Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

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

Henry Kujawa CBS updated a number of Agatha Christie classics for TV in the 1980s, probably to keep costs down. The results were mixed; this one, based on "THREE ACT TRAGEDY", is actually one of the better ones, and by a MILE the best of the 3 Hercule Poirot TV-movies with Peter Ustinov.Unlike the previous 2, Poirot is not constantly mugging for the camera, and Hastings comes across as far less of a brainless idiot. I know this sounds like faint praise, but please bear with me.One of the problems with CBS' TV-movies is in nearly every case, if you read the opening credits, you already know who the murderer is, because they're the one who get SECOND BILLING. The 4 Brabourne-Goodwin feature films were all stellar, big-budget affairs with ALL-STAR casts, and the killers (sometimes more than one per story) could hide in plain sight. For CBS, this one, at least, manages to have some actual "name" actors in the cast (for a change!). Among them, Emma Samms ("DYNASTY" and "THE COLBYS"), Pedro Armendariz Jr. ("LICENSE TO KILL"), Dana Elcar ("DARK SHADOWS"), Diana Muldaur ("McCLOUD", "STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION", "L.A. LAW"), Concetta Tomei ("CHINA BEACH", "MADMAN OF THE PEOPLE"), Nicholas Pryor (an endless resume of roles, including "THE GUMBALL RALLY")... oh, yeah, and Tony Curtis.This film also managed to have some genuinely picturesque locations, some very interesting twists, a moment where (if you're paying attention) HALF the plot suddenly makes perfect sense (it ties in directly with the story's title, when someone mentions, "a DRESS REHEARSAL"), and a nice summation at the end. During this, Curtis give an excellent performance which ranges from tense to exceedingly good-natured.Had CBS continued at this level of quality, I might not have minded. All the same, it was quite a relief for me when Peter Ustinov was next seen in "APPOINTMENT WITH DEATH", a real "return to form"... although for reasons that remain baffling to me, the quality of THAT film somehow managed to be ghastly compared to his first 2 Poirot feature-films.

lucyrfisher The best thing about this movie is the good-looking actresses in 30s-inspired 80s clothes, often in colour schemes of cream/white/black/navy with pearls and gold accessories. I agree with other reviewers: it's an uninspired rerun of Christie's novel. Ustinov was such a good Poirot in Death on the Nile - it's sad to see him reduced here to a series of twitches and mannerisms. And terrible dialogue. Jonathan Cecil too could have been a good Hastings given something decent to work with. Attempts at "humour" are embarrassingly lame, so much so that I had to look away. Tony Curtis came somewhere near a good performance as the narcissistic actor. Nice settings, though!

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.

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.