IMDb user comments for
The Alphabet Murders (1965)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

16 comments in total

---

9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Good Comic Film, but not "THE ABC MURDERS", 24 January 2006

Author: theowinthrop from United States

Tony Randall was a highly competent actor and a great comic actor. Anyone who sees his performance in television's ODD COUPLE knows what a great comic actor he was. But most of his movie roles were in supporting parts, such as in support of Doris Day and Rock Hudson in their three films, or in BOYS NIGHT OUT with James Garner and Kim Novak. He did make several films as the star: WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER?, THE MATING SEASON, THE SEVEN FACES OF DR. LAO (his own favorite performance), and this film.

The good news is his performance as Hercule Poirot is very amusing. Forgetting the perennial problem of keeping an accent (and it should be a Walloon style Belgium accent, not a French one) straight, he does a good job of being consistent as a performer. Poirot is attracted to mysteries as a mouse is supposedly attracted to cheese. So he finds himself attracted to the killing of a diving champ with the initials "A.A.". Soon his attention is directed to the murder of a woman with the initials "B.B." Then a man with the initials "C.C." The chief suspect (Anita Ekberg) has the initials "A.B.C." She has a therapist (of questionable standards) with the initials "D.D.". Poirot sees a pattern, but an odd one that he can't quite understand. And the Scotland Yard Inspector escorting him around London (Robert Morley) is constantly finding his attempts to get Poirot out of the country (and out of Scotland Yard's hair) being thwarted.

Poirot does solve the mystery - and it does approach the novel, but it actually avoids the way Christie wrote the novel. If you are one who appreciated her artistic abilities you can understand why she disliked THE ABC MURDERS as much as Margaret Rutherford's contemporary "Miss Marple" series (Ms Rutherford and her husband Stringer Davis appear as Marple and "Mr. Stringer" in one scene in the film, meeting a disapproving Poirot's gaze). They spoofed the two lead characters in her two series of mystery novels. The performances of Albert Finney, Peter Ustinov, and David Suchet were all far closer to Poirot than Randall's cartoon version - just as Helen Hayes, Joan Hickson, and Angela Lansbury were far closer to Jane Marple than Miss Rutherford.

THE ABC MURDERS was better handled in a David Suchet version on television a number of years ago. It is carefully crafted to be a story of a frame-up, and the suspect is not an attractive blonde like Miss Ekberg, but a man with a notably pompous sounding name with the initials "A.B.C." The actual planner is far more unlikeable as you read the novel, not only in his callous choice of innocent victims, but in his contempt for Poirot. In fact, at the conclusion of the novel Hercule manages to leave a figurative trace of spit on the perpetrator's face when he tells him how he unworthy he is to call himself an Englishman.

This does not make Randall's performance (abetted by Morley's "Hastings") worthless. It is amusing and will keep the viewer's interest. But the lover of Christie's work is advised to wait for the David Suchet television version for the proper approach to the story.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Agatha Christie's Pink Panther, 24 April 2002

Author: JoeytheBrit from Cambridgeshire, England

If you're used to seeing Agatha Christie's Belgian detective portrayed by the likes of Ustinov, Finney, Suchet, etc., you're in for a surprise with this curiosity: this is Poirot given the Clousot treatment. That the makers of this movie were inspired by the success of Blake Edwards' bumbling detective is beyond doubt; while not as incompetent as Clousot, he is still something of a clown, and even suffers the same problems with his English counterparts struggling to understand his pronunciation of certain words.

The film starts brightly, and I honestly believed that I was in for an unexpected treat after the first ten minutes, but, regrettably, the whole thing falls flat pretty quickly after that. Tony Randall is woefully miscast in the role of Poirot (presumably, he was chosen to increase the movie's chances in the US), and struggles unsuccessfully with the Belgian accent, while bearing only a passing resemblance to Christie's creation.

Robert Morley almost saves the movie single-handedly as the UK secret service agent ordered to protect – and then expel - Poirot. Morley only has to appear on screen to crank up the comedy-quotient – he was born with a face and physique that were simply made for comedy. Margaret Rutherford – another British comedy giant(ess) also appears in a brief, but amusing, cameo as Agatha Christie's other famous detective, Miss Marple. If you feel like watching a comic movie adaptation of one of Agatha Christie's detectives, I recommend that you catch one of Rutherford's far superior Miss Marple movies (MURDER SHE SAID, MURDER AT THE GALLOP) rather than this misguided flop.

