Customer Reviews

Eragon

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

This is a terrific fantasy movie. It has great action, acting, and visual affects. It isn't as kiddy as Narnia and not as slow paced as Harry Potter. It is a must see if you were a fan of the book. Don't believe the bad reviews, buy it.
If you liked Eragon you should try:
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
The Chronicals of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

"Eragon" is a film that surprised me. According to what I had heard, it was far from being a good movie, but I was curious, so I decided to give it a try. A friend had given me the book on which this film is based as a Christmas present, and I decided to read it if the movie had at least something that managed to charm me.

Regarding the plot, I suppose I should start by saying that the main character is Eragon (Ed Speleers), a young man that discovers a blue stone he wants to trade for something to feed his family. Unable to do so, Eragon decides to keep the stone, and receives a very big surprise when the stone turns to be a dragon's egg, and he makes the acquaintance of a new friend, a young dragon named Saphira. The birth of Saphira is a powerful magical event noticed by many, among them King Galbatorix (John Malkovich), the man that rules Alagaesia the land where Eragon lives.

Galbatorix used to be a dragon rider, but he betrayed the other dragon riders and became a tyrant, ruling his empire with strength and without mercy. From his point of view, Eragon and Saphira are a threat, and they must join him or be wiped out.

Galbatorix makes the wrong move, though, and turns Eragon into an enemy. The young man decides to join the Varden, those that oppose the king. With the help of Brom (Jeremy Irons), an old bard that is a lot more than what he seems to be, Eragon will try to find his path, with Saphira by her side.

That sounds interesting and you want to know more? Well, watch the movie. It is not perfect, but it is entertaining, the kind of movie that engages the spectator quickly in the adventures of the main characters, and makes them care. Of course, recommended...

Belen Alcat

PS: By the way, after watching this movie I immediately started reading Christopher Paolini's "Eragon", and I loved it. I liked this movie quite a bit (3.5 out of 5 stars), but the book was much better, so if you haven't already read it... What are you waiting for? Go :)

"Eragon" wants to be "Lord of the Rings." It really, really wants to be. In a pinch, it'll settle for "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" with a dash of Harry Potter.

But those hoping for a spectacular PG-rated epic shouldn't hold their breaths, because the adaptation of Christopher Paolini's bestseller is a massive bellyflop. The direction is stilted and plodding, the acting is on par with tree stumps, and the whole thing is uninspired -- it never moves beyond "quick cash-in."

A young woman is being chased through the woods by a band of evil soldiers, trying to recapture a bright blue stone she stole from evil King Galbatorix (John Malkovich), but she magics it away. It's found in the woods by a young farm boy, Eragon (Edward Speleers), who unsuccessfully tries to trade it for food. But the stone turns out to be a dragon's egg.

When his home and uncle are destroyed, Eragon escapes with his now-grown dragon Saphira (Rachael Weisz) and a mysterious stranger named Brom (Jeremy Irons), who knows a lot about the Dragon Riders. Now Eragon and Saphira may be the only hope for the land, not to mention the captive elf princess he's dreaming about, and whom he has to rescue from the evil king.

Dragons, damsels in distress, magic spells, an evil king and his evil wizard, and a Young Hero in the Luke Skywalker mold... well, "Eragon" had a lot of obstacles in front of it from the start. It sounds like the love child of "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings"... except it's infinitely more clumsy than either of those movies.

And the director doesn't help -- Stefan Fangmeier is horribly crude and clumsy in his directing, with a style that manages to be both stilted and choppy. The scripting is even worse. Expect the most pompous, cliched fantasyspeak imaginable ("It is your fate to be a Dragon Rider. The Varden need a Rider if they are to defeat Durza and the king." "I didn't ask for any of this!" "But you were chosen, nevertheless!").

It's not surprising, since Fangmeier has never even directed a short film before. His only prior movie work has been for visual effects, which might explain why the CGI for Saphira the dragon is so beautifully detailed and fluid. Wonderful work there. But not enough to make you forget the rest of the movie.

Speleers looks like a deer in the headlights, while Sienna Guillory has all the elegance and magic of hobbit feet, and Malkovich is given the most 2-D villain role of the 21st century. The supporting actors give the only solid performances, miscast as they are -- Weisz gives a wonderfully nuanced performance, while Irons is solid as the mentor figure.

