The Alphabet Murders (1966)

Waste of time

Best movie ever!

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Blistering performances.

Some years back I was astonished to learn, decades after-the-fact, that THE ALPHABET MURDERS was actually my first introduction to Agatha Christie. I had no idea. I'd seen it on the network (one of their weekend movies, I forget which day). The only parts I could actually remember was the murder in the swimming pool, and the climb on that precarious crane. Everything else, a complete blank. I suppose that says a lot. (My first "real" Christie was DEATH ON THE NILE, which I enjoyed so much, I saw it TWICE in 2 weeks. Again, no clue, no connection that I'd ever seen "Hercule Poirot" before.) Somewhere in the mid-90's, I taped this film off TNT, and could not believe what I was seeing. There's been a lot of really wild, "crazy" films made in the mid-late 60's, in the wake of THE PINK PANTHER and A SHOT IN THE DARK, and I'd say this definitely fits in that category. The odd thing is it being in B&W. Most of those "insane" films that tended to break all the rules of storytelling were in bold Technicolor.Inspired by the reviews right here at the IMDb, and already engaged in re-watching my AC collection in its entirety, I decided to watch this again (3rd time or 4th, not quite sure). Armed with the rather surprising knowledge that this was directed by Frank Tashlin, who not only did Jerry Lewis movies but (more importantly!) BUGS BUNNY and other WB cartoons, I figured I'd give this another shot with a more open mind.Well, there's good and bad. LOTS of bad (which many others have pointed out), so let me start with that. Tony Randall is all wrong for the part, he's too tall and thin, and he's doing a French accent, not Belgian (which suggests he watched Peter Sellers for research). Ron Goodwin's "French" music is repetitive to the point of annoyance, which is a shame, considering how much I enjoyed his work in the 4 MISS MARPLE movies (all of which I just finished watching again, and all of which have GOTTEN BETTER on repeat viewings). Something no one else has mentioned, it makes NO SENSE for Hastings to be working for the British Secret Service, OR be concerned with "protecting" Poirot and wanting to keep him safe by getting him out of the country and back to Belgium, by force if necessary. This was the kind of "joke" they used to do in McCLOUD stories when he was out of his territory. But Poirot LIVES in England, not Belgium! This entire "subplot" distracts terribly from the plot, and help to make a confusing story almost impossible to follow. The whole sense of wild, crazy, frenetic storytelling, because of an INEPT script, makes trying to follow the plot a waste of time. But worse, I could easily accept a POIROT film played for laughs. IF it was funny. This ISN'T. I often say, the worst "crime" of a comedy is to NOT be funny. There are a FEW laughs here-- but only a few.The best moment in the entire film is when Miss Marple & Jim Stringer cross paths with Poirot & Hastings. Not only is she commenting on how "anyone with half a brain could figure it out", when she looks at Poirot as they pass, her SILENT glare says it all without words. An unspoken, "My God, what a BLITHERING IDIOT you are!" Perhaps that goes for the screenwriter.The look of the film is fine, the camera-work well-done and interesting. But for me, the highlight is the cast, so many wonderful characters actors I recognize from other things. Robert Morley (MURDER AT THE GALLOP-- perhaps HE should have played Poirot???), James Villiers (FOR YOUR EYES ONLY's snobbish "Chief of Staff", NO WAY I could ever believe that was Bond's "best friend" from the books), John Bennett (THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD and DOCTOR WHO's "The Talons Of Weng-Chiang"), Cyril Luckham (DOCTOR WHO's "White Guardian"), Maurice Denham (DOCTOR WHO's "The Twin Dilemma"), Julian Glover (my 2nd-favorite Bond villain in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, DOCTOR WHO's "City Of Death" and countless other English TV shows), Clive Morton (DOCTOR WHO's "The Sea Devils"), Patrick Newell ("Mother" on THE AVENGERS and DOCTOR WHO's "The Android Invasion") and even Windsor Davies (FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED, UFO and the voice of "Sergeant-Major Zero" on TERRAHAWKS!).So, yes, so much talent, but so much lacking in the script department-- the single MOST important element, which needs to be there before anything else is ever considered. It's possible George Pollock may have done better, but it would all depend if he had a say in the writing or not. Again, I'd be very interested in seeing someone actually do a comedy POIROT, if they could do it right. MURDER BY DEATH wasn't it-- and neither is this. Ah well.Oh yes-- the MOST clever part of the story (which I'm SURE was not in the novel), came up at the climax of the film-- when it was revealed that an apparent suicide WASN'T-- and, that it tied neatly in with the very BEGINNING of the film. Moments like that had me feeling the film ALMOST could have worked as a straight mystery. OR, a comedy. Instead of neither. (Just a year later, one of my favorite TV series of the 60's-- BATMAN-- often suffered from the SAME problem.)

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.

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.

Dame Agatha Christie , upon whose widely acclaimed mystery novel "The A.B,C Murders " this film is based ,was less than impressed by the movie -and indeed was so outraged that she refused permission for any further movies based on her works for some years afterwards . It is easy to see why for this limp and feeble picture retains only the basic plot premise of the book -a killer is at work and the victims appear to be chosen purely on the basis of their names .The first victim has the initials AA ,the second BB and so on . In every other respect the book is betrayed and the basic problem is a mismatch between style and content .The classic" whodunnit " is essentially an exercise in logic and ratiocination but here the style is comedic and the model seems to be the Dick lester directed Beatles movies -lots of visual jokes ,fleet footed editing and a refusal to take anything seriously ,least of all the characters .Thus we see the fastidious Poirot indulging in actions that he would never as seen by Christie ,contemplate --bowling , clambering over building sites and horse riding in Hyde Park .The motivation seems to have been to bring his character up to date and reflect the so called "swinging sixties This is a mistake -the books are period pieces and only make sense when fixed in the era they were written .A similar coarsening has taken place with the charcter of his sidekick Hastings -in the novel a stalwart if unimaginative military man he is her portrayed by the corpulent Robert Morley as a bumbling minor Espionage agent. Director Frank Tashlin made some lively satirical pictures in his time -the classic rock and roll flick " The Girl Cant Help It " and the neglected Doris Day espionage satire " Caprice " but he is simply wrong for this movie and the actors are encouraged to go over the top in playing their roles as buffoons or incompetents A disaster and a betrayal of the author .