Although I thought the film was OK, and I liked some aspects of it quite a bit, there are things about it I disliked quite a bit.
The pacing is, indeed, one of those things I disliked. Not that it was too long - it was paced too quickly in many places. It was like watching a "Cliff's Notes" version of the Lord of the Rings, or reading one of those "Illustrated Classics" comics versions. This has everything to do with my having read the books well over a dozen times since I was 10 or 11, but I'm also a filmmaker (not a big deal, of course, but it's something I was traimed for over several years) and the film seemed "off" to me. What I mean, mostly, besides the obvious stuff where they compressed time to fit the film, was in scenes like at the Bucklebury Ferry - besides the scene being a mess editing-wise, I feel Jackson didn't have to ramp up the action as he did. Instead of going for the subtle horror of a cat-and-mouse pursuit, like in the book, he went for a Three Stooges-like chase. I feel the creeping horror of unknown pursuers, like it was portrayed in the book, would have been as, if not more, effective, and has been shown to work very well throughout the history of film. But, it seemed like the whole film was like that - in every instance, the action of the book was exaggerated greatly in the film - while it makes some sense to do so in some cases, to retain the interest of the viewers, it often gave the film a jarring feel, contrasting greatly with the sweeping vistas that Jackson showed.
There was too much screaming and crying.
Along with this is the weird feeling that we're seeing "cameos" from some of the major characters - Elrond's looming into the shot and saying "Welcome to Rivendell, Frodo" made me laugh out loud. I thought it was silly. "Let's give a big hand to Elrond, ladies and gentlemen..."
Elrond's whole "Men are stupid" shtick seemed bizarre to me, given that his brother founded the race of Numenoreans. Sure, movie viewers wouldn't be aware of this, but Jackson is, and could have found a better way to color the character - like using, say, the anger and sternness he felt towards Aragorn for courting his daughter, which is in the book, unlike the animosity he shows to Men. That would have played quite well in the film, and helped bolster the Aragorn/Arwen subplot.
I didn't like that Saruman was actually a servant of Sauron in the film. I guess it makes some sense from a screenwriting standpoint, though it doesn't always work, for me.
I really disagree with Jackson's choice in making Arwen the one who confronted the Black Riders at the Ford of Bruinen, rather than Frodo. This was a great place to give Frodo something to do, to show his strength, to let him, and us, finally see what he was truly up against, since, especially in the film, he had been pretty nondescript - and Jackson gives the scene to a supproting character.
Those are a few of the problems I had. The film was beautiful to look at, and I liked quite a bit of it - McKellan's portrayal of Gandalf seemed so right to me - but there are parts of it that drove me nuts. But, then, much of it probably comes from my having read the books so many times.
