Neil Doyle
The dazzling Acapulco settings for the home of movie star Charles Cartwright (TONY CURTIS) provide a lavish look to the start of this made-for-TV version of one of Christie's most fascinating stories. But not only does PETER USTINOV look bored with his role as Hercule Poirot, but so does Tony Curtis as an aging playboy living in swank splendor in a gorgeous home with his movie star photos plastered on the living room wall. He manages to be amiable, that's all, instead of developing an interesting character.But although this is an underwhelming presentation of the story, it's still a good enough vehicle to keep the viewer tuned in to the developing plot after a seemingly motiveless first murder occurs. The murder of the second victim (DANA ELCAR) happens during a dinner party and from that point on the clever plot will keep you guessing until the unexpected outcome.Summing up: Passes the time pleasantly, but could have been better acted and scripted. None of the supporting cast, played mostly by an assortment of television players, have characters worth remembering or caring about and that is the fatal flaw of this version. The book is a "must read" for Christie fans and suffers from all the changes made, as well as the sub-par performances from Ustinov and Curtis.
TheLittleSongbird
Murder In Three Acts certainly isn't terrible, but compared to Death On the Nile and Evil under The Sun, it has a certain blandness to it. That I can understand because it is a TV film, so would be limited in budget in comparison. There is some lavish scenery, costumes and locations, and the acting is good on the whole. Peter Ustinov certainly seems to be enjoying himself as the dapper detective, while Tony Curtis, Lisa Eichlorn and Emma Samms give able support. Jonathan Cecil is wonderfully naive as Hastings as well. However despite a good cast, and the lovely production values, the film does have a number of failings. One was the script, badly underdeveloped in places, and bore little resemblance to the book, which is brilliant by the way, I suggest you read it. There are numerous plot changes too, even characters's names were changed, Hermione Lytton Gore's name was changed to Jennifer for some obscure reason, and Bartholemew Strange's portrayal wasn't at all what I imagined. And I did think the murders were clumsily handled. However, there are a number of redeeming qualities, it is very entertaining and enjoyable, but isn't like the book. 7/10 Bethany Cox
JackStallion
I love Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot. Forget all those other phonies who've tried to fill his shoes! Including that ridiculous Murder on the Orient Express, or that laughable David Sachet! His sly, lovable demeanor rivals any of the great actors playing detectives- Peter Falk as Columbo, etc. He has a wonderful way of gaining the confidence and trust of each of his suspects, while probing them for information. You never really know who he suspects, and that's the fun of the mystery. He guides you through the maze like true detective. I have seen each of his delicious portrayals as the great, Belgian detective several times, and they just get better with age.
Lawson
Watching a less-engaging Agatha Christie movie adaptation is like watching an extended episode of Murder, She Wrote. Like Hercule Poirot, Jessica Fletcher is a walking crime magnet, making you wonder if the world wouldn't be a safer place for the rest of us if people like them were put away for good.Agatha Christie movies often host a potpourri of stars to be the suspects. Sometimes they're a mix of renowned actors, like Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Ingrid Bergman et al, in 1974's Murder on the Orient Express; and sometimes, like in Murder in Three Acts, they're a mix of actors you vaguely recall seeing on some TV show or other, like Emma Samms from Dynasty and Diana Muldaur from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Though the former makes for a more attractive package, even when they're the latter, they usually still turn out to be decent viewing, as this movie is.
AD
