Eragon Review: Only Part One of Fantasy Disaster

December 15, 2006

Eragon, the latest dragon film to be seen in recent years (last with Reign of Fire in 2002), is the greatly anticipated adaptation of a highly acclaimed fantasy book series. Fox put about as much care and effort into making Eragon as they did with the terrible The Marine, and in turn first-time director Stefen Fangmeier (previously best known as an ILM visual effects man) has introduced us to a shameful world of only marginal entertainment and otherwise poor storytelling. It's a PG film with PG-required editing cuts and is an experience that is pretty grueling to withstand.

The story introduces us to a 17-year-old farm boy named Eragon (Edward Speleers) in a medieval fantasy land where the dragons who used to defend the inhabitants have been killed by the deranged King Galbatorix (John Malkovich), who now controls the only dragon left. A dragon egg is stolen from the King's control and ends up in Eragon's hands. A dragon egg only hatches when it has found its rider, a person who was chosen by fate, so only when Eragon receives this egg does it finally open. The newborn dragon named Saphira (voiced by Rachel Weisz) and her rider Eragon get thrown into the treacherous world of the mad King who has already sent his magical and villainous "Shade" named Durza (Robert Carlyle) to bring back the egg.

The young Eragon (Ed Speleers) and his mentor Brom (Jeremy Irons) in Eragon.

Eragon truly tries to be epic, and I mean it tries hard: the locations are grand, the battles are massive, and even the character names sound great when spoken in dramatic baritone voices, but it is clear that this is a film led by a better visual effects specialist than a director. It's a combination of Lord of the Rings, Dragonheart, and an unfortunate mix of Dungeons and Dragons, all packed into a part-one-of-three film. There is fairly well-done CGI throughout and teen actor Ed Speleers, in his first professional acting role, performs quite well in the role of Eragon. As the "times of past" guide Brom (Jeremy Irons) tells the titular character about himself, Eragon's producers are also one-part brave, for attempting to make such an epic film, and three-parts fool, for simply forgetting to care about making a good movie.

The visual side, including the dragon, was a much "grungier" back-to-basics CGI look that doesn't have a shining plastic-coated blockbuster feel, but still isn't anything outstanding. The other mythical characters and landscapes are nothing special in the fantasy genre that now more than ever cries out for Peter Jackson's guiding hand. It's obvious every bit of care and concern went into the look of the dragon, and that nearly none went into anything else. The sound effects only seemed partially complete as well. Without epic sound, you don't have an epic movie.

Even the costumes were ridiculous and overly lavish. It was another not so subtle attempt at achieving the same level of brilliance that Lord of the Rings did, but with half as much care and half as much expertise. Yes, it's a trilogy, and yes, Fox expects fans to wait several years for another few movies just to finally see the end. All Fox did was slap a big "to be continued" (not literally, thankfully) on the end of a mediocre film, and then they release Eragon. The only fans I would expect to return for Eragon's sequels would be those who idolize the hunky young Mr. Speleers, who already graces dozens of MySpace pages with just one film credit.

Eragon (Ed Speleers) and his dragon Saphira prepare to battle off the evil forces of King Galbatorix in Eragon.

As much as I can speak negatively on Eragon, it wasn't the worst movie of the year (that award has been taken). Although not amazing, it does have beautiful imagery and scenery, and the CGI is complete enough, although far from incredible, not to detract from the film. Ed Speleers deserves to be given some credit for achieving the most enduring role above such well-known other actors as Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, and Djimon Hounsou, who all deliver flaccid and laugh-out-loud bad performances.

Last Word:
Along with already many negatives, Eragon is chopped up so much to get a PG rating, that half or more of the story, and anything entertaining, is left out. The film is far too poorly conceived to gain any more hope than being viewed quickly by those interested and then never again. It has its level of entertainment, above some other far worse films of 2006, but really seems like nothing more than one long video game cinematic with just a tiny bit of extra effort added. After this film, how will the second and third films even get a release in theaters - I definitely do not know.

Find more posts: Movie Reviews



If I didn't watch a movie because a so-called critic said it wasn't good, I guess I wouldn't watch anything! Who pays these critics anyway??

jubei on Dec 15, 2006


There are plenty more who all say it's bad:

Alex Billington on Dec 15, 2006


I have to agree whole heartledly with the review of this critic. This movie was by far the worst hollywood adaptation I have ever seen. I don't know what caused this movie to missfire so magnifciently. I felt as though I was being rushed from one point to another with no plot developement or character insight. One moment Eragon talks to Brom the next he's in the woods teaching the dragon how to fly??? Then all of a suden the dragon is full grown? I would also like to know how the third movie will begin if the Razac are apparently already dead. Anyway I'm done with this series in the theater. Fox will have to poor out more then 20 dollars on the next film if they hope to get fans back on board.

