FOR a lot of kids, their introduction to dark comedy is through the twisted stories of Roald Dahl. His books introduced filthy monsters and draconian authority figures in all their grotesque glory, then sicked good-hearted (if mischievous) child protagonists on them.

A live-action version of Dahl’s 1982 book The BFG makes its way to the screen on July 1, directed by Steven Spielberg. The movie stars Mark Rylance as the titular dream-catching Big Friendly Giant, with Ruby Barnhill playing his new best friend, plucky orphan Sophie.

Although most adaptations of Dahl’s works have turned out pretty well, The BFG shows how tricky the transformation can be.

The movie is vividly imaginative, with breath-taking special effects that transform Rylance into a beanpole of a supersized human. It revels in Dahl’s extensive vocabulary of made-up words, such as hippodumplings and crocadowndillies. The movie also features the irreverent stuff Dahl loved so much, like earth-quaking flatulence.

But it isn’t nearly as exciting as the book. Maybe it’s appropriate that a film about dreams can very nearly lull you to sleep. The movie spends much more time acquainting us with the world of giants than taking advantage of the action these massive, bloodthirsty characters are capable of scaring up.

The movie could have learned some lessons from previous Dahl adaptations. Here are a few.

Don’t worry about what the author thinks: Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) Plot in a sentence: the impoverished young Charlie Bucket wins the chance to tour an eccentric’s candy workshop and watches as ill-behaved children get their long-overdue comeuppance.

Dahl was famously disgusted with the movie version of his 1964 book, directed by Mel Stuart. The screenplay Dahl wrote was heavily reworked, but that wasn’t his only complaint: he wanted Spike Milligan to play Willy, and he thought Charlie’s role was overshadowed by Gene Wilder’s wonky Wonka.

Audiences weren’t much easier to please; the movie was met with a disappointing box office upon its release. But a few years down the line, it became hugely popular. And why is that? It really did capture some of Dahl’s spirit. For one, it didn’t soften the content for kids, leaving the scare factor high. That eerie boat ride, for example, was enough to give children nightmares well into adulthood. It also appealed to parents as much as their offspring, which was a hallmark of Dahl’s work.

Another adaptation of the novel courtesy of Tim Burton. Dahl fans agreed that the writer, who died in 1990, would have been happier with this incarnation, which more closely followed the book. Audiences, though, might have been too distracted by Johnny Depp’s soft-spoken, giggling, creepy Wonka to fully appreciate the story.

Gore is preferred, either shown or implied: The Witches (1990) Plot in a sentence: the recently orphaned Luke Eveshim goes on a trip with his grandmother and must do battle with a crew of hideous witches after they turn him into a mouse.

Here was another adaptation that Dahl disavowed. (He wasn’t easy to please.) And yet, the movie certainly lived up to the scary spirit of its source material. It’s basically a horror movie: the witches are sickening to look at (thanks to fine special effects by Jim Henson), and they do ghastly things to children — luring them in with candy, then transforming them into rodents. In one particularly nightmarish scene, a cook lops off poor Luke’s tail. And if there’s any question what the Grand High Witch (a perfectly cast Anjelica Huston) is capable of, just look at Grandma’s missing pinky.

The most conspicuous change between book and movie is the fact that, at the end of the film, Luke gets to be a boy again. Even Dahl can’t come between Hollywood and its happy endings.

No need for kid gloves: Matilda (1996) Plot in a sentence: Wunderkind Matilda Wormwood uses her telekinetic powers to give her brutal headmistress, Miss Trunchbull, what’s coming to her.

Danny DeVito directed this adaptation of Dahl’s 1988 novel. It turned out that the man behind Throw Momma From the Train and The War of the Roses was the perfect person to usher a children’s story — albeit a dark one — to the screen.

“Sit down, you squirming worm of vomit!” the militaristic Trunchbull tells a student at one point. Later, she grabs a girl by the pigtails and hurls her across a yard. Matilda isn’t as scary as The Witches, but it’s just as disturbing at times, what with Matilda’s life at home as soulless as her time at school. Her father (DeVito) rips up her library books and forces her to watch idiotic game shows. Aside from transferring the action from England to the States, DeVito stuck quite close to the original.

If you have your own crazy idea, go with it: Fantastic Mr Fox (2009)

Plot in a sentence: an impish fox has to recruit help after his chicken-thieving makes his family and friends the target of three dangerous farmers.

Wes Anderson went in an entirely different direction with his stop-motion animation version of Dahl’s 1970 novel. The contours of the story are the same, but Anderson took liberties with a lot of details. Even as the movie is so obviously a work of its auteur, it’s also faithful to Dahl’s spirit, with wry comedy and an insistence on not looking down on its youngest audience members.

“You cussing with me?” Mr Fox (George Clooney) asks a badger (Bill Murray) he’s sparring with. “Don’t cuss with me you little cuss,” the badger responds before the characters growl and claw at each other. The dialogue is PG, but with a naughty streak.

There are still hints of gore — a farmer wears the tail of his vulpine adversary as a necktie — but also plenty of heart. Anderson adds a contentious father-son relationship that never existed in the story.

Would Dahl have approved of the director’s almost pathological devotion to whimsy? May be not. But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy it.

By arrangement with The Washington Post

Published in Dawn, June 27th, 2016