The Alphabet Murders (1965) User Reviews

A different kind of Hercule Poirot than I was used to

[AlsExGal · 6/10 · 2 March 2019]

Based on Agatha Christie's "The A.B.C. Murders", with Tony Randall as an unlikely choice for Hercule Poirot. If you take your Christie seriously, this probably isn't for you, but it is a fun light mystery. Poirot is in London when a string of murders peaks his interest--the only motive seems to be the initials of the victims..A.A., B.B., etc. I enjoyed the pairing of Robert Morley and Randall. Morley, as the official assigned to escort Poirot about town, spends most of his time playing catch-up with calm exasperation..very British. Although some Poirot portrayals feature a humorous side, this one includes more physical comedy..perhaps an inspiration of director Frank Tashlin, who directed numerous Jerry Lewis films.

For the Miss Marple fans, there is even a humorous cameo by Margaret Rutherford and Stringer Davis, bemoaning the ineptitude of the police in solving the murders. Evidently, Ms Christie didn't like this movie--I don't know if it was the changes from the book (Anita Ekberg's character was a dark, tr oubled man in the book..) or the casting, but of course, she didn't like the Margaret Rutherford series either..go figure. Although Randall isn't who I think of when I think of Poirot, his comedic timing payed off here, and you know from the very start he intends to have fun with the role. Not my favorite Christie, but entertaining..glad I finally got to see it.

Comedy first, mystery next

[JuguAbraham · 6/10 · 12 February 2003]

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."

It's a poor adaptation.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 4/10 · 27 May 2023]

Poirot investigates a series of deaths, the only link seems to be the sequence of the victim's initials, Albert Aachen's death is closely followed by Betty Barnard's.

I think it's fair to say that it's perhaps not a film that's universally loved by Christie fans, and watching it just after completing the novel, I have to say I don't think it was a good translation.

As I started watching it, I kept on thinking to myself, how on Earth could they do this to an Agatha Christie novel, and not just any novel, but one of her best, then I spot the much loved Miss Marple and Mr Stringer, the glorious Dame Margaret Rutherford and her real life husband, and I think, well the humour in her four movies worked so well, why didn't that humour work here.

In the four Miss Marple films, the humour is tongue in cheek, it's far from subtle, but Rutherford's character is lovable, sadly Randall's Poirot simply wasn't, I personally didn't like the accent, and I didn't find him visually right for the part.

Maurice Denham must have wondered what he'd ventured into, he adds a degree of credibility, but sadly the central characters don't help the cause. I can't help wondering if Rutherford's appearance was more so out of desperation.

I've never been surprised to learn that Christie didn't like the film, sadly it just isn't particularly good, it doesn't work as a mystery, it certainly doesn't work as a comedy either, I'm sad to say it, but getting through it was an effort.

4/10.

Agatha Christie didn't like this film and for good reason

[blanche-2 · 9 October 2011]

I suppose somewhere along the line, Agatha Christie took a deep breath and just decided to take the money and run. "The Alphabet Murders" is cute, but it doesn't have much to do with her novel, and if there is a worse Hercule Poirot than Tony Randall, I haven't met him.

The story concerns murders that seem to follow the alphabet, as Poirot pursues a beautiful blonde (Anita Ekberg) with the initials ABC, believed to be the killer. There are a lot of chase scenes and some slapstick, and poor Robert Morley as Hastings trying to keep track of Poirot.

This film was intended to follow up on the success of the Miss Marple movies starring Margaret Rutherford - in fact, Rutherford as Marple and her real-life husband, Stringer Davis, who plays her friend in the films, actually appear in one scene. While Rutherford's characterization has nothing to do with the Christie Miss Marple, it was successful on its own merits. The same can be said for the Hercule Poirot of Peter Ustinov -- absolutely delightful but has nothing to do with Christie's character.

I have seen Albert Finney, David Suchet, Ustinov, and Ian Holm do Poirot. Finney was very good, Suchet perfection, Ustinov discussed above, and Holm very funny (he plays Poirot in "Murder by the Book" as he reads Christie's final novel about himself). Randall does the role with a light touch, but with several different accents - French, British, and American. He has Poirot's vanity and arrogance as well. Perhaps seeing this film when it was made, his performance comes off as better, but seeing it today after a history of better Poirots, it just doesn't come off, though Randall was a wonderful actor.

The script isn't as good as the Rutherford scripts. Still, "The Alphabet Murders" is enjoyable enough. Just don't read the book, and forget it's Agatha Christie, and you'll have a good time.

