My Remake


Hi, I'm new to this site (I just signed up today). I want to tell you guys about how I would remake Christie's most popular whodunit.

The story opens in modern-day London, when a private detective named William Blore (Jim Broadbent) recieves a letter from a U.N. Owen that is prepared to pay him a lot of money if he will keep an eye on the guests at a houseparty in a remote castle in the Swiss Alps. It's an offer Blore cannot refuse.

In a cheaper side of London, a secretarial agency tells Vera Claythorne (Naomi Watts) that she was asked for specifically by a Mr. U.N. Owen to be personal secretary to his wife. She is to report immediately to a castle in the Swiss Alps.

A retired soldier, General MacArthur (Sean Connery), in a private rest home recieves an invitation from his old friend, Commander Wesley, to come and spend the weekend at his castle in the Swiss Alps. Desperate to get out of the rest home, MacArthur eagerly accepts.

Justice Wargrave (Anthony Hopkins) is worn out. He has had six murder trials in the last two months. Needing a holiday, Wargrave jumps at the chance for some peace and quiet in the Swiss Alps when he hears from his old friend Justice Malone, asking him to spend the weekend at his place there.

Famed actress Antonia Valyn (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is sick of everything. Sick of making movies, sick of the press, sick of England! So when a letter from her old producer Mike M. Falkway comes and asks her to spend the weekend with some fellow film associates, Antonia packs her bags.

Thomas and Ethel Rogers (Michael Kitchen and Helen Mirren respectively) need to get away, badly. On run from the police for murder, the Rogers need to get as far away from civilization as possible. So when no one else will take the job as housekeeper and manservant in an isolated castle in the Swiss Alps, the Rogers jump at it.

Dr. Armstrong (Christopher Lee)'s profession is crumbling all around him. After a scandalous trial for a malpractice suit, Armstrong wants to start all over in a new country. When he is given the chance to start by examining a Mr. U.N. Owen's wife at their chalet in the Alps, Armstrong decides it's time for a new life.

Philip Lombard (Viggo Mortensen) has a sleep disorder. He cannot go to sleep at night. He gets a letter saying that if he comes to a castle in the Swiss Alps, he will be payed 900 pounds a week if he will let them perform tests on him to find out why people can't sleep. Short on cash, Lombard is pretty much forced to go.

Tony Marston (Julian McMahon) is always ready to go to a good party, so when he gets an invitation to the party of the year, which happens to be at an isolated castle in the Swiss Alps, he's there!

These people all arrive at their destination to find that they're all there for different reasons, and that some joker is playing a prank on them. Unfortunately, the cable car doesn't come again until Monday, so they are all stuck there for the weekend.

They learn that evening that each one of them is a murderer who has gotten away with their crime and that this mysterious U.N. Owen has appointed himself executioner to punish the guilty. One by one the guests reveal their guilty secrets, and one by one they die...

I would like the interiors to be filmed at Highclere Castle http://www.filmlocations-uk.com/SH11/SH11.html

My version of this movie is not so much a mystery as a suspense thriller. If you want to see one of the multiple movies without knowing the ending, don't read further. For example, when Vera realizes that Wargrave is the killer, she does not want to hang herself and she says she will leave on Monday. Wargrave responds, "The only way you leave this house is dead." Vera turns and tries to run, but Wargrave catches up and they have a huge chase seen at the end. In the end, Lombard turns up and picks up the gun that Vera dropped. He approaches the two in the hall, where Wargrave is about to kill Vera. Lombard calls his name and Wargrave turns around. He just has time to say, "Never trust a woman" before Lombard shoots.

Another thing that has changed in my movie is how they die. Marston, Rogers, Antonia Blore, and Armstrong are the same. Marston drinks a poison cocktail, Rogers is axed in the scullery, Antonia is ingected with poison, Blore is hit with a falling statue, and Armstrong is poisoned. But Mrs. Rogers and MacArthur are changed. Mrs. Rogers is pushed from her window after taking a shower. MacArthur is relatively the same, just with a twist. While searching the house, MacArthur is stabbed and hidden He is not discovered until after Rogers is killed. Antonia finds him in a coat closet.

