They definitely take some liberties to stretch it out but I enjoyed the first movie. I mean, if you're looking for a faithful adaptation, don't bother watching it, but I thought it was worth the time and money to see it. I was entertained.
Faithful adaption of the book by itself? Correct, it's not. Faithful adaption of the story in the book, plus all the surrounding stuff fleshed out in later books/appendixes, with a specific aim at providing a direct lead in to the existing LotR trilogy? It absolutely is. Ok. To be fair, Jackson has added some details that weren't in the original sources, but I haven't seen anything so far that contradicts or goes off the original storyline.
It's going to end out being a less direct translation than LotR was, but as some have already pointed out, you're going from one shortish book to a trilogy. That's a lot of extras. Honestly though, I like the direction they're going with this. They could have just told the story of the Hobbit, but that would have meant leaving out a whole **** of a lot of other stuff that would never be put into a film by itself. I mean, it's unlikely anyone will sign off on an "Adventures of young Aragorn" film dedicated to all the backstory bits that occur during/between the events in the Hobbit and the LotR. And that's about the only other ways you'd get all the stuff about the Necromancer and other plots surrounding the return of Sauron and the rise of Mordor which ultimately lead us up to where we are in LotR.