Poirot Meets Clouseau

[JamesHitchcock · 2/10 · 31 March 2011]

Most cinematic or television adaptations of Agatha Christie's crime fiction are serious in intention, remaining faithful to the spirit of her work even if the details of her plots are sometimes altered. "The Alphabet Murders", unusually, is ostensibly based on the plot of a Christie novel but treats it as a comedy. The film is little-known today; indeed, I had never heard of it until I recently caught it on television. It features one of Christie's two best-known characters, the Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. (The other one, Miss Marple, makes a brief cameo appearance in the person of Margaret Rutherford).

Poirot is confronted by a serial killer who appears to be working his, or her, way through the alphabet; the first victim is named Albert Aachen, the second Betty Barnard, and so on. The most likely suspect is a young woman named Amanda Beatrice Cross, with the significant initials ABC, who appears to have mental health issues; Poirot has to decide whether Amanda really is the killer and, if so, whether someone else is manipulating her. There is also a running joke about Rufus Hastings, a British Foreign Office official, who is continually trying to persuade Poirot to leave the country for his own safety, and Poirot's refusal to do so. (In the original novels Poirot had a sidekick named Hastings, the Watson to his Holmes, but his Christian name was Arthur and he did not work for the Foreign Office).

When the film was recently shown on television, the reviewer for one newspaper compared it to a mixture of Agatha Christie and a Carry On film. There is some truth in that comparison, as the Carry On films, when they were not relying on bawdiness, obtained a lot of their humour from parodying other films or film genres. ("Carry On Cowboy", for example, sends up the Western, long before Mel Brooks had that particular idea). The idea of parodying the Christie-style whodunit is in itself a good one; the genre is, after all, a hidebound, formulaic one which offers plenty of targets to the satirist. Unfortunately, "The Alphabet Murders" just does not work as a comedy.

Besides the "Carry On" films an obvious influence on the film was Blake Edwards's "The Pink Panther" from a couple of years earlier. The film-makers seem to have conceived Poirot, another Francophone detective, as the equivalent of Peter Sellers's Inspector Clouseau, and the part was originally intended for the American comedian Zero Mostel. Unfortunately, Mostel was unable to take the part which went to Tony Randall who, on this evidence, does not appear to have shared Sellers's comedic talents. Admittedly, he receives little assistance from a singularly unfunny script and is reduced to repeating catch-phrases like "leetle grey cells" in a foreign accent in an attempt to raise laughs. One might have thought that Robert Morley, who often played pompous, self-satisfied characters, might have made something of the pompous, self-satisfied bureaucrat Hastings, but even he does not contribute much.

The film does not work either as a murder mystery or as a comedy; it is too silly, and the plot too confusing and difficult to follow, for it to succeed as the former, and the attempts at humour too leaden for it to succeed as the latter. The obscurity into which it has fallen since 1965 is well-deserved. It is notable that subsequent actors to play Poirot, such as Albert Finney and Peter Ustinov in films from the seventies and eighties, and David Suchet in the more recent television series, have taken the character more seriously. 2/10

Possibly the worst book adaptation ever

[mama-sylvia · 1/10 · 22 April 2006]

I don't know why the producers purchased the book rights; other than a few character names, there is NO resemblance to Agatha Christie's taut suspense story. Hercule Poirot, famous for exercising only his little grey cells, leaps about and crawls under barriers. His faithful sidekick Hastings has become an inept security agent, from whom Poirot continually escapes. Poirot actually meets the intended victims except for the first one. Tony Randall does a rather good job playing this miserable excuse for Poirot, which isn't necessarily a compliment. The story and resolution are completely changed, and not for the better. If you're an Agatha Christie fan, pass this one by.

Good for a few laughs

[karyn_springston · 7/10 · 24 January 2005]

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.

Not-So-Swinging Sixties Poirot

[profh-1 · 3/10 · 19 March 2011]

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.)

Better than some

[rye-bread · 6/10 · 3 April 2011]

The Wikipedia article speaks of the movie makers as going for comedy. I would say this was not the most well-advised decision. I first saw this in high school, when it came to TV a year or so after its release. We were studying Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot in English class. So I was psyched to see the flick.

It was a moderate disappointment. It looked like they tried to make Poirot slightly buffoonish. It looked like they tried to modernize the flick. It looked like…dare I say it? It looked like camp. Moicy. One of the besetting sins of the 1960's cinematically (I think) was we all were postmodern and pretentious, and time-honored movies and stories were passé. This came off looking like a Rock Hudson / Doris Day flick in a way.

I like Tony Randall. I like Robert Morley. Anita Eckberg ain't too bad. But it isn't classic Poirot. The adaptation of the book to the Brit TV series Agatha Christie's Poirot with David Suchet…that's classic Christie; and classic Poirot.