Brian on Dec 17, 2006


What did you expect? The books are pretty bad to being with. "Hey, let's just steal all of our ideas from every other story ever written! I'm only 15, so no one will notice."

Chav on Dec 17, 2006


wait...wasnt this star wars? orphan, left with uncle, destined to save the rebels from the evil empire, finds out he is strong and instinctual with the forc..uh, i mean magic? i think i've seen this before... not to mention that ALL the action in this movie was rushed beyond belief yet they had time to show long boring shots of him just standing around on a hill, or beside the dragon or sleeping. its like if they took lord of the rings and cut it down to an hour and a half long movie...only with a shittier, stolen story line.

daniel on Dec 18, 2006


This is like one of the best movies i have ever seen. Eragon is like one of the HOTTEST Living things EVA!!!

Amy on Dec 20, 2006


I agree with the critic's comments. I took my kids to see the movie after re-reading both books, since it had been over a year since I first read them. My sons and I were in shock at the shoddy representation of this complex and fascinating story. I could not believe how poorly written the dialog was in the movie - especially when it was so well done in the book. We felt that most of the lead actors did well with the little they had to work with. We particularly liked Jeremy Irons and the boy playing Eragon. The scenery was fantastic, although the shrinking of the stronghold and cities gave the film a low budget feeling. The representation of Saphira was also well done, except for her transition from youth to adult. The most disappointing character was that of Arya. In the book she had dignity, intelligence and courage. In the movie she was a simpering flirt. We were also dismayed that many key elements of plot and character development were either left out or glossed over. The book deserved much better treatment than it received in this movie. My sympathies to Christopher Paolini!

Suzanne on Dec 21, 2006


It's true, the movie is pretty shallow and I would say that it's just harry potter on a the back of a dragon flying above the uruk'hai (the creatures from lord of the rings). I really didn't feel any connection to any of the characters and if one of them should die you will probably only cry beacause he or she didn't take the rest of the crew with him. Nevertheless, if you like movies such as Harry potter and neverending story and just don't want long characterintroductions but jump right into the actionpart, then go see it, the visual effects are done by a pro.

ceriel on Dec 27, 2006


the special effects were pretty good, but I just didn't like Saphira's eayes for some reason. My favorite character was Murtagh (HOTHOTHOT!), but I like the way that he came in in the book better (the movie made him look kind of like a stalker). I think that Eragon's actor was rather mediocre, but I've seen worse. The scenery was beautiful. The camerawork and the story were both choppy. And Arya-where do I begin??? She's an elf-but they did not give that any emphisis or even mention it! And she never said that she was a princess until the second book! And she was totally flirting with Eragon!!! Galbtorix's preformance was horrible. Durza was ok. (I don't know actor names) A lot of story was cut out, and I felt like they were making Brom kind of mean. I do, however, look forward to the next one.

Cocoa on Dec 30, 2006


I have read the book and the book after it. Of course, at the age of fourteen I was taken into a trance with the excellent vocabulary used by Christopher. I was engaged with both books and couldn't put them down. Being aware of the film coming out, I watched it with disappointment. The film I thought was a true let down. The book, Eragon inspired me, totally. I am looking forward to the book coming, I heard the title will be *Empire*. Lets just wait and see.

Opal on Jan 1, 2007


people are saying eragon is just horrible and then they say its a copy lord of the rings. i think these people must really hate lord of the rings if they think its like eragon and then say a lot of rubbish about eragon.

debbie on Jan 1, 2007


eragon i love you you are so hot im 17 to call me 368-1329

KAYLA on Jan 4, 2007


Eragon is without a doubt the worst movie adaptation of a book ever. It followed almost nothing from the book. None of the characters were developed beyond their 'purpose' (i.e. Brom trains Eragon) and half of the plot was skipped. The book version is infinitely better. Also, comparing Eragon to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is stupid and pointless. If you had actually read the book, you'd notice it has absolutely NO similarity whatsoever. Well, maybe Urgals=Uruk Hai and Shade or Ra'zac=Ringwraiths, but who cares? You could call them ogres and they'd still be a rip-off in your eyes. And people keep saying Brom is Obi Wan. Well, Obi Wan is a character type ripped off from old Russian fairytales (ask Propp). So you are very, very stupid to compare completely different movies.