"Eragon" has the occasional good performance or moment of excellence -- usually from Weisz as Saphira. But the rest of the time, it's an amateurish example of how NOT to make a fantasy movie.

I am a huge fan of the book [even though it isn't the greatest thing I've read] and I really was looking forward to the movie. I thought that it would never happen and when it finally did I was so disappointed.

Good things: The special effects for Saphria were great! She looked so real and very amazing! Almost the entire cast was well chosen although I think the guy who did Eragon was just ok. But Brom was portrayed very well!

Bad Things: It was too short! The book was long and a movie adaptation for that novel should have been at least two and a half hours, so much was left out! Alot of interesting [ and important] characters, places and events were gone as if the director NEVER read the book, in the book Urgals are beast-like horned humanoids and in the movie they were only buff bald guys that didn't even have horns, the Raz'ac are supposed to be tall, cloaked, bird/reptile/human things and in the movie they were only zombie-like things with bandages on them, Saphria was supposed to still be growing in book two while in the film she grew in less then two minuets and [again] so much was left out!

So if you are a fan of the book you may like this movie although you will miss a lot of your favorite parts and details. I think I must have been spoiled by Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptation and Andrew Adamson's Narnia one. You may enjoy it. Give it a chance but don't watch it with high hopes.

Farm boy Eragon (Edward Speelers) comes upon a dragon's egg, sent by Princess Arya. One day, the dragon, Saphira, is born, and Eragon becomes the dragon rider who will set his people free from a tyrant, Galbatorix (John Malkovich).

I found the actors bland, weak, lacking in interpretation. I don't care for Malkovich usually, but even in this film, his acting wasn't what it could have been. Jeremy Irons' character on the other hand was quite despicable! and his acting was right on for the part.

The storyline was also pretty basic, and because the opening credits mentioned this was an adaptation of a book, I realized many situations might be missing from the screen.

Also, I didn't find the dragon Saphira, feminine enough. However, the special effects in general were well done, certainly not extraordinary but well done.

I'm giving it a 5, and I'm probably being generous, considering I haven't read the book. If I had, I probably would have given it a 3 or 4.

Not a bad choice for an action/sci-fi film, if you have nothing else to watch.

Perhaps I would give this movie a higher rating if I hadn't read the book first. This movie could have been way more thorough in its plot and character development. While I was watching it I felt whisked through the storyline, and while I realize that this is often the case with movies as compared to the books they are based on, the movie could have been expanded to capture the story a little better. In an industry that is now commonly producing 2 1/2 hour movies, I ask: why was this one only 1 3/4 hours, at the expense of sacrificing depth of story and character? Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings", and Rowling's "Harry Potter" series were well done in their transformation from book to big screen, but unfortunately this was not the case with Paolini's masterpiece. On the bright side, if you haven't read the book, there is still enjoyment to be gleaned. The movie does offer some good special effects, most importantly, the animation of one of the most important characters: Saphira, the dragon!

If you are a reader, I would highly recommend the books, regardless as to whether you see the movie first. There is so much in the movie that isn't captured, that it could be like reading a whole new story!

Eragon feels like Hollywood used a fixed equation which they believed would make the movie acceptable the widest range of their N.A. market, and in so doing they made Eragon predictable and boring for any one who has grown up watching Hollywood's new bread of movies.

Eragon Dose have some merit as do many Saturday morning cartoons, but it is a pity Hollywood gave so much control the marketers.

Hollywood wasn't always like this, they used to produce and market engaging and heart felt movies that were interesting, But I sopose that's just a legend now.

"Eragon" wants to be "Lord of the Rings." It really, really wants to be. In a pinch, it'll settle for "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" with a dash of Harry Potter.

But those hoping for a spectacular PG-rated epic shouldn't hold their breaths, because the adaptation of Christopher Paolini's bestseller is a massive bellyflop. The direction is stilted and plodding, the acting is on par with tree stumps, and the whole thing is uninspired -- it never moves beyond "quick cash-in."

A young woman is being chased through the woods by a band of evil soldiers, trying to recapture a bright blue stone she stole from evil King Galbatorix (John Malkovich), but she magics it away. It's found in the woods by a young farm boy, Eragon (Edward Speleers), who unsuccessfully tries to trade it for food. But the stone turns out to be a dragon's egg.

