Eragon

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.

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)

This quote gives a good review of the movie as a whole. I came into the theater with no prior knowledge of the books, and left with hardly anymore than when I entered. If not for the coffee I drank before the showing I would likely have been awakened an hour later by children applauding the movie they had been fooled into viewing. As Goldenduc has stated, the movie's scene-stealer was Saphira, the dragon whose above average animation and voice-acting carried the movie. Readers of the book(such as two of my fellow viewers who reported it horribly inaccurate) will be disappointed by the film's bad acting and poorly-paced chronology(Or may lie to themselves and give it a 10 like 41% of the voters thus far).

Those who enjoyed the masterpiece book "Eragon" were most likely suspicious when the movie's rating was revealed as PG. As 6 to 12-year-olds filled the theater, older members of the audience felt an ominous chill that manifests before the start of a poor movie. From the moment the main character picks up his bow in the opening scene, you can sense the films bad filmography and quick pace will be it's downfall. Roughly ten minutes into the movie the main character's are introduced and killed-off or sent away. Soon after Saphira hatches and creates a false sense of hope that the movie may be saved. Before the audience was done "Aww"-ing at the cute dragonling, it transforms into a full-grown beast and its bond with it's rider is solidified. A few more poor actors are introduced and the "Darkest Knight"-esquire fumbles onward, sprinting through the most important parts and trudging through meaningless scenes. Before you know it the final (and first?) battle has been fought and won, and a miserable cliffhanger paves the way for a sequel movie-goers are sure to avoid.

The one upside to the movie was not it's namesake, but the dragon on which Eragon rides, Saphira. The dragon's animation is fluid and realistic(although not when Eragon is integrated) and its voice calming yet authoritative. However, like most of the movie, the dragons physical maturation and bond with it's rider goes by too fast and leaves the viewer with an unpleasant longing for more. The fact the intelligent dragon needs a rider in the first place may have fantasy-buffs in wonder.

To wrap-up it should be stated that the movie is rated PG for a reason, because there's just enough violence that it didn't make G. The constant new information is introduced to fast and is reminiscent of children role-playing("It's(the sword) a dragon killer!" "You must pierce a Shade in the heart to kill it." "If a dragon's rider dies, so does the dragon"). The erratic pace of the movie makes no sense, more time is spent showing Saphira learn to fly than is Eragon's time of mourning for his lost uncle. Overall, the movie earned 4 stars( of 10) for it's decent CGI and voice-acting, and the remaining 6 were stripped away due to lame pacing, bad acting and pseudo-logical fallacies that made you think "Wait, what?"

The movie talks about a young peasant named Eragon (Edward Speleers) living at homeland called Alagaesia , he's an orphan fostered by his uncle (Alun Armstrong) and he finds a mysterious stone like an egg , when suddenly awakening a baby dragon and is named Saphira (voiced by Rachel Weistz) . They communicate themselves by telepathic language . An older wanderer named Brom (Jeremy Irons) is the mentor of the farm boy , he suddenly encounters himself the only person can save the kingdom , battling against a horrible sorcerer named Durza (Robert Carlyle) , a nasty, evil-hearted magician . Eragon becomes the new Dragon rider fighting across the fantastic lands . He and the Dragon make for an entertaining pairing running , flying with the adventure . Eragon is helped by an archer young warrior (Garrett Hedlund) and a king of a remote tribe named Ajihad (Dijimon Honsou) . They team up and band together and free themselves to the beautiful princess (Sienna Gullory) confronting weird monsters and taking on king's tyranny (John Malkovich) .

This amazing story attempts at creating a real fantasy but is compromised by borrowing elements from ¨Dragonheart¨, ¨Dragon Slayer¨ and ¨Lord of the Rings¨ and other latter-day movies . Film blends witchcraft and wizardry , adventures , battles and is extremely fun and amusing . Stimulating action set pieces illuminate the full-blown adventures of Eragon and his Dragon . Casting is frankly well , giving enjoyable performances . Convincing special effects by Industrial Light Magic (George Lucas's owner) bring dragon to life with spectacular images . Work on Dragon took more a year and does seem authentic . Patrick Doyle's soaring musical score is wonderful and colorful cinematography by Hugh Johnson . Picture is beautifully made with phenomenal production values and rousing production design in charge of Wolf Kroeger. The motion picture was marvellously directed by Stephen Fangmeier . As of 2015, this remains the first and only film directed by Stefen , who's mostly known for doing visual effects work on Terminator 2 (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993), and as the second unit director on Galaxy Quest (1999) . It's a unqualified success accounting for one of the greatest dragons in picture story .

Say what you will, but Eragon can be a compelling story regardless of what you think it ripped off. With that in mind, I give you Edward Speelers...who probably wouldn't know something compelling if it hit him in the face. In fact, I doubt he would even flinch if something hit him in the face. The biggest problem with Eragon is who plays Eragon himself.

There's an innocence-turned-hard required for this role, but Speelers has one facial gesture: solemnity. When he laughs or smiles or cries (tries to, anyway), it is not believable. He is as wooden a leading actor that I have ever seen in a mainstream film. The fact that the story and the movie is carried upon his shoulders is a problem.

The rest of the performances are at least a little better; John Malkovich chews up the scenery like no other, and it works here. Carlyle's Durza is truly a menace, even though his most prominent scenes are often shrouded in special effects.

That is another thing: the special effects. Some are absolutely stunning (Saphira, the journey through the mountains), yet some are so shoddy that they make you roll your eyes. It's almost as if the filmmakers spent far too much time on Saphira and the accompanying flying scenes to be bothered to put much effort into the rest of them.

In summary, it can be thrilling and visually stimulating at times, but Speelers falls so flat that it ultimately is forgettable. It's a shame that this is a such a mediocre film.