A silly comic of on of Agatha Christies novel

[nutolm · 2/10 · 3 September 2009]

I think this is one of the worst versions of an Agatha Christies novel, bad actors, and a really stupid plot and presentation. The comic performances dosn't fit at all in the book I have read - there is no more to say, I'm very disappointed. Bad movie. Tony Randall make a terrible portrait of the superb detective Hercule Poirot - I have seen his version by David Suchet in the 90s - that a very good performance. And the Swedish Anita Ekberg, I almost put away my beer when I saw her presence. Okay, great body, blond and Scandinavian - but she can't act. What pleasure me most was the cameo of Margaret Rutherford, when I've seen her earlier as Miss Jane Marple, she is really great, so I gave one point for her too - nothing more to say...

Leonard.

Good Comic Film, but not "THE ABC MURDERS"

[theowinthrop · 8/10 · 24 January 2006]

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.

A mixed bag

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 3 January 2012]

OK, at first it's difficult for the viewer to adjust to the (mis)casting of Tony Randall as Hercule Poirot; not only does he not resemble the character physically, but his portrayal seems closer to Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau than to a brilliant detective. Furthermore, the movie gets the Poirot-Hastings relationship completely wrong for at least two thirds of the way (they're supposed to be friends, not antagonists!), and some of the comedy in the early scenes is painful, so it wouldn't be surprising if many viewers wished that Margaret Rutherford's Miss Marple, who has a highly amusing cameo giving a priceless look of disbelief to Randall's Poirot, actually took over the whole case herself! Luckily, the comedy gets somewhat toned down in the second half, as Agatha Christie's classic mystery plot takes over; for all the changes and additions of the adaptation, the central idea - a brilliant one - remains, and overall, the film has a great story that survives its sometimes heavy-handed treatment. Ron Goodwin's music score may not be as immediately catchy as his work for the Marple films, but it improves the more you listen to it - just as the film improves the more you watch it. **1/2 out of 4.

Acquired taste for Christie fans

[filoshagrat · 5/10 · 8 February 2006]

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.

Clearing up some errant comments

[estabansmythe · 14 March 2009]

I believe that some commentators here are a tad off base with their assumptions.

The MGM production team for The Alphabet Murders was the same as for Margaret Rutherford's Miss Marple Series, which is why she and Stringer David had cameos. Therefore, it is highly doubtful that this was director Frank Tashlin's idea as some said.

Numerous posters here said that the slapstick comedy in this film was directly inspired by Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau. Doubtful. Sellers' Pink Panther slapstick is far broader and much more plentiful. If anything ABC's slapstick is derived from Tashlin's Bugs Bunny & Jerry Lewis days but equally from Randall himself. For my money the slapstick here is uninspired and falls flat - it's completely unnecessary.

Producer Lawrence Bachman, the screen writing team of David Pursall & Jack Seddon, cinematographer Desmond Dickinson, art director William Andrews, assistant director David Tomblin and composer Ron Goodwin (unmistakable stylist) all carried on from MGM's Marple films. More than anything this is your connection and inspiration.

Aside from some totally unnecessary slapstick, The Alphabet Murders is a light fun mystery. If you like the Marple series, you'll probably like this.

Spoof?

[drew-121 · 4/10 · 15 August 2002]

Bloody awful film, save for Robert Morley.

We are asked to treat this film as a spoof. No. Murder By Death is a spoof, this is just a bad bad bad film.

The Tony Randall portrayal of Poirot was miserable and he couldn't even maintain the accent. And we all know that Poirot is Belgian, he tells us often enough, so why were we bombarded with the frenchesque soundtrack?

a dash of Clouseau

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 24 March 2019]

Famed Belgian investigator Hercule Poirot (Tony Randall) is in London having quitted smoking and gaining a few pounds. British secret agent Hastings (Robert Morley) has been assigned to be his protection. Amanda Beatrice Cross (Anita Ekberg) confronts him claiming to have already killed starting with AA, a clown named Albert Aachen.

This Poirot is played with much more comedy. It's like they mixed him up with a bit of Clouseau. The Pink Panther was pretty successful at the time and I can see the reason for the attempt. It's definitely stuck in the middle. It's not funny despite the effort. Tony Randall is a comedic great but Peter Sellers' Clouseau is an icon. When the jokes fail, the pacing becomes off and the story drags. I'm still interested in the central mystery. I don't hate Randall's performance although I have no stakes in the character. I'm not an obsessive Poirot fan or even a big Agatha Christie fan. As for the central question with every comedy, I did not laugh once although Miss Marple came close. That scene needs to expand into where the two investigators get into an argument over their cases. The comedy never quite gets there.

My least favorite of all the Agatha Christie films...