---

7 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Comedy first, mystery next, 12 February 2003

Author: Jugu Abraham (jugu_abraham@yahoo.co.uk) from Trivandrum, Kerala, India

I have enjoyed David Suchet and Peter Ustinov playing Poirot among other interpretations of the detective, but Randall's turn is equally enjoyable. Randall is not a great actor but a fine comedian. Director Frank Tashlin should know a good comedian when he casts them--he had worked with Danny Kaye and Jerry Lewis to name just two.

The film begins with Randall introducing himself as Poirot with a twinkle in his eye. The director is clear from the first scene--comedy first, mystery next.

Robert Morley is fun, but Randall is even better--the bowling alley, the restaurant gags, the telephone calls--all scenes filled with visual, good humor rather than slapstick. Morley depends on the typical British attitudes, e.g., snapping fingers down the pecking order, jumping queues and not knowing one's shoe size all depicting arrogance of society and wealth. Director Tashlin dishes out a comedy with considerable social comment--Brits who cannot differentiate the French from the Belgian French and are in the police force!

The most intriguing bit was to introduce Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple and Stringer Davis as Mr Stringer of the Miss Marple films bump into Randall's Poirot briefly. Surely this was a gem of an idea from Tashlin.

The film cannot be easily trashed--it offers comedy and entertainment, nearly 40 years after it was made. It is definitely not the definitive Poirot but an interesting interpretation of Poirot. It is probably one of the best Randall films ranking alongside "The Seven Faces of Dr Lao."

---

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Not meant to be taken seriously, 22 May 2000

Author: Karahde Khan from Pofesional Ville

Since the first second of this movie we are informed about what we are going to see is not a Hercule Poirot movie but a Tony Randall movie where he plays Hercule Poirot for laughs. If you can take this, you'll have a fun hour and a half.

Agatha Christie purists can hate this, but this is meant to be neither a straight adaptation of the novel nor even a mystery movie. It's a lighthearted comedy with colourful characters like Hastings as played by Robert Morley, a delight to watch.

For mystery movie buffs or Dame Agatha fans I recommend Murder on the Orient Express, a masterpiece with Albert Finney as the definitive Poirot, or any of the Peter Ustinov movies (the theatrical released ones only, the made-for-TV ones suck). But stop attacking The Alphabet Murders because it's not what you expect from Poirot. Just enjoy.

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Poirot in a different light..., 4 November 1999

Author: Chazzzzz (grok-huy@prodigy.net) from Jacksonville, Florida

Tony Randall is perfectly cast as Poirot if one was doing a comedy take-off on the Christie Hero. Anita Ekberg & Robert Morley do well, but it's the very familiar and delightful Margaret Rutherford (and Stringer Davis) who give this good picture a boost! I went with the comedy and found this rare effort smashingly well done. Recommended highly for those who like comedy with their Christie. A 9 from me.

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Distance, 4 March 2006
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

I'm quirky about Christie mysteries, so take this comment with caution. Most viewers seem to think this a failed comedy, a poor "Pink Panther," and I liked it.

First, the form of the thing: in key plot elements, it is a rather close adaptation of a Christie book where a murderer "tells a story" in his murders in order to throw the police off. So it begins by being a story about fooling the detective inside another story (the movie) about trying to fool us as detectives.

The clue is about words. As a mystery, it is one of the clever explorations that Agatha had, looking at every way she could legally twist the convention of the form.

The tone of the thing is what is at issue. Peter Sellers had just had a hit with "Pink Panther" as a bumbling French detective and Poirot inherits some of this. Christie intended for him to be comic in a pompous way, and to varying degrees played with the tension between his genteel buffoonery and his sharp mechanical mind. It was not a simple joke, because her goal in part was to both describe and comment on how such an interesting mind would work.

She explored this indirectly by describing his manner, his minor superstitions, his attention to domestic ritual, the vanity of the perfect phrase, whether as a thought or a courtesy. She couldn't do that with Marple, who was as sharp but whose mind and manner was crass and impolite.

So part of the game for me in watching film versions is in how the adapter treats the relationship with the viewer so far as the mystery proper. There are all sorts of narrative mechanics that are involved there than aren't worth mentioning now. The other part is in how the mind of the detective is portrayed, and since we can only see the mind through the story (as I just said) and in the person's manner, that manner is key.

I think I liked this Poirot better than any of the others. They're all comic in one way or another, and this one seems further in tone from what was written. It is, but it may be closer in intent even though its in a context of Jerry Lewis slapstick.

Consider this: in mystery your mind and the detective's are supposed to parallel each other in important ways. In creating a version of the story -- the truth -- despite attempts to force it others wise, you both do this. So in fact, you create the world itself in a way. Some of the basic mechanics are frozen in life as in the genre, but others are completely open for you both to make: matters of how clever fate is, how comic are the wheels of nature, how inevitable is justice, what justice means, how conscience and consequence matter.

