ERAGON - What did you think?

[Lobo Lurker]

Man, you guys are harsh.

I knew nothing about the book before going to see the movie and then a friend told me it (the movie) was terrible. With that in mind, my wife and I went to see it and we both enjoyed it a lot.

Was it a great movie? No.
Did it have a great script? No.
Were there any wonderful acting performances? No... though Jeremy Irons regains any bad points he earned from the DnD movie (another terrible movie that I enjoyed).
Was it entertaining? Yes.
Was it worth the $2.50 that I paid to see it? Definitely.

Movies don't have to be great works of art to be enjoyable. I'd give it 3 stars out of 5. It's average because of the lack of dramatic tension, weak scripting, and fact that it was obvious that much material was getting cut.

...and I liked Krull, Clash of the Titans, and Mars Attacks. I guess that means I like bad movies. ^_^

 

[ShadowDenizen]

I loved The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, which was as kiddie as a fantasy film can get, yet was still an excellent movie.

I disagree with that statment.

While "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" may seem kiddie at first glance, there's actualyl alot of deeper thematic elements that are explored beyond the "Cool! A centaur with tow swords!" moments.

And the same holds true for the Harry Potter films, though the messages there are not as bltatant and deeply imbedded as the ones in Narnia.

Back on topic:
"Eragon" was a decent film, but didn't tread any new ground, and needed to spend about another half-hour developing the charcters and the relationships between them.

 

[horacethegrey]

I disagree with that statment.

While "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" may seem kiddie at first glance, there's actualyl alot of deeper thematic elements that are explored beyond the "Cool! A centaur with tow swords!" moments.

I'm not denying that Narnia had a lot deep themes within it, but you can't deny that it was a story originally written for children. It just so happened that C.S. Lewis wrote it in such a way that it could appeal to adults as well, and Andrew Adamson followed suit and thankfully didn't dumb it down as most kids films often do.

And the same holds true for the Harry Potter films, though the messages there are not as bltatant and deeply imbedded as the ones in Narnia.

Again, I'm not denying the thematic depth of these books and films. In fact, the Harry Potter series amazes me in that it tells these magical stories while realistically portraying the trials and tribulations of growing up.

A shame though that Chris Columbus turned the first two books into such amazing borefests. That man couldn't make a good kid flick if his life depended on it. :\

Back on topic:
"Eragon" was a decent film, but didn't tread any new ground, and needed to spend about another half-hour developing the charcters and the relationships between them.

Which is why The Lord of the Rings needed 3 films to tell the story, rather than two or one. Yeah, I'm talking to you Harvey Weinstein! Keep your greedy fat ass out of the other fantasy films to come! One film my ass.

 

[billd91]

I'm not denying that Narnia had a lot deep themes within it, but you can't deny that it was a story originally written for children. It just so happened that C.S. Lewis wrote it in such a way that it could appeal to adults as well, and Andrew Adamson followed suit and thankfully didn't dumb it down as most kids films often do.

Perhaps he didn't dumb it down, but he sure didn't make the kids the heroes they were in the book. In the movie, they're reluctant heroes at best, working against being heroes for much of the time. In the book, even the mention of Alsan has a mystical effect on them that they can't explain. That's a lot more powerful and, I think, could have been well handled in the film.

But that's a digression from the discusson of Eragon.

 

[horacethegrey]

Perhaps he didn't dumb it down, but he sure didn't make the kids the heroes they were in the book. In the movie, they're reluctant heroes at best, working against being heroes for much of the time. In the book, even the mention of Alsan has a mystical effect on them that they can't explain. That's a lot more powerful and, I think, could have been well handled in the film.

But that's a digression from the discusson of Eragon.

Sorry, but I don't find that appealling at all. Just cause Aslan is this all powerful mystical presence doesn't mean the kids should kowtow to him and follow his every whim. Aslan should be inspiring the kids to feats of heroism, not lording over them and making demands of them (though I'm pretty sure bringing particluar examples of what entire religious groups would want to see would be against board rules).

Also, Adamson did say he wanted to develop the characters of the Pevensie kids further in the movie, as they were woefully underdeveloped in the book. For the most part, I think he succeeded, as the kids in the film are very appealing and quite believable.

Also, what's so wrong with reluctant heroism? The Lord of the Rings was full to the brim with it, yet do you hear people complaining? But again, that's a discussion for another time.

