There's an interesting contrarian review of Master and Commander in today's New York Times by Jason Epstein, the former editorial director of Random House. Epstein points out a number of big problems with the story, and suggests that fans of the original novels will be disappointed by the movie version. On the other hand, he concedes, the masses may love it:

The film's crashing and banging, the feeling at all times of emergency, heightened by a pounding score, even when the seas are calm and with no enemy in sight, the huddled intimacy of a crowded ship under threat of attack by a powerful enemy or in a violent sea, may appeal to fans of action films for whom O'Brian's subtle characterizations, being out of sight, will also be out of mind.

Which is interesting; as a man's man sort of action fan myself, I'd argue that much of Master and Commander feels positively sedate (which is part of what I loved about it). In the end, all of Epstein's barbs could be equally directed, and with more reason, to Lawrence of Arabia, say, which is a great film that takes great liberties with history and plausibility and doesn't have much to do with Seven Pillars of Wisdom, its alleged source. Which isn't to say that the books aren't better. Aren't they always?