When I first heard that a movie is going to be made by the book "Eragon" by Christopher Paolini, I must say I was very delighted, and I was even more delighted when I heard that Stefen Fangmeier will be the director. I have read the book, and thaught:"What a great movie this is going to be". Unfortunately, I was wrong. First of all, I would dare to say that half of the events that happened in the book weren't shown in the movie at all(reason: Lord of the Rings has less then 400 pages and the movie lasts around 3 hours; Eragon has around 500 pages and it lasts around hour and a half). As a result, instead of complexed, unpredictable fantasy plot you get simple, one-way heading fairy tale. Characters that play very significent role in book(like Murtagh, Ajihad and Angela) are hardly even mentioned in the movie, so that it becomes centered on pretty much only 3 characters-Eragon, Saphira and Brom. Villains and locations lack imagination, so they look cheap and ordinary. Choice of actors is, in my opinion, good, except Edward Speleers. There are way too much "memorable quotes" in the movie, so that movie becomes kind of too much theatrical.Everybody, from director to actors failed, but still, I personally bealive that the biggest failure is Peter Buchman, screenwriter. Although he had a fantastic material to work on, he managed to ruin it, and make a pathetic screenplay from a fantastic bestseller. Only bright side of the movie is always top-of-the-class John Malkovich(King Galbatorix), pretty solid performance by Jeremy Irons (Brom), but most of all dragon Saphira (voice by Rachel Weisz, whose vocal abilities are on very desirable level)
1,762 Reviews
Good actors, Good special effects, Bad writing.
Birstyjr15 December 2006
The movie follows nothing of the book's plot line. I think someone read like maybe ten chapters of the Eragon book and decided to make the movie. If they decide to make Eldest (The sequel to Eragon) it would be nothing like the book because they have changed too many things in this movie to carry the plot correctly. The plot of the movie shares nothing with the book and the characters (the ones they actually decided to add) share no similarities to the book's idea of them. The storyline used in the movie could have possibly been acceptable if it hadn't had such bad writing. The lines were mediocre and no one other than Brom, Eragon and Saphira had ten lines. Murtagh had like eight or nine lines through the whole movie, Nasuada and Ajihad had like two or three (and Nasuada doesn't say who she is) and Hrothgar had maybe one or two lines. They completely rushed the movie too quickly. Unless you read the book, you have no idea how Eragon learns to use magic and are left in the dark about most things. The actors did the best job they could with the horrid lines they were given to read. The special effects were great except that Saphira isn't supposed to have feathers. What dragon has feathers? Christopher Paolini says like fifty times in the book that Saphira's wings are a thin membrane. Also that Eragon is fifteen, not seventeen. Every problem comes back to the horrid writing. Bottom Line: Could have been a great and timeless movie. Not Lord of the Rings worthy.
ERAGON wasn't bad at all... silly... but not horrible
the_zero_g30 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
ERAGON was not this totally disgusting movie that you should avoid. It is a very massive rip-off of LOTR and Star Wars (but everyone already knows that); yet it does have a certain level of charm, and the last quarter of the film is quite exciting.
There are several problems with ERAGON, and most of them have nothing at all to do with the action or screenplay. If anything, it feels that at least 45 mins of the movie is missing. The story moves ahead far too quickly and doesn't explain anything deeply enough.
ERAGON could have used better editing and much stronger character development. Too many people are rushed in and out of the story without really explaining who they are and why they are important. I had a feeling that the best parts of the movie were most likely cut out for time restrictions (often kiddie type films are shaved down to be as short as possible to fit in as many showings in one day as possible for theatres and the studios).
Many movies are killed this way. ERAGON was definitely harmed by having so much of the story cut out -- and as someone who read the first book and seen the movie, they cut out way too much and there is much that should have definitely been in there.
In any case, this is a good flick for TEENAGERS who enjoy heroic fantasy.
There are several problems with ERAGON, and most of them have nothing at all to do with the action or screenplay. If anything, it feels that at least 45 mins of the movie is missing. The story moves ahead far too quickly and doesn't explain anything deeply enough.
ERAGON could have used better editing and much stronger character development. Too many people are rushed in and out of the story without really explaining who they are and why they are important. I had a feeling that the best parts of the movie were most likely cut out for time restrictions (often kiddie type films are shaved down to be as short as possible to fit in as many showings in one day as possible for theatres and the studios).
Many movies are killed this way. ERAGON was definitely harmed by having so much of the story cut out -- and as someone who read the first book and seen the movie, they cut out way too much and there is much that should have definitely been in there.
In any case, this is a good flick for TEENAGERS who enjoy heroic fantasy.
Let's call it as we see it.
mrs-mcmanus20 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I tell my students to call it as they see it. If someone would be crushed by a scathing review, so be it. These Hollywood "hotshots' need to get the hint that the public expectations for a true representation of a best-selling novel are more important that their "artistic vision." And when I say "artistic vision," I mean stupidity and downright ignorance. Paolini's Eragon did not sell the way it did because it was merely some pulp fiction about a dragon; rather, it sold because it has a strong storyline, compelling characters, and timeless message. Not to mention that it was written by a 16 year-old boy.
The most egregious evils lay within the following three reasons.
First, as it is, the entire film is told as exposition. Perhaps this was done purposefully; after all, this is the first installment of a trilogy. However, it should be a complete story regardless. The writer tells the viewer what is going on, rather than showing the viewer what is supposed to happen. It's like writing a paragraph with only statements and leaving out the 3-5 sentences of elaboration for each. It is the worst kind of highlight paper. Truly by the end of the film, you are only waiting for the story to begin. But honestly, by the end of the movie, you just want to be put out of your misery.