fabularis on Jan 25, 2007


Despite what everyones saying, I actually liked the movie. Sure, some of the dialogue was whacked, they cut out so much, and left it at a great CGI, it was pretty good. I want a sequel, but the one thing I would do is to leave the cast as it is, then kick out Mr.Fangmeier, he needs more training, and maybe work on something that's not an adaption. Adaptions of books are always worse then the books themselves, but they still can be well-done. Mr.Speelers and Mr.Iron were however, great. Yes, a first time actor, but he did splendidly, espeacially for someone who had to yell out into the air and act as if someone was listening. I think they also took out Eragon/Saphira, Eragon/Brom, and Eragon/Murtagh bonding. Saphira, as a cute little hatchling, didn't just magically grow. Infact, in the little time they were together, before the Ra'zac, it's amazing how they get along so well. Brom and Eragon were friends BEFORE Saphira's egg came in, and Brom didn't come and say "Aww your uncle died, whatever, let's get out of here", Eragon made the choice to leave, Brom insisted on joining them. That leaves more room for the fatherly relationship they shared, rather then having one uproot the other, then train him, then just randomly be hit by an ax. An ax! This is the man who killed Morzan, kill him honorably...And Murtagh! Murtagh came in and joined him. He didn't stalk them! And they are close friends. In the second book, we find out that Murtagh 'betrayed' Eragon and is his will this pain Eragon in the movie? They knew each other for what? 3 days? Less? If I knew someone in that little time, I'd only be angered that he betrayed me, not hurt. I'd be banging up myself for trusting him. Which is most likely what will happen in the second movie. But no, in the book Eragon knew Murtagh well, so he blamed Murtagh for betraying him. Thats the difference of time. When your close to someone, it hurts, when you know someone, it's simply left at that. And keep dialogue like it was in the book. Some lines were way to corny. Other then that, I loved the movie.

Sheri on Feb 4, 2007


my grandsons, daughter and myself loved the movie, all who reviewed it, have grown too old , just sit and enjoy the fantasy, what happened to imagination, if you had read the book, yes much was left out, but just to sit and enjoy was delicious.

nadia on Feb 5, 2007


on a scale of 1 to 10 i give it a... 2. it was completley out of order, it is insulting if you have read the book, and the actors they chose stunk. And everything that happend were mislocated. And yet the graphics were quite good. But they cut soooo much, and again the actors stunk. I would have liked to see the giant ruby rose in troijiem but of well, and they skiped so much in troijiem. other than that and the whole dark magic with durza it was alright, but i still give it a 2.

peace on Feb 6, 2007


I loved it, CANT WAIT BRING 2ND PART!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Martin on Feb 11, 2007


I think this film is an instult to Christopher Paolini. I have heard from a reliable that he didn't get a say in the matter at all (note the frequently asked question at the bottom). Many key scenes are missed out entirely; key charaters are missed out entirely, barely involved or changed drastically. For instance Orik the dwarf (who is a perosnal favourite of mine) isn't even mentioned, if not for him rescuing Eragon he would have surely drowned. Angela the witch who is very important as she predicts Eragons future, helps in the battle of Tronjheim and heals Arya and Eragon after the battle. She is also placed in the so "destroyed" town of Yazuac (where everyone should be dead and there should have only been two Urgals) when she should be in Teirm (which is missed out entirely). Jeod is missed out, a key charcter who helps Brom and Eraon find essential shipping documents for finding the Ra'zac etc. I went to see this film a few days after it came out with my mam as we have both read both books several times. We came out making lots of negative critisisms...We came to the conclusion that there was too much missed out and not enough effort put into it at all, the very fact that it was a PG started too put us off at first. It should have ATKEAST been a 15 as the amount of gore in the books is plentiful. Overall I would give this film a pathetic 2 and would request dearly that some other film company (one much better and more highly decorated) and that it should have alot of thought and care put into too it. So i agree with this critic and that the graphics on Saphira were actually quite good. Overall a disgrace

