Boy, did they butcher the book! Few weeks ago I got hold to a copy of Ursula Curtiss' novel "The forbidden garden". Although not without its' flaws, it was a very enjoyable read - the plot premise was interesting, and how Curtiss plays with different narrative points of view was fascinating: Part of the novel is told through the eyes of a ruthless murderer, part is told through the eyes of a more or less uninvolved observer. The role of a third protagonist is unclear to both of them, and both draw very different conclusions. While reading, I thought that the book would make an interesting movie, though hard to make. Then I found out that they did make a movie out of it - WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO AUNT ALICE?, from Robert Aldrich's studio. Apart from the campy title, which is a not-very-subtle reference to Aldrich's WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE, I thought the movie must be great with all the acting talent involved (Geraldine Page, Ruth Gordon, a young Rosemary Forsyth). But boy, was I wrong! Boy, did they butcher the book! And what a waste of talent it was... but let's start at the beginning. As I told before, the main protagonist of the book is a ruthless murderer - I'm not spoiling anything here, because it's told on the very first page of the book and during the first 5 minutes of the film: The serial killer actually is a seemingly frail, elderly lady of about 70 who nobody would ever suspect of such things. That's actually one of the main points that make the plot interesting. She hires a housekeeper-companion, a 50something, practical woman who is not what she seems to be. Let's switch to the movie: Geraldine Page, 45 when the movie was made and made to look only very slightly older, plays the murderer - she's very healthy-looking throughout the movie and not at all frail. The housekeeper, on the other hand, is played by petite, frail 70ish Ruth Gordon. Damn, what were they thinking???? Does that make any sense at all? It turns the interesting plot line upside down and makes it uninspired instead of fascinating. Both actresses give tour de force performances, but they are so blatantly miscast that they can't save the film. If they simply had switched roles, maybe the whole thing would look different. But no, it's just very bad, trashy "old lady's horror", a cheap copy of BABY JANE. Rosemary Forsyth has a very thankless role as the girl next door, the observer in the book, who is for no obvious reason given a tragic past (her husband died recently) and who gets a very dull romantic subplot of her own (which was there in the book, but covered no more than 3 pages) with wooden Robert Fuller, whose minor role in the book is in turn expanded. What was interesting in the book (the different perspective of the girl next door) was left out completely in the film. Then there's her nephew, who is portrayed as a difficult child and plays a key role in the novel - here, he is given minimized screen time and the usual "annoying brat" treatment. The only characters that seem to come right from the book are the old lady's nephew and his wife, especially Joan Huntington is genius as a bitchy socialite. But that's cold comfort. The film manages to make a decent showdown, but the ending is less than satisfactory - again, for no logical reason changed, since in the book the punchline was the appearance of a most unusual angel of vengeance, while the film gives us a very conventional solution with an uninspired, run-of-the-mill ironical turn. Adding to the underwhelming experience are the overall cheap look and a grating, fingernails-on-the-blackboard musical score. And what's that with all the senseless name changing? (Not very comprehensible is, for example, why young Harriet Crewe gets to keep her rather old-fashioned first name, but her last name is changed to Vaughn???)