Some improvements

Rating: Null/10 (20 December 2001)

In a lot of ways, I was pleased with how Middle Earth was brought to the screen visually. The visuals are very similar to a lot of fan art and the previous animated feature, and I think that Peter Jackson borrowed a lot of this imagery. I can't say that this is a bad thing, because fan art helps the LOTR community converge on a singular vision of the universe. This movie is a multi-million dollar addition to the collection of fan art, and will definitely influence the visions of many.
If one doesn't take the movie too seriously, or as canon, or as if Peter Jackson is Tolkein's heir, then you shouldn't be disappointed. For the most part, the film is extremely well done but standard Hollywood fare.
To sum things up, I enjoyed the movie greatly compared to most movies in the theater, but it does not transcend to the level of art, art-house, or even just complete immersion.
Warning: The following is spoiler-ish.
With the fact in mind that I thought the movie was fun, some things that I think would make it better:
* Even though the costumes and computer graphics were well-executed and convincing, the monsters seemed to be typical Dungeons and Dragons - a bit more stylization would be nice, especially with the Balrog. I think I've seen him in a couple of movies before.
* The fellowship seemed to be somewhat weak, with the Gimli the dwarf and Legolas the elf not being fleshed out.
* The fight scenes were too chaotic, with flashes of legs, arms and swords taken with a shakey camera. I find general battle scenes boring, and instead like some physical narative, even at the micro-level of blow by blow. Perhaps they could have hired a martial-arts choreographer and kept the camera still during the fight scenes.
* The music was extremely generic (oxymoron?), and could have been lifted from any action movie soundtrack. The music made a huge difference in Star Wars. Imagine if the Darth Vader march was a generic orchestral piece, instead of synchronized with his steps. Better music could have, if I may borrow from Emeril, kicked this movie up a notch.
* Stylization. As I eluded to, Peter Jackson may have been a little too fearful of stylization, but Tolkein was vague enough in his descriptions to add a little more uniqueness to the characters and scenery. I didn't feel a kind of mystery or magic (you know, that sickly-sweet feeling you get that you wish you were up there instead of sitting down in the movie seat as a passive observer) with the look of the characters. The look was too derivative for me to think that the characters actually existed, instead of being actors in costume.
* Tom Bombadil is one of the more playful characters, and a great mystery in the Lord of the Rings, and may even be one of Middle Earth's deities. His inclusion would have added a nice incongruity and more lightheartedness to a movie that is darker and more driven than the book.
You shouldn't have read this far if you've already seen the movie. In fact, you shouldn't read reviews before you see any movie. But if you haven't seen it, don't let my criticism stop you from seeing the movie. Everyone else is covering the positive aspects. I just pointed out a few negative ones.