I'm a little hesitant to write this, because no doubt isildur is sitting there with his thumb planted on the refresh key waiting to snipe at people who disagree, but here it is.
This movie was good *enough*, but not great. It is without a doubt one of the best films of the year (it is *not* the best in my book, I would say bottom 5 of the top 10), and it certainly is the best "epic action" film of the year. Those who are looking for a good action flick need look no further. This film, despite its flaws, makes the awful testosterone overloaded "Gladiator" look like a B flick. Rightfully so.
The visuals are for the most part spot on with the magical, fantastic feel they were going for. There were moments which seemed excessively computerized, but for the most part I liked them. Except for the incredibly overdone "horror moments" (e.g. galadriel and bilbo under the influence of the ring). During those moments, I was reminded too much of the fact that Jackson directed "The Frighteners". As I said, though, the vast majority of scenes had very good visuals.
The acting was also superb, really worthy of this material. You could tell people poured their hearts into it, and really cared. I was surprised that I didn't feel like anyone was overacting or trying to look cool too much (possible minor exception for legolas and his way of the gun bow holding stances). The acting was the best part of the film, which on the whole was quite good.
However, I feel that it suffered under the weight of some (possibly necessary) problems. I at first attributed some of the problems I have with it to the director, who surely used too much horror film influence here, but then I realized that no matter who directed it, a $300million budget pretty much dictates that you appeal to the typical hollywood fans as much as possible without alienating the throngs of tolkien fans.
I greatly appreciate the fact that jackson was ambitious on this project. It really shows. Extremely high production values. However, he definitely should be said to have interpreted it more than adapted it. And this is where my problem is. Lord of the Rings is anything but an action epic in my mind. Yet this is what the first film is.
I agree with the folks who state that the pacing is poor. It is not only poor, it is very poor. Don't get me wrong, there are some quiet and subtle moments in this film, just not enough of them. And even those feel rushed. Sure, you have to account for the medium. 3 hours is going to involve a lot of cuts. Just don't expect me to agree that this is as good of a presentation as it could get. Take a look at stuff like "Band of Brothers" and "24" and tell me that it wouldn't be possible to make a 9 hour fellowship. It just wouldn't have as big of a budget, and wouldn't make as much money. But we all know it would be better even with obvious blue screens and wires.
The pacing was just too spastic. I never really felt engulfed by any of the landscapes as I should have. Worse still, the characters seemed to serve the purpose of furthering the plot, as opposed to the plot serving to further the characters. This is certainly not an immediately obvious flaw, until you realize that the material this film is based on is largely composed to be a plot furthering a character / anthropological study.
Another problem was the lack of charm. The books are all about style and charm and that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think about a hobbit eating far too many meals a day. The film was about action with a little bit of style added to taste. The books were a gloriously creative venture into the world of middle earth, fascinated with every tree and every creature. Cool is one thing, and certainly Fellowship is that, charming is another, and certainly Fellowship is not that.
The last, and perhaps most unchangeable problem I had was the cliched action. I don't recall if some of this stuff was in the book, but either way, it does not make for a good film. It must be written in some secret guide to hollywood film that you must have a character who is in imminent danger and unable to do anything and then, at the very last second, the other character who has gone 30 feet away to urinate shows up at the last second to save the first character. Usually there is the sarcastic quip from one or the other "bout time you showed up" or "can't leave you alone for 30 seconds", at least this film didn't have that. If we are going to be "treated" to an action-heavy film, how about adding a little more style to it? Where are hong kong's finest when you need them? In every way that this movie lacks, Crouching Tiger Excels. Just imagine taking all the panache and romance out of crouching tiger and putting it into this film, and tell me you wouldn't have given up your first born for it.
All that being said, I am still greatly looking forward to the next, and hoping this film is successful enough to allow a little more creative license in the editting and post-production work of the next two. And let's cross our fingers that Jackson can deliver the goods with that sort of freedom - because otherwise I'll sit wondering why infinitely better directors were not given the task. Guys like Michael Mann, M. Night Shyamalan, Malick, etc.