First, a re-cap of the first film. When I wrote my ‘film of the book’ post, it was a few years since I’d read the book, so I was vague about what might have been changed. I read it last year, and again recently in preparation for the sequel, so I can point out a few major differences. One is the reduced significance of Kynes, the ecologist of Arrakis who is supposed to be a neutral representative for the Emperor. In the book, he’s captured and then released injured into the desert, where he hallucinates his father lecturing on their vision to make the planet green, before dying in a gas explosion of spice. Kynes’ power and ideas highly influence the Fremen, the natives of the planet. In the film, he’s assassinated by the Sardaukar, the Emperor’s military, but gets some kind of revenge by calling a worm, which engulfs them all. He is then never mentioned again, as far as I observed. Hawat, the Atreides’ Mentat (a human computer, invaluable for strategic assistance), was also captured by the Harkonnens in the original story, because the Baron had lost his own Mentat to the poison gas breathed out by Duke Leto. Hawat therefore works for the other side, retaining his suspicion of the Lady Jessica as the one who betrayed the Duke (later in the book, Hawat is distraught at his errors and ends his own life). In the film, I think we are to assume Hawat was lost in the Harkonnens’ attack, as he is never seen or mentioned again. A final change is that Paul and Jessica don’t realise they’re Harkonnens – the Baron is Jessica’s father – until late in the story (the second film), whereas it’s known earlier in the book. This makes it more of a plot twist.

Now, on to the second film. This occupies around the last third of the novel and has further significant changes. Time-wise, it follows almost straight on from the first film, whereas the book is a couple of years ahead, when Paul’s sister Alia is toddling around freaking everyone out with her prescience (Jessica became Reverend Mother while pregnant and this gave Alia the supernatural knowledge and skills of the Bene Gesserit tradition). It is Alia, and not Paul, who kills their grandfather the Baron. Paul and Chani have a baby son, who is lost in the next attacks. Paul is also responsible for the family of Jamis, the man he killed when joining the Fremen. It’s a little odd, as Paul was 15 at the time and suddenly he has a woman and two boys to care for. The film avoids all of this and focuses on Paul’s relationship with Chani, while the Fremen disrupt spice production, leading to the ultimate showdown with the Harkonnens and the Emperor’s forces.

Chani is probably the most changed character in the film. Although her book version is a fighter too, she is domestic, has a ceremonial role, high status as the daughter of Kynes, and is quite child-like – often described as elfin. Her portrayal by Zendaya is feisty and a little sullen, but trying to mask her true feelings for Paul, because she doesn’t want to believe in the prophecy. She even goes off on her own at the end of the film, feeling betrayed by Paul, as he intends to marry the Emperor’s daughter Irulan. Chani in the book is more accepting, because she will be a wife in all but name, but this wouldn’t suit a modern film audience, who expect strong female characters.

Another character who is somewhat changed, is Feyd-Rautha, the Baron’s heir (played by Austin Butler, aka Elvis!). He is introduced quite early in the book, but only appears in the second film. Irulan describes him as ‘psychotic’ and indeed he delights in unusually extreme cruelty and violence, but in the book he is not more depraved than the average Harkonnen. I think his character is altered to make a stronger contrast with Paul during the final confrontation, and to emphasise the ruthless scheming of the Bene Gesserit, who use him in their breeding programme so that whichever House wins the war, the bloodline is safe. Princess Irulan (Florence Pugh) is an odd role, because every chapter in the novel is headed by a quotation from one of her writings, published in the future, though she doesn’t appear in person until near the end. In the film, she has a sort of advisory role to the Emperor and with the Bene Gesserit; it is she who realises that Paul, presumed dead, is actually the legendary Muad’Dib who is fulfilling the prophecy, in a religion cultivated on Arrakis by the Bene Gesserit.