When his home and uncle are destroyed, Eragon escapes with his now-grown dragon Saphira (Rachael Weisz) and a mysterious stranger named Brom (Jeremy Irons), who knows a lot about the Dragon Riders. Now Eragon and Saphira may be the only hope for the land, not to mention the captive elf princess he's dreaming about, and whom he has to rescue from the evil king.

Dragons, damsels in distress, magic spells, an evil king and his evil wizard, and a Young Hero in the Luke Skywalker mold... well, "Eragon" had a lot of obstacles in front of it from the start. It sounds like the love child of "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings"... except it's infinitely more clumsy than either of those movies.

And the director doesn't help -- Stefan Fangmeier is horribly crude and clumsy in his directing, with a style that manages to be both stilted and choppy. The scripting is even worse. Expect the most pompous, cliched fantasyspeak imaginable ("It is your fate to be a Dragon Rider. The Varden need a Rider if they are to defeat Durza and the king." "I didn't ask for any of this!" "But you were chosen, nevertheless!").

It's not surprising, since Fangmeier has never even directed a short film before. His only prior movie work has been for visual effects, which might explain why the CGI for Saphira the dragon is so beautifully detailed and fluid. Wonderful work there. But not enough to make you forget the rest of the movie.

Speleers looks like a deer in the headlights, while Sienna Guillory has all the elegance and magic of hobbit feet, and Malkovich is given the most 2-D villain role of the 21st century. The supporting actors give the only solid performances, miscast as they are -- Weisz gives a wonderfully nuanced performance, while Irons is solid as the mentor figure.

"Eragon" has the occasional good performance or moment of excellence -- usually from Weisz as Saphira. But the rest of the time, it's an amateurish example of how NOT to make a fantasy movie.

I loved this movie, i love the lord of the ring has well and star wars even more.

But you dont need to compare this movie with theses other great films to enjoy Eragon.

The dragon is amazing and the movie moves at a very good pace.

I am pertty sure that the second movie will be even better even if the first is short the dvd is 103 minutes.

"Eragon" wants to be "Lord of the Rings." It really, really wants to be. In a pinch, it'll settle for "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe" with a dash of Harry Potter.

But those hoping for a spectacular PG-rated epic shouldn't hold their breaths, because the adaptation of Christopher Paolini's bestseller is a massive bellyflop. The direction is stilted and plodding, the acting is on par with tree stumps, and the whole thing is uninspired -- it never moves beyond "quick cash-in."

A young woman is being chased through the woods by a band of evil soldiers, trying to recapture a bright blue stone she stole from evil King Galbatorix (John Malkovich), but she magics it away. It's found in the woods by a young farm boy, Eragon (Edward Speleers), who unsuccessfully tries to trade it for food. But the stone turns out to be a dragon's egg.

When his home and uncle are destroyed, Eragon escapes with his now-grown dragon Saphira (Rachael Weisz) and a mysterious stranger named Brom (Jeremy Irons), who knows a lot about the Dragon Riders. Now Eragon and Saphira may be the only hope for the land, not to mention the captive elf princess he's dreaming about, and whom he has to rescue from the evil king.

Dragons, damsels in distress, magic spells, an evil king and his evil wizard, and a Young Hero in the Luke Skywalker mold... well, "Eragon" had a lot of obstacles in front of it from the start. It sounds like the love child of "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings"... except it's infinitely more clumsy than either of those movies.

And the director doesn't help -- Stefan Fangmeier is horribly crude and clumsy in his directing, with a style that manages to be both stilted and choppy. The scripting is even worse. Expect the most pompous, cliched fantasyspeak imaginable ("It is your fate to be a Dragon Rider. The Varden need a Rider if they are to defeat Durza and the king." "I didn't ask for any of this!" "But you were chosen, nevertheless!").

It's not surprising, since Fangmeier has never even directed a short film before. His only prior movie work has been for visual effects, which might explain why the CGI for Saphira the dragon is so beautifully detailed and fluid. Wonderful work there. But not enough to make you forget the rest of the movie.

Speleers looks like a deer in the headlights, while Sienna Guillory has all the elegance and magic of hobbit feet, and Malkovich is given the most 2-D villain role of the 21st century. The supporting actors give the only solid performances, miscast as they are -- Weisz gives a wonderfully nuanced performance, while Irons is solid as the mentor figure.

"Eragon" has the occasional good performance or moment of excellence -- usually from Weisz as Saphira. But the rest of the time, it's an amateurish example of how NOT to make a fantasy movie.