My entire views on the movie would be rather too long to post, so I'll go through it bit by bit (not in order, however), and I'll begin by pointing out something that might get us started:
The Fellowship of the Ring I found mainly satisfactory, and though there were one or two things that made me wince, the only thing that really irked me was Aragorn sending Frodo off with his blessing.
A simple reason for why this annoyed me is this is not what happened in the book. Though I assume you all know this already, in the book Frodo silently slips away and while Aragorn and Sam are looking for him, Sam trails too far behind and eventually uses his brains enough to realize where Frodo has gone. Aragorn climbs to the chair, but then he hears the horn of Boromir and goes to his rescue.
It is my belief that if Boromir had not called for help, Aragorn would have sought Frodo out and, if he had found him, would have spoken to him and continued on with him to Mordor. Boromir called because he was in need of help. If he had not been in need of help he would not have called, which would mean he felt he could settle the Uruk-hai himself (or, to bring it further, that they were none), and so Merry and Pippin would not have been captured.
Aragorn debated with himself whether he should follow Frodo or go to the rescue of Merry and Pippin. He came to the conclusion that Frodo had brains and Sam's help, and that they were not in any immediate danger, while Merry and Pippin had no help and were in immediate danger, so he decided to go after Merry and Pippin. But if Merry and Pippin had not been taken by the Uruk-hai, Aragorn would have followed Frodo. I highly doubt that he would go.
In the FOTR, the movie, Aragorn found Frodo after the latter had just removed the Ring, and was briefly tempted. He then 'let Frodo go,' as he tells Legolas later. But at this time the Uruk-hai had not even attacked, and Aragorn had really no logical reason to let Frodo go. Frodo hadn't even asked Aragorn to let him go. So then why did Aragorn let him go?
I would go on, but dinner calls and I'll give others a chance to read and agree/disagree as they choose.
The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man. -- G.K. Chesterton
The book is far better than the movie, and I think PJ has done loads of 'mistakes' making the movies.
First: Why did he not have Tom Bombadil in the first movie? (First movie)
To me Tom is an important character. Not only because he saves the hobbits twice. But only because the those who haven't read the book won't get to know that the Ring didn't affect him, which I think is an important point to look at.
Second: The Clichés between Aragron and Eowyn. (Second movie)
I thought those 'Eowyn-looks-at-Aragorn. Aragorn-looks-at-Eowyn' were totally.. erm...I don't know. JP created a romance which really wasn't THAT obvious in the books. Of course, it's written that Eowyn was attached to him, but hey, JP should have had his limits.
Third: Arwen and Aragorn in those scenes..(Second movie)
I have been thinking about those scenes with Arwen and Aragorn. And for every moment I think about it, I think it's more and more a 'mistake' in the movies. PJ has almost created a love story instead of what LOTR really is. LOTR os of course a love story, but in an other way. Love as in friend...And, trust and etc.
Fourth: Where was Erkenbrand? (Second movie)
I really missed Erkenbrand. I mean, PJ almost created a conflict between Theoden and Eomer which wasn't there! I know that maybe PJ did this, only because there would have been too many characters. It is a pity anyways though.
Summary? I think the movies are great. But still, nothing can be compared to the books. That's just the way it is.I also feel the characters are a bit different in the books and in the movies. PJ has left out some details, but I don't mind that he did...., I think.....