Finishing this post with a bit of fun, the worm-riding scene, where Paul can officially join the Fremen, is fantastic. It’s much more dramatic than the book version, where Paul does an adequate job and then everyone else joins him on the worm ride. In the film, the biggest worm on the planet is zooming towards him, cue fear from the crowd. It’s quite amusing. Of course, after a struggle to latch on the worm and get himself upright, Paul triumphs – cut to the afterparty. They never show how he disembarks from the worm, but I imagine it gradually slowing down like a bizarre funfair ride.

In summary, considering both of the films, they are great adaptations of the novel and the changes made are generally improvements.

Image: CineMaterial, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73709643

The film follows the book quite closely, with some changes to the plot at the end, plus more graphic violence. I thought Amanda Seyfried was very effective in the role of Nina, the apparently-crazy wife. She hadn’t deliberately put on weight though, as her book counterpart did. I really didn’t believe Sydney Sweeney in the character of Millie, the housemaid who has been in prison. For a start, she had fantastic teeth for someone imprisoned for a decade and who is living in her car. She furrowed her brow a lot in an irritating way, but otherwise her acting seemed wooden. Brandon Sklenar was unconvincing at first as Andrew, but I kind of warmed to his acting, the more terrible his character became. Cece, the little girl, was not so vulnerable as in the book and she had a creepy dolls’ house which gives us a hint that something isn’t right. The role of gardener Enzo was reduced, so that whenever he turned up, I realised I’d forgotten he was even in the movie. The fancy house was perfect though, just as you might imagine it from the book.

If you’re a fan of the book, you’ll probably like the film!

Image credit: https://www.fandango.com/the-housemaid-2025-242549/movie-photos-posters, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81086373

With an irreverent, opinionated and friendly writing tone, the author explores films from a variety of genres, illustrating her points with quotes from authors, critics, producers and film dialogue. The book did seem a little on the short side, with many films given passing mentions and throwaway comments, so I would have liked it to be more detailed. It was an interesting read which discussed topics such as why Austen is adapted so often, whether certain books are really ‘unfilmable’ and the social values of the past which affected the adaptations. I did not always agree with the opinions; for example, I don’t care that the Scouring of the Shire wasn’t in the LOTR films and I think the book of The Exorcist was better than the film. Mostly I did agree; the Netflix version of Persuasion is dreadful, most adaptations of children’s books aren’t satisfactory, Daphne du Maurier’s stories make great films, and Bram Stoker’s Dracula is indeed terrible.

I was unfamiliar with some of the books and films, but it was sometimes interesting to learn about them even if I’ll never read or watch them. I even learned of some films which few people realise were based on books. There was a last chapter on Christmas films, which I skimmed over because it wasn’t exactly seasonal when I read it in July! In a book such as this one, the books and films examined are personal preference, so I appreciated that the author chose the material she had the strongest feelings about. This means that many famous great film adaptations, and many bad ones, do not get a mention. In summary, if you’re a ‘film of the book’ obsessive, you’ll enjoy this!

Thank you to the publisher Oneworld for the review copy via NetGalley. The book is out on 1st October.

The filming style is edgier and more creative, culminating in the ending where Harry is captured mid-broomstick flight, almost as if his face is squashed against the screen, which is a contrast to the sentimental panning out from the first and second films. On the subject of broomsticks, there is only one Quidditch match. Moving the mysterious gift of a new broom to the end of the story makes more sense in this context. Rewinding to the beginning, it’s silly that Harry is using his wand to light up his homework (and why does the light keep failing?) instead of a torch, because as we are soon reminded, magic is not allowed outside of school.

More than the previous films, this one is a simplified adaptation which leaves out a lot of background detail. It seemed to be more of an impression of the story, rather than a complete telling. Some things it does very well, such as the Knight Bus scene, where an added shrunken head brings extra craziness. The Aunt Marge scene is good, taking it further by having her float off into the sky. The Dementor scenes are very scary and having everything freeze was a great idea. The werewolf transformation was frightening although we don’t get much background on it. Buckbeak is also very well done (if you go on the WB Studio Tour, you can see the animatronic Buckbeak). The time travel effects were good too. I liked the casting of David Thewlis, Gary Oldman and Emma Thompson. The returning cast were as good as ever.