Please tell me what your ideas on this plot and cast are.
-Noah

reply

[deleted]

For tony marston his role is very important because he is the first person to die and when a person gets killed in real life it creates an amazing schock to anyone that has never seen a person die. also for Julia Roberts being Vera Claythorne I completly disagree with that because her emotions are to practical and is definatly not young enough. I think Jennifer Love Huete is the perfect person for that because you can really feel her emotion and her cute looks makes her feel sorry for her when she dies in the other movies shes been in, besides the Tuxedo

reply

I never said anything about Julia Roberts being Vera. My idea was Naomi Watts, though JLH would bring an interesting angle to the role.

reply

The only things I don't like about your remake are as follows:

1-) Perhaps this is more a rant about *all* book-to-movie remakes, but I've never understood those filmmakers who insist on changing the names/motives of characters. It's almost as if they believe they know the story *better* than those who originally wrote the story!

That said, axe Antonia. We need the pious Brent woman because she's the religious link. We need her ranting about sins and about how "she cannot die because she didn't commit a sin." Throwing in an actress would, I think, take away greatly from the diverse characters that Christie wrote about.

Also - you cannot venture too far from the nursery rhyme. It's foolish and pointless, but nevertheless it is a MAJOR part of the plot. Without it, the characters wouldn't know how/when they're going to die, or what to avoid. Unless, of course, you presume to make the rhyme say, "Six little sailor boys taking a shower/One fell from the window then there were five." It doesn't work, and I, as a Christie fan, wouldn't pay money to see someone butcher the plot.

2-) Why set it in the Alps? I'm assuming it would be very cold and snowy, which would undoubtedly limit all the characters to the house. Some of those scenes written outside of the house (while they were searching the island for the killer's possible hideouts) were some of the best the book had to offer.

3-) If you ignore my #1 completely and kept Antonia, you'd probably have to change Marston's first name. People sometimes get confused when movies have characters with really similar names (such as "Antonia" and "Anthony") without doing it on purpose.

Those are just my suggestions, tho. I would LOVE to see an accurate and modern adaptation of the movie.

reply

[deleted]

If you're speaking to me, then, YES, I did read the book. I'm not saying you have to make the mansion claustrophobic. Make it some big spacious paradise. Same for the island. Feel free to gamble a little with the locale, but don't change the ENTIRE IDEA.

And, since I did read the book, hell yes I have a problem with her chopping up the characters and their motives. Have the haunted! Have ugly death stare them in the faces! But, don't turn it into a cheesy horror knockoff!

But, if you're speaking to the original poster, disregard that all. =)

reply

[deleted]

:)

The book was fabulous.

reply

[deleted]

Lombard rapes Vera? I don't think I would have liked that version. I, too, liked the book the way it ended BEFORE the Scotland Yard bit. I think making Wargrave the killer sort of took away from the shock of the ending, of the "oh no! our heroine is stuck with the killer!" vibe. However, I see the twist she was going for making us think it was Vera's foe, but never saying it and showing us it ain't over until it's over.

reply

[deleted]

Anthony Marston...............Ryan Philippe
Ethel Rogers..................Linda Hunt
Gen. MacArthur................Herbert Lom
Thomas Rogers.................Richard Griffiths
Emily Brent...................Joan Plowright
Judge Lawrence Wargrave.......Ian McDiarmid
Dr. Edward Armstrong..........Jeremy Irons
William Blore.................Bob Hoskins
Philippe Lombard..............Clive Owen
Vera Claythorne...............Naomi Watts

CAMEOS

Sir Thomas Legge..............John Hurt
Inspector Maine...............Liev Schreiber
Fred Narracot.................Bernard Fox

reply

I've taken all your suggestions and thought about them. This is the reformed version:

This is my history of Soldier Island (to be politically correct). A millionaire built a house on Soldier Island for his wife. His wife became unhappy at being alone and out of communication and eventually killed herself. The house’s murderous history continued.

