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.

Having not seen this adaptation for a very long time I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it more than I expected to. I do however have a problem with updating Poirot to the eighties - he just doesn't fit, as a character into these surroundings. It works slightly better in 'Dead Man's Folly' because the 'English country house' atmosphere is relatively timeless but in LA and Mexico the eighties intrude too much and both Poirot and Hastings seem out of place. Ustinov is entertaining as always but I continue to have problems with Jonathan Cecil as Hastings who is even more of a gormless oaf in this movie than in his previous two appearances - I wish he would put that useless notepad away! The supporting cast are all OK though no-one is particularly outstanding. To be fair though, even in the book these are not the most interesting group of Christie suspects. I thought Tony Curtis made quite a good job of Charles Cartwright but again this was not an exceptional performance. It was sensible to change (slightly) the motive for the murders - the principal motive from the book would not have been very compelling in the liberated eighties! This movie is a pleasant enough way to spend a couple of hours but I suspect that David Suchet and his team will make a better job of it when they come to make it.

Watching a less-engaging Agatha Christie movie adaptation is like watching an extended episode of Murder, She Wrote. Like Hercule Poirot, Jessica Fletcher is a walking crime magnet, making you wonder if the world wouldn't be a safer place for the rest of us if people like them were put away for good.Agatha Christie movies often host a potpourri of stars to be the suspects. Sometimes they're a mix of renowned actors, like Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Ingrid Bergman et al, in 1974's Murder on the Orient Express; and sometimes, like in Murder in Three Acts, they're a mix of actors you vaguely recall seeing on some TV show or other, like Emma Samms from Dynasty and Diana Muldaur from Star Trek: The Next Generation. Though the former makes for a more attractive package, even when they're the latter, they usually still turn out to be decent viewing, as this movie is.

Where has the elegance of earlier Christie adoptions gone? I watched this movie not long after reading the book which is possibly not one of the greater works of Agatha Christie but its adaption would certainly have deserved a better treatment. Gary Nelson (famous for a number of pretty good TV series) and Scott Swanton made it a true `Three Act Tragedy'.First Tragedy: The Setting The original story is set in England and on the Riviera. It seems that Acapulco was chosen to return to magnificent settings as known from `Death on the Nile' and `Appointment with Death' or `Evil under the Sun'. However this goes wrong in this movie as the locations are nowhere near as picturesque as in those earlier films. Having Cartwright and Poirot flying back to Los Angeles after the first murder make the whole film look really American (which, alas, it is). The Riviera, as in the book, seems to me a much more likely setting for the great retired detective and a knighted actor.Second Tragedy: The People Captain Arthur Hastings (evidently used instead of the character Satterthwaite) has lost his title and obviously moved from Argentine and is surrounded by a lot of Americans. To make Sir Charles Cartwright and American actor takes a lot of character from the original person. There is no real reason for having Dr. Strange changing his his first name from Bartholmew `Tollie' to Wallace and Angela Sutcliffe becoming Stafford in the book. With Captain Freddie and Cynthgia Dacres it seems more obvious to me. Dayton, forgive my being a snob, is certainly more easy a name for Americans. Same with Hermione Lytton Gore and Lady Mary Lytton Gore. They became Jennifer (thank god they kept the `Egg') and Daisy Eastman. They did not only change the names with Oliver Manders Murial Wills / Anthony Astor but also their characters. For Manders was not really the playboy type and Wills was a much sharper yet shy lookingcreature in the book. Ricardo Montoya therefore seems more suitable and Janet Crisp / Martin Bloodall sounds much more sensational. Apart from Hercule Poirot, Reverend and Mrs Babbington as well as Miss Milray seemed the only people who where allowed to be what they are in the original story.Third Tragedy: The Actors To begin with, Sir Peter Ustinov, once a remarkable (if not quite true to the book) Poirot is reduced here to an old man, without any real elegance left (In L.A. we find him lying on a sofa with a cardigan and ruffled hair L ). Jonathan Cecil gives his usually poor and bumbling performance as Hastings and is not even left his title. (Same as in "Thirteen at Dinner" and "Dead Man's Folly") One should have expected somewhat more inspired acting from Tony Curtis. AC's Cartwright was elegant, interesting and cunning actor. He used to change his bearing in different situations. He also was a "young boy" deeply in love with Egg. Tony Curtis reduces him to an aging playboy with a distinct lack of drive. Lee McCain, Emma Samms, Fernando Allende certainly do not appear to be giving all they could and Diana Muldaur, Nicholas Pryor, Lisa Eichhorn and Marian Mercer are a very mediocre supporting cast. Concetta Tomei, an otherwise known theatre actress could have done much better. Dana Elcar, Philip Guilmant and Jacqueline Evans are not worth mentioning (That may partly be due to their short screen time).I have seriously tried to find something positive about this film but I did not quite succeed. What is the point in using the correct card game (`My family') with which Poirot makes houses while he considers the case when nothing else seems to ring true. Where is the point in changing names and places, giving the whole movie an American TV-series look. Why not film it in the old fashioned style? Perhaps Warner Brothers did not consider it necessary to spend more money on AC. If they had they could have made it a success. At least they left the basic storyline unchanged.