Os Crimes do Alfabeto

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."

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.

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.

Awful film version of Agatha Christie's detective novel with Randall, in one of the finest cases of miscasting, as Dame Agatha's famous Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot. Randall doesn't even have the timing and flair of the author's creation, while co-star Robert Morley would have made a fine detective, but... instead, we have Randall. The film is directed by cartoon giant Frank Tashlin who makes this film a bit too cartoony. There seems to be more humor than mystery and more of Randall's schtick than Poirot's ingenuity. Disappointing all over.

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.