The story opens in modern-day London, when a private detective named William Blore (Jim Broadbent) recieves a letter from a U.N. Owen that is prepared to pay him a lot of money if he will keep an eye on the guests at a houseparty on the infamous Solider Island. It's an offer Blore cannot refuse.

In a cheaper side of London, a secretarial agency tells Vera Claythorne (Catherine Zeta-Jones) that she was asked for specifically by a Mr. U.N. Owen to be personal secretary to his wife. She is to report immediately Soldier Island.

A retired soldier, General MacArthur (Sean Connery), in a private rest home recieves an invitation from his old friend, Commander Wesley, to come and spend the weekend at his newly purchased Soldier Island. Desperate to get out of the rest home, MacArthur eagerly accepts.

Justice Wargrave (Anthony Hopkins) is worn out. He has had six murder trials in the last two months. Needing a holiday, Wargrave jumps at the chance for some peace and quiet on a luxurious island when he hears from his old friend Justice Malone, asking him to spend the weekend at his place there.

In a house in Kent, Emily Brent (Maggie Smith) recieves a letter from a woman she met in Majorca. The woman says that she has opened up a guesthouse on an island in Devon and asks Miss Brent to come. Yearning for a holiday without young people sunbathing in skimpy apparel, Miss Brent starts packing.

Thomas and Ethel Rogers (Michael Kitchen and Helen Mirren respectively) need to get away, badly. On run from the police for murder, the Rogers need to get as far away from civilization as possible. So when no one else will take the job as housekeeper and manservant on an isolated island, the Rogers jump at it.

Dr. Armstrong (Christopher Lee)'s profession is crumbling all around him. After a scandalous trial for a malpractice suit, Armstrong wants to get away and start all over. When he is given the chance to start by examining a Mr. U.N. Owen's wife on a remote island, Armstrong decides it's time for a new life.

Philip Lombard (Julian McMahon) has a sleep disorder: he just can’t go to sleep at night. He gets a letter saying that if he comes to an island in Devon, he will be payed 900 pounds a week if he will let them perform tests on him to find out why people can't sleep. Short on cash, Lombard is pretty much forced to go.

Tony Marston (Rupert Penry-Jones) is always ready to go to a good party, so when he gets an invitation to the party of the year, which happens to be on an isolated island in Devon, he's practically already there.

These people all arrive at their destination to find that they're all there for different reasons, and that some joker is playing a prank on them. Unfortunately, the boat doesn't come again until Monday, so they are all stuck there for the weekend.

They learn that evening that each one of them is a murderer who has gotten away with their crime and that this mysterious U.N. Owen has appointed himself executioner to punish the guilty. One by one the guests reveal their guilty secrets, and one by one they die...

It really couldn’t be filmed anywhere else but Burgh Island, where Christie originally set it.

I would still like to make it a suspense movie just because I think the plot is so perfect for it. While searching for Owen on the island, there could be some really suspenseful scenes. And when Vera is alone in her room and Lombard, Armstrong and Blore are out there and she hears a lot of noises. It’s got a lot of potential.

I’ve got a tagline: Ten Little Soldier Boys Went Out to Die…

The ending would be the same and as Vera ascends the stairs to her room we get flashbacks of her drowning the little boy. Then we cut to a boat where a fisherman sees a note in a bottle and the solution is explained with flashbacks. The ending line is the murderer’s signature.

Is this better?

reply

[deleted]

First of all, people cry political incorrectness for anything so we can do little soldier or sailor boys instead.

Actually, I would think that if Armstrong had killed a patient, he would have been in court. Also, what would you say the Rogers were doing in the "source material" if they weren't running away from the police?

The cell phones might not be able to pick up a signal and I don't know what satelites and helicopters have to do with this.

You don't have to stay totally true, otherwise what would be the point of doing the movie? Everyone would already know what was going to happen! I think a little twist here and there is okay.

reply

[deleted]

I don't think that the Rogers' were running from the law. Wasn't there a point made in the book that - due to them keeping the old woman's meds away from her - she died of natural causes? And they had an excuse for not being there to give her her medication (Mr. Rogers being gone on foot to get the doctor). Maybe I missed something, but I don't think they're on the run from the law, and if they were surely they wouldn't still be following the same career path and using the same names!