Second, the characters are static and boring. The viewer gets no sense of emotional depth to any of the characters. By limiting the character development, the trilogy itself is severely limited. By the time the film reached the final battle scene, instead of empathizing with the characters, I laughed at them. The music told me that I should feel excitement, frustration, and even sadness, but all I could do was laugh. The laughter was uncomfortable and verging on hysteria (I was deeply wounded by this film), but it was laughter nonetheless. For example, when Eragon wakes after the final battle is won, he looks upon Murtagh's friendly and sympathetic countenance. Eragon asks if Saphira is all right and Murtagh replies, "Some friends can never be replaced " Leading the viewer to think that Saphira may be dead. Eragon is clearly distraught, and at this point, as a viewer, you should be crying. But in a whirlwind, Saphira appears, and Murtagh happily proclaims something like, "But luckily, they don't have to!" And at that point, I started laughing. A loud, raucous laugh came out of me and I had no control over it. I thought, "Gee, that Murtagh! He sure is a practical joker- he almost had me there!" Because, you know, that's what pals do: they pretend that their friend's best friend has died, and then they can have a good laugh over it. Ha ha! Yeah, right. The viewer has no sense of the camaraderie between these characters because at the end of the film, we still don't even really know who they are, much less have a sense of their relationship to one another.
Third, as a result of the previous two reasons, the story has no message worth telling. The novel is infused with themes about friendship, tolerance, caring, and justice; however, each becomes lost in this nightmare that Fang-who-ever had wrought. It is the most severe of all sins, as this film will be more widely accessible and distribute than the novel itself. For all those who walk out of the theater thinking this movie was good, whether or not they have read the novel, they are being deceived. They are being deceived into thinking that this garbage is all that this novel is or could be. With The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson proved that a significant novel with a clearly defined fantasy world can be made with thoughtfulness, grace, and beauty. Eragon, the movie, contains none of those ideals. With a poorly written script by Peter Buchman, widely known for his work on War Magician and Jurrasic Park 3 (Did anyone even see that?), and slipshod production values, the film falls flat on it's face. All good stories leave the reader with something to think about, but this one just left me thinking, "I paid $9 for this?"
True, the novel is a significant work that should be made into a film. However, I can't see how, in the universe that has been created by the filmmakers, that the full trilogy can be told with any vestige of the original story arc. What this Fangmeier moron has done is a true disservice to Paolini, the Inheritance trilogy, the fans and general public, and most significantly, himself. This is his directorial debut, and it is a pathetic interpretation.
Something amazing could have been done here. But what I saw was a lazy and wretched re- working of a story that should have simply been told as it was written. For this, as a teacher, I must give Stefen What's-his-name and his entire production crew an F because his work was off-topic and irrelevant.
The most egregious evils lay within the following three reasons.
First, as it is, the entire film is told as exposition. Perhaps this was done purposefully; after all, this is the first installment of a trilogy. However, it should be a complete story regardless. The writer tells the viewer what is going on, rather than showing the viewer what is supposed to happen. It's like writing a paragraph with only statements and leaving out the 3-5 sentences of elaboration for each. It is the worst kind of highlight paper. Truly by the end of the film, you are only waiting for the story to begin. But honestly, by the end of the movie, you just want to be put out of your misery.
Second, the characters are static and boring. The viewer gets no sense of emotional depth to any of the characters. By limiting the character development, the trilogy itself is severely limited. By the time the film reached the final battle scene, instead of empathizing with the characters, I laughed at them. The music told me that I should feel excitement, frustration, and even sadness, but all I could do was laugh. The laughter was uncomfortable and verging on hysteria (I was deeply wounded by this film), but it was laughter nonetheless. For example, when Eragon wakes after the final battle is won, he looks upon Murtagh's friendly and sympathetic countenance. Eragon asks if Saphira is all right and Murtagh replies, "Some friends can never be replaced " Leading the viewer to think that Saphira may be dead. Eragon is clearly distraught, and at this point, as a viewer, you should be crying. But in a whirlwind, Saphira appears, and Murtagh happily proclaims something like, "But luckily, they don't have to!" And at that point, I started laughing. A loud, raucous laugh came out of me and I had no control over it. I thought, "Gee, that Murtagh! He sure is a practical joker- he almost had me there!" Because, you know, that's what pals do: they pretend that their friend's best friend has died, and then they can have a good laugh over it. Ha ha! Yeah, right. The viewer has no sense of the camaraderie between these characters because at the end of the film, we still don't even really know who they are, much less have a sense of their relationship to one another.
Third, as a result of the previous two reasons, the story has no message worth telling. The novel is infused with themes about friendship, tolerance, caring, and justice; however, each becomes lost in this nightmare that Fang-who-ever had wrought. It is the most severe of all sins, as this film will be more widely accessible and distribute than the novel itself. For all those who walk out of the theater thinking this movie was good, whether or not they have read the novel, they are being deceived. They are being deceived into thinking that this garbage is all that this novel is or could be. With The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson proved that a significant novel with a clearly defined fantasy world can be made with thoughtfulness, grace, and beauty. Eragon, the movie, contains none of those ideals. With a poorly written script by Peter Buchman, widely known for his work on War Magician and Jurrasic Park 3 (Did anyone even see that?), and slipshod production values, the film falls flat on it's face. All good stories leave the reader with something to think about, but this one just left me thinking, "I paid $9 for this?"
True, the novel is a significant work that should be made into a film. However, I can't see how, in the universe that has been created by the filmmakers, that the full trilogy can be told with any vestige of the original story arc. What this Fangmeier moron has done is a true disservice to Paolini, the Inheritance trilogy, the fans and general public, and most significantly, himself. This is his directorial debut, and it is a pathetic interpretation.
Something amazing could have been done here. But what I saw was a lazy and wretched re- working of a story that should have simply been told as it was written. For this, as a teacher, I must give Stefen What's-his-name and his entire production crew an F because his work was off-topic and irrelevant.
For the readers of the books, it was murder.
goddessngirl16 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, the movie starts with Arya and the egg. But the narrator explains about who she is which eliminates the whole mystery of her character right off. There was no character development at all. Eragon is totally downplayed in the beginning and Roran is there and then just gone. Brom was portrayed as a cranky old man instead of the compassionate story teller. I must say though, that Saphira's period of growth was clever and Saphira, herself, was fantastic. But, none of the characters had personality. Speaking of the characters' personality, it wasn't ALL the screenwriters fault. What was with Ed Speelers? His rendition of Eragon lacked substance. The battles were immensely cut short. SOOOOOOO much was cut out of the book. And for people with children, it should be rated PG-13 because the battles were pretty graphic and the Ra'zac were really creepy looking.