Sadly the role of Crookshanks, the fluffy ginger cat adopted by Hermione, is very much reduced. In the book, he is very intelligent and plays a significant part in the plot. I suppose it would have been difficult to train the cats enough.

In summary, given that the film was still 2 hours long despite changing the plot, it’s mostly a great adaptation, but the condensed story might possibly confuse anyone who hasn’t read the book.

Image credit https://x.com/rowlinglibrary/status/1798065540923265178/photo/1, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79642140

Dr Seuss wrote this simple rhyming picture book, which was first published in 1957, to make learning to read more fun. The story is told by an unnamed boy, who with his sister Sally is bored at home on a rainy day while their mother is out. Then a tall, cartoon cat enters the house and causes chaos, much to the distress of the pet fish. He lets out two creatures from a crate, who make even more mess. Luckily, he has a machine which cleans and tidies everything before the mother gets home.

I don’t think the movie adaptation is totally devoid of merit. Dakota Fanning is believable and charming as Sally. The film does keep the concept of the story, has a vaguely 1950s style with pastel aesthetic, while the humour is a mixture of crude, anarchic and absurd. However the story has been warped so much that it’s weird but not in an enjoyable way. Why is there purple goo everywhere? Why are there some unpleasant adult jokes? Why is Paris Hilton posing in an underground club where everyone wears red and white striped hats? Why is the cat (Mike Myers) a cross between Krusty the Klown, the Cowardly Lion, the Genie, and Willy Wonka? Why does the cat pretend to be a British chef (using the word ‘bloody’ which apparently Americans think we say all the time) and cut the end off his tail? WHY is this film so horrible?

Some of the changes do make a little sense. For example, there is more at stake in having a tidy house, because the mother is going to have a party for her real estate colleagues that evening, and also the boy (who is named Conrad here) is under threat of military school if he doesn’t start behaving. The cat’s actions help get rid of the mother’s boyfriend (Alec Baldwin), a secret slob who is allergic to cat fur. Like some irresponsible and creepy Mary Poppins, the cat somehow manages to bring the family into harmony. Instead of leaving the kids home alone, we have a babysitter, the useless Mrs Kwan, who spends the whole time asleep and is even used as a raft; whether she’s narcoleptic, or if it’s some magic by the cat, is unclear. As well as the pet fish, there’s also a little dog with a silly hairstyle who when not escaping, is being stolen, or covered in purple goo, or put in a shampooing machine.

As the fish said, ‘Oh, I do not like it! Not one little bit!’

Image credit: Universal Pictures / DreamWorks Pictures – Internet Movie Database, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81592607

The film, which was directed by Lasse Hallström, starring Juliette Binoche, Johnny Depp, Judi Dench and and Alfred Molina, captures the essence of the book, but it’s a little different. While the book has some chapters narrated by Father Reynaud, which gives additional insight into his character, the film does not – moreover he’s a mayor, instead of a priest. I’m not sure why this was changed, perhaps it was thought some viewers might be offended. The magical realism tone of the book is generally dropped and it’s not clear that Vianne has something witchy about her. Another change is that the boat fire, which persuades the traveller Roux to stay in the town, is moved to much later in the film as a dramatic denouement and involves Vianne diving into the water (Roux diving after her) because she thinks her daughter Anouk is on the boat. Of course, the romance theme is much increased and the exploration of beliefs is reduced. There are also many memories of Vianne’s mother which are not represented. The film has a definite era, the 50s, whereas in the book it could be set any time in the last few decades. The setting looks very French and quaint – some of the film was shot in France – however none of the characters look like I imagined them, for some reason. The film is very well-made and the music is nice. It’s just not really my cup of tea, or rather, chocolate.

