Literary anoraks usually have difficulty in coping with movie adapations of their favourite books, failing to understand that their mental view of the original will not survive the change of medium and the consequent creation of a new art form. A book as iconic as Joyce's Ulysses will never be faithfully 'reproduced' on screen to the satisfaction of such critics.
In fact Joseph Strick's 1967 film not only sees the successful transition of Joyce's book into a new medium (within the 'new wave' tradition popular with film makers at the time) but has also created a work that remains highly relevant to the 21st century viewer. Strick actually filmed in black and white and in 'modern dress' ( for the time) for budgetary rather than aesthetic reasons.
Although set a century ago in 1904 the book introduced a whole plethora of very modern sounding topics -sexual and personal relationships, consumerism, nationalism, religious and racial intolerance, advertising and media, immigration, popular music and the position of the artist in society (among others!). Strick's film was fortunately made at a time in the Sixties when the ground norms of society were being widely questioned and the film picks up some of this buzz. The happy result - helped greatly by the minimalist 'modern' dress and settings - is a film that seems to consist of up -to-date real people with real lives and something relevant to say to a present day audience about their own lives.
Sean Walsh's more recent adaptation of Ulysses ('Bloom', made in 2004)on the other hand, while beautifully fimed and acted, is played as a period drama that aims to reproduce the original environment of Joyce's book as closely as possible. As a result, to me anyway , the latter film fails to touch any nerve other than as a pleasant enough adaptation but one that is about as relevant to our present day lives as an adaptation of Jane Austen.