Mere words fail.

Rating: 10/10 (21 December 2001)

Have seen it twice. Will see it several more times, at least.
Every criticism I've come up with is trivial compared to the scope of what was achieved.
3/4 of Lorian is probably on the cutting room floor. Gimli's best scene in Fellowship, is with Galadriel, for instance. No lembas (elven waybread), no elven cloaks (though the fellowship was wearing them when they left) and a bare mention of the phial.
I can't recall any "added" plot elements. Jackson didn't base the movie on "The Lord of the Rings", he seems to have based it on "The Red Book of West March", "Unfinished Tales", "The Similrillion" and the appendix in the back of the Fellowship.
I found the additional Arwen scenes took nothing away from the heart of the story.
Personally I would have liked Saruman to have been a "counterpoint" to Sauron rather than a lackey.
Perhaps Fellowship should have been two films instead of one, though I would have, happily, sat through a 4.5 hour movie.
Regardless, not since "Gone with the Wind" has a movie been so faithful to its source. 62 years is a long time to wait for a movie to NOT destroy the story it is based on.
One of the best movies I've ever seen. Much better than Star Wars. Ranks up there with "The 10 Commandments", "Ben Hur", "The Wizard of OZ", "Citizen Kane" and "The African Queen". It could be, when the others are released, that LOTR will be the greatest epic saga ever filmed. Time will tell.
Your Grandchildren might well be in awe of you and your children for being amongst the first EVER to see the film, much like the awe you at 8 or 10 would have held for someone who saw "The Wizard of OZ" or "Gone with the Wind" on opening day.
The critical vocabulary does not yet exist to describe LOTR. "Instant classic" does not fully describe it. This is the first "new" film to be made in 85 years and may well re-define how we think about films.