Saw the movie first, then read the book, and my conclusion is...

Rating: 10/10 (13 January 2002)

...that the film is a superb achievement, a wonderful cinematic work of art.
I liked it the first time I saw it, although at 3 hours, it is incredibly exhausting for those who haven't read the book or aren't big fans. At first, when it was over, I almost felt like Jackson and his team tried to do too much with one movie.
I enjoyed it - and appreciated it - much more the second time I saw it.
Everything - cinematography, casting, acting, etc. - is first-rate.

Now, having read the book, I say: How anyone could possibly make a better film rendition of the book, I have no idea. How any Tolkien fans could be disappointed in this movie, overall, I don't understand. The film is JACKSON'S vision of Tolkien - and it is absolutely astounding at that. If you're a Tolkien fan and you don't think that Jackson's vision is the same as yours, too bad. There's only a bajillion Tolkien fans out there; kinda tough to satisfy them all. Considering that the movie can be made only one way, it's amazing what Jackson has done, and I'm glad for him that most people enjoy it. He had an incredibly - almost impossible - task before him, and he more than met it.
It must be understood that Jackson had to walk an incredible tightrope of making a good film with cinematic clarity and brevity while preserving the integrity of Tolkien's work. Practically everything he does in the movie succeeds at this, so much so that it has to be considered one of the more amazing directing jobs in film history. Taking out Tom Bombadil and so many of the songs (goodness, there are SO many songs in the book!) were deletions very necessary for the making of the film, and yet I don't think it insults Tolkien's work in the least. Honestly, considering that Jackson had to deal with Tolkien's immense imagination - once again, a feat many considered impossible - it is tough for me to think of any films that are more impressive from a purely book-to-film translation standpoint.
Contrary to some reviews on the film, the choreography of the film's fight scenes is NOT bad. Just because it doesn't adhere to the "new standards" set by The Matrix, Phantom Menace and all the stuff done by John Wu doesn't mean it was done poorly. Goodness, does EVERYTHING have to look like Charlie's Angles, Crouching Tiger, Musketeer, etc., etc.?! I found it rather refreshing that it did not.
McKellen as Gandalf is perfect - yes, PERFECT. Woods and Mortensen are also particularly outstanding, and I can't think of one weak performance by any member of the cast.
All that said, it is NOT a movie for everyone. Some people just don't like fantasy, others just don't like long movies. Others might not like how it ends (or doesn't end, rather). That said, it is THE movie within its own genre; nothing else comes close. It is to fantasy what Star Wars is to Sci-Fi, what Godfather is to the Mafia, and what Citizen Kane is to newspaper tycoons.
Like it or not, it will probably go down as one of the first important pieces of cinematic art of the 21st century. In the end, Jackson is to be commended for having the vision and creativity to produce what many, including Tolkien himself, never would have thought possible: a worthy cinematic version of "The Fellowship of the Ring."