MovieChat Forums > Ein Unbekannter rechnet ab Discussion > Utterly Awful

Utterly Awful

posted 13 years ago by Eric-62-2
12 replies | jump to latest

I've spent the last few days revisiting the 1945, 1965 and 1974 versions of this classic story (as well as playing the fun computer game with its totally different ending!) and have to say that the only way I could give the 74 version more than one star of ten would be if I forced myself to watch the dreadful 1989 version for the first time since 1990.

This film is beyond awful on all levels. And I'm not simply talking about the changed location, because the 1965 version managed to still be an entertaining romp even with its changed location. But therein lies the problem. This movie was made with the SAME script used nine years earlier (which itself recycled about 75% of the 1945 Dudley Nichols script) and as a result if you watch the films back to back you get a remarkable textbook lesson on the difference between credible acting/directing and awful acting/directing. In the 1965 version the actors deliver their lines with crisp, natural efficiency and we get a good sense of movement. But in this version, EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE is uttering their lines at a pace of two or three words at a time before they pause and take a breath before resuming and even then they keep their voices in a low hard to follow almost whisper. It makes the whole action on-screen just flat-out boring and you have to blame the director for this because this problem is affecting not just the foreign actors who didn't speak English primarily but even Reed, Lom and Attenborough seem to take forever to get their lines out. Considering how this director also chooses to give us a static, dull shot of someone watching a helicopter approaching that seems to go on forever over the credits (if he thought he was aping Lawrence of Arabia, he failed miserably) I guess the actor's insomnia like delivery is in keeping with the tone he wanted.

Let's also look at how in copying verbatim the 65 version, a lot of things suddenly make no sense. In this one, Armstrong (that's another gripe of mine about this and the 65 version. They keep calling his character "the Doctor" instead of "Armstrong" as if they think we'd forget his profession) and Cannon (couldn't they have just gone back to Wargrave if they were keeping him English??) don't plant something in Vera's room to make her scream and trigger the fake death scene. Are we to believe this was all improvised by chance? Others have noted the "I told you to stay in your room!" line of Blore's that makes no sense because the old scene that established that wasn't used in this one.

Attenborough in particular needs to be singled out for a truly awful performance. He looks like he's had unconvincing makeup slapped on him and he also utterly fails to convey any sense that there is more to him than we realize. Oliver Reed isn't much better. Elke Sommer I think could have done better if she'd gotten some better direction and some better supporting players. As for the rest, the increased focus of giving us different nationalities for parts that started out as historically English only calls attention to their pointlessness in the script and how ultimately they are in effect telegraphing the lesser importance of their characters overall.

Skip this one completely. The 45 and 65 versions are the ones to stick with for cinematic versions (and no, do not watch that Russian version others overrate so much)

[–] Jimmy-128 13 years ago

Just about the only thing this version has over the other English-language versions is Orson Welles' recorded accusation - I vastly prefer it over the others, even Christopher Lee's.

Aside from that, yeah, this one's ein schtinker, as Wilhelm Blore might say.

[–] Moscoso1967 13 years ago

Yeah, Welles recorded accusation was good. Personally, I liked Attenborough as the Judge, but otherwise this movie is truly ein stinker ;-) Especially Reed makes me wanna puke (how can such a dislikalbe guy get cast as the "romantic lead"?)

[–] Mr_Blonde3 12 years ago

It's a terrible film, yet I can watch it over and over again. It's the cast.

Sure Reed, Attenborough, and Lom give sleepwalking performances. But even sleepwalking performances from these three guys is light-years ahead of a lot of the acting out there today. I mean, compare their work to the tripe on SyFy and these three give Academy Award-winning performances.

And it also has two former Bond villains. Froebe and Celi. And the musical score just works for me, especially the section that plays over the Welles recording.

Don't get me wrong, it's godawful, and I'm sure actors like Lom and Attenborough would like to be remembered for ANYTHING other than this. But I own it on DVD and still can watch it a few times a year and be entertained by it.

I love to love my Lisa.

[–] machtundrebel 12 years ago

It has a hypnotic quality to it, don't you find?

Cast a cold eye On life, on death. Horseman, pass by.
- WB Yeats

[–] avezou1 12 years ago

I think you're a purist, and also that you expected something very precise before starting watching this film.

Big mistake.

The purpose was totally different with that of the previous versions, and it's a tremendous lesson in filmmaking.

Actors sleepwalking? So do the characters in the book. Cold, unsympathetic, unable to build plausible explanations or think of possible ways of escape, walking to their death like zombies.

[–] Jimmy-128 12 years ago

How would you have suggested they escape?

There's no boat, and no materials with which to make one. It's over a mile to the mainland, Lombard and Vera are the only ones who are even close to being in condition to swim it, and even if they could in normal weather, there's a huge storm for most of their time on the island. There's no telephone or any other way of communicating with the mainland.

[–] Angel_Buffy 12 years ago

It would not have been an escape but the one serious flaw in their logic is that they don't all try and stay together in the same room. By the time there are six of them left they know what's going on, they could stay up three at a time, and when there are 5 or even 4 left, I don't remember at which number Vera suggests that (I actually don't remember if she does or not in the book at all, but in all the film versions she does) they nix it saying they would be at the mercy of who was up last, but they could have come up with a rotational guarding system that allowed one person to sleep at a time. Honestly that's the only thing I think they could have done to up their chances of survival.

[–] Jimmy-128 12 years ago

The book doesn't credit anyone with the "everyone stays together and only one person leaves the room at a time" idea; the five survivors adopt it by tacit agreement.

Before that, well, they don't figure out that it's murder until after the third murder. After that, but before the group strategy, Rogers' class works against him. He's the servant, so he's expected to keep serving, which means he has to be out of bed at least two hours before anyone else is, and keep doing tasks (including chopping wood and running the generator) that isolate him from the others. As for Miss Brent/Ilona...well, I've never understood why, in the book and the first movie, two people didn't stay with her in the dining room while the other three cleaned up after breakfast. I actually think that's why the subsequent movies started having everyone turning on Ilona just before she's killed.

[–] steven-87 11 years ago

It's such a wonderful novel that I can't help but dislike all the filmed versions of it due to the amended ending.
This one is the worst of the lot, though.

Example - in the book, seaweed is hung from the roof of Vera's room to facilitate her scream that enables the next "murder".
In this version, it's supposedly the wind blowing the candles out. Which would have been impossible to rig from downstairs.
Just one of 101 loopholes displayed here.

There are 2 slightly redeeming features - the hotel has a creepy quality (though criminally underused) and the incidental music is relatively effective.

I think I'd opt for the 1965 version as the least ineffective...but stick to the book is the advice I'd give anyone. What you imagine in your mind as you read it will be more effective than any filmed version.

[–] harryharman1996 10 years ago

This film does move along at a maddeningly slow pace. I think the issue is that by now, the recycled script is being stretched into new casts, new locations, with very little adaptation. Really, they should have written another script for this film that made use of such an impressive performance space. It is a shame that this film is the way it is, because the setting is good and there are some well known actors in the cast.

[–] evguenimlodik 8 years ago

The Russian version is superb. Yes, it's not perfect, but it's head and tails ahead of most adaptations.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]