ten Negroes”, and in vain. Perhaps this is the most interesting thing: to understand why, who and why. Also, the background of the crimes of the perpetrators was poorly disclosed.
And here are the pros:
1. Heroes by psychotype fully correspond to the book version. That's how I imagined them! Watching the series, could not rejoice at Aidan Turner, Charles Dance, Toby Stevens,
Bern Gorman, Sam Neil, Noah Taylor and Douglas Booth.
2. The atmosphere. Yeah, yeah! Transmitted one in one with the book: nature, weather, house, rocks.
3. In general, the film adaptation is as close as possible to the literary original.
P. S. in my opinion, the series lacked (again I repeat) dynamics, musical accompaniment, dialogue between the characters.
P.P.P.S. I don't think that the review turned out useful, but I can "correct the situation" and recommend watching "Harper Island."
Another fast-paced three-episode British series that sprang up suddenly in late 2015 and apparently went undeservedly unnoticed. I cannot say anything about the directors. The names are not on the ear, but the cast is very good. Charles Dance and Toby Stevens are the only ones! And in general, the types are selected very well. All images are bright and charismatic.
The series, as most people know, is based on Agatha Christie’s book “Ten Negroes” and, as many people know, has a politically correct American name, which is taken from the play of the same name, based on the writer’s book.
The film is very high quality. A classic detective thriller with a flipping finale. Tension builds closer to the final part, turning into schizophrenic psychedelia. The viewer, unfamiliar with the original work, will remain intrigued and in the dark until the very last minutes.
Most viewers familiar with Russian cinema of the Soviet period will probably want to compare the film with the wonderful work of Stanislav Govorukhin. Moreover, the British series also has a number of deviations from the original novel by Christie. To be honest, the films are very different in atmosphere. The British series is more detailed and dynamic. Although I liked the ending better in Govorukhin's interpretation.
In any case, “And there was no one” is a very worthy movie. I definitely recommend it.
The British film adaptation of one of Agatha Christie’s brightest and darkest detectives, in my personal conviction, will never come close to the Soviet version. As a fan of the old Soviet cinema, I am sure and stubborn as a sheep that the film directed by Stanislav Govorukhin is as close as possible to the atmosphere you feel when reading a novel.
The same is true of Holmes. No matter how brilliant and great Cumberbatch plays, to Vasily Livanov he is still oh how far. The image of one of the most famous detectives brought to life by our legendary actor is a benchmark. Loved since childhood and continue to stir the imagination when watching the film. After all, it is not for nothing that the Queen of Great Britain elevated Vasily Borisovich to honorary knights of the Order of the British Empire.
So, “Ten Negroes” Govorukhin is a vivid example for comparison. On this film, you can compare subsequent film adaptations. As is often the case when you remember, the first Rocky is cool and the fifth is not cool. Or: “Trees” is an interesting film with an original plot, and “Trees – 3” – a weak continuation.
I will not say that “And there was no one” is a weak film adaptation. No, the film is interesting and still the story of the sinister mansion on a deserted island remains exciting, especially if it is transferred to the screen qualitatively.
The surprise was caused by the fact that instead of the figures of black cubs, soldiers surfaced (it seems that Agatha Christie had children with coal colored skin, and here the soldiers surfaced) - from this there was a feeling that in the future the plot of the detective will be changed, and not in the best way.
Also, despite the gloom and grayness of the surrounding nature, which was on par with the performances when reading the book and watching our film, the entourage of the mansion itself does not press over the viewer’s head. There is no idea that somewhere in the walls of this house there is a crazy killer. There is no tension from the fact that one of the people in the room, if he leaves for a minute, will never return.
Here's what not to take away is the superb cast: Charles Dance, Bern Gorman, Sam Neal, Miranda Richardson are not the last personalities in film and television. Such a masterful and solid roster of masters of the game genre gives true pleasure when watching. And sometimes it seems that the characters were perfectly matched to their characters. Of course, if you remember the Soviet film and your imagination when reading the novel, disagreements may arise, but here everyone describes the characters by virtue of his imagination.