 

[billd91]

Sorry, but I don't find that appealling at all. Just cause Aslan is this all powerful mystical presence doesn't mean the kids should kowtow to him and follow his every whim. Aslan should be inspiring the kids to feats of heroism, not lording over them and making demands of them (though I'm pretty sure bringing particluar examples of what entire religious groups would want to see would be against board rules).

THis is very much NOT in the book either. The kids don't kowtow to him at all, nor would I advocate putting that in the movie. But hearing about Aslan from the beavers inspires them to be heroes in ways they don't yet understand, not try to go home. That's what I'm talking about, and it's completely lost in the movie. The kids have some instinctive reactions toward being heroic and toward Aslan that I think the movie could have delved into. Instead, it chose to drag them into most acts of heroism (with the exception of Edmund taking on the queen). There's too much of them trying to do the sensible thing (go home) and not the right thing. And that's too bad.

Oh, and I don't have an objection to the reluctant hero in Lord of the Rings because that's a significant part of Frodo's character, hobbits being natural homebodies and all that.

 

[horacethegrey]

THis is very much NOT in the book either. The kids don't kowtow to him at all, nor would I advocate putting that in the movie. But hearing about Aslan from the beavers inspires them to be heroes in ways they don't yet understand, not try to go home. That's what I'm talking about, and it's completely lost in the movie. The kids have some instinctive reactions toward being heroic and toward Aslan that I think the movie could have delved into. Instead, it chose to drag them into most acts of heroism (with the exception of Edmund taking on the queen). There's too much of them trying to do the sensible thing (go home) and not the right thing. And that's too bad.

Well thank you for clearing that up. But I still prefer what Adamson did in the movie over the book. It's too much a stretch that the Pevensies would wholeheartedly accept the burden of saving the whole of Narnia like that (with the exception of Lucy). It's a much better thing that they'd grow into their roles and rid whatever doubts they have of themselves, before accepting that burden.

Also, who said that wanting to go home wasn't the right thing to do? The kids suddenly appeared in this strange world and were caught up in a conflict between two opposing forces, a conflict that was sure to get them killed. What sane person wouldn't want to turn tail and run? And no, I don't think it's cowardice, it's survival, which I think is a natural instinct in human beings when they find themselves in circumstances beyond their control.

EDIT: Oh, and sorry about that little crack I made. Forgot about the rules regarding such things. Lesson learned.

 

[Archetype]

NOT a "Dragonrider" movie at all...

What I hated the most about Eragon (at the top of a long list, much of which has been mentioned above) is the BAD TASTE it will instill in the general populace against any future "dragonrider" movies...

I have been eagerly awaiting the day that cinema technology could convincingly and breathtakingly recreate the thrilling union of man and dragon in flight. I was hoping that someone would get Anne McCaffrey's The Dragonriders of Pern onto screen first, to set the standard for this, but unfortunately this pile of drek got rushed into production first.

Bleh.

How can you call someone who spends more time falling *off* his dragon than actually riding it a "dragonrider" anyway? And what ultimate cheesewiz was the scene where the hatchling dragon just goes *poof* in the air to instantly grow up into a convieniently-sized mount to finish the required battlescene with? (No I don't know if this happened in the book as well.) At least give us a "dragon growing up" montage! I guess this panders to the whole instant-gratification Pokemon-generation needs ("Safira, I choose YOU!"), but it dumbed down the concept of dragons as a long-lived, majestic species that occasionally interacts with lesser beings during their many centuries of life...

Passable CGI can *not* cover over the stink of the rotting, poorly assembled carcass of bad writing, acting and directing underneath. So sad.

Oh, well. Hopefully this will be forgotten by the time that Pern's true Dragonriders make it to the screen...

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Nah, Beastmaster sits somewhere below Conan (good), but above Red Sonja (bad) and D&D (excruciating) ... in a category of almost-but-not-quite-bad fantasy movies. A movie with weasels can't be all bad.

They were ferrets. Were supposed to be meercats. Not a bad movie, but I hate it anyway. Andre Norton's book, upon which it was supposedly based, is Science Fiction! Changing it into a fantasy ensured that she never again allowed any of her works to be filmed.

 

[Klaus]

Yet it was damn near perfect Dark Sun...