We demand equal rights for gut drums!
Photo by Korean Resource Centre licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

Before you all start throwing blood at me and question the size of my genitalia, let me elaborate here.  I also really like the book.  I've also seen some (not all) of the other adaptations, including the TV adaptation (which I thought was horrendous), and the video game adaptation from Infocom (which my Dad owns, and he still has all the feelies that came with including the microscopic spacefleet and pocket fluff).  That game, by the by, you can play in its entirety here.  I wish you great luck in solving this labyrinthine nonsense without a walkthrough.

Do I think the movie is as good as the book?  No.  But I'm not sure that's a fair comparison to be making.

After all, even though the material is essentially the same, the medium is completely different, and as such it's really a matter of apples to oranges.

I've never really understood that turn of phrase.  I mean, apples are fucking DELICIOUS.
Photo by Pedro Hespanha licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic

I think when it comes to adaptations, particularly when it comes to books-film, there is a lot of attention paid to how the movie differs from the book (and vice versa in rare examples), so much that it clouds a critical examination of how the movie stands on its own as a form of entertainment.  For example, with the release of Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games in theatres, a lot of reviews have been focussing on how the movie feels like a neutered version of the book - less violent, less gritty, less...post-apocalyptic.  I have neither read nor seen The Hunger Games.  That's why this paragraph had no handy reference link.  It's also why I won't be talking about it any more.

Nevertheless, it's interesting when something so near and dear to a group of dedicated fans is transferred from one medium to another.  I think that's the big distinction that causes uproar when it comes to adaptation.  For example, how many people marched to the theatre when some older, classic film adaptations were being made?  For that matter, how many people had even read the books that preceded these classic movies before they came out:

1.  A Clockwork Orange

2.  The Godfather

3.  Forrest Gump

4.  M*A*S*H

5.  etc. - no that's not a movie but I think you get the idea.  Though a movie called "etc." could be interesting.

All of these differ, in some cases significantly, from their source material.  A Clockwork Orange is actually reviled as a film by the author.

I think it's important that we consider a film, even an adaptation, as a separate entity outside of the source material.  They can be complimentary to be sure, and lord knows the renewed interest in the source material is always a plus.  How many people flocked to read Lord of the Rings after seeing the epic movies? (Answer:  Not that many, and all of them were confused by the weird Tom Bombadil bits).