Its IMDB No.1 Ranking speaks for itself.

Rating: 10/10 (30 December 2001)

With the staggering 1000 over comments posted here, coupled with its meteoric ascend to the top of the IMDB Top250, and all accomplished barely 2 weeks after its opening, 'Fellowship of the Ring' have indeed achieved an amazing feat.
That it is but only the first part of a trilogy not only intensify the anticipation for how the story will unfold, it is astonishing to realise that we will likely be watching a future movie classic when the chapter closes on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
I am not a radical crusader for LOTR. But on reading some unfathomable wrongful comments posted here, I see a need to right certain misconception/expectation. Below two nagging points of contention I shall address.
1. (It's IMDB Ranking of No.1 is hard to stomach for some fans...)
No one is disputing the artistic merits of Schindler's List, Shawshank Redemption or the Godfather series etc. But the IMDB's Top 250 ranking should not be a barometer for artistic merits alone. It is also a free-for-all popularity poll for all fans of movies. One should not be too harsh on FOTR as it is infact voted by the general masses. And boy, have they spoken?
As such, it is really not suitable for the harsh remarks about the worthiness of FOTR, what with two more parts of this epic saga yet unleashed. I will suggest all to wait till then for a more balanced and critical judgement on the films' artistic merits. More importantly, such rhetoric debates should be fought out in forums other than the IMDB Top 250 ranking.

2. (The Book is better and certain plots were omitted/changed)
It is generally acknowledged and accepted that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy is a literary masterpiece of the 20th century. As such, comparison of any kind between the book and the film is inevitably subjective and very often, personal.
I would rather ask for discerning viewers out there to understand the limits of cross medium comparison. One is to know that IMDB is devoted to the entertainment medium for FILMS and not LITERARY arts. It is thus unfair and inappropriately pointless to compare the merits between the book and the movie.
Instead of nitpicking on their incomparable merits, one should commend on the astounding achievement accomplished by Peter Jackson. It is to his credit that artistic and sound business decision were synergistically considered to ensure the best possible film adaptation from a literary classic of LOTR's magnitude. It is in my opinion that his translation was accomplished to the best of his ability, understanding and the utmost love and respect for a story so masterly told by J R R Tolkien.
(Conclusion)
As far as I am concerned and with all due respects to JRR Tolkien and his 'literary' fans, I am not much of a literary aficionados. But I am a fervent lover of movies. I rightly believe that I am in the position to say that FOTR is one of the best films I have ever seen. Infact, the succeeding episodes of the trilogy may propel its excellence to greater heights.
I was fascinated by its wondrous sights and sounds. I was enthralled by the twists and turns of its powerful, riveting story and I shared the joys and tears of the characters on screen. These, if not already enough, are the makings of a great film.
In time, I dare to proclaim that the Lord of the Rings trilogy will even elevate itself to movie classic status, evolving into a film series which will be cherished by generations of discerning movie lovers. Hopefully, it will also finally stand on its own merits and be fairly judged as a respectful film adaptation of a literary classic and in itself transcends into what shall be a masterpiece labour of love from a visionary director and his inspired cast and crew.