And, you're kidding about not understanding where helicopters and such come in, right? In the book, they only had one way off of the island: waiting for the boat to come in. But, now, with technology, any of them could have a small radio on them or *something* that could get word to the outside world to send them a boat or a plane or hell even a herd of rabid elephants. Back in the day when the book was originally written, people didn't carry cell phones or Blackberries or PDAs or walkie talkies or portable radios on vacation like we do now. Today, they'd have SOME way of getting word out, even if they tore down the house, built a raft and sailed home.

Finally, no, you don't have to follow the book verbatim, but, also, don't chop it up like Rogers in the shed! Keep the spirit or you're going to lose the glory.

****to the person who said the "Russian version is how it SHOULD be done"*** - um, WHY would you say that? Part of the reason the original worked as well as it did was because it wasn't all dark and campy - it was classy and smoothe. The Russian version was ... well ... dark and campy. It didn't flow nearly as well as her original intent had.

reply

I understand about the PDAs and all, but who carries a helicopter or satelite in their back pocket?

reply

Cell phones have GPS devices in them. They can text message to the outside world and have someone send them a helicopter based on their GPS location.

reply

Thanks. I got it now.

reply

[deleted]

The BOOK was perfect - versions are simply wannabes.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, but nothing trumps the original book.

reply

[deleted]

Of course not, but it also doesn't give the producers of any movie or secondary book to say, "well, this is how it SHOULD be done, so I'm going to do it this way and pay no homage to the respected first version."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know what you're saying, I'm simply saying that no other book adaptation, no film adaptation, no JibJab adaptation (well, maybe...) could compare to the original book.

reply

[deleted]

I just don't see how it could be so great when it violates the story so much.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

My understanding is that in the Russian version Vera is raped- yeah, I've got a problem with this. It's not how the story goes. They may as well have Martians descend down and zap everyone for not finding the immunity idol. In the story Lombard's an ass but he's not the bad guy, and he's not a rapist. Hell, not even Wargrave would stoop that low and he's murdering people! My point is this: IN the book (the only true *version* of the story) the characters were all free because they had some sort of sense of civility about them - they're normal, flying under the radar of suspicion. What happens to Vera is inhuman - it's animalistic. Let's remember - these characters don't get their hands dirty.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, I'd answer that but apparently my desire to preserve the nature of a story regardless of someone's "creative license" is annoying...

It doesn't matter if Vera comes to enjoy it. That's only adding to my argument that the Russian version destroys the characters. LOMBARD IS NOT A RAPIST! He's an ass, sure. He's a jerk to everyone. He's macho and he's borderline Rhett Butler, but he's NOT a rapist. Vera, also, isn't one of those women who's uber-kinky and decides a man forcing himself on her is fine and dandy. She's the most liberated woman in the story. Liberated women (even in the time the book was set) don't enjoy men forcing them to have sex.

But, then again I suppose you'd look the other way if someone with assumed "CL" decided to have Santa Claus turn into a rabid goat-humper?

reply

[deleted]

You can't spell and think "supposively" is a word, and *I* am coming across as an ignorant prick? Yeesh!

You can say it until you're blue in the face, but I refuse to watch any movie that destroys the CHARACTERS. I don't care if Lombard was drunk. I don't care if he snuck off to the woodshed and had a little happy plant and saw little ducklings singing "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." All that matters is that - from everything you've said - the writer/director of the Russian movie has taken the characters that Christie wrote and turned them into shells of their intent.

But, I guess in whatever world where "supposively" is a word, doing that is OK so long as it makes for a chilling cinematic experience.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, since you can do nothing more than insult me (which isn't as fun as an intelligent debate, which you originally offered), I think it's best if we just let this thread die. I do approve more of Lombard and Vera surviving the whole ordeal than of Lombard becoming a rapist and Vera becoming some sexually conflicted weakling. At least when they survive it's using something positive to change the story instead of opting for some dark mass-slaughter of the people Christie created. Then again, it's obvious that I am of a literary mind and you are of a childish cry-in-your-room-when-you-don't-get-your-way mentality.

