Barrorama53 Heyy. I expected much more of the movie after reading the book. The book had way more elements than the movie. Many funny clips that made the book were eliminated. And the whole entire (Important but Minor) role of Saxonberg and the whole point of the story outline. I did like Lauren Bacall's work as Mrs.BEF since she really portrayed the right attitude. They sort of mixed up the events orders and the characters book descriptions(attitudes,appearance etc.) well it wasn't horrible. The only thing that was portrayed better in the movie was "Angel"(i cant spoil it so no more details :). They also really rushed events into one another too fast. Also they added parts that made no sense. Certain areas were better than others by much. Watch the movie and see what i mean but also read the book too! ENJOY!~-MGME :)

aquanaut I heartily recommend E.L. Konigsberg's book. I also liked the 1973 movie version (also known as "The Hideaways") with Ingrid Bergman. The '73 actors looked and acted much more like the book's characters.This version kept the interesting concept of kids hiding out in the Metropolitan Museum, but lost most of the wonder and sweetness that made the book the sort of children's classic that adults can enjoy. The characters became annoying, and a lot of interesting subplots were cast aside. Also, for some reason, Claudia wears glasses in this version, and bathes in them, keeps them on in bed, and generally acts like someone who's never truly worn glasses in her life. Just one more roadblock on the trip to suspension of disbelief.This version completely lost the character of Saxonburg, Mrs. Frankweiler's accountant and the children's grandfather. Instead, they added a lot of cutesy dialog about "Poppa Kincaid" saying that Jamie is older sister Claudia's "good luck charm". It just doesn't capture the complex relationship between the children, and Mrs. Frankweiler becomes more a fairy godmother than an interesting 3-D character.