The disadvantage of seeing the play before seeing the movie (or reading a book before viewing its adaptation) is that while it makes for comparison/contrast it leaves an imprint. Onstage, Brian F. O'Byrne (the priest in “Million Dollar Baby,” among other parts) and Ron Eldard handled the is-he-or-isn't-he-guilty aspect of the character more subtly than Hoffman seemed to do. O'Byrne, in particular, I couldn't get out of my head.

But I thought Adams seized on a quality, perhaps unique to her as a performer, that the other actresses hadn't, or couldn't; she really incarnates the audience surrogate, a role that we see isn't neutral at all but perplexing in its own right.

The play is definitely worth seeing. The fat the movie adds is trimmed off and it really moves along.

Before watching Doubt, I didn't know it was a stage play (There's that feeling again). Granted, it only took about 10 minutes before I realized what it must have first been, and how good it likely was.

That said, I thought (like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern) that it made the jump intact. Mostly, I think, for the performance of Hoffman. Streep was terrific, and her charisma made the most (and then some) of her stock character. Adams was fine, though a bit confusing to me – is she savvy or naive? Innocent or insightful? I thought Hoffman, however, made the most of his too-easy charm and subtle lip curls to portray the shiftiness of the movie's central theme. Surprised you didn't care for his performance more.

The disadvantage of seeing the play before seeing the movie (or reading a book before viewing its adaptation) is that while it makes for comparison/contrast it leaves an imprint. Onstage, Brian F. O'Byrne (the priest in “Million Dollar Baby,” among other parts) and Ron Eldard handled the is-he-or-isn't-he-guilty aspect of the character more subtly than Hoffman seemed to do. O'Byrne, in particular, I couldn't get out of my head.

But I thought Adams seized on a quality, perhaps unique to her as a performer, that the other actresses hadn't, or couldn't; she really incarnates the audience surrogate, a role that we see isn't neutral at all but perplexing in its own right.

The play is definitely worth seeing. The fat the movie adds is trimmed off and it really moves along.

The disadvantage of seeing the play before seeing the movie (or reading a book before viewing its adaptation) is that while it makes for comparison/contrast it leaves an imprint. Onstage, Brian F. O'Byrne (the priest in “Million Dollar Baby,” among other parts) and Ron Eldard handled the is-he-or-isn't-he-guilty aspect of the character more subtly than Hoffman seemed to do. O'Byrne, in particular, I couldn't get out of my head.

But I thought Adams seized on a quality, perhaps unique to her as a performer, that the other actresses hadn't, or couldn't; she really incarnates the audience surrogate, a role that we see isn't neutral at all but perplexing in its own right.

The play is definitely worth seeing. The fat the movie adds is trimmed off and it really moves along.

Before watching Doubt, I didn't know it was a stage play (There's that feeling again). Granted, it only took about 10 minutes before I realized what it must have first been, and how good it likely was.

That said, I thought (like Rosencrantz & Guildenstern) that it made the jump intact. Mostly, I think, for the performance of Hoffman. Streep was terrific, and her charisma made the most (and then some) of her stock character. Adams was fine, though a bit confusing to me – is she savvy or naive? Innocent or insightful? I thought Hoffman, however, made the most of his too-easy charm and subtle lip curls to portray the shiftiness of the movie's central theme. Surprised you didn't care for his performance more.