Two of my sons went to see Harry Potter at midnight (early Wednesday morning) and when they got home at 4 a.m. I asked them how they liked it. They were both non-committal (and really tired) and said they were disappointed that it strayed so far from the book. So I braved the crowds along with several of a movie-going-club Wed. evening and saw it for myself. Since I had NOT read the book I was thoroughly entertained. I thought it was a delight. That, despite my seatmate, a 15-year-old kid who had read the book and who said things like, "she's supposed to have dark hair" and "it was supposed to start in his house." I, of course, was blithely ignorant of these details. So while he was distracted I was enthralled.

Rarely have I read a book and really liked the ensuing flick. The one exception I can recall was The Godfather. It's been a long time, but I can recall not particularly liking the book, but the movie was... well, we all know how THAT turned out.

I think the problem with comparing a book and its movie is most often the sheer scope of the book: all the characters, settings, sub-plots, red herrings, etc. that cannot possibly be condensed down in a satisfactory way into a motion picture. In many ways it's like comparing apples and oranges, to use a cliche.

So, go see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. If you've read the book, fine. Just try to see the movie for what it is - a wonderful entertainment. And if you haven't read the book, then you're really in luck. Maybe with books and movies of the quality of the Harry Potter series you'd be better off seeing the movie first.