ERAGON - What did you think?

[Klaus]

Oh, I suspect Eragon came from "Dragon" with an "E". If you think of Eragon as Luke Skywalker (last of the Jedi), Brom as Obi-Wan, Uncle X as Owen & Aunt Beru, Alya as Princess Leia, Murtaugh as Han Solo, Durza as Darth Vader, Galbatorix as the Emperor, and the Varden as the Rebel Alliance, substitute magic for the Force, steel swords for light sabers, and a dragon for an X-wing fighter, with the basic plot outline of SW:ANH, you'll have Eragon (and it gets worse in the next segment, when Eragon goes to visit Yoda ...).

I love Star Wars. I love dragons. You just described the perfect movie! Can't wait to see it!

 

[WayneLigon]

It was a watchable film and not as bad as the terrible, terrible trailer made it out to be (The trailer made me actively not want to see the movie; I went today because I was invited by friends). It was a C+ with effort, but suffered from bad editing and direction.

The dragon effects were wonderful, and infant Safira was very cute. Really, I could have spent a more enjoyable two hours watching just that growing up period near the beginning of the book. They captured the natiure of both a dog and a cat perfectly.

 

[Zander]

I saw the movie today not having read the book.

The movie suffered from bad pacing. It needed to be 45 minutes longer, to avoid the poor character introductions and complete lack of character development ("Hi, I'm &*(^$*#^>" "Cool, come join us!").

I'm in complete agreement. Eragon, the protagonist, is supposed to go on this Campbellian journey of development from boyhood hunter-farmer to adulthood warrior-hero. To make this journey plausible, the film would have had to have been longer with more convincing acting and a better script.

On the plus side, I did find Brom, Jeremy Iron's character, engaging and I would have liked to have seen more of the evil sorcerer. The CGI used to portray magic was well done.

Overall, I thought that the professional critics including Jonathan Ross, the BBC's film critic (who happens to be a gamer), were a bit harsh. While Eragon, the movie, was not brilliant, it isn't bad either and I did enjoy it in part. I wouldn't return to the cinema to see it but I'd gladly watch it again if it were on TV. I may even get it on DVD in due course if I can find it on sale. My score: 6/10.

 

[Seonaid]

It needed to be 45 minutes longer, to avoid the poor character introductions and complete lack of character development ("Hi, I'm &*(^$*#^>" "Cool, come join us!").

Wait, so it's like every time a new PC joins an existing party?

 

[Thanee]

"You look trustworthy!"

Bye
Thanee

 

[Seonaid]

Exactly.

 

[Jdvn1]

Anyone know Paolini's involvement with the movie?

 

[Zaukrie]

Those fantasy fans that hate this movie are too jaded or cynical or something. It was a 6 out of 10 movie.

I have not read the book. Both 10 year old boys that saw it with me had read the book were very disappointed at the changes and ommisions, but still liked the movie ok. Clearly it could have used 30-45 more minutes to give the characters some depth, but I think that if you just go there and watch the movie (and aren't stuck on pointing out cliches and predicting what is next, just go and watch) that most fantasy fans will enjoy themselves.

 

[Jesus_marley]

The best way for me to describe this film was that it is better than I feared but worse than I'd hoped. If I had not read the book beforehand, I think I would have enjoyed it more. My major complaint with the movie was that the director, simply handwaved away some major plot elements that, while not necessary in terms of advancing the story, if they had remained in the film, would have lent a greater degree of depth to the characters. I felt that the movie needed at least another 45 minutes with which to expand upon the characters and the overall world in which the story took place. It felt to me as if the director was making the film for an audience with a short attention span.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Those fantasy fans that hate this movie are too jaded or cynical or something.

Genre has nothing to do with it. It's a BAD movie. It's not a total waste, but it's SO badly scripted and lifelessly acted (with the exception of Jeremy Irons redeeming himself for... that OTHER movie) that the one thing it DOES have going for it is the fact that it's fantasy. Were it any other genre we wouldn't treat it THIS well.