Each of the episodes looks on the same breath and requires the all-time press of the “Play” button to include the next chapter of this cruel story about the executioner and his victims.
But look at you. I do not impose my opinion on anyone.
In fact, I have been waiting for such a series or film for a long time, ever since I read Agatha Christie’s novel “Ten Negroes”. I well remember how excited this short novel was at the time and how I wanted to see some film adaptation. Without wasting time, I got acquainted with the screen versions of this brilliant novel available and found then and immediately got acquainted with them, although I did not like any of them. Perhaps this happened, because it was necessary to give the novel some time so that it slightly faded from memory, and then watch the film, because, as is known in cinema, there is perhaps no perfectly accurate film adaptation.
And after quite a long time, I accidentally came across the British TV series "And there was no one". Already by one title, everything became clear to me and without waiting for a miracle, I tried to focus on watching, regardless of the consequences of the New Year holidays.
I have to say that this is the movie I was waiting for. If you have not read the novel itself, then in order to understand as much as possible who these ten niggers are and what they mean, this series will suit the best. I do not doubt that most of the details and details of the novel I forgot, but watching this series, they resurfaced in my memory. I will not absolutely say, but as it seems to me "And there was no one" the most accurate and correct adaptation of the novel Agatha Christie.
Although this is just a mini-series consisting of three episodes, but these three episodes were enough with more than enough. The creators of the series did not set a goal to pull rubber, showing something superfluous and unnecessary, on the contrary, they strictly followed the available material, not turning away from the right path. Perhaps that is why in the end "And there was no one" turned out to be a really interesting and atmospheric series.
It is also worth noting the scope of the series. For some reason, before watching, I thought that I was waiting for a rather scanty and weak implementation of the coolest story. But this thought began to disappear with every minute forward. It is felt that the film had not a small budget and the producers did not stingy, investing money in production, so that the viewer could fully immerse himself in what is happening. A good cast, who really for a while transferred to that sinister island, scenery, costumes and so on, which well reflected that time, and of course good camera work, which helped to convey that atmosphere and tension.
In general, “And there was no one” turned out to be a good adaptation of the famous detective novel “Agatha Christie”, which was able to accurately convey that ingenious and ingenious story to the viewer in the form that the author once laid down in his novel.
8 out of 10
Being a classic of the genre of who-done-it (a detective story in which events unfold in a closed space, so that the killer is clearly one of the heroes), Agatha Christie’s novel “Ten Negroes” attracted the attention of first readers and authors of plays, and then filmmakers. The most famous film adaptations are versions of René Kler in 1945 and Stanislav Govorukhin in 1987. Despite the different endings (they were different for Christie herself in the play and in the novel), both films are very good, and keep in suspense to the very credits.
The new mini-series, which began on the Air Force at the curtain of 2015, was dedicated to the 125th anniversary of the birth of Lady Agatha. Screenwriter Sarah Phelps recalled that she was greatly shocked by this book, strikingly different from other works of Christie: if most of her novels featured Poirot or Miss Marple, one of their appearance setting the reader on a positive note, then everything was permeated with the spirit of despair a la “everyone will die and even I will not stay”. It is this atmosphere that Phelps tried to transfer to the screen – in the new film there are no reasonable dialogues and accurate observations that the book was full of, but much more tantrums and breakdowns. In a way, it’s also a tribute to the times – today’s cinema tends to be closer to life, and in life, people on the isolated island where the killer operates are least likely to show coldness and prudence.
Since the novel does not dwell too much on the appearance of the characters, the casting at first does not cut your eyes - except that Mrs. Rogers is too twitchy, and even walks around in dark glasses, General MacArthur is not so old, and Emily Brent has suspiciously kind wrinkles around her eyes. However, by the second series it becomes crystal clear that the main changes affected the characters: Rogers is cruel and despotic, Armstrong has problems with nerves, Vera is constantly immersed in the past and is not confident in herself. Only the judge, Tony, Blore and Lombard are more or less close to the original book.
