Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Neil Doyle 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.

gridoon2018 "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)

Lechuguilla 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.

g-force-1 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.