TheLittleSongbird Ever since the age of 11, I've been an Agatha Christie fan. I always find the stories, characters and how she writes very clever and interesting, and when translated well to television or film it can be very diverting. Most of the time her books have translated well, evident with the Russian film version of And Then There Were None(the 1945 version too), Death on the Nile or Evil Under the Sun with Peter Ustinov or the David Suchet adaptations of After the Funeral, Wasp's Nest, Sad Cypress and Five Little Pigs. But that is not the case with all, the 1989 film Ten Little Indians, Suchet's Taken At the Flood and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Lord Edgware Dies with Austin Trevor, At Bertram's Hotel and Sittaford Mystery with Geraldine McEwan and Why Didn't They Ask Evans with Julia McKenzie proved to be disappointments both as adaptations and on their own merits.I'd say that The Alphabet Murders is not as bad as the above disappointments, but unfortunately I do have to class it with the adaptations that didn't work. And I am going to make an effort to judge it on its own merits, as any adaptation of a book regardless of its quality or how it's adapted is deserving of that. The book that it's based on, The ABC Murders, is a compelling read, maybe not one of Christie's masterpieces like And Then There Were None, Murder of Roger Ackroyd, Death on the Nile, A Murder is Announced and Sleeping Murder, but still great. The Alphabet Murders does have redeeming qualities. Even with films I don't care for or dislike intensely I always look for a redeeming quality or two, and any criticism I have aims to be encouraging and without condescension. The film does look good, the locations are very nice and it is well photographed. Robert Morley is a lot of fun as Hastings, and of the major roles for me he steals the film. Margaret Rutherford is also a sheer delight, but you do wish she had more to do. Anita Ekberg is visually very striking and does what she can with her femme-fatale-like(well kind of) role.Sadly, Tony Randall's Poirot doesn't work, for some people he will have done, but not for me. Considering that Poirot is the main character, this is a major debit. If I were to ignore for a second that he was physically wrong for the character(too tall and thin for one thing), his accent is never consistent, and to the extent that at times I didn't have a clue of what accent he was trying to pull off. And it seemed that he was playing for laughs, within the film it may have worked, but considering the genre and the actual story itself it was jarring, the subtlety and intelligence of Poirot was gone. The worst Poirot? If Austin Trevor's interpretation didn't exist, I'd say that Randall would be. Disappointing also was Ron Goodwin's score, Goodwin's style was instantly recognisable and really elevated the Rutherford Miss Marple films(in particular it was the best thing about Murder Ahoy!). For my tastes though, it was too chirpy in tone and repetitive, adding nothing to the atmosphere.The way The Alphabet Murders was written also fell flat. Instead of being absorbing, the story felt too tediously placed and meandering. The great mystery is severely lacking in suspense and atmosphere, and when you watch a mystery you want to keep guessing to the very end and be surprised by the outcome, but here everything seemed too obvious. It is further hindered by the slapstick, there was too much of it, some of it seemed too dragged out, it was unnecessary and nothing came across as funny. The story and script seemed to be a mix of Agatha Christie, Inspector Clousseau and the sort of work Frank Tashlin did with his Looney Tunes cartoons. And just for the record, I very much like Clousseau and Tashlin. Some will be entertained by it, but for others they'll feel that not only was the material uninspired but the mix just didn't gel. On this one, I'm afraid I'll have to side with the latter group. Some of the dialogue between Poirot and Hastings is entertaining, especially the one about extra insurance and British railways, but the rest of the characters don't have much to work with and not much feels like Agatha Christie. Little is interesting about the characters, the support characters are reduced to stock, cardboard stereotypes and what we learn about Ekberg's character is that she's sexy and dangerous but that's pretty much it.Overall, disappointing but I do think it could have been much worse. But you're better off watching the Suchet adaptation of The ABC Murders, one of the best of the ITV Poirot series. I can understand it if people liked this, as what didn't work for me will work for them, but while I am not one to attack an adaptation for not being like the source material it is understandable also if purists will dislike this. 4/10 Bethany Cox

rye-bread 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.

Neil Doyle 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.

Jugu Abraham 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."