good back-story, and good acting

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I haven't seen this film in its entirety and don't intend to comment on it as entertainment -- but as "docudrama," it comes from a highly biased source. The book "Prescription: Murder" was written by Ann Kurth, a major "character" in the story. Her account is, not surprisingly, rather subjective. It's unlikely that the "whole truth" about the murders depicted in this movie will ever be known, but I would strongly recommend Thomas Thompson's "Blood and Money" as a more objective account of these events (and as a very good "read" on its own merits). BTW, Kurth sued Thompson for defamation regarding his portrayal of her in "Blood and Money"; she lost.

When "Murder in Texas" premiered on network television in two parts, it was a big deal. It's a very intriguing, true story of a Texan plastic surgeon (Sam Eilliott) suspected of causing the death of his very wealthy wife, portrayed by Farrah Fawcett. For years, Ash Robinson, the victim's father, was convinced of Dr. Hill's guilt. Andy Griffith is a great Ash.The story is based on Ann Kurth's book - Ann Kurth was Dr. Hill's second wife, who in the film is played by Katherine Ross. I could never find a copy of Kurth's book, so I read another book on the subject. The actual events are much, much more complicated than could ever have been shown on screen. In fact, the end of this movie is pure fiction, as are scenes that support the ending. The reason for this, I believe, was a legal one, as some participants were still living at the time of the filming.Today it is believed that Joan Robinson Hill died of toxic shock syndrome before it became a known entity. What her husband had to do with it - by direct act or simple neglect - I don't believe has ever been decided other than in the mind of Ash Robinson.While the movie made fascinating watching, particularly Part I, if this case interests you, I suggest you read a book on the subject for the true story. The acting is marvelous, particularly from Elliott, Fawcett, and Griffith, and the movie will hold your interest.

