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.

I didn't think this movie was as horrible as many make it out to be. It is not exactly "good" or, for the most part, "bad"... What I WOULD like to see, is someone actually try it again and stick more to the actual story line. There could be a trilogy there if done right. Love the books and I would love to see it done right, or at least better.

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.

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 .

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.