If you went to see this movie AND you didn't know the story beforehand, I want to hear from you

Cool man, glad to hear you liked it!

The one criticism that I've seen that I agree with is that Poirot is the only character that's fleshed out at all. I think that other versions of the story did a better job of rounding out the suspects and giving you an idea of who they are.

But all in all, I did enjoy it. It's especially impressive on a visual level, with some genuinely gorgeous cinematography. I thought Branagh did well as Poirot--of the four actors I've seen portray the character I'd put him in second place--and as you say, this is an "old fashioned thriller," which we just don't see enough of these days.

Do I feel it captured the heart of the novel well enough? I'd say yes, "well enough." There are some things that I think could've been improved upon--things that were done better in other adaptations--but it's pretty faithful to Christie's book.

If you liked this one, you may be interested in watching the 1974 Sidney Lumet version to compare. And then there's the 2010 BBC adaptation with David Suchet, who portrayed Poirot many, many times for the BBC over 25 years.

Cool, glad you liked it and thanks for the input.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

Cool, thanks for chiming in! I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed it.

If you want to check out another adaptation, check out the 1974 version from Sidney Lumet. It's widely regarded as the best.

And I am with you regarding not trying to figure a movie out. That's never been something I've been about and so twists already take me by surprise unless they were very, very obvious. And that's the way I want it to be. Doesn't seem like a whole lot of fun to figure things out before they are revealed.

I saw it with my husband who hadn't read the book or seen previous adaptations. After it was over I asked him if it was at all difficult to follow. Nope. He never guessed the ending (well who could), but he had no trouble following it.

Well, I'm sorry to hear you didn't like this one.

You should go ahead and watch the '74 version. I'd be curious to hear how you think they compare.

I found everyone else very made-for-TV cartoonish and hammy.

I've been reading a lot of Christie lately, and that's part of the problem with her mysteries. Her characters are not as well developed as her plots. So I wasn't surprised that out of 12 suspects many of them would not be well rounded.

I haven't read the book, but I've seen the 1974 version. I found that far superior.

[spoiler]

What I found wonderful was the glimpse of the past, a world away from the world. Both had that, but certain scenes in the 2017 version just drew it right out of me. Like the karate scene, or the attempted action scenes)

i didn't like the diner meeting scene between Poirot and Ratchett. The 1974 version had Ratchett being very defensive when asked questions by Poirot, and that Poirot politely declined the offer. This Poirot goes off and says he doesn't like Ratchetts face? Scene is too long too.

I didn't like the shootout or more convoluted plot.

I didn't like the conclusion. When Poirot assembled all the guests to reveal the murderer. The 1974 gave Poirot a get out clause. Everything he said was outlined on conjecture (we all know he figured it out). None of the suspects admitted anything. Yet you knew he had them all on the knife edge. And everyone went off, including me with a taste that justice was done, that something good came from this tragedy.

The new version didn't do that. They admitted it. Black and white scene of them acting like a rabid mob. The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth.

[/spoiler]

There was actually a bit of overlap between Doyle and Christie. Doyle's final works were published in the 1920s, which was the same decade of Christie's first novels.

MOTOE is also one of her earlier works. She continued writing all the way into the 70s. The final Poirot novel, Curtain, was released in 1975.

It is weird for me to think about her writing that late, though. Whereas you had this idea of her being a contemporary of Doyle, I think of her only as being active in the 20s, 30s and 40s. It's difficult for me to think of Christie after that. For me, she is stuck in time in those three decades.