Film poster: Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7984022

I really like the Matrix films. Not only are the special effects fantastic, the fight scenes brilliantly choreographed, the actors great and the soundtracks cool. They include some of my favourite tropes; humans vs. machine (more relevant than ever now that AI is becoming embedded into society), the chosen one who has special powers, and the blurring between fiction and reality. The first film in particular poses questions: if you were a computer construct (or a brain in a jar, etc), would you be happier not knowing? If you had the choice, would you escape, even if reality is grim? The success of The Matrix (1999) is to blend these philosophical ideas with a sci-fi action movie, influenced by video games, cyberpunk and martial arts movies. Where the ‘bad movies’ question comes from is probably the less successful critical reaction to the sequels, which don’t quite have the same tone as the first. The Matrix Reloaded, the second one (2003), suffers particularly from extended fight/chase scenes which begin to seem self-indulgent, an uncomfortable attitude to the role of some female characters, and ‘middle film’ syndrome in which the story is too obviously a bridge. The Matrix Revolutions, the third (also 2003), can be confusing, but it has some brilliant scenes and stunning effects, and of course the final battle between the humans and machines. One of my favourite moments in the whole series is the few seconds in which Trinity and Neo fly the ship above the clouds on their way to the Machine City. Briefly, we see the real sky, before plunging back into the storm. It seems to have a vital significance and deeper meaning.

This brings us to The Matrix Resurrections, the fourth and possibly unnecessary film which was released in 2021, with only one of the Wachowskis on board. When I saw it at the cinema, there was so much detail packed in that I couldn’t process it all, and had to think about it later. I liked it, though. It had a different vibe again, humorous and deliberately self-parodying at times. The premise of the film is that the machines have brought Neo and Trinity back to life, plugged them back into the Matrix to run off their energy, and fooled them into thinking they are normal people. Neo thinks he’s going crazy, with these flashbacks of his former life which he based a computer game on. He’s rescued by a group of young people, to whom he is their hero, and taken back to the real world, where 60 years have passed. The rest of the plot revolves around convincing Trinity that her Matrix-life is false, bringing her back, and beating a new version of Agent Smith. I loved that Neo and Trinity were given a second chance together, because it was a tragic end for them in the third film. There are lots of fun details too for fans of the series to spot. I remember the critical reviews of the film mostly weren’t great – I haven’t revisited any reviews while writing this post – but if the critics didn’t like the second and third films, it seemed unlikely they’d feel differently about the fourth. My feeling was the film was for the fans. It was also a commentary on ageing, with Neo’s character growing in confidence as he regains his former identity, but also recognising he can’t do everything he used to. Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss looked great and had matured in their acting ability. Not all of the film made sense to me – the new versions of Morpheus were confusing and I didn’t like what happened to Niobe’s character – but the central core of Neo and Trinity’s relationship was the highlight. I was kind of sad that no one had to rely on landlines any more to get back into the real world, but it wouldn’t have made sense in the 2020s!

So are the Matrix films ‘bad movies’? Take the blue pill and believe whatever you want to believe.

The story is set in a kingdom where the humans and goblins co-exist uncomfortably. Princess Irene, a young girl who encounters the goblins, is saved by Curdie, a miner’s boy. He discovers the goblins are plotting against the humans. Meanwhile, the spirit of Irene’s great-great-grandmother helps Irene to rescue him.

The main points of the plot are included in the film, with some changes, particularly towards the end, where the goblins’ plans to flood the mine, take over the castle and kidnap Irene are converged into one campaign. The main difference is the portrayal of the goblins. In the book, they are the traditional kind, short and ugly but also vaguely human-looking. The theory in the book is that they are primordial beings, an evolutionary throwback. They speak in quite a sophisticated manner and are not particularly violent. The film turns them into cartoonish gargoyles with a variety of skin colours, a crude way of speaking and an aggressive nature. The culmination of this is the character of Prince Froglip (Harelip in the book), a green-skinned, lisping, scantily-clad goblin voiced enthusiastically by Rik Mayall, who plots viciously against the sun-people.

