Murder in Three Acts

Having read all of the Agatha Christie books, I have to say that David Suchet was the ultimate Hercule Poirot as written by Agatha Christie. But my favorite Poirot, having nothing whatsoever to do with either Poirot or what Ms. Christie wrote, is Peter Ustinov. It always reminds me of what someone once said about Zero Mostel in "Fiddler on the Roof" - "He's fabulous...but what he does has nothing to do with Fiddler." Ustinov is a sheer delight in every way - he's funny, he's charming, he's warm, he's relaxed - all things that, frankly, Agatha's Hercule just wasn't.

"Murder in Three Acts" is a slapped together TV movie without the usual star power except for Tony Curtis and several TV actors - the gorgeous Emma Samms, who was a big TV star in the '80s, Diana Muldaur, Concetta Tomei, Dana Elcar, Nicholas Pryor, and several others. The characters have been Americanized, and though set in Acapulco, aside from a few exterior shots, you don't get much atmosphere.

Though the story is very interesting (it is, after all, based on an Agatha Christie novel), the production has a certain blandness to it. You know there's a problem when Diana Muldaur announces that she and the Tony Curtis character did "Private Lives" together. Now, I happen to be very fond of Tony Curtis - I did research for his autobiography, he's on the cover of a book I wrote, I found him a very charming man - but come on, PRIVATE LIVES? With that New York accent? I don't think so. He does, however, look really fabulous, and if you watch the scenes in his house carefully, you'll catch some fantastic photos of him on the wall.

It's an okay way to pass the time, and the plot is intriguing, Tony's Tony, Emma's beautiful and sexy, Nicholas Pryor is funny, and Ustinov is - well, he's Poirot even if he's not what Dame Agatha had in mind.

This features a top row performance contributed by Tony Curtis, and was the second Poirot movie I found to feature the inner-inner circle of Hollywood big-wigs, and their sycophantic hangers-on. This time in Acapulco, we are given "movie stars, martinis, and murder." I found this highly entertaining, though it was mildly difficult to solve.

Breathtaking vistas, another all-star cast, and fine direction by Gary Nelson (Get Smart, Get Smart Again, and Alan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold, to name but a few), make worthy contributions to this wonderful adaptation of a great Agatha Christie mystery.

All in all? This was not rated, but made for television in 1986, so I think I can safely say it is suitable for all audiences. Great Sunday afternoon/rainy day fare.

It rates a 6.7/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Poirot using a pc?

THREE ACT TRAGEDY is one of Dame Agatha's great ideas, because of the way she was able to hide the murderer, the motive, even the fact of murder. But it's not one of her strongest novels, strangely enough. That's a matter of structure. And, I suppose, taste.

Poirot misses the second murder in this show because he's hammering away on a computer, writing his memoirs. That's a clever dodge. It's rare one of these modernized TV adaptations adds something interesting, so they need to be acknowledged when they do.

I've been a fan of Christie's since seeing "Murder on the Orient Express" on the big screen as an adolescent. I especially enjoyed Albert Finney's Poirot, who hypnotized me like a snake (not having read a Christie story at that time I had no other frame of reference). I was disappointed when Oscar-winner Ustinov took over. This has nothing to do with Mr. Ustinov personally. I've enjoyed many of his performances. But by the time his Poirot rolled around I had read several Christies and I saw nothing of Poirot in him; I don't care how many houses of cards he constructs. Nevertheless, I had a compulsion to watch any new Christy adaptations. I see his movies as mysteries using Christy's ideas but with a whole new detective. And, by his accent, a detective by way of Inspector Clouseau. Peter Ustinov is a truly great actor, but not a great Poirot. That's my contrarian view.

This movie is part of the slide away from all-star, splashy movies and into narrower TV budgets with notable film stars replaced by familiar television faces.

Hastings: I don't recall if Hastings was in this book but I rather think he wasn't.

I 've enjoyed Jonathan Cecil in a number of radio programs and talking books, but his Arthur Hastings is an idiot. He's not even a good sounding-board.

Tony Curtis is perfectly cast and they wanted a sexy female so Emma Samms was thrown in, where a woman of more modest dimensions might have been more advisable, though perhaps not so good for advertising.

For the rest, actors like Dana Elcar and Diana Muldaur are best known for being journey-people actors who get a job done.

Frankly, I'm no great fan of Tony Curtis but he's definitely a star, in the sense that the Finney flick and early Ustinov movies were cast with stars. A strange actor, when he's up against weak opposition on the screen he can be dull; but when cast against a Burt Lancaster or Jack Lemmon he can ratchet up his game to match them. He was notable in comedies and a twist of humor is always helpful in Agatha Christie performances; whereas in performances of her great contemporary P. G. Wodehouse the characters have to be dead serious, without a twinkle or a wink or a tongue in cheek.

This adaptation, so modernized, as I mentioned, Poirot is writing is memoirs on a computer, has changed a lot, if it remained faithful to how the murder was disguised. But, as with Christy's novel this adaptation tends to drag.

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.

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.