Sarah Phelps,in her TV adaptation of "the ABC murders" had already revealed some obscure facts of Poirot's life in the war; here ,in the prologue which has nothing to do with the novel,the screen writers registered the same desire: one sees private Poirot in the trenches where his grey cells are always at work in war strategy;furthermore, one learns why Poirot never got married (Billy Wilder did the same with Holmes in "the private life of Sherlock Holmes" ). Actually ,in Christie's books, Poirot was a Belgian refugee in WWI when he appears in "the mysterious affair at Styles",and that's it.
A lot of people read the book and more saw the John Guillermin 1978 version which was successful ,so they know the whodunit and the murderer 's savoir faire. Christie's trick is as usual,brilliant. However , like he did in his remake of "murder on the orient express" , Brannagh ,against all odds ,almost makes new things out of old. His make up is horrible ,but his grey cells are as effective as ever ;even though you know the end ,you can enjoy it because it's shorter than the Ustinov version ,which remains unsurpassed though.
A lot of people read the book and more saw the John Guillermin 1978 version which was successful ,so they know the whodunit and the murderer 's savoir faire. Christie's trick is as usual,brilliant. However , like he did in his remake of "murder on the orient express" , Brannagh ,against all odds ,almost makes new things out of old. His make up is horrible ,but his grey cells are as effective as ever ;even though you know the end ,you can enjoy it because it's shorter than the Ustinov version ,which remains unsurpassed though.