Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

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

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

elshikh4 (Hercule Poirot) is one of the most ridiculous characters ever. He's indistinct, unfunny, and with (Peter Ustinov)'s performance; too dull to stand. However, I'm a mystery, 1980s, (Tony Curtes) fan, so let's watch and enjoy in spite of Ustinov's Poirot. The problem is, I didn't find much to enjoy ! The movie is played as a play from start to finish. The title refers to "a play feel" but it doesn't necessarily need to be one ! The script is a frank bore. In fact it's a great lesson in how to not write a movie, or how to write a radio show ! It enjoys showing every important event through a phone call ?! The scenes are crowded with dialog that has no thrilling spirit or any sense of humor. It deals very poorly with everyone; for instance a character like (Hastings), (Poirot)'s assistance, didn't do or say anything to an extent where he seemed extra or mute ! The direction played along and did it as a TV play. The scene turned into a stage of a theater. Thank god for the Acapulco beautiful views, through the outdoors scenes or the apartments' open windows, without them it could have been completely choking !Some points eat me, most of them were caused by director (Gary Nelson). The most provocative one at all is this movie's assumption that it takes place in the 1930s (what a big BIG joke !). Was (Nelson) sleepy?, or thought of us as sleepy to shoot the whole thing in the 1980s atmosphere, waiting for us to believe that it's the 1930s? Otherwise (Poirot) had the secret of time travel, and this movie didn't tell us how ! Why the nice music wasn't used well ?! The absence of it added more poorness. Sometimes the camera is too close to (Ustinov)'s face and reactions (it's clear in moments like the one of the secret passage behind the library, or the one of catching the woman while getting rid of the poison..). That was ugly, exposing the game of acting. Speaking about "exposing", look closer to the shot in which the play writer sees the tattoo on (Curtes)'s hand while he was disguised as a waiter. He was wearing big white gloves, so how the heck she saw anything ?!! Again, and at another key moment, when (Curtes) was surrendering himself to the police, watch the black mike says hello under his foot (I heard Agatha Christie's screams from her grave at that one !). Aside from forgetting the matter of the 1930s, it's clear that Mr. (Nelson) didn't pay attention to A LOT of things. Some lines wanted to be funny to fail miserably. Oh my god, (Poirot)'s supposedly funny lines, including the last one, were hideous. This time the screams were mine !However, I can't utterly hate this movie, because it has some of the best appetizers. Their first is naturally (Emma Samms). Since her role in (The Colbys) she became one of my early dreams as a kid. Her beauty is magical. She's one of the 1980s best no doubts about that. Here, she was lighting every scene she was in, with her simple cute dresses. I loved the soft way she moves as a ballerina and the hot way she looks (I discovered later that Emma's mother was a real ballet dancer, and that Emma herself trained for a while as a ballet dancer also). Anyway, the combination of innocence and sex hasn't been more classy and tender like that very.The colors of the 1980s were an essential lead. I wouldn't be wrong if I said that they played their role more catchy and amusing than (Ustinov) himself ! Aside from the costumes, the sets, you must appreciate the camera of the American TV apart; back then there was a method to picture such a smooth image for everything just to put you at ease. The outcome of all that was vivid mood that managed to be one of the movie's top merits. Then, the best of all : (Tony Curtis). He was perfect for his role. Although I hated that the script didn't allow him to stretch some acting muscles, but he did it finely, with hell of a charisma, one of a kind glee, a touch of vanity, and true elegance. With all due respect to miss (Samms), I watched this movie first when I was about 14 year old, and have remembered it for years due to (Curtis) mainly. They can, and maybe must, remake this into something more cinematic and exciting, less chatty and tedious. But it's impossible to remake (Samms)'s beauty, the 1980s colors, and – for sure – (Curtis)'s glamour. (Murder in Three Acts) is humdrum but chic. For me, I shut down my mind to enjoy the charm.

Iain-215 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.

j_o_walters So bland is this adaptation and so embarrassingly awful the dialogue that I feel all my blood has drained away. To say it has been 'Americanised' is rather insulting to Americans, however it is fair to say that it has been reduced down to the Lowest Common Denominator of American culture. Any subtlety, wit or literary value has been stripped out lest it confuse the low-brow knuckle-draggers of middle America. Witness the way that characters are forced to endure that most excruciating of all devices - the completely implausible and unnecessary exposition of character/plot/history details to another character (the cheapest and laziest way of filling in such details - aimed at an audience considered too dim to pick up necessary facts from a more sophisticated rendition of them).It's just as well that Ustinov's portrayal of Poirot includes a more-or-less constant 'bad smell' facial expression, given the pong given off by this script! I am sure that you can actually see Ustinov literally shuddering as he has to endure some of this dialogue. The comment about this feeling like a really third-rate episode of 'Murder She Wrote' - with all the cheap shortcuts, rice-paper-thin characterisations and contrived, cringe-worthy, painful dialogue aimed at the terminally stupid - is spot on. Euuurghh ... still feel dirty having watched it!

Lawson 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.