It's really a shame, too. You seem like you could actually have made a good argument if you had simply applied yourself.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It's not a sex scene! That's what I'm saying. It's a RAPE scene. Or can you not figure out the difference between the two? Sex would make Lombard a normal guy, rape makes him a monster and he is NOT a monster.

As for you, Em, my argument is one based on being a writer myself. I'd hate to write a book and then have someone come along fifty years later and decide what my characters need. I'm sure Ms. Christie would feel the same way.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I haven't answered because regardless of what I say you're either not going to believe me or call me a coward. Besides, the two of you seem to base everything on assumptions, so, who am I to stand in your way?

PS ... when did you downgrade it from "Rape" to "Intense sex scene?" Either it's rape or it's not. Please, make up your mind.

reply

[deleted]

Sex does not bother me in a film. I don't mind certain liberties with stories -- until they completely mess up the original scheme. If Lombard and Vera were having a nice little sneak-away nookie session, I wouldn't be upset. But, that's not what you called it. You called it "rape" on more than one occasion. That takes Lombard from his original scheme of being a normal, macho male to being a monster with no regard for the women he encounters. But, when I make a fuss over that, suddenly it's, "oh, it was just an intense sex scene! Vera was A-OK with it!"

I think I should be asking YOU if YOU saw the movie. Because, you're telling me two entirely different stories that make me think you probably haven't...or you just cannot come up with a cohesive argument.

reply

[deleted]

No, I don't have to be quiet about it. Nervous people don't say, "well, we're all dying, think I'll go rape someone!"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

See? This is why I refuse to answer your questions. Regardless of what I say, you're going to insult me. And, for your information I don't care how ambiguous it is, it has NO PLACE in the story. As someone who is a 19 year old woman (and who has been the victim of men the Russian version tries to turn Lombard into), I think it's disgusting for anyone to use that as a "plot" point when it's both unnecessary and a slap in the face to those people who are Christie fans.

If you like the movie, fine, but don't attack, insult or call me anything just because I disagree. That makes you seem childish and completely invalidates your points (as weak as they already are).

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I DID back them up and I *NEVER* said I condoned the American versions.

Also, what does Vera's age have to do with ANYTHING? Lombard raped her -- supposedly -- It doesn't matter if she's 30 or 130 ... it should NEVER happen unless the story is ABOUT the rape. Christie's story WAS NOT. It was completely pointless and did nothing to serve the plot. I stand by that.

PS..I reserve to insult idiots who obviously cannot read, like yourself.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

No, I think that you need to look up the difference between "Sex" and "Rape." One is much deeper than the other.

I'm not trying to be a troll, and you're only saying that because I disagree with you. You're being so childish that it's pathetic. Other people ARE allowed to have opinions that differ from yours. Some of us don't like having rape scenes thrown into movies for the hell of it. Some of us take it as a slap in the face *when it's pointless*. Now, I know in the little bubble you're living in sex=sex regardless of motive, but in the world I live in sex=emotional or physical connection and rape = terrible abuse. They're NOT the same and it's NOT a subject to be taken slightly.

But, go ahead. When someone rapes your mom, your sister, your daughter or even you, be sure to say, "it was just sex -- they rape in movies all the time and it's so damn cool!"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

See, I am backing up my post. I've continued to maintain the same point: If Lombard becomes a rapist in the movie then he becomes something he's not in the movie. I don't mind liberties being taken, but turning a man into a rapist for the hell of it is not something I condone. That's why I refuse to promote the movie as a worthwhile adaptation.

reply

Mr. Mlodik, don't you think it's childish to call someone an "idiot" and a "troll" simply because they disagree with you? I'm sure if I were out here saying it's the best movie in the world that you'd be asking me to have coffee with you. I'm sorry if my desire to maintain the beauty of a literary piece makes me an "idiot" or a "troll," but, really ... it's like having someone make a movie out of The Bible and have Adam and Eve be astronauts...

