At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The dazzling Acapulco settings for the home of movie star Charles Cartwright (TONY CURTIS) provide a lavish look to the start of this made-for-TV version of one of Christie's most fascinating stories. But not only does PETER USTINOV look bored with his role as Hercule Poirot, but so does Tony Curtis as an aging playboy living in swank splendor in a gorgeous home with his movie star photos plastered on the living room wall. He manages to be amiable, that's all, instead of developing an interesting character.But although this is an underwhelming presentation of the story, it's still a good enough vehicle to keep the viewer tuned in to the developing plot after a seemingly motiveless first murder occurs. The murder of the second victim (DANA ELCAR) happens during a dinner party and from that point on the clever plot will keep you guessing until the unexpected outcome.Summing up: Passes the time pleasantly, but could have been better acted and scripted. None of the supporting cast, played mostly by an assortment of television players, have characters worth remembering or caring about and that is the fatal flaw of this version. The book is a "must read" for Christie fans and suffers from all the changes made, as well as the sub-par performances from Ustinov and Curtis.

........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.

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.

I love Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirot. Forget all those other phonies who've tried to fill his shoes! Including that ridiculous Murder on the Orient Express, or that laughable David Sachet! His sly, lovable demeanor rivals any of the great actors playing detectives- Peter Falk as Columbo, etc. He has a wonderful way of gaining the confidence and trust of each of his suspects, while probing them for information. You never really know who he suspects, and that's the fun of the mystery. He guides you through the maze like true detective. I have seen each of his delicious portrayals as the great, Belgian detective several times, and they just get better with age.