“Eragon” the movie is not likely to arouse much interest on any front. Fans of the book will likely be disappointed with this end result, which apparently bears little resemblance to Christopher Paolini’s dragon-themed epic. Conversely, the novel’s detractors will not be surprised that (in their view) a derivative story has spawned such an uninspired film. As someone with no vested interest in the success of the book, I feel most let down not by the admittedly pedestrian plot, but by the aura of cheapness that surrounds this film.
According to imdb.com, the estimated budget for “Eragon” is approximately $100 million. I must ask, ladies and gentlemen- where did the money go, because it certainly doesn’t seem to be up on the screen. When compared to the similarly priced Rings film “The Fellowship of the Ring,” (budget: $93 million) “Eragon” feels fleeting, dull, and uninspired. Granted, some of the “Fellowship” costs were mitigated by the simultaneous production of the other two films, and there are some nice effects in “Eragon,” notably the CGI dragon. However, on the whole the movie is severely lacking.
For one thing, by fantasy genre standards, this film is short. At a run time of 104 minutes, it is barely half as long as the theatrical cut of the Rings’ “The Return of the King,” and is only two thirds the length of the briefest Harry Potter, “The Prisoner of Azkaban.” “Eragon” is even significantly shorter than “Willow,” a film made back before every epic film needed to be over 2 hours long.
While it is true that quantity does not always equal quality, “Eragon” doesn’t even manage to use it’s limited run-time constructively. Early on the film shows some promise, as the titular hero Eragon (Ed Speleers) discovers a magical dragon egg in the woods, and soon becomes involved in the struggle to free his land from the tyrannical rule of King Galbatorix (John Malkovich). Along the way he encounters strange new allies and foes, including wise old Brom (Jeremy Irons), a warrior princess named Arya (Sienna Guillory), the mysterious Murtagh (Garrett Hedlund), and an evil “shade” (basically a wizard) called Durza (Robert Carlyle).
For a short while the movie manages to hold together, thanks in large part to Irons/Brom. At least when Brom is around the audience gets to learn about the dragons and their riders, the land of Alagaesia and it’s history, the magical properties of the realm, the various players and factions in the story, and so on. During those periods, “Eragon” feels as though it is actually about something grand and epic. Alas, as with all fantasy mentors, Brom can’t be around forever. Once he is gone the movie loses its one ambitious element, and the viewing experience becomes more like a series of consecutive events rather than an actual storyline.
Sadly Irons performance is also the exception and not the rule- the rest of the acting ranges from the generally adequate Speleers, to the maniacally overacting Malkovich. The rest of the cast fall somewhere in between- even recent Oscar winner Rachel Weisz seems to be sleepwalking through her role as the voice of the dragon Saphira. One could blame the one-note performances on inexperience- this is director Stefan Fangmeier’s first film, writer Peter Buchman’s second script, and Paolini’s first story (which he wrote as a teenager and self-published).
In reality, all these factors contribute to a cinematic experience that is, frankly, unworthy of a theatrical release. “Eragon” is on the level of a Sci-Fi Channel afternoon feature, which is where it will likely end up.
|
eragon
Written by Guest on 2006-12-19 16:59:07
the best movie ever
|
eragon
Written by Guest on 2006-12-19 17:01:25
If you haven't seen this movie the you better go see it because after I watched it the I watched it three more times |
Pathetic
Written by Guest on 2006-12-20 14:17:54
This movie is so boring. It kept reminding of the Lord of the Rings and the plot is exactly like Star Wars. |
no no no
Written by Guest on 2007-01-03 03:13:52
"Paolini’s first story (which he wrote as a teenager and self-published). "
that is true but the books are great they just choped the book into micro pieces took some glue and horrably put it back together (and out of order might i say)
in review the books are great moive isan't worth the dvd it came out on
|
eragon
Written by Guest on 2007-01-03 03:20:40
i agree that the movie is not really like the book so if you had read then book then watched the moive the likeleness is that you did not like the movie because it was too short and cut out many important twists in the plot however if you did not read the book then i believe that the movie was actually intertaining and should be view by many people i hope that enough money is made so that eldest is also made into a movie ebut that this time the director follows the book closer and does not cut the movie short |
Powered by AkoComment 2.0!
Entertainment