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Idiot this, Idiot that ... is that ALL you can come up with?

You're not understanding what I'm saying. If this were just a sex scene I'd look past it. But they're twisting Lombard's character. They're turning him into someone vile and disgusting. Granted he always was a bit condescending and macho in the book, he was NEVER a rapist. Rape is something that I don't think should be taken lightly, in Russia or anywhere else.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I'm not saying anything about them because they're not what I'm discussing. And, if I were to sit here and lament every single problem I have with the American versions we'd be here until a viable adaptation came out.

reply

[deleted]

I don't HAVE any positive feed back on it. That's like someone robbing a bank and being told by the teller "come back when you have a cop with you." It's not happening. I'm not going to find anything positive about a movie that uses rape as a highlight piece and not as a plot point.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I did until you started flinging that stuff at me. Is it necessary to say those things to someone because she hates the construction of a movie? I mean, really. If your mother didn't like the movie, would you say such heinous things to her?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

You guys, we're not talking about the same thing. You're talking about whether something *works* in a movie, and I'm talking about whether something *belongs* in a movie. Neither of you seem to understand what rape does to a woman, as I'm assuming neither of you are women who have experienced it first hand. And thus you cannot understand the lasting effects that that has on a person. So, to see a movie throw it around as it it's something that's almost excusable due to panic is just ... well, something I cannot tolerate. I'm sorry if you think I'm immature, but, I just think that the scene brings up too many bad memories for myself to really enjoy it. Maybe that's clouding my judgment, and if so, I apologize. But, having my history I just cannot condone this movie. Please, accept that and cease saying so many insulting things about me because I disagree with you. It's not necessary.

reply

[deleted]

I'm stating that I've seen first-hand the trauma that such an action can cause. I'm not discussing if I've experienced it or not myself because, frankly, that's none of your business. And, I don't think that you'll understand where I'm coming from until you witness a woman being brought in on a gurney because some guy broke into her apartment and violated her. I don't think you'll understand it until you've held her hand as she recounted the event to authorities. But, like I said, I'm not going to delve into if that person was me or not -- I'm simply going to say that until you witness what a woman who has been victimized is like, you'll never be able to see my side of things.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not discrediting the scene because it involves a rape, I'm saying the things I am because of the manner in which it involves the rape. Like I've said, if something is done tastefully I'll support it, but this just ... wasn't. It was too impersonal, and there is nothing more emotionally charging than a rape.

But, I agree, Clue. Let's just get on with our lives. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

reply

[deleted]

It's just how I feel about the movie. I cannot change those things or explain them any better than I've tried to, Mr. Emlodik. Well, I'll try:

It's sort of like planning a picnic with your significant other. You're so excited and when the day finally gets there, you're set. But, you get to the park and see him/her across the grass -- just as a downpour comes. You're both drenched, and it SHOULD be romantic and cute, but it's not. And, by the end of the day you haven't been able to salvage anything because of the unexpected downpour, no matter how good the day started out. So, when you're put in the hospital with pneumonia you look back on the day with a little resentment. The rain shouldn't have happened.

The rape scene was the rain on my picnic.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Why should I answer like a human if you refuse to behave like one?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

OK, here goes:

Christiefan1:

1: I like that you want to include the first chapter of the book, which every version I’ve ever seen omits—but the reason they omit it is because you’re basically adding another 45 minutes to the movie, making it at least an hour before the action really starts. I can’t see how you can get around that, and today’s short-attention-span audiences will get bored before we get to Lombard.

2: Wargrave is an eldery and a dying man; Vera is a young, athletic woman. Any chase scene between the two of them is going to end with Vera leaving him in the dust. Remember, one of the reasons Wargrave sets the whole thing in motion in the first place is because he knows he’s dying, and he wants to go out in a blaze of glory.

