> While I see your point, and agree that a film can stand alone from its source as a good story, I understand where TOM is coming from. If you've already read and loved the book, you've formed an expectation of what the story should "feel" like; how the characters should look and act; and can eagerly anticipate the storyline. If the film director's/casting agent's/screenwriters'/actors' interpretations differ radically from your own, it can be disconcerting and disappointing.

Absolutely. And I have fallen prey to this disappointment on other occasions. My argument was actually a point of nitpicking. I was asserting that this kind of disappointment supports the statement "I didn't like this movie" but not "This movie sucks." The latter is a more objective call that I don't think is fairly supported when audience expectations are taken into account.

Of course, I realize TOM may have meant one by the other, and it's only me that's so super-sensitive to this distinction. Still, I think it's an important one to make: our personal tastes have the freedom to be what they may, but it's not fair to make a more objective call on a movie -- or ANY work -- based on what we *wanted* it to be.