User Reviews

Having not seen this adaptation for a very long time I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it more than I expected to. I do however have a problem with updating Poirot to the eighties - he just doesn't fit, as a character into these surroundings. It works slightly better in 'Dead Man's Folly' because the 'English country house' atmosphere is relatively timeless but in LA and Mexico the eighties intrude too much and both Poirot and Hastings seem out of place. Ustinov is entertaining as always but I continue to have problems with Jonathan Cecil as Hastings who is even more of a gormless oaf in this movie than in his previous two appearances - I wish he would put that useless notepad away! The supporting cast are all OK though no-one is particularly outstanding. To be fair though, even in the book these are not the most interesting group of Christie suspects. I thought Tony Curtis made quite a good job of Charles Cartwright but again this was not an exceptional performance. It was sensible to change (slightly) the motive for the murders - the principal motive from the book would not have been very compelling in the liberated eighties! This movie is a pleasant enough way to spend a couple of hours but I suspect that David Suchet and his team will make a better job of it when they come to make it.

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.

I love the novel "Three Act Tragedy" because it is one of the most intriguing, dynamic and vivid books of the 1930s, and the final solution is simply brilliant. This film adaptation is unusual in that, unlike David Suchet's version, it uses the original version of the novel. I mean, you won't see Charles Cartwright's love story for You here, no. Everything is different here. But this adaptation is good, because when I watched it for the first time, I was shocked, because I had already read the novel (the well-known version) and watched the movie with David Suchet. Tony Curtis plays Charles pretty well, although of course Martin Shaw's game is much more powerful and stronger. The main advantage of this film, in my opinion, is the atmosphere. It's just great, especially in the final. All in all, a great film adaptation of a great book, although I prefer the version with Suchet. 10/10

(Hercule Poirot) is one of the most ridiculous characters ever. He's indistinct, unfunny, and with (Peter Ustinov)'s performance; too dull to stand. However, I'm a mystery, 1980s, (Tony Curtes) fan, so let's watch and enjoy in spite of (Ustinov)'s (Poirot). The problem is.. I didn't find much to enjoy!

The movie is played as a play from start to finish. The title refers to "a play feel" but it doesn't necessarily need to be one! The script is a frank bore. In fact, it's a great lesson in how to not write a movie, or how to write a radio show! It enjoys showing every important event through a phone call! The scenes are crowded with dialogue that has no thrilling spirit, or any sense of humor. It deals very poorly with everyone; for instance, a character like (Hastings), (Poirot)'s assistance, didn't do or say anything to an extent where he seemed extra or mute! The direction played along and did it as a TV play. The scene turned into a stage of a theater. Thank God for the Acapulco beautiful views, through the outdoors scenes or the apartments' open windows, without them it could have been completely choking!

Aside from that, some points eat me. The biggest of them all concerns a very natural question: How come that (Poirot), played by (Ustinov), was seen during the 1930s, 3 times already, in Death on the Nile (1978), Evil Under the Sun (1982), and Appointment with Death (1988). THEN, suddenly he's in 1980s, with the same age?! So 1) (Poirot) is a vampire, and this movie didn't care to show it. 2) (Poirot) found the secret of time travel, and this movie didn't tell us how. 3) This is not (Poirot), this is his son, who happens to have the same face, body, voice, and legacy!, and the movie refuses to clear that up. 4) (Poirot) was rebooted, in contemporary time, with the same actor!, and this movie didn't give a hoot about its cinematic antecedents, or us!

The rest of these points weren't less big themselves: Why the nice music wasn't used well?! The absence of it added more poorness. Sometimes the camera is too close to (Ustinov)'s face and reactions; it's clear in moments like the one of the secret passage behind the library, or the one of catching the woman while getting rid of the poison.. etc. That was ugly, exposing the game of acting. Speaking about "exposing", look closer to the shot in which the play writer sees the tattoo on (Curtes)'s hand, while he was disguised as a waiter. He was wearing big white gloves, so how she saw it?!! Again, and at another key moment, when (Curtes) was surrendering himself to the police, watch the black mike says Hello under his foot (I heard Agatha Christie's screams from her grave at that one!). Some lines wanted to be funny to fail miserably. OH MY GOD, (Poirot)'s supposedly funny lines, including the last one, were hideous. This time, the screams were mine!

However, I can't utterly hate this movie. My first reason is (Emma Samms). Since her role in (The Colbys), which I watched it as a kid, I became a big fan. She's tender, classy, and one of the 1980s best no doubts about that. Here, I love how she lights every scene she's in, along with the soft way she moves as a ballerina. Btw, I discovered later that her mother was a real ballet dancer, and (Emma) herself trained for a while as a ballet dancer also.

The colors of the 1980s were an essential lead. I wouldn't be wrong if I said that they played their role more catchy and amusing than (Ustinov) himself! And you must appreciate the camera of the American TV apart; back then, there was a method to picture such a smooth image for everything, just to put you at ease. The outcome of all that was vivid mood that managed to be one of the movie's top merits.

Then, the best of all: (Tony Curtis). He was perfect for his role. Although I hated that the script didn't allow him to stretch some acting muscles, but he did it finely, with massive charisma, one of a kind glee, a touch of vanity, and true elegance. With all due respect to miss (Samms), I watched this movie first when I was about 14 year old, and have remembered it for years due to (Curtis) mainly.

They can, and maybe must, remake this into something more cinematic and exciting, less chatty and tedious. But it's impossible to remake (Samms)'s beauty, the 1980s colors, and - for sure - (Curtis)'s glamour.

Review - MURDER IN THREE ACTS (1986)

SPOILERS AHEAD!

The film is based on Christie's novel, THREE ACT TRAGEDY, written in 1934. The plot device is a precursor to her more famous THE A B C MURDERS, written two years later. In a sense the first book is a "dress rehearsal" for the more elaborate later one, just as those very words tip Poirot off to the nature of the murders and the character of the murderer he is seeking.

MURDER IN THREE ACTS is one of three made for television Poirot mysteries starring Peter Ustinov. He also appeared in three theatrically released films playing the famous detective.

Unfortunately, for viewers, the casting gives away the identity of the murderer. When you cast a murder mystery with one Hollywood star at the center, you can be pretty certain that character is going to be the murderer. Even with a group of stars in such a film, the highest paid star will most usually turn out to be the villain. Tony Curtis stars as a "retired" actor. In another of the three made for tv Poirots, Faye Dunaway plays an actress. In both instances their characters turn out to be the guilty ones.

MURDER IN THREE ACTS is set for the most part in Acapulco. The scenery and sets are gorgeous and a great feast for the eyes. Curtis, whose talent is limited, does a decent job. The other performers are merely adequate. At the center of course, is Ustinov's impeccably charming sleuth. Beautiful to look at, but a let down to those who know the plotting of A B C.