Great movie, but understandably imperfect.

Rating: 9/10 (24 December 2001)

Here we go:
For starters, I had not finished reading the Rings series before seeing the movie. In fact, I was in the middle of the Fellowship when I saw the movie this weekend. Therefore, I can say I hold very little bias towards this movie since I grew up on the Hobbit, Redwall, and Dune rather than the Rings series in general.
For the most part, I was quite impressed with this cinematic giant of a film. It had the best cinematography in a movie that I've seen since "A Thin Red Line" and "Braveheart", and I'll go even as far as to say that it has vastly outdone the others in that respect. New Zealand was the perfect setting for this film. The sweeping landscape shots are excellent, as well as the scenes from Isingod and the dwarven mines. Besides the cinematography, kudos go out to many of the fine actors and actresses who poured their hearts into this film. Ian McKellon as Gandalf give probably the best performance in the film, followed by Christopher Lee as Saruman or Elijah Wood as Frodo. Liv Tyler and Cate Blanchett aren't bad for their limited amount of screen time. Overall, mostly everyone was well cast and the screenplay was nicely written. My favorite scene would have to be the wicked wizard duel between Saruman and Gandalf. This movie ties with Memento as the best film that I've scene all year.
Now for the downside:
For avid Tolkien readers, many will be dismayed with the script's departure at times from the text. Some major omissions have occured in the form of the complete absence of Tom Bombadil and other changes which give some characters more important roles than the text had permitted. Also, the ending is kind of disappointing, but movie viewers should remember that unlike films such as Back to the Future and Indiana Jones, this is one book broken up into three major parts. The book continues after the end of a part, not starting anew with some brand new adventure so the static ending is kind of understandable. Other qualms arise due to the fact that some characters are severly underdeveloped, especially legolas, the Dwarf, and the other hobbits following Frodo. You don't get to learn a whole lot about them and in a three hour movie, you'd figure you would be able to(which brings me to my next point.) This movie is a three-hour epic in every sense, which means you must bring your attention span to the theatres and make sure the theatre you go to has good surround sound and comfortable seats.(Trust me, I saw this movie in a crappy and uncomfortable theatre, which made the viewing quite unpleasant.)
Finally my only other complaint is this:
MOMS AND DADS, PLEASE DO NOT BRING YOUR UNDER 12-YEAR OLD CHILDREN TO SEE THIS FILM UNLESS THEY ARE QUITE MATURE. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ATTENTION SPAN AND THEY COULD BE QUITE FRIGHTENED BY SOME OF THE MONSTERS IN THIS MOVIE. THIS IS NOT WALT DISNEY NOR IS THIS A CHILDREN'S MOVIE. IT'S PG-13 FOR A REASON, AND NOTHING MAKES OTHER MOVIE GOERS MORE UPSET THAN CRYING OR INQUISITIVE CHILDREN WHO TALK THROUGHOUT A THREE-HOUR MASTERPIECE!!!(as you can see, I ran into a few of these cases during my viewing and I was not too happy.)
-In summation, The Fellowship of The Rings is a great movie with some understandable flaws. Many will enjoy it, Many will love it, and Many will hate it. It's changes from the book are understandable and are the interpretation of those who produced and directed it, and no book save maybe The Shawshank Redemption can be translated nearly word for word into a movie. Overall, I felt that Peter Jackson did an excellent job with this movie and I cannot wait for it to come out on DVD so I can enjoy it that much more from the comforts of my own home. 8.9/10