SPOILERS.This TV movie was originally shown in two parts and it shows. The bifurcation is so distinct that the parts might have been about two separate incidents.Part I is the most interesting. It comes as no surprise that some Texans are very rich. But to watch Sam Elliott as the doctor, playing Bach on a harpsichord is an unforgettable experience, what with his red-chili accent. And he not only knows who Gertrude Stein is, but he can quote her too. So he marries the temptingly rich and even more temptingly palpable Farrah Fawcett. The movie shows us that not all is well out there on the range, however. She's given to a great deal of horseback riding. I've always wondered why some women were so attracted to horses. Men have towards horses what is basically a utilitarian attitude, but with women something much more is going on. As a psychologist, I was curious enough to enter "women and horses" into a search engine to see what research, if any, had been done on the subject. I wound up at a very odd Brazilian site, but that's another story.Part I is an interesting exploration of the social dynamics of upper-crust Texas life. If America ever decides to built pyramids and sphynxes, they'll do it in Texas. Oil money is one thing, but the ability to play Bach is quite another.Then comes Part II, he said in a voice laden with doom. Who wrote this garbage? None other than Ann Kurth, wife number two. (The story is based on her book, so you can imagine.) Dr. Elliott's marriage may not be all that happy, but it takes three to tango. Katherine Ross is presented as a naive innocent overwhelmed by the attentions of Doctor Elliott. They even have "their" song. I spelled out the word "Doctor" in that sentence because I want to emphasize the implications of his status. Every red-blooded American status-vulture wants to marry a doctor and then clean his clock during the divorce settlement. Of course this isn't how Kurth presents herself. She knows nothing of what's going on and must be seduced by Doc Elliott. (If she could have gotten away with it, one suspects that she would have mentioned somewhere along the way that she was a virgin.) The term "homewrecker" never comes up. Ross becomes suspicious of Elliott after they're married. Did he kill his wife?In an absolutely preposterous scene, which takes place in a car he's driving, she confronts him with her suspicions, he confesses to her that he did the foul deed, and then tries to kill her. Here's how it's played out. (If you can believe this part, I have a bridge for sale that might be of interest to you -- surprisingly affordable.) "I did it," Elliott tells Ross. "Injected her with every foul substance I could find -- pus, blood, puke", or words to that effect. It's exactly the sort of confession that would be dreamed up by someone who knows absolutely nothing of lethal substances. Elliott, now deranged, tries to murder Ross. Here's how he tries to do it. He steers the car over to the right, off the road, so it scrapes against the guard rail and emits a shower of sparks. Damage to car? Dents and abrasions. Damage to intended victim? None. This guy has to be the world's clumsiest murderer. Anyone who recognizes the name Gertrude Stein can pull of a better attempt. But, of course, in real life Sam is gone, so Kurth can claim anything she likes without fear of being disputed.The last scene in the movie deserves comment. Elliott has been found shot dead, or so it seems, the cadaver's face being unrecognizable. Ross hears disconcerting rumors that Elliott is still alive and practicing in Mexico or someplace. Ross witnesses an accident and a doctor is hastily summoned. She watches from a distance as the doctor bends over the patient. Could it be? --- The doc then looks up and stares directly at Ross, but he's wearing shades and what appears to be a Groucho nose and mustache, so we can't be certain. Last shot. Ross is alone at night and the phone rings. No one answers on the other end, but the melody of "their" song drifts out of the receiver. Fade out. I will just ask, more or less en passant, if you were a murderer on the lam, thought to be dead, would you call your hateful ex-wife and let her know you were alive and kicking?But enough. The movie is insulting to the viewer.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Televised in the spring of 1981 over 2 nights, "MURDER IN TEXAS" is based on the book "PRESCRIPTION: MURDER" that was written by ANN KURTH. There were several books written about this drama that unfolded in the affluent neighborhood of River Oaks in Houston, Texas between 1969 to 1972. Unfortunately, the book used here was definitely the most biased and one sided since ANN KURTH was the mistress and then second wife of possible murderer DR. JOHN HILL, the story's main character.DR. JOHN HILL(SAM ELLIOTT)who came from fairly modest means near the Rio Grande, went to Houston in the 50s to attend medical school. In Houston he met JOAN ROBINSON (FARRAH FAWCETT), a beautiful blond equestrian in her mid 20s of privilege with 2 divorces already behind her. JOAN was also absolutely adored by her parents. JOHN and JOAN married in the late 50s, had 1 child, a son named ROBERT, and all appeared well for 10 years. DR. JOHN HILL developed one of the best plastic surgery practices in the Houston area largely in thanks to his father in law's largesse. Around 1968, JOHN began an affair with a divorcee named ANN KURTH(KATHARINE ROSS). JOHN and JOAN separated, then got back together. In March of 1969, vibrant healthy athletic JOAN suddenly gets deathly ill and according to some accounts is basically ignored by her doctor husband until it is too late to save her. Now widowed, JOHN marries his mistress. More & more details about JOAN'S mysterious death come to light pointing the finger of guilt at JOHN. JOAN'S father ASH ROBINSON(ANDY GRIFFITH) believing that his former son in law is responsible for the death of his beloved daughter, makes it a full time occupation to prove JOHN'S guilt. Wife # 2 ANN KURTH also comes to believe her husband guilty. ANN divorces him, and soon enough JOHN is on wife # 3. Arriving home from a trip JOHN and his new bride are attacked by a lone gunman who shoots JOHN dead.The actual events were a little more involved than what is contained in this tv movie, but you have to remember that this is based on the recollections of ANN KURTH. The other books based on these events are pretty clear that the real ANN KURTH was not the sweet, naive woman portrayed by KATHARINE ROSS. ROSS has always exuded nobility & good intentions. In actuality the real ANN KURTH was far from naive. This was the first time that FARRAH FAWCETT was given a positive review. She comes across as more desperate than anything and wrings her hands on occasion to show us that she is well suited to play women that are victimized. The critics so raved over FARRAH'S portrayal as a victimized wife that she turned that role into a career ! It is ANDY GRIFFITH however that comes off best. His ASH ROBINSON is stern, unwavering,completely focused in his search. SAM ELLIOTT is sinister personified as DR. JOHN HILL. Although enjoyable to watch, this would have been far better had TOMMY THOMPSON'S book "BLOOD AND MONEY" been used instead. Critical elements are omitted in this tv movie, such as the fact that 2 of the people eventually convicted in the murder of DR. JOHN HILL clearly pointed to ASH ROBINSON as the man who hired the man who killed JOHN. One of those behind JOHN'S murder was rumored to be the adopted JOAN'S biological mother. And in any event, we still don't know what killed JOAN ROBINSON HILL. An early case of toxic shock syndrome caused by tampon usage, bacteria laced pastries, an untraceable poison administered by her husband, something picked up via food from a trip to Mexico, or an unknown disease were some of the considerations. This fascinating story of greed & murder would have been better represented had the THOMPSON version been used because in actuality the characters involved were far more fascinating than what we are presented with here.