Kirkeh on Feb 13, 2007


okay where do I start. now they did do a good job on saphira. but I still can not belive they made angela different and they left out solembun they were the best and the funniest characters!!!!! before i read the book i went and saw it and thought i would be alot like the book but i thiught wrong. i have to say the movie was sooooooo bad me and my friend talked a week about how bad it was. arya was such a flurt it was hilarious. they did a great job with durza when i saw him i knew that he was evil, but when i saw galbatorix he didn't look evil he looked to nice to be a bad guy. know about arya's ears if you look at pics on the web she has no pointed ears, and they made her to look to much like a humon. and murtagh i loved him in the book but in the movie he was also to nice in the book he was way better. eragon and saphira talked to each other a ton more in the book then in the movie, and eragon was way to mean to saphira. oh and teirm they left out the real reason that i got mad about that was becuse jeod i really wanted to see him in the movie. well i fell i'm not alone with how bad the movie was. but for those who just can't wait for the third book (including my self) here's a little bit of what happens: roran becomes ruler of alagaesia and marries katrina, arya become's a dragon rider and becomes eragons mate, there's going to be a gold dragon on the cover (it is not glaedr), saphira mate's with a new dragon, the book's name is not going to be empire, oromis and glaedr die, nasuada and murtagh marry, murtagh turns good, and galbatorix gets killed.

hannah on Feb 25, 2007


I agree with Eragon trying to match "The Lord of the Rings". Many movies have gone for the war feel, and half succeeded to be "good enough", but Eragon has got to be the lowest of them all. I hear that the novel is fantastic, but the movie totally disgusting. Is it just me, or does Eragon try to make it really obvious it's trying to have an epic feel? I don't know if anyone has noticed, but there are fully armored soldiers in EVERY town. I mean, the city behind the waterfall, why the hell would they ever had needed such a large army? and why would all the soldiers, and the king need to be fully armored their whole lives? In their own towns, they cannot be comfortable. It is all so dumb. How dare they insult epic war movies!

Joshua Sosnowski on Mar 15, 2007


hey just becaus its diffren than the movie dosent mean its bad. i enjoyed the movie and the book.the casting was fantastic i they looked just like i thought they would. murtgh is not hot at he's fall over dead HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!I WANT TO MEET HIM SO BADLY!!! (like that will ever happen) dont juge the movie so harshly remember that they did have a budget to keep. and they put a lot of time into the movie for all to enjoy.and for what for you all to trash talk it. you say the movie is dumb noooo it's you thats being dumb. and none of this applys to the people who acyually liked the movie

saphira on Apr 5, 2007


Okay, they REALLY made me mad! Arya was supposed to have back hair (and pointed ears for that matter), Eragon was 15 not 17 like they said in the movie, Horst's son's didn't enlist in the army, where did the traders go?, Brom the storyteller...yeah right, Saphiras wings were supposed to have webby membrane skin not feathery scales, Anglela was a joke, where was Solembum, Teirm, Jode, and Dras-Leona? Also, aren't dwarves supposed to be short? Oh, and for the whammy...what the heck was up with that battle with the flying lizard/smoke? I didn't read that ANYWHERE in the book, did you? Doesn't Eragon actaully go back to Ellesmera with Arya? Tomorrow will come sooner than you think....I sure hope so! I expected more.....

Sarah on Apr 5, 2007


I thought it was a good movie in all....but it DOES NOT follow the book! I did expect more, especially when they had the whole script right in front of them (meaning the book), or maybe they didn't read it before they made the movie! I feel that for an action-packed movie, The Lord of the Rings and Narnia, had it down way better than this one! Oh, and for the record, LOTR had a budget too, but their movies didn't stink. I do like the movie and I hope there is a sequel, but lets hope they follow the "script" this time.

Tim on Apr 5, 2007


It stank. End of story. 2 stars out of more.

Rebecca on Apr 5, 2007


It: Stink, stank, stunk, has stunk, skinks, will stick, and will stinketh FOREVER. Amen. Eragon sucketh: chapter 19 verse 20-21

Sara on Apr 5, 2007


I guess your right the did leave alot of the book out and what about aray i think she's a human in the movie or is my opinion they keapt the movie simple and did not go into the majior details.i do beleive that yes they could have don better but what did you expect SARAH a replaca of the book.i really do with they went into more detail like the book. they where way off saphira looked all wrong and the carecters where way off pesonality wise.over all your wright it could be better.but dont you think murtagh is drop-over dead-hot!?

