Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

"Ten Little Indians" intro mistake?


AddisonDeWitless
 Share

Recommended Posts

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}What happened to the 1945 version?

>

> It used to be one of the most frequently shown films on TV in the 1950s.

 

 

 

The 1945 version titled "And Then There Were None" got lots of plays after it fell into public domain years so you would think that TV stations would still be playing it since they don't have to pay for the rights. but that doesn't seem to be the case. From what I can tell most stations simply aren't interested in running black & white films anymore. Oh, there are some exceptions, maybe some big title like "Casablanca", but overall they just won't run them.

 

Because it was originally a 20th Century-Fox release, it has shown up on Fox Movie Channel now and then and is available on DVD, but that requires picking through all the PD junk copies to find one that's decent. I have a pretty nice one, but that company is out of business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that *Desyat Negrityat* (1987) was the only theatrical release movie to use the novel's original title. It is famous for being the only such movie which it true to the novel in most respects.

 

It has been many years since I have watched it. I have found it on YouTube at:

http://youtu.be/PAhuw28qb34

 

One of the filming sites was The Swallow's Nest:

143.jpg?w=500&h=353

I find it odd that it was used in the depiction of ten murderers staying there as it was only a two-bedroom house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}I sense a "Ben Mankiewicz Blows It Again" thread in the works.

It would in all likelihood have a longevity to rival the Hot Topics threads about George Brent's hinder and Henry Fonda's facial hair.

 

Seriously, I am *annoyed.* This was a glaring error that I spotted instantly, even without what I would call a deep knowledge of classics, and I don't understand how anyone could make it, even checking out the film or novel's entry on Wikipedia would've cleared it up instantly- *this is especially galling considering that people are GETTING PAID to write (and recite) this stuff.*

 

 

Until the checks start bouncing- *do your job right.*

 

 

My remote has long been lost, I was too tired to get up to mute Manksie-Wanksie last night, I figure "whatevs, I'll give him the chance" he says the bit about the 1965 version using the original ending, I say "really? I don't remember that..." and *STYOOPID ME, I ACTUALLY SAT THROUGH THIS TURKEY JUST TO SEE THE ORIGINAL ENDING USED.*

 

 

I do not see the need for money to be continuously wasted on these introes and outroes if they can't get their facts straight to the point where shut-ins living in their parent's garage without two nickels to rub together can instantly say "um, no, that's wrong."

 

 

TCM, you want wrong information and lame jokes? PAY ME.

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 24, 2012 8:44 AM

 

Edited by: AddisonDeWitless on Sep 24, 2012 8:46 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}From watching the first twenty minutes, my reaction was "What the he** was Fabian doing in this film? His chemistry with the other members of the cast was less than non-existent.

I don't know that something can actually be *less* than non-existant (aka nothing) but yeah, I get what you mean.

 

At least he died.

 

One of the problems I have with the 1945 version is that it wastes some good actors (Mischa Auer and Judith Anderson.) I couldn't *wait* for everyone to die in the '65 version....that gives me an idea: maybe they could do a modern-day remake wherein they systematically off Vin Diesel, Dane Cook, Paltrow, Natalie Portman, Sarah Silverman, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jar-Jar Binks, Will, Jada, and both their kids in a series of increasingly nasty and brutal ways.

 

I'd go (several times.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

" One little, two little, three little indians;

 

 

Four little, five little, six little indians;

 

 

Seven little, eight little, nine little indians;

 

 

Ten little indian boys!"

 

 

Those are the only lyrics to the little ditty that I can remember, and I also don't recall anywhere in the song where the 10 little indians get killed off one by one. So the title *10 Little Indians* never made sense to me. I always thought *And Then There Were None* was the title of the Christie story. I could be mistaken....I'm getting GOOD at it lately...

 

 

Sepiaten

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides his goof re: the ending, Ben also referred to the one-minute "Whodunit?" montage that precedes (spoiler!) Shirley shooting Hugh, which was part of the version I saw on TV many years ago but didn't appear last night. It was kinda the only reason I re-watched this turkey, so color me disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the "whodunnit intermission"- I remember the mention of it. Although I *do* want to say that I recall *BM* saying that was how the film was originally released, not that that was the specific print they were showing last night. Again, I could be wrong.

 

It's hard to fathom just why the filmmakers felt people needed to take a minute at *the very end* of this thing to chill out from all the breathtaking non-suspense contained therein.

 

As far as I'm concerned: the sooner they got the damn thing over with, the better.

 

(There's a point where it gets to be prolonging the torture, and that's just tacky.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No kidding. What a dull, plodding story. I saw it years ago and remembered who the killer was. Came across as a bad tv movie. And that loud, brassy score was totally innapropriate. I did get a few laughs over Lavi's bad wig. Nothing worse than 60s wigstyles.......Would love to see the 45 version (year 45!).......

 

 

And I thought Fabian was cute too! I was sorry he got killed off so soon. :(

 

Edited by: Hibi on Sep 24, 2012 12:12 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was there any mention in the outro about the voice of U.N.Owen? That was Christopher Lee who was shooting the Fu Manchu series for the same producer Harry Alan Towers while this was in production.

 

I did note in seeing the opening credits that Harry M. Popkin was credited as an additional producer on the film - he was the exec producer of the 1945 version, as well as D.O.A. and CHAMPAGNE FOR CAESAR. The good days were obviously over for him by the time of this film.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...