[Doylenf · 5/10 · 30 September 2006]

In order to get even the slightest bit of enjoyment out of THE ALPHABET MURDERS you have to forget that it's based on Agatha Christie's THE ABC MURDERS and disregard the fact that it bears only a slight resemblance to that tale.

If you can't forget, you can't forgive what they've done to a perfectly intriguing Hercule Poirot tale, first of all by casting TONY RANDALL, of all people, as Poirot. That gives you an idea of the broad comedy style the film has. I have great respect for Randall as a more than competent supporting actor in a number of very watchable films, but he's just an odd choice to play Poirot. He doesn't even get the accent right.

But that's not the only fault. Miss Christie's story is a rather far-fetched one to begin with. Here it is even more so because it's played more for farce than it is for murder and intrigue with the usual number of red herrings and suspects thrown into the mix.

Of no help at all is the fact that the supporting cast does include ROBERT MORLEY, ANITA EKBERG, and brief appearances by STRINGER DAVIS and MARGARET RUTHERFORD who describes the whole affair as, "As simple as ABC." She's wrong.

Summing up: Oddly disturbing no matter how you look at it.

Not funny enough to be a comedy, too much fun to be serious

[jmkeating · 6/10 · 13 May 2014]

I watched all the way through, partially because Tony Randall's 'Hercule Poirot' was so different from others I've seen; Hastings played by Robert Morley too was not the 'standard character' for the role. Many times he mentioned his 'little grey cells' but didn't seem to be using them until... The whole of the film contained the odd 'funny bit' that took away the idea that it was a serious investigation. On the other hand there were not enough to keep the spectator laughing throughout. At one point there is a 'gun waving moment' where the way the gun's used doesn't really provide protection. So it was fun to watch but perhaps not for serious Hercule Poirot fans.

A is for Asleep

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 3/10 · 24 March 2019]

Plenty of reviewers have pointed out that Tony Randall seems to have turned Poirot into Clousseau. I'm going to suggest he's doing Poirot as Jacques Tati in Mon Oncle or Monsier Hulot's Holiday. In any event, it's less funny then either of those celebrated ''French" characters. And I was too aggravated by Randall's try-hard act (and poor grasp of his accent) to care whether he solved the murder mystery. the more Tony Randall movies I see the more I realize that his true calling was television, where he was unparalleled.

Watchable stab at Poirot

[cherold · 6/10 · 1 August 2020]

Like the series of Margaret Rutherford Miss Marple films, The Alphabet Murders (written by the folks behind the Marple movies) tries to remake Christie's cerebral whodunit into an action comedy. It's not Christie, and it's a mess, but it does have its moments.

After a pointless fourth-wall crash in the beginning, the movie follows Hercules Poirot, played by Tony Randall, as he investigates a series of London murders involving the alphabet, guarded by a British secret service agent played by Robert Morley and trying to run down the mysterious Anita Ekberg.

Randall is not as bad as I'd heard as Poirot, but he lacks the charisma of Rutherford's Miss Marple. The movie is sometimes funny and occasionally even mildly clever. The story moves at a decent clip. And as with the Rutherford movies, the elegant whodunit at the heart of the story has been completely messed up, resulting in a disappointing denouement that makes far less sense than it should.

I avoided this movie for years because I heard it was terrible, but it's not, really. It's not as good as the two best Rutherford movies (Murder She Said/Murder Most Foul) but it's probably as good or even better than the other two.

I wouldn't go out of my way to watch this, but it's not as bad as I'd heard, so points for that.

Second-banana Tony Randall miscast in comedic mystery...

[moonspinner55 · 4/10 · 8 July 2016]

Tony Randall has played so many uptight neighbors or dryly acerbic sidekicks that it takes a few moments for him and director Frank Tashlin to suspend our disbelief at the prospect of Tony playing master detective Hercule Poirot! Randall certainly gives the role a good try, but the improbability of his casting--coupled with a dissatisfying screenplay, from Agatha Christie's book "The A.B.C. Murders"--makes the film a forgettable experience. The Belgian sleuth investigates a baffling serial murder case in London, surrounded by peculiar characters. Fine supporting cast including Robert Morley, Anita Ekberg and, in a bit, Margaret Rutherford helps, and the production is stylish, but the mystery plot isn't absorbing. Curiosity item is mostly a misfire. ** from ****

Poirot in a different light...

[Chazzzzz · 9/10 · 4 November 1999]

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.

Such a waste of time and talent.

[rogerd8235 · 4/10 · 24 March 2019]

Contrived, forced to be funny comedic murder mystery falls short after the first two minutes. Ridiculous low budget with obvious goofs and miscues throughout.

A total and utter travesty of the book .

[lorenellroy · 1 September 2004]

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 .