To answer some people's problems with this film...

Rating: 10/10 (6 January 2002)

I'm not a fanatical LOTR fan - I've read the books about twice in total (once all the way through, and then parts of it again, several times). I've seen the film twice (so far). Several of the problems some reviewers have with Fellowship... need dealing with.
Firstly, there are NOT "endless fight scenes" - there are in total only 4 in the whole film, 3 if you don't count the attack of the Killer Tentacle (Weathertop, the Cave Troll battle, and the forest battle with the orcs being the others). Other scenes involving enemies are frequently not fights as such (or even that fast) - the Balrog, the wizard duel and the scene where a the huge crowd of goblins surrounds the heros are NOT fight scenes in any traditional sense. As for the editing of the fights, the problems with them are down to film-goers getting used to endless carefully choreographed Kung-fu fights such as the Episode I light-saber duel, where the combatants can pull off absurdly balletic moves without any effort at all. The actual fight scenes in Fellowship feel like the combatants are performing REAL improvised attempts to kill each other, instead of slow motion 10 foot leaps and silly speeded up show-fencing moves.

Secondly, to those who didn't like Elrond, I was pleased there was an elf in the film demonstrating an emotion other than nobility. If you can't stop thinking about Elrond as Agent Smith from the Matrix, uh, I think you must have seen that film a few too many times.
If you hate the open-ended conclusion to this film (and if you know it's a trilogy I think it's a bit sour of you, really), you'll DIE when you see the ending of The Two Towers. Hur hur. You'll go ballistic. But anyway, what's the problem? The Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars film, and that's completely open-ended. If it's frustrating, it shows how emotionally involved you were with the film. And that's a good thing.

Character development wise, I think those who didn't think there was enough of this are underestimating how much is shown rather than demonstrated with dialogue. The other two films will provide ample time for all the development needed.
Showing Sauron too early - it had to be done. When you're watching an action-adventure, good vs. evil type film, you just HAVE to know what the good guys are up against. If only so you can cut between the goodies progress and the baddies. It would have been impossible to get across the importance of the quest to destroy the ring without showing how powerful it would be in the wrong hands.
All in all, Rings is a fantastic visual feast which, though in a few ways flawed, manages to make those flaws somehow not matter and diminish in importance with each viewing. It's interesting how critisisms have been both that the plot is non-existent and too difficult to follow, that the ending is to ragged and that the film is too long, etc. It indicates the fine balance of the film that those that didn't like it dislike it in contradictory ways.