Murder in Three Acts

Ustinov is great, as always, but the movie is your basic made-for-TV fare. The setting is changed from the novel. I think this really hurt the production. You feel more like your watching an episode of "The Love Boat" than an Agatha Christie mystery. The plot is pretty decent, but it feels as if the cast is just going through the motions. And in my opinion, being that many of the stars just seem to have small parts, I find it's rather easy to spot the murderer. Still, it makes sense and everyone does a decent job with what's there, but I'd def. like to see this remade, esp. with David Suchet. Still, not bad for an afternoon's viewing.

I cannot say the same about this film. Poirot dotters about...Hastings is a wimp! Quite frankly, the whole thing put me to sleep. Read the book instead.

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.

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

"Murder in Three Acts" starts off rather poorly: the updating of the action to the 80's takes some getting used to, Hastings is portrayed as too much of a buffoon, and even Peter Ustinov himself seems to be hamming it up a bit too much in his first scenes. However, he gets more serious later on, and his climactic verbal reconstruction of the crimes is as delightful as ever - I just love the way he emphasizes certain words. The plot itself is quite clever - it begins with an apparently motiveless murder that turns out to be part of a grander scheme. For a TV movie, "Murder in Three Acts" has rather high production values: the Acapulco locations are beautiful, the houses and the hotels are lavish. But the cast cannot compare with those of Ustinov's theatrical Poirot outings, and most of the characters are very poorly defined. Still, if you are a mystery fan, this one is just about worth having in your collection. (**1/2)