For people who read the book, the movie will make you want to kill the screenwriters. Major things were totally screwed up. Brom didn't even die the way he actually did in the book! Arya was conscious pretty much the whole time so there was no "oh no she's going to die!" suspense there. It was pretty lame. I felt nothing for any of the characters throughout the movie because nothing about the movie made me want to care about them. Did Christopher Paolini sell out when the price was high enough? I don't know but I am shocked that a writer would allow his or her book to be demolished in such a disgraceful and mocking creation as this movie. The graphics were good and the music was too, along with the setting and they were the ONLY good things.
For people who read the book, the movie will make you want to kill the screenwriters. Major things were totally screwed up. Brom didn't even die the way he actually did in the book! Arya was conscious pretty much the whole time so there was no "oh no she's going to die!" suspense there. It was pretty lame. I felt nothing for any of the characters throughout the movie because nothing about the movie made me want to care about them. Did Christopher Paolini sell out when the price was high enough? I don't know but I am shocked that a writer would allow his or her book to be demolished in such a disgraceful and mocking creation as this movie. The graphics were good and the music was too, along with the setting and they were the ONLY good things.
So very, very sad...
anon1mat016 December 2006
How to describe a movie based on a lovely book, that could have had a wonderful franchise, but was so hurriedly done, and so poorly directed as to become a horrible flop? First lets say that while the book has some flaws, this movie is really a disservice to it; a more or less complex plot is reduced to its bare elements making it a very predictable ordeal (as any other story would), the photography doesn't reach the standard set by LOTR or HP, becoming quite bland, the casting -while good on the stronger characters (Brom, Durza, Galbatorix)- is really lacking, particularly on critical characters like Murtagh and Arya, and the music -so critical to convey the emotions of the movie- is so corny and clumsily placed that rather than enhance takes away from the experience. So little works on this movie and so many details are ruined using the cheapest tricks, that any sequel would never make it to the big screen (more so when critical plot points were stripped from the movie).
Having read and enjoyed the books with my 11 year old son, we had high hopes and were both devastated with this ... thing promoted as a movie.
It is indeed a sad, sad adaptation, a proof that some movie execs in its eagerness to make a quick buck have indeed killed what could have been a geese of golden eggs.
Hopefully Mr. Fangmeier will go back to do special effects and never return as a movie director. At least I know that I will never see a movie made by him again.
Having read and enjoyed the books with my 11 year old son, we had high hopes and were both devastated with this ... thing promoted as a movie.
It is indeed a sad, sad adaptation, a proof that some movie execs in its eagerness to make a quick buck have indeed killed what could have been a geese of golden eggs.
Hopefully Mr. Fangmeier will go back to do special effects and never return as a movie director. At least I know that I will never see a movie made by him again.
Change the movie name to Saphira and it is OK
MKeller14-122 December 2006
Let me start by saying I didn't read the books before seeing the movie but I am reading Eragon now. I enjoyed the movie. Not great but not bad. One of the most nagging problems with this movie has it was way to short and seemed like it was in fast forward most of the movie. If they would have increased this movie to 2 hours to 2 and a half hours I think it would have been a very good movie (hopefully the DVD will have more added in). The acting by Rachel Weisz was fantastic. Jeremy Irons did a very good for his part. But those are two experienced actors that will give good performances regardless. The CG on Saphira was very well done. The main problem with the acting in this movie was Edward Speleers, he had no presence in this movie, which is a bad thing for the main character. It was all most like he was just there to read his lines and go home. For which I hold the director responsible but it was also one of his first movies. I think Edward would have made a good side character, but someone with more experienced should have been casted as Eragon or a director with more proved talent. If you have never read the book and enjoy good CG you will like this movie. Just change the name of the movie to Saphira and it is OK. If you have read the book assume it is a coincidence that the movie and characters share names.
When the dragon Saphira gives the only good performance in the entire film, you know there is something wrong.
goldenduc11 December 2006
I saw this with a friend of mine over the weekend in a press screening and I really did not enjoy it. The special effects are fine but the story is rather hammy and the performances are not very good. The main character looks like a deer in head lights most of the time and the villains acts like cartoon stereotypes more than real characters. Most of the characters here seem like rejects from other films and it shows by how unoriginal they were. The only performance in the film that has any credibility what so ever is the dragon Saphira and that's mainly because she is voiced by Oscar winning actress Rachel Weisz, who has more talent in her vocal cords than all the actors working in this film combined.
My suggestion, wait for DVD.
My suggestion, wait for DVD.
Dragon Flights of Fantasy
AZINDN21 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Eragon (Ed Speleers) is a young farmer who discovers an egg one day. When the egg hatches, out pops a baby dragon who the human learns is his dragon, and that he is a Dragon Rider. Through the inevitable growing pains of child to youth, youth to adult, young Eragon is mentored by a former dragon rider, Jeremy Irons, and learns that dragons and their human rider are bound together by a shared destiny until death. How they choose to live this partnership is the gist of the story as Eragon seeks to save his country from an evil ruler and magician with the help of a band of rebel outcasts, a magic sword, and the brave dragon. Of course, a young beautiful girl, Sienna Guillory is the first love of Eragon, and the partnership of Safira, the dragon and her rider becomes a life's test of courage, cunning, and growing wisdom.
This is a light fantasy film that is most of all feel-good with a smattering of "ancient" wisdom and swordplay which will entertain younger audiences. The special effects and overall look of the film is passable, not a multi-million dollar SFX laden film, but believable in its visuals. As for the story, I don't read fictional fantasy so I had no basis for comparison with "the book." But, I'm not a fan of comparing text to visuals as criterion for quality or authenticity for each medium is its own separate art form. This is a family film that will entertain and enthrall youngsters as well as possibly impart some sense of honor, wisdom through purpose, and a sense of duty above self -- all characteristics that are missing in the mindless, fart-heavy humor of most "tweeny" movies put out for commercial distribution today.
If only to watch the stellar performance of the excellent British actor, Jeremy Irons as he mentors the wet-behind-the-ears Dragon Rider, the film is worth watching as the really ugly bad guys try to bring down the last of the dragons and her headstrong partner.