If the filmmaker can harmonize the tone of what you as viewer see and create in your own mind of the world, with what your surrogate the detective does, then he has succeeded and you can enter the movie whole.

This movie seems trivial. I think it is all but impossible to see. But it succeeds with its Poirot where no other attempt does.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Good for a few laughs, 24 January 2005

Author: karyn_springston from United States

I agree that this movie is NOT to be taken seriously! But it is well worth the time if you like over the top characters. I enjoyed the movie BECAUSE you weren't supposed to take it seriously. Tony Randall does a wonderful job being so fussy. I enjoy Dame Agatha and I feel that she MADE the detective an over the top character. He had SO many faults! He was vain, fussy, a slave to his stomach, and generally very much more than he is ever portrayed in the movies. I love David Suchet in the role, but I do feel that Tony Randall tried to do something with the role that no one else has and that is to try to give him the eccentricities that Dame Agatha gave him. I know that this bothers many, but it is truer to the actual character that he was created with in the books. But I feel that the books themselves are meant to be taken lightheartedly.

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Acquired taste for Christie fans, 8 February 2006

Author: filoshagrat from Scotland

Being one of the more elusive films this side of the pond, The Alphabet Murders delivers no more or less than expected (hence the 5/10). But I think you have to ask yourself why your watching it before you condemn it. Christie purists are up in arms, Randall fans defend him, yadda yadda yadda. Personally, I got it for the all too brief Dame Margaret. That said, there's little else to say about it.

Tony Randal is an acquired taste as Poirot, almost getting up your nose with an abysmal accent and acting as if he's the only one with grey cells, and overdoing that. The constant referring of him as a 'short' Belgian is the biggest mystery, as he's taller than most in the film. Poor Robert Morley tries his best, but the tedium of the film mainly comes from the rather repetitive score. Plotwise it doesn't really test the viewer, but enough is happening to keep you guessing. 30 seconds of Margaret Rutherford and spouse puts a much needed grin on the face, but it's not enough by far.

Certainly one to add to the collection, but don't rush for it at the garage sale. Overall, a huge waste of talent. Pity.

Oh, and a reviewer thinks Finney's Poirot was a masterpiece? Yeah. Right.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Up there with Peter Sellers' Clouseau!, 29 October 2000
Author: SanDiego from The Beach

Frank Tashlin's "The Alphabet Murders" is precisely that. Not Agatha Christie. The film is a work of cinema and therefore not obligated to any other medium or versions. Are there really people out there that still don't realize that film is a separate entity and should always...ALWAYS...be judged as a separate piece of work? First of all this is a comedy: Tashlin...Randall. Get it??? If the film had been made with Jerry Lewis (often directed by Tashlin) would that have driven the point more? If it had been made animated with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd (often directed by Tashlin) would that have driven the point? THIS IS NOT CHRISTIE...IT'S A #*^))^%$#&%@ SPOOF!!!!!!!! Apparently some are missing a few little grey cells too many!!!! Now. With that said. Tony Randall and company are a hoot. Tashlin is a hoot. This film (shot in cool hip black and white with a French musical score) is a hoot and a tribute to French comedy, English comedy, Christie, and comedy in general. I would rank this film up there with Peter Sellers' Clouseau. If only all the Christie films were this fun.

---

Modernity of public bathes, 14 November 2007
Author: carvalheiro from Portugal

"The alphabet murders" (1965) directed by Frank Tashlin as comedy from a novel of Aghata Christie is also with a comic style of marching on the streets from the main character, who accompanied the Londonian adventure and in an ironic scene for instance the Turkish baths are epicenter of a plot to kill Poirot by a nymph. In which the dramatic situation inside remembers a slapstick of incapacity for the potential capability of the plot, as ugly made in it.

Another scene also gave us Miss Marple for a momentous short while, apparently in a wrongly entry at the police station, when just in this moment detective Poirot is just crossing ways with her own path, but coming out without a too much kind of such usual turn back and traditional good acquaintance. Only in a static and phlegmatic way of suspicious neutrality and her quite mistrusting this coincidence as also concurrence in a given troubled lady vanishing fake affair, the nymph of the bath, as she snubbing him on the entry stairs at metropolitan police.

Tashlin made almost a mechanical option of the small things and tricks of everyday, on a daily chronicle of domestic and urban high criminality, with some private and public jokes in an old and innovative style of comic direction, near the satyr of academic's policy and concerning protection for such an imperial civility before stupidity of that time. The edited way of these small episodes and sketches in this story of the movie is of a great liability as well as its decoration mainly in interiors by night, namely in the party where hooliganism before the letter and embarrassment for such a luxury and eroticism as smell of the status there.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history