I think the secretary thing was more of a confirmation of Poirot's suspicion because earlier, the good doctor mentions that he barely ever plays and then she tells Poirot that he plays all the time with his partner and with the door locked.  I might be mixing up media here though because I just listened to the radio version too.

Cards on the Table is one of my favourite Christie novels and I loathed what this episode did with the story.  ‘Senseless mess’ describes it perfectly!

The problem is that, aside from a lack of restraint by the writers, roughly half of the new twists belong in a Miss Marple story. I can almost hear Miss Marple calmly explaining why Rhoda used the murder of her aunt to control Anne. And deducing that the doctor was having an affair with the husband rather than the wife, while talking to his assistant, is almost textbook Marple.

On the other hand, Shaitana being an overindulged hedonist looking for a final thrill is a Poirot sort of twist. The writers could have sold it, but only if they held back on some of the endless twists and spent time making the case for Shaitana’s blackmail thrill seeking. Also, Alexander Siddig was wonderful in the role and I wish he’d had more time onscreen.

I'm literally reading the book as I type this. I specifically bought the book for this video (harder to do than you'd think), because I hadn't read it in decades, and I wanted to be able to really form an opinion on the adaptation (which I really liked). I'll return and watch the video when my reread is complete!

I wondered why I was so dissatisfied with the ending! I watched more than once, but just recently read the book...I loved the book and I didn't appreciate those changes. Alexander Siddig was a perfect Shaitana for me.

Before watching: I'm worried we're going to fall out 😂

I absolutely adore Alexander Siddig as Shaitana, and you've hinted in past videos that you dislike this adaptation

I’m really disappointed Superintendent Battle was written out of the film adaptations for two stories in which he appeared: “Cards on the Table” and “Towards Zero.” He is a brilliant sleuth in his own right, though not as prominently on display as Poirot and Miss Marple, he nevertheless is in a similar league with Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. We don’t see him often, but when we do, he doesn’t disappoint. I feel like in some ways, he was a precursor to Columbo. An intelligent policeman who figures things out and then, in the case of “Towards Zero,” tricks the murderer into implicating themself.

The book is one of my favorites.

This book is one of my favorite Christie stories. I was really disappointed by what they did to it on screen. I was willing to go along with the other changes but, when they made Rhoda the killer and then killed her off, that ruined the whole thing!

I remember rewatching this episode with my Dad. We both agreed it had way too many twists.

I've always thought of this as Agatha Christie's Avengers. Such a shame they messed up this adaptation.

Has anyone ever seen Murder By Death? At one point David Niven (hey, six degrees of Poirot!) suggest that the victim may have killed himself to create the perfect, unsolvable crime for the sole reason of satisfying his own ego against the mental might of the world's greatest detectives. The Charlie Chan stand-in replies: "It's stupid. It's most stupid theory I ever heard! Haha!"
In all seriousness though, I feel like the idea works here. I'd rather Shaitana be depicted as a thrill-seeking provocateur bored with life rather than an incautious idiot who invites Death to his door and then is surprised when it acts. I'd alway, always rather have the hero face off against a cunning adversary over a chump.

I saw the movie before I read the book, so the whole book I was waiting for Roda to be shown and exposed as this crazy manipulative monster and I assumed every thing she said was a lie. You can imagine my RAGE when  she turns out to be not only innocent but sweet, kind and a good person. ARGH!

7:38 Wonderful distinction between an author / creator, and an adapter of written work to another medium to describe the latter process as a "translation" - very accurately, from the 'language of the novel' to the 'language of film'. Very well put.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and profess I enjoy this adaptation. Admittedly, I haven't read the book, but the most interesting aspect of the mystery (that the players' score sheets and their style of playing bridge reveal the solution) remains unchanged. On top of that, this is packed with actors I love and the set dressing (though a bit overdone) is stylish and engaging.  
Still, I can understand everyone else's objections. The film is, to put it charitably, regressive in its depiction of gay people. It portrays between two to four queer characters as either violent, obsessive, careless, or depraved criminals. On top of that, I could understand if you saw Poirot's conversation with Wheeler at the end as a patronizing telling-off. I don't interpret it that way, in fact, I think it makes him come off well considering this series emphasizes him being a devout Catholic in the 1930s, but that's sure to cause further consternation for some. No, the biggest objection has to be the leaps of logic and the off-screen confessions; that's lazy and there's no getting around it.

In defense of some of the changes, I think it's much better to have Anne Meredith and Mrs. Lorrimer alive for the parlor scene because otherwise it's just down to two suspects, and a 50/50 chance of guessing correct is kind of boring. I've already established in another comment here why I prefer Shaitana's motive for death to be deliberate. Also, why in the book would Mrs. Lorrimer take the fall for Anne if she's not related to her? I know she's dying, but it seems random. And how did Mr. Craddock end up dying in the book?

9:30 "It's not specified why Rhoda killed her, though it was probably for money." I've got to say, that remark threw me. I thought the film adaptation established pretty overtly that Rhoda is a lesbian with an obsessive/toxic infatuation towards Anne and sought to control her. Money may have been a side motivator, but keeping Anne out of prison and under her thumb seemed to be Rhoda's prime concern and I was surprised you didn't bring that up.

Saw the film long before reading the book, I like both versions and the film is a go to time killer or pick me up. Also I believe Battle was changed as the actor who played him previously was unavailable, which I assume is the same reason why the Anne and Despard characters didn't reappear for The Pale Horse(despite swapping her and Rhoda, it could have worked). Also I am glad others also picked up on the similarities in the Death In Paradise episode.

To be fair, Suchet's Poirot figures out the doctor's motive because of two inconsistencies:

A) Its mentioned that the doctor is a promiscuous ladies' man and that despite his secretary showing interest and even trying to make the first move; he panicks and/or avoids her. Now this in of itself could be explained by him trying to stay professional or simply not seeing her that way if it wasn't for B

B) The secretary mentions that the Doctor has a brudge partner with who he plays constantly with the door locked. Contradicting his earlier statement that he almost never plays. And it wouldn't have been hard to deduce that it was the husband of the woman Shaitana alredy figured out he murdered.

Yes, its still arguibly a leap, but it has some connective tissue and its why Poirot bluffs with the pictures.

I always thought that Zoe Wannamaker played Ariadne too bombastic and confident. The character was untidy, lacked professional self-confidence, but  went off on tangents and found facts through subconscious observation. Zoe brought none of this to the role.

I remember having similar feelings when I watched this.

Agatha Christie film adaptors REALLY don’t like Superintendent Battle! I think he’s only in an adaptation once and that was it!