saphira on Apr 9, 2007


The first time I saw the movie I was watching it on my portable DVD player and chatting to my friends online. I didn't pay too much attention to it, even though I had wanted to see it SO badly when it came out in theaters. The second time, I watched it with my two younger brothers and my mum. They loved it and thought it was great- graphics, settings, cast and everything else. I liked it too, even though I was talking and making corrections throughout the playing of it. At first, I said that movie have to have a limit and that there was a budget and no one wanted to wate forever for a movie to come out. Then, after reading the second book, I figured, if there are true fans out there, they will sit in a theater or at home for 4-6 hours watching the WHOLE thing. I love these books and could care less if they seem a tad similar to other books. I have never liked Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, and I never will. No one is going to be original in the years to come becasue eventually, all idea will be out and printed in some way shape or form. I am young (only 15; whadda know!?) and I want to be a writer so badly. Christopher has inspired me more than anyone else has, and I want to write a story about dragons. Now, the movie. I do have a few complains and I'm sure they were listed above. Eragon- Ed, for a first timer in films, is great. No one is good the first time. (I'm takeing a theater class- I know from experence. My GOD I suck) Plus, he is SO HAWT! I don't usually fan girl over anyone, but he is worth it. Arya- Wow. *Shakes head* That just....I dunno what to say. No black hair, no pointed ears and her personality as SO off. Eragon is hot. I actually got jealous. XD Murtagh- He wasn't as hot as I thought he would be...but his hair was nice. Told my youngest brother to get his like that and the girls will be all over him. Brom- He's cute for an old man, I have to say. I love his voice too. A great Brom, in my opinion. Orik (Whom I thought was the scottish guy in the first Varden scene) looked exactly as I had pictured him, if a bit shorter. Ajihad was cool too, as was Nasuada. Angela....Oh boy. That upset me. My whole family says I'm like her. (From what I tell them from reading the books). I was kind of upset with her. I do hope they put more of her in the second movie. Roran...he is hot as well. Ay me... They had better put him in the second movie becasue half of the second book is Roran and the other half is Eragon. I hope they put Elva in too. She's so cool! I miss Solombum!! (sp? I don't have the books in front of me >

Rehm on Apr 10, 2007


Hey.. i liked the movie very much, and i think the critic were too exagerate. i would give 7/10 stars to the movie, not 5/10. This is what i think...

cof3ina on Apr 30, 2007


We-ullllll Put it this way, the book was awesome so was the movie but.... WHERE IS AYRA'S BLACK HAIR, POINTY EARS? WHERES JEOD, TEIRM, THE REAL ANGELA, SOLEMBUM, THE PART IN THE FORTUNE TELLING WHERE SHE TALKS ABOUT ERAGONS MOTHER AND THE BETRAYAL IN THE FAMILY??? WHERES ELVA? AND THE TWINS? AND KATRINA FOR THAT MATTER? WHERES THE TRADERS? WHERE I ASK YOU? WHERE??????????/ The characters where ok my list and rating Eragon - 9/10 murtagh - 10/10 brom - 10/10 Garrow - 9/10 roran - 9/10 Ajihad - 9/10 Ayra - 10/10 Galbatorix - 8/10 Saphiras voice - 7/10 Nasuda - 9/10

Taylor on May 13, 2007


I'll start by saying I agree with the critic. This is by far the absolute worst film I have ever seen. If Christopher Paolini was dead, he'd be rolling over in his crystallized grave. I watched this movie with high hopes, as I did enjoy the books (how could any Lord of the Rings fan not enjoy them?) but I was let down. I felt as though I was being whisked from one movie trailer to another. Where was the story, the plot, the character development? I have to say again that I am disappointed and think this was the worst film I've ever seen. Yes, worse than Dungeons & Dragons 2...

Mike on May 18, 2007


I don't think it is *worse* than the Dungeons & Dragons 2 movie . . . just not very far above it. Even the kids around me were muttering and saying "But that's wrong!" during the show. I don't think they could have made it more different if they shredded the book and pieced the movie together from the bin . . . maybe that's what they did. I went to the dollar theater to see it and I want my dollar back.

MG on Jun 8, 2007


The books are infinitely better than this heap of doggy-doo - which is amazing considering they are a pile of cack as well!!

MJ on Jun 24, 2007


The Amazon rainforest is less wooden than Ed Speleers performance. A piece of disjointed nonsense that plagiarises from umpteen different literary and film sources. What's worse - there might be a sequel - a straight to video one if this is anything to go by.