This is a light fantasy film that is most of all feel-good with a smattering of "ancient" wisdom and swordplay which will entertain younger audiences. The special effects and overall look of the film is passable, not a multi-million dollar SFX laden film, but believable in its visuals. As for the story, I don't read fictional fantasy so I had no basis for comparison with "the book." But, I'm not a fan of comparing text to visuals as criterion for quality or authenticity for each medium is its own separate art form. This is a family film that will entertain and enthrall youngsters as well as possibly impart some sense of honor, wisdom through purpose, and a sense of duty above self -- all characteristics that are missing in the mindless, fart-heavy humor of most "tweeny" movies put out for commercial distribution today.
If only to watch the stellar performance of the excellent British actor, Jeremy Irons as he mentors the wet-behind-the-ears Dragon Rider, the film is worth watching as the really ugly bad guys try to bring down the last of the dragons and her headstrong partner.
Rachel Weisz's voice over for the dragon is literally the only good acting the film has to offer.
normandbutter16 December 2006
Crude, unimaginative adaptation of Christopher Paolini first novel is a bad joke from top to bottom. The screenplay is a joke, with major characters missing from the original novel and the acting from almost everybody in the film is down right horrible and that's really because most of the roles are miscast to begin with. Jeremy Irons makes an grant effort with what he has to work with but he's let down by the script and the bad performances of his co-stars and the only solid piece of real acting comes from the voice over work of Rachel Weisz, who gives the dragon Saphira enough charm, charisma, and strong will to make her the only believable and likable character in the entire film. That's in itself a great accomplishment considering the fact that script really does not even try to do that with itself.
Eragon?
horsecrazy178916 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Let's pretend for a moment I didn't read the book:
Actors were great. Effects were great. Story line thrilling. It was an exciting movie that kept you going! All in all, A+.
But WAIT! I did read the book!
What the heck happened?! They absolutely butchered the storyline! I think the only thing they got right were the names! I'm dreadfully sorry Christopher Paolini... They got it wrong from character description to plot line! At first I was giving them a little credit cause they needed to edit it to make a movie, but by the time the sent Roran off to avoid the war instead of to work in a mill, I was fed up! I do give credit to the actors, they did very well for what they were given. The editing was off, there were scenes that it randomly began/stopped raining, voice overs that didn't match up, and other random mistakes. All in all, D-
Moral: It would have been great had I not read the book. Over all, C+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: My friend and I saw the movie for a second time. This time however, we knew what to expect. We both found that the second time around was much better. (One, because we didn't spend the entire movie complaining...) I think I was a little too harsh the first time around. It is a good movie, not as "to the book" as I'd like it to be, but I still think that it is better than nothing. I am definitely hoping for some deleted scenes on the DVD though... All in all, raise it to a B
Actors were great. Effects were great. Story line thrilling. It was an exciting movie that kept you going! All in all, A+.
But WAIT! I did read the book!
What the heck happened?! They absolutely butchered the storyline! I think the only thing they got right were the names! I'm dreadfully sorry Christopher Paolini... They got it wrong from character description to plot line! At first I was giving them a little credit cause they needed to edit it to make a movie, but by the time the sent Roran off to avoid the war instead of to work in a mill, I was fed up! I do give credit to the actors, they did very well for what they were given. The editing was off, there were scenes that it randomly began/stopped raining, voice overs that didn't match up, and other random mistakes. All in all, D-
Moral: It would have been great had I not read the book. Over all, C+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT: My friend and I saw the movie for a second time. This time however, we knew what to expect. We both found that the second time around was much better. (One, because we didn't spend the entire movie complaining...) I think I was a little too harsh the first time around. It is a good movie, not as "to the book" as I'd like it to be, but I still think that it is better than nothing. I am definitely hoping for some deleted scenes on the DVD though... All in all, raise it to a B
Good, but not what I'd hoped for...
Everchosen17 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
As I went to see Eragon, my expectations were very high, as I loved the book. The movie itself is action filled and well played (exept by Joss stone... which was just ridiculous)but something is missing. I think the directors made a bad choice to exclude some of the (I think) important factors in the book. Eragon's training, the Kull, Brom's death, the Dwarfs (Which were almost non-existent except for Hrothgar.... who was as tall as a human, and lastly the fight in Farthen Dûr. I had hoped for a more epic, battlefield-ly kind of battle, instead of the cramped scenes that were made. I had also hoped for a more intense fight between Brom and the Ra'zac, and Eragon and Durza in the heart of Farthen Dûr. I can only hope that the Ra'zac will have the role in Eldest that they do in the book. Regarless, the movie was good, the effects were beautiful (I admit, I had feared what the Urgals and Saphira would looked like :)) The film, sadly, looks like its been kinda rushed, and I think they should've taken the time to film at least half an hour more (the movie is at about 2 hours). Nonetheless, as a fan of Eragon, I enjoyed the movie, and I think that all fans should go see it, if not for the story, for the intense action :) Have fun!
Not worth it.
ozarkfrost21 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Paolini's novel should have been left alone. It was unnecessarily tampered with to make it into a lack-luster movie losing all magic, motivation, and meaning. The writers, director, and producers missed a real opportunity to make this into a great trilogy experience...perhaps they should have read the books first because they were much better than this. Get better actors and get a better director and you will have something. My advice...produce the movie again . We will forget the first attempt and bring back Rachel Weisz who made the dragon the best part of the film and it will be a better film. If you do that, it will succeed.
Skip it.
billkubert20 December 2006
Really Bad. If you read the books, do yourself a favor and don't put yourself through the agony of sitting through this travesty. The story line (which skips about 70% of the original story line) wanders miles from the novel. Except for Rachel Weisz's great voice over work for the dragon (which is the best acting this film has) the acting from the rest of the actors is just above high school play level. What were Jeremy and John thinking in taking these roles? The special effects are decent but that's it and the sets are cheesy Save your cash and wait for the third novel.
Let's hope they will not be a sequel.
Let's hope they will not be a sequel.
The makers of this movie need to learn that just because the movie looks like The Lord of the Rings, doesn't mean that the movie itself will be good.
littlejimmy83520 December 2006
3/10 To put it simply, Eragon lacks. The story is rushed unexplained and poorly thought out, the acting is below par, and the cinematography is annoying with its tilted angles and range so close to the action so that you can't see what is going on.
