Watch The Alphabet Murders For Free

People are voting emotionally.

i must have seen a different film!!

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

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.

"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.

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.

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.