Another alarm bell sounds after the first series seems good, and the viewer tunes in to high-quality film adaptation. Flashbacks, referring to the foggy past of the characters, begin to falsify - it is to lie, not embellish, because the latter would still be forgiven for such immodest timekeeping. Closer to the finale, the story generally begins to live its own life, touching the novel only at key points. In principle, this independent life can hardly be called bad, but it turns out a thing from the category of Cumberbatch in the role of Sherlock: it seems fashionable, and modern, and deduction in place, and the actor is good, but the atmosphere is not the same.
Essentially, for the sake of good casting, pleasant landscapes and other trifles like beautiful credits and music (ah yes, if Clér’s tribute to political correctness was to replace negroes with Indians, then Viveiros went even further, using the term “Soldier’s Island” with all the accompanying entourage), you can forgive some errors in the depiction of characters. In general, the story turned out to be more of a thriller than a detective, but the creators managed to keep the degree of tension. Again, happy to match the book with respect to the finale. But those who like verbatim film adaptations without any distortion will find something to find fault with and will hardly be satisfied.
In the dry remnant, we have a good experiment, which is likely to win even, albeit not enthusiastic, reviews of critics and join the ranks of outstanding film adaptations known to a narrow circle of connoisseurs.
Having seen an advertisement for a mini-series on one of the sites, I was looking forward to this event. Unfortunately, I read the book at school and did not remember the details. Govorukhin’s film has also been viewed many times, but no details have been preserved. But the atmosphere is preserved as something creepy and mysterious. "Ten Negroes" without curves can be considered a masterpiece! So I'm afraid I might be a bit biased.
It was a little embarrassing that the blacks were replaced by soldiers, for me it was a little warping. Yes, British political correctness! The faceless figures in the screensaver were also not impressed, although they very effectively crumbled and in principle, the plot could be fully understood only by one screensaver, even those who got acquainted with this work for the first time.
What followed the screensaver? 10 people unknown collects on the island and begins to slowly kill. Not just that, but according to the child’s calculus. (Agatha Christie was the inventor.)
The cast, in my opinion, is excellent! I have seen many actors on the screen many times. And my opinion of this composition was more pleasant to me than some Govorukhin actors. There was a similarity between our characters and English characters. I assume that the director and screenwriter of the masterpiece “Ten Negroes” have seen. In my opinion, there was too much Faith in the film, but I did not have enough Dr. Armstrong. Good was the performer of the role of Lombart, a kind of macho with the habits of a bastard. The bed scene between Lombart and Vera wasn’t in Christie’s novel, but it was in our adaptation. Judge Wargrave was absolutely delightful. General MacArthur was also impressed. But Anthony Marston is a snotty young man, did not surpass our Abdulov. Emily Brent was a bit dry and boring.
Not bad were the memories of the heroes about the atrocities they committed and the motives that guided them to these deeds. All things are revealed, and all things are punished. For me, the most curious moment was how the writers would get out to tell the truth about who killed and why. So I liked the truth episode. It was dramatic, but at the same time everything is laid out on shelves and there are no questions left.
A little about the background against which the events unfolded. The house does not make that terrible impression, and it should seem to the characters literally hell, but nature, rampant elements and storm clouds were good.
To be honest, I thought the ending might change, and I watched a version where I was kind of happy ending. But this time everything was in accordance with the book, but not 100% natural (each director has his own vision).
Overall, I liked the series. In general, all English is always high-quality, and if it comes to the detective, then the British are pros! But a little lacked that frighteningly sinister atmosphere of despair and horror.
8 out of 10
Anyone who likes good English detectives must watch. And those who love the work of the Queen of detectives especially!