The writing of the movie is by far its weakest aspect. The story is rushed quickly jumping from one thing to the next without any plot development so the viewer is left constantly wondering what is going on, one second our main character is a naive farmer, the next he is suddenly a fully experienced warrior with absolutely no evidence showing exactly where he gained this experience from. Entire scenes of the movie plod along with absolutely no meaning or relevance to the story, scenes which should have been cut out of the movie to make the narrative flow better. Characters come and go as they please with no relevance to the story, such as the archer who just suddenly appears out of nowhere and then just aimlessly follows the main characters without actually adding anything to the story. It almost seems as if the movie was written by a 9th grade high school student for his English class.
The acting of the movie is far below par, as it seems that nobody in this movie seems to have emotions as if all the characters were cyborgs from the Terminator series or Steven Segal. For example there is the scene where the main character discovers that the stone he has found isn't a rock but actually a dragon egg as the egg hatches. Now normally people seeing a small monster burst out of a rock would express quite some level of surprise or shock, but all our star does is raise his eyebrows slightly and give a pathetic tiny gasp. Every character in the entire movie is like this, if someone is crying over a slain comrade all they do is frown and have a look of "dang it" on their face, if someone is cheering over victory, all they do is leer and go "woooo". The emotion is non existent.
Eragon is a poor movie at best that fails to be entertaining, especially when compared to the other movies it is copying they style of such as "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter". It seems that the makers of this movie thought, "This movie has swords, magic, old English style speech, horses and dragons, it therefore must be good". They were wrong. The belief that just because your movie looks a bit like "Lord of the Rings" it must be good like it, is incorrect.
The writing of the movie is by far its weakest aspect. The story is rushed quickly jumping from one thing to the next without any plot development so the viewer is left constantly wondering what is going on, one second our main character is a naive farmer, the next he is suddenly a fully experienced warrior with absolutely no evidence showing exactly where he gained this experience from. Entire scenes of the movie plod along with absolutely no meaning or relevance to the story, scenes which should have been cut out of the movie to make the narrative flow better. Characters come and go as they please with no relevance to the story, such as the archer who just suddenly appears out of nowhere and then just aimlessly follows the main characters without actually adding anything to the story. It almost seems as if the movie was written by a 9th grade high school student for his English class.
The acting of the movie is far below par, as it seems that nobody in this movie seems to have emotions as if all the characters were cyborgs from the Terminator series or Steven Segal. For example there is the scene where the main character discovers that the stone he has found isn't a rock but actually a dragon egg as the egg hatches. Now normally people seeing a small monster burst out of a rock would express quite some level of surprise or shock, but all our star does is raise his eyebrows slightly and give a pathetic tiny gasp. Every character in the entire movie is like this, if someone is crying over a slain comrade all they do is frown and have a look of "dang it" on their face, if someone is cheering over victory, all they do is leer and go "woooo". The emotion is non existent.
Eragon is a poor movie at best that fails to be entertaining, especially when compared to the other movies it is copying they style of such as "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter". It seems that the makers of this movie thought, "This movie has swords, magic, old English style speech, horses and dragons, it therefore must be good". They were wrong. The belief that just because your movie looks a bit like "Lord of the Rings" it must be good like it, is incorrect.
One of the worst
melanieatkins_114 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I hope i never witness a sequel to this truly abysmal story. It seems like the whole film was put together in a couple of days. The script was dreadful and the acting not much better. When Jeremy Irons dies half way through he must of gave a sigh relief (at least he won't be in the sequel). The Film: A boy (Eragon) of 17 finds a dragon egg which hatches and becomes full sized in a day. The boy has special powers and rushes headfirst into everything without thinking but manages to survive everything thrown at him. None of the characters have any feeling felt towards them it's as if they are wooden characters. You don't really care what happens next. The finale is focused on a dragon fight with a raging battle fought beneath (which you don't see much of). The boy and his Dragon win (I don't know how) and it finishes as such that we will probably see the afore mentioned sequel. I say again what a terrible film trying to be Lord of the Rings but more like Bore of the rings.
Could have been worse, but SHOULD have been a lot better!
KrIaXPaTaLa14 December 2006
Just saw the premiere, here in Portugal, and after reading all the terrible reviews, I was ready for the worse case scenario. Fortunatly, it wasn't THAT bad, I actually enjoyed the movie, but one cannot stop wondering why the hell they trashed a lot more of the original tale then necessary. The CGI is great, the cast is actually quite decent, and it really looks like the team that brought us this, wanted the movie do be bad. The "catch phrases" are as awful and basic as any B-movie, and the interaction between characters should have been worked a lot better. But it's fair to say that who hasn't read the book, will overlook some of the flaws.
I'm giving it a 6. A 7 may also be adequate, but... I've read the book.
I'm giving it a 6. A 7 may also be adequate, but... I've read the book.
Registered just to review this movie
qlawman19 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I registered with IMDb for the sole purpose of reviewing this movie.
It is an atrocity, and I mean that in every conceivable connotation of the word.
If you have not read the book, than you might give a 5, but even then it does NOT deserve it. I'd say, at it's very best and if I wouldn't have read the book that this movie would rate a 3.
There wasn't a single transition in the whole thing; the plot just kept on hopping from point to point leaving the audience in a constant state of confusing frustration. Or, at least, it might have been confusing had the movie kept any of the intricacies of the original plot as outlined in the novel. One second Brom and Eragon are happily sparring along a river, when mere seconds before, and close by(as the audience is led to assume) a group of Urgals (which have been morphed into fat, bald men with blue tattoos) were ravaging some poor group of people on the side of the road. Eragon, whom is constantly portrayed in the movie as having "1 part courage and 3 parts fool" doesn't seem to care. What a big heart.
That's just one example. Suffice to say, my 15 month old niece could have done a better job at producing this movie. It is ALMOST as bad as Battlefield Earth! Heck, it's right on par with Bloodrayne.
It is an insult to call this a "B Movie" as I have seen a few good "B Movies" in my time. This movie kind of falls off the grading-scale charts. It's bad.
