UNLIMITED STREAMING
WITH PRIME VIDEO
TRY 30-DAY TRIAL
Home > Comedy >

The Alphabet Murders

The Alphabet Murders (1966)

May. 17,1966
|
5.3
|
NR
| Comedy Crime Mystery

The Belgian detective Hercule Poirot investigates a series of murders in London in which the victims are killed according to their initials.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

jmkeating
1966/05/17

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.

More
Henry Kujawa
1966/05/18

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.)

More
estabansmythe
1966/05/19

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.

More
lorenellroy
1966/05/20

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 .

More