Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

PodBill Just what I expected

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Henry Kujawa CBS updated a number of Agatha Christie classics for TV in the 1980s, probably to keep costs down. The results were mixed; this one, based on "THREE ACT TRAGEDY", is actually one of the better ones, and by a MILE the best of the 3 Hercule Poirot TV-movies with Peter Ustinov.Unlike the previous 2, Poirot is not constantly mugging for the camera, and Hastings comes across as far less of a brainless idiot. I know this sounds like faint praise, but please bear with me.One of the problems with CBS' TV-movies is in nearly every case, if you read the opening credits, you already know who the murderer is, because they're the one who get SECOND BILLING. The 4 Brabourne-Goodwin feature films were all stellar, big-budget affairs with ALL-STAR casts, and the killers (sometimes more than one per story) could hide in plain sight. For CBS, this one, at least, manages to have some actual "name" actors in the cast (for a change!). Among them, Emma Samms ("DYNASTY" and "THE COLBYS"), Pedro Armendariz Jr. ("LICENSE TO KILL"), Dana Elcar ("DARK SHADOWS"), Diana Muldaur ("McCLOUD", "STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION", "L.A. LAW"), Concetta Tomei ("CHINA BEACH", "MADMAN OF THE PEOPLE"), Nicholas Pryor (an endless resume of roles, including "THE GUMBALL RALLY")... oh, yeah, and Tony Curtis.This film also managed to have some genuinely picturesque locations, some very interesting twists, a moment where (if you're paying attention) HALF the plot suddenly makes perfect sense (it ties in directly with the story's title, when someone mentions, "a DRESS REHEARSAL"), and a nice summation at the end. During this, Curtis give an excellent performance which ranges from tense to exceedingly good-natured.Had CBS continued at this level of quality, I might not have minded. All the same, it was quite a relief for me when Peter Ustinov was next seen in "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH", a real "return to form"... although for reasons that remain baffling to me, the quality of THAT film somehow managed to be ghastly compared to his first 2 Poirot feature-films.

musicmike702 ........it could have passed as an episode of "Murder She Wrote" in the 80's. They could have made the movie with her in the lead and it would have played just Murder She wrote. Jessica solved mysteries sort of like Poirot does here and this movie was populated with B-movie TV stars like most of the Jessica Fletcher eps. Marian Mercer-Frances Lee McCain-Diana Muldaur and Dana Elcar.What was the point of trying to update Poirot to the 80's? Were Agatha Christie's stories not elegant and well written enough that a movie could have been made of the original story instead of set in the 80's.Tony Curtis? What a bad acting job--although I'm not sure he was really ever any better than this--sort of hamming it up as he did in most of his roles. Sorry, Tony. I'm sure you're a nice guy.The only saving grace was watching Peter Ustinov do his thing--but sadly, doesn't make the worth watching. Good thing I got it from my local library and it didn't cost me any money.

Lechuguilla This is a fine movie. Watching Peter Ustinov play Poirot is always a treat. The dialogue between him and Hastings provides adequate humor. And the Agatha Christie whodunit puzzle is fairly good.The film suffers though when compared to two previous Ustinov films: "Death On The Nile", and "Evil Under The Sun", both of which were grand and stately big-budget theatrical productions. By contrast, "Murder In Three Acts" is a made-for-TV movie, and therefore seems small and cheap. The scenery, the music, and the casting cannot compete.Further, the suspects in "Murder In Three Acts" seem too "normal"; there are no really eccentric characters. The women especially seem bland and undifferentiated.Still, if you can avoid the temptation to compare this film to other Hercule Poirot films, as well as Christie's source novel, the movie "Murder In Three Acts" is still entertaining.

ChrisHawk78 Where has the elegance of earlier Christie adoptions gone? I watched this movie not long after reading the book which is possibly not one of the greater works of Agatha Christie but its adaption would certainly have deserved a better treatment. Gary Nelson (famous for a number of pretty good TV series) and Scott Swanton made it a true `Three Act Tragedy'.First Tragedy: The Setting The original story is set in England and on the Riviera. It seems that Acapulco was chosen to return to magnificent settings as known from `Death on the Nile' and `Appointment with Death' or `Evil under the Sun'. However this goes wrong in this movie as the locations are nowhere near as picturesque as in those earlier films. Having Cartwright and Poirot flying back to Los Angeles after the first murder make the whole film look really American (which, alas, it is). The Riviera, as in the book, seems to me a much more likely setting for the great retired detective and a knighted actor.Second Tragedy: The People Captain Arthur Hastings (evidently used instead of the character Satterthwaite) has lost his title and obviously moved from Argentine and is surrounded by a lot of Americans. To make Sir Charles Cartwright and American actor takes a lot of character from the original person. There is no real reason for having Dr. Strange changing his his first name from Bartholmew `Tollie' to Wallace and Angela Sutcliffe becoming Stafford in the book. With Captain Freddie and Cynthgia Dacres it seems more obvious to me. Dayton, forgive my being a snob, is certainly more easy a name for Americans. Same with Hermione Lytton Gore and Lady Mary Lytton Gore. They became Jennifer (thank god they kept the `Egg') and Daisy Eastman. They did not only change the names with Oliver Manders Murial Wills / Anthony Astor but also their characters. For Manders was not really the playboy type and Wills was a much sharper yet shy lookingcreature in the book. Ricardo Montoya therefore seems more suitable and Janet Crisp / Martin Bloodall sounds much more sensational. Apart from Hercule Poirot, Reverend and Mrs Babbington as well as Miss Milray seemed the only people who where allowed to be what they are in the original story.Third Tragedy: The Actors To begin with, Sir Peter Ustinov, once a remarkable (if not quite true to the book) Poirot is reduced here to an old man, without any real elegance left (In L.A. we find him lying on a sofa with a cardigan and ruffled hair L ). Jonathan Cecil gives his usually poor and bumbling performance as Hastings and is not even left his title. (Same as in "Thirteen at Dinner" and "Dead Man's Folly") One should have expected somewhat more inspired acting from Tony Curtis. AC's Cartwright was elegant, interesting and cunning actor. He used to change his bearing in different situations. He also was a "young boy" deeply in love with Egg. Tony Curtis reduces him to an aging playboy with a distinct lack of drive. Lee McCain, Emma Samms, Fernando Allende certainly do not appear to be giving all they could and Diana Muldaur, Nicholas Pryor, Lisa Eichhorn and Marian Mercer are a very mediocre supporting cast. Concetta Tomei, an otherwise known theatre actress could have done much better. Dana Elcar, Philip Guilmant and Jacqueline Evans are not worth mentioning (That may partly be due to their short screen time).I have seriously tried to find something positive about this film but I did not quite succeed. What is the point in using the correct card game (`My family') with which Poirot makes houses while he considers the case when nothing else seems to ring true. Where is the point in changing names and places, giving the whole movie an American TV-series look. Why not film it in the old fashioned style? Perhaps Warner Brothers did not consider it necessary to spend more money on AC. If they had they could have made it a success. At least they left the basic storyline unchanged.