They skipped so many intrinsic plot points that they couldn't possibly make Eldest into a movie and call it "Eldest." For one thing, there is no love interest for Roran, and he just up and leaves because "he's of age." What's Roran going to do throughout the entire second book? Arya is not an elf...the least they could have done was throw on some tapered ears...so if Arya doesn't look or act super-human, what difference would Eragon's transformation be in the next book. Eragon does not get scarred from the shade, and Murtagh's scar is some tribal looking scratch.
Christopher Paolini should be insulted, and whoever is responsible for this nonsensical "interpretation" should be arrested and forced to watch their own horrid movie over and over again for a span of at least 10 years.
Yeah, I know I'm coming off a bit harsh, but I can't impress upon you enough that this was a huge let-down. I just hope that this serves to help some of you save some money by avoiding this movie. As another reviewer implied, you will find this DVD in bargain bins in a couple of weeks and will probably be able to buy it online cheaper than you could rent it in a store. Just wait until then
It is an atrocity, and I mean that in every conceivable connotation of the word.
If you have not read the book, than you might give a 5, but even then it does NOT deserve it. I'd say, at it's very best and if I wouldn't have read the book that this movie would rate a 3.
There wasn't a single transition in the whole thing; the plot just kept on hopping from point to point leaving the audience in a constant state of confusing frustration. Or, at least, it might have been confusing had the movie kept any of the intricacies of the original plot as outlined in the novel. One second Brom and Eragon are happily sparring along a river, when mere seconds before, and close by(as the audience is led to assume) a group of Urgals (which have been morphed into fat, bald men with blue tattoos) were ravaging some poor group of people on the side of the road. Eragon, whom is constantly portrayed in the movie as having "1 part courage and 3 parts fool" doesn't seem to care. What a big heart.
That's just one example. Suffice to say, my 15 month old niece could have done a better job at producing this movie. It is ALMOST as bad as Battlefield Earth! Heck, it's right on par with Bloodrayne.
It is an insult to call this a "B Movie" as I have seen a few good "B Movies" in my time. This movie kind of falls off the grading-scale charts. It's bad.
They skipped so many intrinsic plot points that they couldn't possibly make Eldest into a movie and call it "Eldest." For one thing, there is no love interest for Roran, and he just up and leaves because "he's of age." What's Roran going to do throughout the entire second book? Arya is not an elf...the least they could have done was throw on some tapered ears...so if Arya doesn't look or act super-human, what difference would Eragon's transformation be in the next book. Eragon does not get scarred from the shade, and Murtagh's scar is some tribal looking scratch.
Christopher Paolini should be insulted, and whoever is responsible for this nonsensical "interpretation" should be arrested and forced to watch their own horrid movie over and over again for a span of at least 10 years.
Yeah, I know I'm coming off a bit harsh, but I can't impress upon you enough that this was a huge let-down. I just hope that this serves to help some of you save some money by avoiding this movie. As another reviewer implied, you will find this DVD in bargain bins in a couple of weeks and will probably be able to buy it online cheaper than you could rent it in a store. Just wait until then
Not Bad At All
agigaride28 December 2006
Hi. I went to the theater today and saw Eragon (well duh, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this comment) and came on here to read what other people thought of it. I was stunned to find not one good comment in a gigantic trash pile of supposedly witty remarks and reasons on how the movie "sucked". I have not read the book myself (I know I'm going to get bombed for this in a reply later), but I thought the movie was totally awesome, and deserves to be acknowledged as a piece of cinematic art, despite the fact it is merely one and a half hours long or so, but who cares? I certainly don't, and look forward eagerly to the sequel.
Maybe I shall read the book someday, just to see what you people are talking about. I look forward to your well-written protest messages in my in-box later, though I did not mean to offend anyone with this comment. Bye-bye.
Maybe I shall read the book someday, just to see what you people are talking about. I look forward to your well-written protest messages in my in-box later, though I did not mean to offend anyone with this comment. Bye-bye.
A poor product from a rookie director
fisherd21 December 2006
Formula for disaster ..... take a rookie director whose reputation is as a CGI/FX whiz kid, an unknown screen writer, a cast that looks fantastic on paper, but embodies nothing of the original characters and has to deliver the schlock that before mentioned screenwriter has written, and then attempt to set to film once of the most anticipated book adaptations in recent history. It fails on so many levels.
I DID read the book, but have the sense to know that film doesn't have to completely follow the book word-for-word/chapter-for-chapter. I am not one of the fanatics raving that the movie sucks because Arya is blonde or doesn't have "elf ears". I am saying the movie sucks for all the reasons already mentioned ad nauseum .... because the pacing is deplorable, the dialog is beyond bad, and the directing is cliché. I thought that the effects were actually quite good -- Duza's makeup, aside. One questionable costume design was Arya's "Indian Princess" costume in the last scene. She looks like an extra from some 40's western.
To sum, the director and screen writer should be tarred and feathered, but only after the studio execs who green-lighted this turd are drawn and quartered. Too many fans had too many expectations for something FAR better than this.
I DID read the book, but have the sense to know that film doesn't have to completely follow the book word-for-word/chapter-for-chapter. I am not one of the fanatics raving that the movie sucks because Arya is blonde or doesn't have "elf ears". I am saying the movie sucks for all the reasons already mentioned ad nauseum .... because the pacing is deplorable, the dialog is beyond bad, and the directing is cliché. I thought that the effects were actually quite good -- Duza's makeup, aside. One questionable costume design was Arya's "Indian Princess" costume in the last scene. She looks like an extra from some 40's western.
To sum, the director and screen writer should be tarred and feathered, but only after the studio execs who green-lighted this turd are drawn and quartered. Too many fans had too many expectations for something FAR better than this.
Totally Amazing
ironshadowknot17 February 2008
I only just watched this movie and i thought it was brilliant i would have liked to have seen John Malkovich in it a bit more but all in all it was great. The Special Effects we beautifully done the story was straight to the point and didn't drag on but sometimes very predictable i don't know why people think the acting was hopeless the acting was brilliant especially Robert Carlyle who played Durza The Shade, i thought his portrayal was really good played a very evil man, Ed Speelers i thought was good for a first major picture playing along side Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Robert Carlyle, Rachel Weiz, and Djimon Hounsou would be very nerve racking especially trying to act to their standards, i was even quite surprised to see Australian Actor Chris Egan who played Roran even though he wasn't in it for long it was still good to see him in a movie rather than in Home and Away, Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich two of my favourite actors i thought were good to.
