The Butler gets lost in the desert and dies. Nobody finds his body, they only assume he's dead because the indian went missing so why does nobody suspect him of being the killer? Towards the end at the showdown they say the only explaination was that it was either one of them yet they had no way of knowing the butler was dead. Also that hotel was massive, no way could they of searched it well enough to know there wasn't an 11th person hiding.
shareThose are indeed two big holes. The other one is the staging of the sixth murder. Since nobody arranges for the scream that clears the drawing room to happen, there's no way the murderer knows in advance that it will, and by this time it's Sunday night--the murderer has four more people to polish off by Monday afternoon at the earliest.
A minor one is the fifth murder. It leaves far to much to chance; the victim should be able to evade the snake and run screaming from the room.
[deleted]
I just re-watched this film now and I've wondered about the butler (Martino's) murder as well. All they really have to go on is his disappearance and another Indian statue being smashed. And considering the fact that they still suspect the doctor when the same thing happens to him later (he disappears, another statue is smashed)...its surprising they didn't suspect Martino as well.
Then again, I guess you can chalk it up to the fact that they needed to follow the plot of the novel/previous films and they did so nearly line by line, dialogue by dialogue, without taking into account the plot holes caused by minor alterations to the plot.
Then again, I guess you can chalk it up to the fact that they needed to follow the plot of the novel/previous films and they did so nearly line by line, dialogue by dialogue, without taking into account the plot holes caused by minor alterations to the plot.
The novel, play and 1945 version have Rogers' body found after he is killed. The 1965 and 1974 versions have him killed and his body is never discovered by the others, which is a big mistake because, as you say, when Armstrong disappears later and the rest suspect he is really the killer and has faked his disappearance, they never thought this when Rogers disappears.
Owen's confession in all versions say that the authorities will arrive and find 10 bodies. But in the 1965 version they may not find his body since he fell from a cliff, and in the 1974 version it's somewhere in the desert (as far as Owen knows). For Owen's plan to work, all 10 bodies need to be found in the house/hotel/whatever.
But remember that in none of the film versions do we have the Judge (I can't call him Wargrave since they never use that name) planning to rig his own death so that he'll be found shot. Assuming that his plan in the movie went off, they were going to find him poisoned sitting across from a hanged Vera (which frankly would have made the authorities likely guess he was the guilty party anyway!)
shareOk, so accepting that change means that we disregard the part of the novel where the police rely on everyone's diaries and journals. So they find Vera hanged and the judge poisoned in the same room. But there are 8 other bodies on the island too. Why would the authorities think that the Judge killed here when there are all those other bodies on the island? And 2 (?) of those other 8 were poisoned too, so you can't say "Well the police would automatically suspect the one that was poisoned since that could be self-inflicted."
shareI was going to mention the journals issue, because the very fact the Judge poisons himself means that in the films he is *not* concerned about the diary record kept by the others which would have reported he was shot. Of course given how the action unfolds in the movies, it hardly looks like anyone has the time to keep any diaries so I think if we're looking at the films the diary issue can be dispensed with (of course this brings up a point about the novel: Wouldn't it be easier for Wargrave to just dispose of everyone's diary once he's all alone?)
shareI think in the book the Judge's epilogue states that he is fine with the diaries being found because he wants there to be some sort of record of what happened there when the police arrive.
shareI wrote a review about the apparent flaws of logic in this movie.
I know it will sound unsatisfying to some, but this story IMO has to be considered as a gigantic nightmare. Mr Owen is too allmighty, guests act too dumb, the whole premise is too ridiculous, there's something wrong here that even a grade-Z director (which Peter Collinson is not) would have not let pass. There are many elements in the way things are filmed (and in the script) which underlines that the purpose of the film is not to give rational explanations - just to offer a journey into madness.
It's made on purpose: lacks of continuity are not due to budget restrictions (like in many giallos), it's just that a dream or a madman's delirium don't have to display perfect continuity.
Not quite over-the-top as Mario Bava's 'Five dolls for an august moon', a very similar treatment of Agatha Christie's mystery, but almost.
Please take a look at my review, it's quite detailed, and feel free to comment on it.
Actually, now that I think about it, there's an explanation why the survivors suspect the doctor, but not the butler.
When the butler disappears, there are six people left in the hotel--and one of them (Ilona) has been wandering around outside. It's easy for the rest to suspect her of killing Martino, especially since she's the most likely suspect to have killed the general. So once they've got the idea into their heads that Martino is dead, even Ilona's death isn't enough to remove that idea.
Also, when Martino takes off, nobody (except, of course, Mr. Owen) sees or hears him. However, when what everyone assumes is Armstrong leaves the building, Vera and Lombard hear the noise. They then find Blore in his room. Everyone else is dead--it MUST be Amstrong.