I consider the book's ending to be the only REAL ending of the story.
The movie's ending is justHollywood fluff (for lack of a better phrase).
~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

This message has been deleted.

I think it bears pointing out that Christie herself wrote both endings. In fact in translating her novels to the stage (and later to film), she was not only willing but often eager to make changes. At least two of her plays were based on Poirot novels, but she herself removed Poirot from the cast, deeming him unnecessary.
That being said, I think the ending that this film (and the original play) uses is the correct one for dramatic purposes; from an acting standpoint it plays better and has also the advantage of taking far less time. The lengthy epilogue of the original novel is wonderful on paper, but dramatically speaking it has little heat, and I think Christie herself realized that what was absolutely brilliant on paper would bore the audience to death onstage, especially since we're talking about the play's final moments.
The really great thing is that both endings work; they do not disturb what I consider one of Christie's most dazzling puzzles.
Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!

<

There's a Russian language version which does. However, it goes too far in the other direction - it keeps to the book almost word-for-word. The director doesn't try very hard to inject anything of himself into the story.

Besides this movie I have seen several remakes that have this same ending. I keep hoping they will make one that is true to the book version but so far they haven't done so which is a shame. Maybe someday.

I've only seen this version, so until I read the book, this.

Maybe back in 1945, because of the War?
No maybe about it; that was exactly why Christie changed the ending. She didn't feel that a public that was in very real danger of being bombed out of existence on a nightly basis needed an unhappy ending when they went out for a night of entertainment. That's why she wrote her "final" Poirot and Marple novels during this period, toothere was a possibility that she wouldn't survive the war.
If you like mysteries, I recommend Christopher Fowler's Full Dark House; it's set partially in World War II London, and it does a very good job of portraying the dangers the average Londoner faced during the war.

The book.
And regarding the "happy ending" nonsense, did you know the first draft of Se7en had John Doe baking a delicious pie for Somerset, Mills, and the delivery guy to enjoy together? It was in that box!
Please.
'DEPRESSED?' Seriously?!?
Maybe back in 1945, because of the War? That alone could explain why an upbeat stage ending was written by Agatha, possibly. But it ruined all of the films, except for the Russian one. This is why the book will always be the best version: It's like being dragged over the first hill of a roller coaster - you can't stop it from happening, and part of the fun is the fear. The book was the same, you were dreading each page that you turned, because you DIDN'T want it to end the way the paperback book cover told you that it was going to!!!
Who wants a happy ending in a title like "And Then There Were None," anyway? And their gooses were most certainly cooked. The judge dies BEFORE he can get to the beach to throw out his bottle. They were on the beach. It was just a silly, extremely tacked-on, tacky ending. For all the reviews that said this was a more "light-hearted" filmed version of the tale, I think they all missed the fact that this wasn't ever meant to be a heart-warming mystery. I often have thought that Hitchcock could have directed a fabulous version of this mystery, because he knew how to alternate between lighter dialogue and pitch-black plot mechanics. This book was meant to scare, and Hitch could have done just that, in a film. Ha ha, they killed Blore? "Iget it!!!" Not the way it was described in the book. The Russian version really blows it on that one, what a silly little clock! Not a huge chunk of white marble sculpture
This is why it's all about casting the right actors for the part. The closest "Vera" I've seen is in the Russian version, because she looks like someone who is not really that confident, someone who is going crackers, and her whole life is one big ruse to cover up that fact. My only gripe is she looked WAY too young to be the Vera of the book. I also thought the Russian "Wargrave" actor was magnificent, and really nailed the vision I had from reading the book. He wasn't as "reptilian" as Agatha described him, but he did have a crazy judge look. Barry Fitzgerald was one of the worst - great actor, but as cuddly as that silly cat (which also, was NOT in the book).

I much prefer the original ending of the book. I didn't hate the ending here, but it fekt a little rushed and abrupt.
"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I've not watched the movie yet, but having just finished the book and enjoyed it mightily, I have to say that, reading about the movie ending here, it makes sense to me. (I do think it's better in this instance I go into the movie spoilered then the shock at the change won't overpower my opinion of the movie as a whole.) Even in the book, there was a definite romantic tension between Lombard and Vera that could very much have been setting up this type of ending; indeed, I almost expected them to survive the island. As to the person who claims Vera is an evil person and felt no guilt over letting that child drown, she was possibly the most guilt-ridden and repentant of all the characters in the novel.
The nice thing about this sort of ending is that it seems slightly more realistic: it's hard to believe that someone could set up such a complicated plan as that and everything come out right. I'm inclined to agree with Frederick Knott of "Dial M For Murder" fame there's no such thing as a perfect murder.

The book without a doubt. The book is a work of art and perhaps the most perfect mystery story EVER written thanks in no small part to the cleverness of the crime and its "execution".

This message has been deleted.

The Original of course

This message has been deleted.

SPOILER WARNING!
I have seen several remakes of this movie and they all have basically the same ending in that the final two people are innocent. I wish they could make one movie that had the same ending as the book and follow the book. I don't guess it will ever happen though. I think Anthony Hopkins would be great as the Judge.

That's an interesting insight into the limitations of film that I'm ashamed had never occurred to me. Bravo.
There's something different about you today, Mr. Laurio.

Having recently reread the book, I can see why the movie's ending was different. Where the book is able to establish a deeper sense of motivation of the characters, movies are basically visual and therefore limited in their ability to explain necessary themes.
For example, in the movie Dune, there is much 'thought' narrative in the book. The moviemakers attempted to replicate that, but it came off as a bit silly. Likewise in And Then There Were None, the dynamics of Vera's crime combined with her desire for Hugo made the suicide by hanging more plausible. It just could not have been explained as well in the movie.
I prefer the book over the movie. I usually do anyway.

The only reason to change the ending in the written murder mystery is to make the movie different. The different ending is the only fly in the ointment for this film IMHO.
By the way, when I first read the book,
The Waltons
was very popular in the United States, and I thought Ellen Corby would make a good Emily Brent. But it's hard to top Judith Anderson.
There's something different about you today, Mr. Laurio.

The ending used in the film (and the remakes) is a cop-out.

I liked the books ending way more. It was a lot more eerie.

While I like both versions, I prefer the book. Audiences in 1945 seemed to be more easily shocked, and I think the movie would have failed then with the book's ending. If it were made today, it could do well with the original ending.

This (interaction between the last two characters alive) is something that totally destroys what the book is trying to do. If you do that, then you might as well show the meeting (to the viewer) between the doctor and the judge. The whole ending works because nobody knows what really happened (the epilogue contains the solution, but you don't even have to read that if you want to remain in the dark).