So all in all i thought it was good don't know why people don't like this movie so much i just think people should rather just enjoy a movie instead or picking at everything just so they can have an argument, i recommend it to anyone and hopefully there will be a sequel.
So all in all i thought it was good don't know why people don't like this movie so much i just think people should rather just enjoy a movie instead or picking at everything just so they can have an argument, i recommend it to anyone and hopefully there will be a sequel.
OK, not Oscar material, but fun for the whole family
amyjae-115 December 2006
OK, so no Academy nominations forthcoming, but all in all, I think this movie was worth our admission and pricey popcorn. Some of the dialog was a bit stilted and hammy, but the characters were easy to care about and/or easy to loathe, as whichever the case required. There were four of us attending, ages 9 (daughter), 11 (son), 22 (my hubby) and 35 (me, the wife)... We all enjoyed it for different reasons. No, we weren't totally blown away (well, my daughter thought it was fabulous, and wants a dragon), but no one was disappointed either. Of course, none of us have read the book, so we were simply judging what we had seen for ourselves, and we had no preconceived notions about what it should be.
But, the special effects were pretty cool to watch, the scenery was beautiful, costuming was pretty cool and the fight scenes were exciting to watch (and my husband & I liked that Friesian that Irons rode). When all was said and done, we had each been sufficiently entertained. A fun afternoon with the family, everyone cheering on Eragon and his dragon. An enjoyable, though not overwhelming movie.
But, the special effects were pretty cool to watch, the scenery was beautiful, costuming was pretty cool and the fight scenes were exciting to watch (and my husband & I liked that Friesian that Irons rode). When all was said and done, we had each been sufficiently entertained. A fun afternoon with the family, everyone cheering on Eragon and his dragon. An enjoyable, though not overwhelming movie.
Don't bother, its horrible
Sorrymanyou24 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I really hope, for the sake of the young author, the book is nothing like this movie. This movie stinks. The no talent ass clowns that put it together suck. They should be ashamed of themselves. Let me start with Peter Buchman. The guy is a second rate hack. Look, I'm no "every day" critic, but maybe, just maybe, hiring the guy who crafted Jurassic Park 3 was a really, really bad idea. Buchman needs to find a different trade, cause he writes like a bull-whore with a shovel up her ass.
Next, Stephan Fangmeier directed his way into the worst edited movie I have seen in a while. Is it supposed to be Bish in nature? (If so, bad move, if not, well, it flows like a B movie and for that, it sucks.) I don't know what ran through these people's minds after they "finished" editing it, perhaps they were just happy to get it done, or they had already spent their money, but I can only imagine that they were completely drunk, or stoned, or simply retarded. But let me sum up my points of contention: -Dialog sucks. It's juvenile and stupid and the dragon's lines, what she says, how she sounds when she speaks--all terrible and poorly crafted.
-The editing is amateurish and choppy.
-The acting is pathetic. Not enough Malkovich, his character was great. Irons had his moments too, and maybe it was just the bad dialog that sunk his character. Edward Speleers ability to get his lines out rivals the talent of Hayden Christiansen in the Star Wars prequels. Overall, the acting was second rate.
-The dragon riding scenes are poor at best. If they wanted to make a first person shooter game, thats one thing, but as a movie, the scenes are nauseating and fake.
Overall, I recommend this movie to anyone under 10 who likely doesn't know enough to know this movie sucks. Everyone else, read the book and don't waste your time with this shotty garbage.
Next, Stephan Fangmeier directed his way into the worst edited movie I have seen in a while. Is it supposed to be Bish in nature? (If so, bad move, if not, well, it flows like a B movie and for that, it sucks.) I don't know what ran through these people's minds after they "finished" editing it, perhaps they were just happy to get it done, or they had already spent their money, but I can only imagine that they were completely drunk, or stoned, or simply retarded. But let me sum up my points of contention: -Dialog sucks. It's juvenile and stupid and the dragon's lines, what she says, how she sounds when she speaks--all terrible and poorly crafted.
-The editing is amateurish and choppy.
-The acting is pathetic. Not enough Malkovich, his character was great. Irons had his moments too, and maybe it was just the bad dialog that sunk his character. Edward Speleers ability to get his lines out rivals the talent of Hayden Christiansen in the Star Wars prequels. Overall, the acting was second rate.
-The dragon riding scenes are poor at best. If they wanted to make a first person shooter game, thats one thing, but as a movie, the scenes are nauseating and fake.
Overall, I recommend this movie to anyone under 10 who likely doesn't know enough to know this movie sucks. Everyone else, read the book and don't waste your time with this shotty garbage.
What a monumental waste of time and money!!!
bloodlust6715 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
So... there's cute little Saphira flying through the clouds, then ZAP!!! She's full grown!!! As soon as that happened I knew the movie was ruined. Here is a list of even more things wrong with this pathetic Hollywood adaptation of a great novel (i.e. every Stephen King novel made into a movie with the exception of The Stand): 1. Saphira instantly grows up while flying around.
2. Roran was only in the movie for about 5 minutes. He left home as a draft dodger, not to work at the blacksmith (or whatever) to make money to marry Katrina.
3. Murtaugh was only in the movie about 5 minutes. He seemed excited about going to meet the Varden, when actually he dreaded it in the book.
4. Arya was portrayed as human (no pointy ears, or almond shaped eyes, or angled eyebrows). Arya was dark haired in the book, but blond in the movie. With all the money they spent making this movie, they couldn't afford a box of Clairol for her to dye her hair??? She also seemed to flirt and fawn on Eragon, where in the books she avoided him and was very strict about NOT getting involved. she did, afterall, destroy the magical drawing he made for her. Also she appeared to take great pleasure in the fact that she is an Elven Princess, when in the book she kept it a secret until the Queen exposed her in front of her friends.
5. Where was Hrothgar? or Orlik? or the rest of the dwarfs??? they weren't even MENTIONED in the movie!!! if not for the dwarfs, Eragon and Saphira and even Arya would not have made it out of Trondjheim alive!!! they were entirely too important to the storyline to be so casually omitted from the movie.
