ERAGON - What did you think?

[LightPhoenix]

Was it worth the $2.50 that I paid to see it? Definitely.

I haven't seen Eragon and don't intend to, but I wanted to comment on this. If I could see it for $2.50, I might consider it. However, here in Syracuse a movie ticket is over three times that much ($8.00). It's even more in other places. Cost is a huge mitigating factor for me in deciding to see a film, and when I'm spending that much, it needs to be at least average for me to consider it - which Eragon hardly is, according to reviews.

Also, I love Rotten Tomatoes because it's a compilation of all the published reviews. Its primary purpose is to diminish the bias of the reviewer by polling all of them, with all of their different tastes. IMO, it excels in that goal. So at 14%, I think it's safe to say Eragon is a bad movie.

 

[Thanee]

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...

A problem with this might be, that the boy would have died of old age by then.

Bye
Thanee

 

[IcedEarth81]

I haven't seen Eragon and don't intend to, but I wanted to comment on this. If I could see it for $2.50, I might consider it. However, here in Syracuse a movie ticket is over three times that much ($8.00). It's even more in other places. Cost is a huge mitigating factor for me in deciding to see a film, and when I'm spending that much, it needs to be at least average for me to consider it - which Eragon hardly is, according to reviews.

Also, I love Rotten Tomatoes because it's a compilation of all the published reviews. Its primary purpose is to diminish the bias of the reviewer by polling all of them, with all of their different tastes. IMO, it excels in that goal. So at 14%, I think it's safe to say Eragon is a bad movie.

Excellent points. I don't get to go see many movies in the theater, so when I do it has to be a for-sure great movie. I might watch Eragon when it comes out on video, but I'm not paying $7.50 to see it. I don't care how good the visual effects are, if the story is bad, the acting is bad, and cliches abound I'm just not that interested.

I also like Rotten Tomatoes. It's normal for a critic or two to not like a movie. When very nearly all of them dislike a movie that is usually a huge red flag. Lord of the Rings raised the standard for fantasy movies. You can make a great fantasy movie without it being completely cheesy and cliched, and you can make one with good character interaction and development. LOTR wasn't all about the action, it was about the characters. You cared about them. You wanted them to succeed. That was because of the story, the dialogue, the character introductions and development. Jackson had great material to work with thanks to Tolkien, but he and his team still did a good job of not letting the effects and action be the entire story. Those things supported the story. I simply will not forgive a movie using the effects in place of the story.

 

[Zaukrie]

edit: obviously it's ok with me if you disagree, I just don't think it can be stated as "fact" that this is a bad movie

Well, obviously I disagree with some of you, but it was worth full price to me, my wife, several people at work and 3 of the 4 kids I took (one just couldn't, like some of you LotR fans, get over the ommissions).

The effects did not make up for a bad story. The movie was too short to be a very good movie, but I still found it entertaining. Some of the responses here are so over the top that they don't deserve comment/counter argument, but here are some responses:

The director/studio made too short a movie. This to me lead to the biggest weaknesses, the lack of "downtime" and character growth to get some people to buy into the characters. On the other hand, someone complained that he fell off his dragon the first time he rode it, do you want growth or not?

The dragon grew too fast, well, I just took that as some kind of magical ability that they had - I just accepted it at face value that that is how dragons worked in this world. If they had let it grow up from an egg to big enough to ride, I doubt anyone would have cared more or less about the dragon or the boy. Would you really care more? Or, can you just not accept that is how dragons work on this world? Really, why pre-suppose anything about how dragons work - isn't the fact that they aren't long lived and that they magically grow different and not cliched - see, you don't like it when it doesn't play to your cliche.

The acting and dialogue were wooden - have you watched the first star wars movie lately? I saw it in the theater in 1977 when it came out and loved it. I still love it, but Mark Hammil is brutal, and Carrie Fischer isn't much better. The dialogue, bad and contrived. Yup, the dialogue and acting could have been better, I agree, but it wasn't so bad that it ruined this movie. Remember, some of you like Will Ferrel movies - hardly great acting (and yes, comedies can be well acted).

Finally, the predictability - that was a weakness no doubt. But, come on, most movies with patently evil guys and obviously good guys end with the good guys winning and the bad buys losing. Really, did SW 4 or 6 end any differently than you expected? Did LotR end any differently? Yes, there were lots of obvious things happening, but that didn't mean that you couldn't just sit back and let the images and plot wash over you as inevitably and enjoyably as a wave from the ocean (sorry, just had to write something better there).

I enjoyed it, most everyone I know, fantasy fans or not, enjoyed it also. I did not love it, nor would I put it on my all time favorite list. But, if someone asked me if they should see it, and if they were not a fantasy hater (my mom, e.g.), I'd suggest going, with the warning that you are unlikely to be surprised very often.

So, now you know whose advice not to take for movies....

 

[horacethegrey]

The acting and dialogue were wooden - have you watched the first star wars movie lately? I saw it in the theater in 1977 when it came out and loved it. I still love it, but Mark Hammil is brutal, and Carrie Fischer isn't much better.

Um, no. I've watched the original movie on DVD lately, and the acting there is still miles better than the acting in any fantasy or scifi crap that came in the wake of Star Wars success. Mark Hammil is brutal you say? Hardly. He played Luke with a lot of energy and sincerity, which I think perfectly fit the character. And surprisingly, he gave Luke a commanding prescence when he flew in the final battle on the Death Star, which is much better on the eyes than watching some whiny ass punk bitching about being a Jedi Master. *cough*Anakin*cough*

I do agree that Carrie's faux pas British accent and early lines were somewhat laughable. But the moment she meets up with Han and that inner spunk of hers comes out, it's great to see.

 

[Chairman7w]

But WHY does the Dragon have feathers? Ugh - as soon as I saw that I said no thanks.

 

[IcedEarth81]

About the Star Wars points:

Star Wars didn't have the greatest acting but it did have characters people immediately connected with and the interaction was great. The chemistry between Ford, Hammil, and Fisher helped a lot in this area as well. Also, the plot was good.

About the endings to the Star Wars movies - no they didn't end exactly as expected. Are you going to tell me you expected Han Solo to shoot Vader's cover ships, sending him shooting off through space and giving Luke time to blow up the Death Star? Did you expect Vader to throw the Emporer off the ledge and come back from the dark side? When I first watched them I didn't. I also see you left out any mention of Empire Strikes Back which focued heavily on the characters and had an unexpected ending. In LOTR, did you expect Gollum to destroy the ring? Wouldn't you say the more conventional ending would involve the army of men overpowering the armies of Sauron? Instead it is shown they cannot defeat Sauron through fighting but need Frodo and co. to destroy the ring. That isn't expected.

Yes, you expect the good guys to win in the end, but it's the execution and the details that determine how it is received.

 

[Templetroll]

But WHY does the Dragon have feathers? Ugh - as soon as I saw that I said no thanks.

I've read that feathers were not in the book's description so it was either the director or the art director trying to have a recognizably different dragon. That didn't bother me at all, but I hadn't read the book either.

 

[Klaus]

But WHY does the Dragon have feathers? Ugh - as soon as I saw that I said no thanks.

Maybe because lots of dinosaurs had feathers, and dinosaurs were the template for dragons in our imaginations?

I mean, it's no different than a Chinese dragon with the mane of a lion, the eyes of a rabbit and the antlers of a deer...

 

[werk]

I suppose I might have liked it a whole lot better if people hadn't been reminding the main character how special and important he was every 5 minutes. I prefer my heroes to be "How the &%@# did I end up here?" kind of guys/gals.

Big Trouble, Little China, FTW!