Eragon

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.