'The Housemaid' movie made five key changes from the book. Here's why fans prefer the film's darker finale, and how the twist reshapes the story.
When a beloved book is adapted for the screen, readers are often skeptical, worried the film won’t do justice to the original story or will dilute it with unnecessary changes. But Lionsgate’s adaptation of Freida McFadden’s bestselling thriller The Housemaid has largely defied those fears. Book fans walked into theaters knowing the twist, yet many walked out surprised.
Since its premiere on Friday, December 19, 2025, the film has earned mostly positive reactions from both readers and newcomers, with audiences largely embracing the altered ending: a rare win for book-to-film adaptations.
Starring Sydney Sweeney as ‘Millie Calloway’ and Amanda Seyfried as ‘Nina Winchester’, The Housemaid stays largely faithful to the novel’s shocking reveal of the true villain, ‘Andrew Winchester’ (Brandon Sklenar). However, it’s the final act that makes some bold changes, and the crowd is satisfied. Here are the five key changes everyone is talking about (spoiler alert!).
The Housemaid follows Millie Calloway, a young woman recently fresh out of prison for murdering her friend’s assaulter ten years ago. Desperate for a fresh start, she readily accepts a live-in housemaid position at the grand estate of the wealthy Winchester family, believing it could be her chance at redemption and safety.
Nina Winchester, the family’s matriarch, is volatile and unpredictable. She lies, gaslights, and frequently humiliates Millie. Her behaviour grows more erratic with time, and she seems to spiral further each day. Meanwhile, her husband, Andrew, is a calm, gentle force who Millie believes is the only stable pillar of the family.
From Millie’s POV, Nina is clearly the villain: a mentally unstable wife and mother whose past is riddled with disturbing rumours. Millie hears from the community that Nina once tried to drown her daughter before attempting to take her own life, only to be saved when Andrew called the police in time.
The second half reveals Nina’s truth. Like Millie, she was once charmed by Andrew and swept into marriage. But beneath his gentle facade lay a sadistic monster. Andrew imprisoned Nina in the attic, deprived her of food, and himself orchestrated the bathtub incident by drugging her and leaving their daughter to drown, using the aftermath to control and terrorise her into staying.
Although the novel's central narrative remains unchanged, the Lionsgate adaptation made some clever changes that made all the difference. Sticking to the shocking villain arc, director Paul Feig made sure that the audience walks out reeling in disgust at the monster that is ‘Andrew’ (Brandon Sklenar).
In the book, Andrew’s torture of Millie is more psychological than physical, like when he forced her to balance heavy books on her body for hours. In the film, however, the torture becomes something far more visceral and establishes Andrew as irredeemable. When Millie accidentally breaks his mom’s prized china, Andrew locks her in the attic and orders her to carve 21 cuts into her stomach using the broken pieces.
The original story builds up a slow and methodical revenge on Millie’s part. After being let out, Millie fights back immediately, slitting his neck with a knife she had hidden and locking him inside. Seeing him bleed out, she breaks more of his mother’s china and instructs him to pull out his front tooth. Instead of a waiting game, the film adaptation gives Millie greater agency, heightening the tension in the climax.
The villain’s end in the novel, though satisfying, is not explored in detail. And this is perhaps the biggest change you see in the film adaptation. Unlike the novel, Andrew doesn’t die quietly of starvation. In the movie version, Millie and Nina confront him one last time before Millie pushes him over the staircase to his death. Fans have praised this moment for giving Nina the emotional closure the book only hints at.
The character of ‘Enzo’, the gardener, played by Michele Morrone, is greatly reduced in the film. In the novel, Enzo plays a key character: he and Nina get romantically and sexually involved, he helps Nina escape the Winchester mansion, and ultimately pushes her to return and help Millie. In the movie, however, he plays a minimal role, more like a symbolic presence as the story centres around the three central characters.
In the film, Andrew’s doting mother, ‘Evelyn’ (Elizabeth Perkins), plays a far more prominent role than she does in the book. While her presence is mostly confined to flashbacks, her influence looms large, leaving a lasting psychological impact on Nina and helping shape Andrew into the antagonist he becomes.
Evelyn’s prized china carries strong symbolic weight in the film. Andrew first punishes Millie for accidentally breaking a piece from the set. Later, that same china becomes her weapon as she turns the tables on him in one of the movie’s most cathartic moments. Notably, this entire china storyline does not exist in the book.
The intense and undeniably bloody ending is where the filmmakers took the greatest creative liberty. That choice ultimately makes the finale far more satisfying to watch, to the point that even longtime fans of the book have embraced the change rather than opposing it. Letting Nina confront Andrew and giving Millie a decisive final act, the movie creates a catharsis that becomes a pleasant surprise.
The Housemaid film is one of those rare adaptations that proves that changing a book’s ending doesn’t always upset fans. Sometimes, this creative liberty allows the exact reckoning they didn’t know they needed. What are your thoughts on these changes?
Read Next: 'The Housemaid' Ending Explained: Is Nina The Real Villain, Or Andrew? What The Final Scene Means