MJ on Jun 24, 2007


I'll start by saying, the book is much better then the movie, but still, the movie was great too. So what is the movie isn't like the book, it's still very well done. How would you like it if you stared in a movie and everyone said your movie stuck? It won't feel good. If you don't like the movie, keep the bad comments to yourself. I think the movie was one of the greatest movie eva! It has awesome graphics! If you didn't see your favorite character that was in the book and wasn't in the movie, don't blame it on the other characters that did wonderfully in the movie. Don't be stunk up!! If you compared the graphics in Eragon to Mary Poppins, I think that the graphics in Eragon was better. (Mary Poppins is a wonderful movie!!) I bet everyone will see the sequel and say pitty stuff on the sequel too. So can you pitty commenters. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all!!

Michelle on Jun 26, 2007


Hey Michelle, this is a movie critic site and if people want to post what they thought about the movie here then I don't suggest scolding them for it! It is thier opinion! This is a place tell people about what they think needed improvement or about what they didn't like. If there wan't anything "nice" about the movie then expect them to "say anything at all"! I for one am NOT a fan of the new movie and I will make no apology concerning my comments about it. It WAS better than Mary Poppins, I'll give 'em that.

Sarah on Jun 27, 2007


Well, I didn't expect Eragon to do very well in the first place. I mean, it came out right after Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and The Chronicles of Narnia. I assumed that it was just another fantasy movie adaption of a book trying to jump on the band wagon as well. .....but, when I saw it, I was trying to choke myself to death on my coke! It was that poorly made. I didn't like any of the actors, there wasn't any real character development. It was extremely short. I havent read the book, but I've seen how thick it is in the stores. I figured that someone could have made a three and half hour film out of it, at least. The feel of the movie was very Dungeons and Dragons like, very geeky, in my opinion. And to top it all, the battle scene, which I thought was why the filmed felt so rushed, was barely shown. The credits must have been superb, because that was the only thing this film was racing to. .....however, the effects were well done, considering that this movie was directed by a former CGI effects renderer. But, this movie is aimed for the younger audiences, so going too deep in character development and creating a realistic (not a fantastic and magical) world wasn't necessary, I suppose. ..........Hopefully Ed Speeler doesn't read these. I wouldn't want to be the main character in a movie that most people dislike. P.S. what's with Michelle's comment? It's your job to give reviews. Plus, she's just mad because she's in a small group of people who actually liked the movie

Andrew on Jul 11, 2007


As some have posted already, very few movie adaptations precisely follow the book variation of which they were derived from. While I truly believe that this movie could have been better on so many levels, I think that if one were to judge the movie entirely on it's on merits and not compare them to other movies within (or even in the sci-fi) the genre, then this movie while not spectacular was entertaining and I look forward to the sequels that hopefully follow, providing possibly a more renown director (Peter Jackson?). Also as already pointed out if one were to follow the books as precisely as possible, then we would more than likely have movies that went well beyond 3-4 hours. I know that die hard fans of the genre would be willing to sit there in a theater for that length of time, but unfortunately/fortunately they do not make up the majority of the audience that come out to view these films. I remember quite a few people stating that LOTHR movies were too lengthy and could have been cut down to be more concise and to the point, while others (like myself) thought the movies could have been longer because I enjoyed them immensely. As with all things in the world you can satisfy some of the people some of the time but, there will always be people that aren't satisfied. For those of you that didn't enjoy this first one then don't go to the sequels, especially if the same director is involved. For those of you hoping for some much needed redemption in the sequels to come, I hope our comments both positive and negative have an impact upon the outcome of the sequels to come.

Playa-h-8-ter on Sep 4, 2007


Well i don't care what anyone else said i loved the movie. the actors couldn't have been more perfect and ed speelers was and is the best eragon there is and ever will be. so the people who don't like the movie can SHOVE IT!!!!

Madison on Sep 20, 2007


OMG ed speelers or Garrett Hedlund can call me anytime!! o437754647. (the movie was good 2!) 🙂

Maddi on Sep 20, 2007


adding to my last comment. so can Christopher Egan!!!!!!!! : )

Maddi on Sep 20, 2007


i think that Rebecca,MJ ,Mike and Sara were tres harsh,dudez i bet you couldn't make a better movie so give the actors a break and get on with your lives. also the movie is actually quite good so as madison said all the people who gave a bad review can SHOVE IT!!!!

