I rather liked it. It wasn't boring, which for me is the major factor in movies. (I am *not* a movie person!) It does not actually depart quite as far from the original (translation, I mean( as I'd thought, in my hazy high-school memories of reading it, and buried deep in the movie's website, Gaiman mays quite an intelligent defense of the changes he did make (movie website->About the Film->Production Notes). It basically boils down to "The story was written down after about 200 years of oral tradition and was written by monks; there are odd gaps which could be explained if the monks bowdlerized a bit. Here's one possible explanation that makes sense of the gaps." They're not claiming to have the One True Interpretation, just one not completely off-base.