An adaptation of the book?

Rating: 3/10 (26 December 2001)

I think not.
Forgetting for the moment that the movie was mediocre on its own merits there are just tons of differences between the movie and the book which make it laughable to call this an adaptation.

From the raping of almost all the major characters, from Saruman to Galadriel, to the sell-out pandering to the big wave of Celtic-love which started with Braveheart, this movie retains none of the character of the original book. I wouldn't have been surprised if hobbits had been portrayed as eight feet tall, that being a "valid interpretation".
No, I'm not a purist. I didn't even finish the first book until after I saw the movie. I like the book a lot, I didn't see it in the movie.
Why are the Hobbits, the most British of the British portrayed as Irish peasants? Why is Loth Lorien a pit stop on the side of the river? Why is the wise Council of Elrond arguing with each other like so many Congressmen? So many changes were made, so much needless fluff (like the CGI collapsing staircase scene in Moria and the 30 seconds of "Whee! Aren't these two statues almost real? Take that ILM!") added. Do the Jackson apologists really believe what they say, that Jackson read the books and tried to be true to them?
For those who say "It's just a movie" and I shouldn't rant, doesn't the calculated use of the name Lord of the Rings demand they do the book some justice? Most of this film's success is due to that name and cashing in on its legacy. How much money would the film have made if it had been title 'Ring Party', 'Ring Party II', and 'Ring Party III--Revenge of the Short People'?
Feh. A poor effort--or lack thereof.