6. What happened to Eragon and Saphira going to Ellesmera for their training??? how is it Eragon learned 3 or 4 words from Brom then suddenly can start slinging magic like a cafeteria lady slings lumpy mashed potatoes?!!?! And when he fought Durza, he never got the debilitating wound on his back. Also, Eragon got his sword Zar'roc from Brom in the movie, where in the book he took it from Durza after he killed him.
There is way too much more to list that is wrong with this movie. Didn't Christopher Paolini read the screenplay BEFORE he signed the contract for this movie deal??? In my opinion, he is a sellout and let the prospect of making more money from his story get in the way of preserving it. I will NOT waste another penny of my money on another movie adaptation or book of his. I will find somebody that has a free used copy of the last book of the Trilogy and read it then.
2. Roran was only in the movie for about 5 minutes. He left home as a draft dodger, not to work at the blacksmith (or whatever) to make money to marry Katrina.
3. Murtaugh was only in the movie about 5 minutes. He seemed excited about going to meet the Varden, when actually he dreaded it in the book.
4. Arya was portrayed as human (no pointy ears, or almond shaped eyes, or angled eyebrows). Arya was dark haired in the book, but blond in the movie. With all the money they spent making this movie, they couldn't afford a box of Clairol for her to dye her hair??? She also seemed to flirt and fawn on Eragon, where in the books she avoided him and was very strict about NOT getting involved. she did, afterall, destroy the magical drawing he made for her. Also she appeared to take great pleasure in the fact that she is an Elven Princess, when in the book she kept it a secret until the Queen exposed her in front of her friends.
5. Where was Hrothgar? or Orlik? or the rest of the dwarfs??? they weren't even MENTIONED in the movie!!! if not for the dwarfs, Eragon and Saphira and even Arya would not have made it out of Trondjheim alive!!! they were entirely too important to the storyline to be so casually omitted from the movie.
6. What happened to Eragon and Saphira going to Ellesmera for their training??? how is it Eragon learned 3 or 4 words from Brom then suddenly can start slinging magic like a cafeteria lady slings lumpy mashed potatoes?!!?! And when he fought Durza, he never got the debilitating wound on his back. Also, Eragon got his sword Zar'roc from Brom in the movie, where in the book he took it from Durza after he killed him.
There is way too much more to list that is wrong with this movie. Didn't Christopher Paolini read the screenplay BEFORE he signed the contract for this movie deal??? In my opinion, he is a sellout and let the prospect of making more money from his story get in the way of preserving it. I will NOT waste another penny of my money on another movie adaptation or book of his. I will find somebody that has a free used copy of the last book of the Trilogy and read it then.
Film-making at its worst
CrouchingTiger1514 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There is certainly something for everyone in this movie. That is, something for everyone to absolutely detest. Personally, I was struck by the horrid acting in this movie. The main characters all seemed to be warming up for the day of shooting in the shots chosen. They're characters were one dimensional at best and 9 times out of 10 they weren't even remotely believable. The best acting came from a poorly CGIed dragon with the completely unbelievable voice of Rachel Weisz.
If the acting doesn't kill you, the film-making is next on the list. There are so many lens flares and disgustingly nauseating camera movements that you'll be using your popcorn bag as a barf bag. If I saw another Hitchcock "dolly and zoom" (like in Vertigo) I would have very seriously considered walking out of the movie. Those camera movements only have meaning if you use them sparingly and intentionally at key moments. This movie very much represented a film student's first work, when they are eager to try all the tricks, movements, and shots they've seen in great movies before.
MINOR SPOILER WARNING BELOW
And, lastly, if you can see past all of these things, you will not miss the fact that the story is a very blatant mixture of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. It starts with a princess who has stolen something from the evil ruler and now tries to smuggle it to her hidden base. I was looking for R2D2 and C3PO to appear. We also learn that "Shades" can apparently use force strangle like Darth Vader. And of course, there are many Lord of the Rings-like things (elves and dwarfs, Eragon/Aragorn and Aria/Arwen, etc). Some of the shots were even framed identically to shots from Lord of the Rings.
END SPOILERS
Unfortunately, while this film tries to copy Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, it has nowhere near the storyline, effects, or acting in either of them (including Episode I, so that's pretty bad). Save the money or use it to go see dancing penguins or James Blond playing poker for two hours. Between a horrible script, even worse acting, awkward editing, shaky-at-best camera work, a blatant lack of directing, cheap CGI and other effects, and a pace that drags like a car with both rear tires shot out, this movie bombs. You'll spend more time talking about how bad it is than you will in the theater actually watching it.
If the acting doesn't kill you, the film-making is next on the list. There are so many lens flares and disgustingly nauseating camera movements that you'll be using your popcorn bag as a barf bag. If I saw another Hitchcock "dolly and zoom" (like in Vertigo) I would have very seriously considered walking out of the movie. Those camera movements only have meaning if you use them sparingly and intentionally at key moments. This movie very much represented a film student's first work, when they are eager to try all the tricks, movements, and shots they've seen in great movies before.
MINOR SPOILER WARNING BELOW
And, lastly, if you can see past all of these things, you will not miss the fact that the story is a very blatant mixture of Lord of the Rings and Star Wars. It starts with a princess who has stolen something from the evil ruler and now tries to smuggle it to her hidden base. I was looking for R2D2 and C3PO to appear. We also learn that "Shades" can apparently use force strangle like Darth Vader. And of course, there are many Lord of the Rings-like things (elves and dwarfs, Eragon/Aragorn and Aria/Arwen, etc). Some of the shots were even framed identically to shots from Lord of the Rings.
END SPOILERS
Unfortunately, while this film tries to copy Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, it has nowhere near the storyline, effects, or acting in either of them (including Episode I, so that's pretty bad). Save the money or use it to go see dancing penguins or James Blond playing poker for two hours. Between a horrible script, even worse acting, awkward editing, shaky-at-best camera work, a blatant lack of directing, cheap CGI and other effects, and a pace that drags like a car with both rear tires shot out, this movie bombs. You'll spend more time talking about how bad it is than you will in the theater actually watching it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