The film gives a feline companion to Irene, named Turnip. Perhaps this was inspired by the goblin-cat from the book, so that it has a normal cat for a rival. There’s a fun comedy moment when the two are fighting, and Princess Irene accidentally cuddles the goblin-cat, which looks terrified. The end credits of the film have a lovely line animation of Turnip playing about.

Irene’s father, or ‘papa-king’ as in the book, is away for much of the story. He is given a voiceover at the start and end of the film, just as in the book, the author’s voice – which sounds like a genial storytelling uncle – talks directly to the reader.

One more thing I’m going to mention is the use of music. In both the book and film, singing at the goblins is one way to fight them (the other is to stamp on their feet – although in the book, Curdie actually kills one with a blade). Curdie is particularly renowned for making up rhyming songs on the spot and some songs are more effective than others. In the film, instead of making things up, he sings the one song over and over, ‘There’s a Spark Inside Us’. It’s a good song and has a suitably Christian tone which I’m sure that George MacDonald, a minister, would have approved of.

The film has rather an international background; the production companies were Hungarian, Japanese and Welsh. Strangely I always thought it was set in Wales, perhaps because of the mining theme. It was first released in Hungary in 1991 as A hercegnő és a kobold, then the English version in 1992 in the UK, and finally the US in 1994.

Image by IMDb, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=55826137

This film, starring Vanessa Regrave as older Mrs Dalloway and Natascha McElhone as the younger, is about as close as we could possibly get to the essence of the book. Some of the thoughts are instead expressed in dialogue. The story takes place over just one day, which in the book seems a little outlandish, but works very well for a film. Clarissa Dalloway prepares for hosting a party, for no reason but that she likes parties and has been ill. We follow other characters too, who are either going to the party or are linked in some way. For example, Peter Walsh, who has come back from India and whom Clarissa decided not to marry because she could not share everything. Her daughter Elizabeth, who is out in society but is under the influence of a poor religious friend, Miss Kilman. Septimus Warren Smith, a young man who is traumatised by his experiences in the War and feeling survivors’ guilt.

In the book, of course, we get much more background on the characters. The film enhances certain aspects of the story, such as Clarissa’s relationship with her friend Sally (it’s obvious that if it were allowed, then Clarissa would have married Sally, not Peter or Richard) and the effects of the War upon Septimus. I think the film is very well done and would be an effective substitute if you can’t get on with the writing style of the book.

Image by unknown: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119723/mediaviewer/rm1630599680, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60032313

The picture book, which has monochrome illustrations, tells us about siblings Judy and Peter, who play a board game they found in the park. When they land on various hazards in the game, such a lion, monsoon or monkeys, these become real. They must finish the game, causing everything to return to normal. Their parents, returning home, are none the wiser.

The film builds up a feature-length story, following the game through the years as a drum-beat draws children into unearthing it. A major feature of the story is that two children, Alan and Sarah, play the game, but Alan gets trapped in its world. Fast forward a few decades, when Peter and Judy, moving into the house which Alan used to live in, find the game there and that’s when Alan is freed, having become an adult. They then have to track down Sarah and continue play. Alan, played by the brilliant Robin Williams, is the main character (instead of Peter and Judy), with a background story exploring his conflict with his father, who owns a shoe factory.

One of the many changes is that the story is not confined to the house – a big problem when the monkeys escape and steal a police car! However, the worst creature to emerge from the game is a colonial-style hunter, Van Pelt (possibly inspired by the hapless guide from the book, who pores over a map). Alan, Sarah, Judy and Peter not only have to play the game and survive the hazards, they have to foil the hunter. I like how neatly the story is wrapped up, time travelling back to Alan’s childhood. The special effects are very good too.

The only detail from the book which I think should have been in the film, was that ‘Jumanji’ is a golden city that the players are aiming for.

Image credit: http://www.impawards.com/1995/jumanji_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=899077