"Oh, yeah? What's it about?"
"Well there's this young farmboy see, and he lives with his uncle...let's call him Duke Styporker. He can be played by some characterless pretty boy with an English accent, like that Hayden Christensen dude! EVERYBODY liked him...am I right or am I right?!"
"He finds out one day that he's the chosen one to hang out with this dragon who speaks to him!"
"You mean like Dragonheart?"
"No, no...nothing like that! That had that cool, charismatic Scottish guy voicing it. We'll just get a Satnav to do it and make her communicate through thought so we don't have to make its lips move...that oughtta save us a few bucks!"
"Then he can meet up with an ageing mentor who used to be like him, who teaches him how to fight and use magic powers. We could call it The Horce or something! But there's this bad ass Emper...er I mean King who wants him dead, so he calls in his right hand man who used to be a good guy like Obi Wan Kebabi (just thinking off the top of my head here!) but turned to the dark side!"
"How did you get in here?"
"This bad guy, called, um Garth Nader, captures a feisty princess who Duke has to rescue with the help of an enigmatic, morally ambiguous mercenary who keeps appearing to save his ass at the last minute!!"
"Let me guess. Flan Polo?"
"Now we're cooking! What a team!"
"You ARE shitting me, right...?"
"So they rescue the princess but his old mentor is killed by Garth...bet you never saw that one coming! So they all get together to help the rebels fight the imperial forces in a big battle in a Keep built into a mountain side!!"
"Exactly like The Two Towers you mean..."
"Erm...ever heard of it..."
Young farmer Eragon (Ed Speleers) finds a dragon's egg, and teams up with the newborn dragon, Saphira (voiced by Rachel Weisz), a former Dragon Rider (Jeremy Irons) and a female Elf (Sienna Guillory) to tackle an evil king (John Malkovich) and his shady accomplice (Robert Carlyle).
Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad movie. If your going to release a fantasy film these days then make sure it has some mileage, as "The Lord of the Rings" has set a very high benchmark. This was also based on a series of books by Christopher Paolini but it's not even in the same league as some of the quality we've recently been spoiled with. Admittedly, I've never read the books, leaving me unsure as to how the adaptation should be but I do know this... the voice of the dragon was a bad move. It made no effort to even look like the dragon was communicating and just came across as cheap and insulting. Although some were impressed with the special effects, I didn't find them to be anything special. Speelers doesn't really cut it as the hero of the tale, lacking charisma and any form of acting ability and the rest of the cast seem perplexed. You get the impression from Irons and Malkovich that they know they've made a mistake with this one. The same goes for Carlyle but he still manages to deliver a decidedly nasty villian that's way above this nonsense. Normally a fantasy yarn has something to hold your interest - no matter how poor - but it just goes to show there are exceptions to that. This is one, and quite possibly the definitive to those exceptions.
The only positive that can be taken from this is that due to it's box-office and critical failure, we will probably be spared the adaptations to the rest of the series. A very bad film indeed and one that I'd rather rate with zero, but I'll through a half a star Robert Carlyle's way.
Let's start of with the acting. Wait. What acting? Exactly. Jeremy Irons did a fantastic job, clearly showing a change from his role in DnD, but even he couldn't save this movie. Ed Speleers (You are not an inch of Eragon), Sienna Guillroy and Garrett Hedlend were particulary horrible. They were all overracting so badly, it makes the HSM cast look good. But hey, they had a bad script, so give them credit.
The special affects were horrible too. The dragon is less realistic than the 1997 Godzilla and so is the demon/dragon/cloud whatever the hell Durza rides thing at the end.
But the worst thing about this movie? It is absolutley ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING like the movie. It doesn't mention the dwarves, it doesn;t mention the Urgals and replaces the Dwarf Lord with the fact that Durza rides this random thing that nobody knows about. And another thing, why did they kill of the Ra'zac so quickly? Did they do it because they knew this movie would suck so badly that they wouldn;t make a sequel.
Overrall this movie did nothing right. But hey, we can give it credit for something! It showed us how NOT to make a good fantasy movie.
Oh shit! Wrong movie....Meh, close enough. Just sub in a Lord of the Rings setting, change the character names, and you have the story of Eragon.
Industrial Light and Magic special-effects wizard Stefen Fangmeier makes the leap into the director's chair with this coming-of-age fantasy concerning a young boy whose discovery of a mysterious dragon egg leads him on a predestined journey to become a Dragon Rider and defend his peaceful world against an evil king. Based on the best-selling novel by Christopher Paolini, Eragon tells the tale of the titular character (Ed Speleers), a humble farm boy living in the land of AlagaŽsia, whose life is forever changed when he discovers that he has been chosen to fight the most powerful enemy his world has ever known. Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, and Djimon Hounsou co-star in a film produced by Davis Entertainment and adapted from the novel by screenwriters Peter Buchman, Larry Konner, and Mark Rosenthal.
When I heard a film version of one of my favourite books was coming out, I couldn't wait and eagerly waited for it's release - only to be disappointed when it was. The acting wasn't very good apart from Rachel Weisz as Saphira, the dialogue was bad, and the story was terrible. They changed too much from the book in my opinion and their order of things was appalling. A friend of mine who is also a big fan of the novels told me of a review which is actually quite suitable. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it said something along the lines of: 'It was as if the people who made the films read the first 10 pages and then made a film out of it.' I really wish they had left Paolini's book as a book instead of making it into a film. It really felt as if they were desperately trying to fit it into an 1hr 30mins time frame, and if they had expanded it to a longer film with more accurate copying from the novel, plus a better cast, it would have been a great film. It's a shame it wasn't.
The downfalls: It was to short, with very simple set up. It could of been more detailed, and been took a little more seriously. But, its still a fun classic too add to a collection.