Agatha Christie: delitto in tre atti

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 :.

Agatha Christie's Belgian sleuth Hercule Poirot and his ever faithful Tonto like companion Captain Hastings are in Acapulco for Murder In Three Acts. As you gather by the title their are three murders, but their connection to each other is in some cases non-existent and to the murderer they are known in varying degrees of acquaintanceship.

The first is of a clergyman Philip Guilmant at a cocktail party given by retired expatriate actor Tony Curtis when a lethal cocktail is given the victim. At another cocktail party with a different setting the same happens to Dr. Dana Elcar. Lastly a poor catatonic woman in an asylum is slipped a box of chocolates laced with the same poison. The old switch is used like in many a magician's act.

Peter Ustinov as Poirot is present at the first and that was the perpetrator's fatal mistake. As Dana Elcar says all too prophetically for him, crime seems to follow him around.

Agatha Christie purists will object to the way poor Jonathan Cecil is treated like such a boob. He's not in the David Suchet BBC series. It's very much like Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson who slowly became a befuddled idiot in the Universal Sherlock Holmes movies.

Still the film is all right not up to the standard of Ustinov big screen Hercule Poirot films. And the murderer when revealed truly steals the film.

s

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.

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)