Eragon

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?"

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.

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.

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)

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.