3. Like every other version, you want to “spice up” Mrs. Rogers’ death. OK. But that leaves you vulnerable to the same problem that all the others that I’ve seen have: the reason that Wargrave, in the book, is able to kill Emily so easily is because he has drugged her with the same drug with which he killed Mrs. Rogers. Subsequent versions have done away with Mrs. Rogers dying in her sleep, so the third woman’s death is never believable (the 60s version is the worst offender – Ilona SEES the judge coming toward her with the needle and doesn’t even try to get away or even scream).

4. MacArthur (by the way, by now, I think you can get away with changing the name back to the original, so go for it) in the closet doesn’t work for two reasons. First, it takes away from the missing-Armstrong-as-murderer scenario later on; if the characters have already come across one murdered and hidden body, why shouldn’t they assume the same thing happened to Armstrong, rather than assume that Armstrong himself is hiding? Second, MacArthur’s death, in the book and the first movie, is what convinces the others that they’re dealing with murder, not accident or suicide.

5. Jello is right; you have to adhere as close to the nursery rhyme as possible; otherwise, it’s just a mad slasher movie. Second, the rhyme has to make sense – the 60s and 70s “Nine little Indian boys sat up rather late, one ran away and then there were eight” is an example of a rhyme that makes no sense at all – the two halves have nothing to do with each other.

6. Armstrong would only be in court after killing a patient IF the family and an attorney thought they had a case for malpractice or negligence. No matter what you hear from the radio talk shows and FoxNews, this doesn’t happen as often as you think. In the book, the patient in question suffered from peritonitis; that’s still a fatal condition, even with the doctor doing everything right. If the nurse/Sister covers for Armstrong, then he’s in the clear. It wouldn’t be a tremendous hole not to address the malpractice angle.


JelloGetsMeHot

1. I don’t agree that the third woman (besides Vera and the servant) HAS to be religious. Emily Brent’s piety, and her profession or lack thereof, is immaterial; what’s important is that the character is the kind of person whose coldness and lack of compassion would drive someone else to suicide.

2. It’s still possible to completely isolate a place. Cell phones don’t always work, telephone lines can still be cut, etc.

reply

So here's my dream cast:

Mr. Justice Lawrence Wargrave--Ian McKellan

Vera Claythorne--Reese Witherspoon

Philip Lombard--Brendan Fraser

Emily Brent--Brenda Blethyn

General Sir John MacArthur--Christopher Plummer

Doctor Edward Armstrong--Philip Seymour Hoffman

Anthony Marston--Heath Ledger

William Blore--Bob Hoskins

Thomas Rogers--Ralph Fiennes

Ethel Rogers--Patricia Clarkson

reply

WOW, reading this whole thread was like eavesdropping on one side of a telephone conversation... i can't begin to imagine what all those deleted messages contained, but the end result is almost a perfect script for a one man play

But coming back to the original theme of this thread... i liked christiefan1's version of the story and i thought subsequent contributors (esp jell) had very valid comments.

The only thing about the casting game is that, for me, the kick is to make the cast realistic, as opposed to a 'dream-team' cast. Much as i'd enjoy Sean Connery as the General i doubt he'd appear in a movie where he gets bumped off in the first quarter. Ditto Helen Mirren. (And, from Jimmy 128's suggestions, Ralph Fiennes and Heath Ledger.)

For the bottom half of the cast, i think you have to concentrate on the B lists or veteran / character actor types. Joan Plowright probably a better choice for Emily Brent than Maggie Smith; i can just imagine Maggie's bulging eyes and tics and wavers distracting the audience from the plot in every scene she's in ..

Otherwise it's been a fun discussion



reply

I think both Fiennes and Ledger would do it. Fiennes needs a high-profile movie; he hasn't had one in a while. As for Ledger, the Marston character is barely offscreen in the first twenty minutes--he's given the song, for example.

EDIT: I probably should have checked Fiennes' filmography before I made that statement, shouldn't I have? Pardon me whilst I extricate my toes from behind my tonsils.

At any rate, if Fiennes would do Harry Potter, he'd do this.

reply