Franchesca on Sep 20, 2007



ANDRIA on Oct 15, 2007


i love the movie but the would have more chance to received more teaching from bloom . I CANT WAILT TO TAKE MY KIDS TO SEE THE SECOUD PART

janira on Nov 4, 2007


not everyone is going to like the same thing, that being said....i personally fell asleep on this craptacular mess they tried to turn into a motion picture, only waking up during the climatic battle. i have never read the books-had planned to-and after this, i don't plan to. Big whoop, paolini is still a millionaire even without my measly 11 bucks. haters need to move on, fanboys and girls need to calm down, and people who really don't give a fig and have only stated their opinion, like me, could care less

zack on Apr 15, 2008


In other words...its just a fantasy movie about crud i fell asleep on. watch it and get the heck on with your lives. ^_^

zack on Apr 15, 2008


I take issue with everyone comparing every fantasy adventure movie to Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings was good for what it was, but the dialouge was stilted, sounding more like some cheap comic book at times, the graphics were nice--but too much, it took away from the simple beauty the film could have had--, and the storyline was horrible with the second and third move. I mean, who does three false endings? What I'm saying is, the lord of the Rings had it's problems. As for this film? It was a bit corny at times and seemed rushed. I think God, however, it wasn't three hours long. (eh mmm Lord of the only need so many battle scenes and heroic speeches). The CGI could have been better, however, I was glad to see that not everything was CGI. I think that for the sequel, the director needs to not hold back and allow himself to explore. As for the movie being like the book? You have to realize that the books and movies shouldn't be the exact same. They have different purposes; you take them in differently. If the Lord of the Rings was exactly like the book, which it isn't, you would lose your mind. It would be even longer. Read the book and see the movie, expect something different from each. The point of reading a book is to create the story in your mind, anyway. Don't let the movie do it for you.

TL on Aug 11, 2008


I must admit that I have seen the movie Eragon 7 times already. I have seen most of the movies that were mentioned (i.e. Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, etc); however, there is an urge for me to watch Eragon over and over again. Every section of the movie seems to be a climax I should say that the movie never drags and it moves really fast in the beginning, and doesn' let me get out of my seat.

Max Aguilar on Sep 14, 2008


i agree with the critic. the book was epic. i loved it. it may have a few relavencies with a few other books, but you cant keep making new things and ideas forever, every idea comes down to one basic point eventially and if you shrink every book down to that level, alot of books look that way. but i loved this book. the movie however was an EPIC FAIL. the movie can almost be a whole nother plot and story. it doesnt have the right to share the title with the book. the movie got rated a 5/10. i give it a 3/10. the CGI was great, the actors did considerably well with what little inspiration they had. but the plot just flat out sucked in the movie. everything was different. they changed so many things. when i heard that the movie for my favorite book was coming out. i was esthatic to the point of waiting all night for the movie to open up. but then i started to hear reviews, doubts, and i only heard it was good from young, fickle girls screaming every time they see a young, smooth-faced, wavy-haired, actor. i decided to see for myself (but i waited a good few weeks for the lines to die-down) i was sorely dissapointed. this movie does not have the right to bear the title of Eragon. if they continue this series i am going to start a petition against them. anyone that agrees leaves a comment. i am already starting a petition to make a new movie. correctly this time. i dont care if the movie is four hours, in my opinion, the longer, epic, well thought out movies are always better. MAKE ANOTHER MOVIE. and get everything right this time. this movie was completely insulting to the book...

Josh on Oct 2, 2008


the book was better than the movie!

antonio on Dec 14, 2008


i agree with # 21 up there. iwant there to be 2ND MOVIE. i hope the fourth book is good. Ed speelers is HOT!

rebecca on Dec 19, 2008


well i personally think that the books are awesome! i can even say that their one of the best books i have ever read in my life. and people who say their horrible are clearly just not relly into this kind of books to begin with. so why waste your time critizizing them? if its not your type than why bother watching the movie or writing you opinion about it. and yes the movie wasen't wonderful as the books. but come on what did you really expect.... to be better. or to have every detail and the exact people suited for the characters its really about every persons point of view and the way they emagine it. so you cant really satisfie everyone because everybody sees it different in the end. so i give the movie some credit for at least triying pluss i found it very entertaining and thats what movies are really sopost to do is entertain. i was disappointed at first but not anymore because its really common sense to see that the books will always be better than the movies. but i still say that i liked the movie.

raquel on May 16, 2009

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram