IMDb user comments for
Eragon (2006) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 160:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

1596 comments in total

---

599 out of 928 people found the following comment useful :-
When the dragon Saphira gives the only good performance in the entire film, you know there is something wrong., 11 December 2006

Author: goldenduc from United States

I saw this with a friend of mine over the weekend in a press screening and I really did not enjoy it. The special effects are fine but the story is rather hammy and the performances are not very good. The main character looks like a deer in head lights most of the time and the villains acts like cartoon stereotypes more than real characters. Most of the characters here seem like rejects from other films and it shows by how unoriginal they were. The only performance in the film that has any credibility what so ever is the dragon Saphira and that's mainly because she is voiced by Oscar winning actress Rachel Weisz, who has more talent in her vocal cords than all the actors working in this film combined.

My suggestion, wait for DVD.

---

522 out of 861 people found the following comment useful :-
Rachel Weisz's voice over for the dragon is literally the only good acting the film has to offer., 16 December 2006

Author: normandbutter from Batttle Creek, Mi

Crude, unimaginative adaptation of Christopher Paolini first novel is a bad joke from top to bottom. The screenplay is a joke, with major characters missing from the original novel and the acting from almost everybody in the film is down right horrible and that's really because most of the roles are miscast to begin with. Jeremy Irons makes an grant effort with what he has to work with but he's let down by the script and the bad performances of his co-stars and the only solid piece of real acting comes from the voice over work of Rachel Weisz, who gives the dragon Saphira enough charm, charisma, and strong will to make her the only believable and likable character in the entire film. That's in itself a great accomplishment considering the fact that script really does not even try to do that with itself.

---

397 out of 639 people found the following comment useful :-
Good actors, Good special effects, Bad writing., 15 December 2006

Author: Birstyjr from United States

The movie follows nothing of the book's plot line. I think someone read like maybe ten chapters of the Eragon book and decided to make the movie. If they decide to make Eldest (The sequel to Eragon) it would be nothing like the book because they have changed too many things in this movie to carry the plot correctly. The plot of the movie shares nothing with the book and the characters (the ones they actually decided to add) share no similarities to the book's idea of them. The storyline used in the movie could have possibly been acceptable if it hadn't had such bad writing. The lines were mediocre and no one other than Brom, Eragon and Saphira had ten lines. Murtagh had like eight or nine lines through the whole movie, Nasuada and Ajihad had like two or three (and Nasuada doesn't say who she is) and Hrothgar had maybe one or two lines. They completely rushed the movie too quickly. Unless you read the book, you have no idea how Eragon learns to use magic and are left in the dark about most things. The actors did the best job they could with the horrid lines they were given to read. The special effects were great except that Saphira isn't supposed to have feathers. What dragon has feathers? Christopher Paolini says like fifty times in the book that Saphira's wings are a thin membrane. Also that Eragon is fifteen, not seventeen. Every problem comes back to the horrid writing. Bottom Line: Could have been a great and timeless movie. Not Lord of the Rings worthy.

---

382 out of 623 people found the following comment useful :-
Not worth it., 21 December 2006

Author: ozarkfrost

Paolini's novel should have been left alone. It was unnecessarily tampered with to make it into a lack-luster movie losing all magic, motivation, and meaning. The writers, director, and producers missed a real opportunity to make this into a great trilogy experience...perhaps they should have read the books first because they were much better than this. Get better actors and get a better director and you will have something. My advice...produce the movie again . We will forget the first attempt and bring back Rachel Weisz who made the dragon the best part of the film and it will be a better film. If you do that, it will succeed.

---

246 out of 373 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't watch the movie-read the book, 25 December 2006

Author: Sven Županić from Croatia

When I first heard that a movie is going to be made by the book "Eragon" by Christopher Paolini, I must say I was very delighted, and I was even more delighted when I heard that Stefen Fangmeier will be the director. I have read the book, and thaught:"What a great movie this is going to be". Unfortunately, I was wrong. First of all, I would dare to say that half of the events that happened in the book weren't shown in the movie at all(reason: Lord of the Rings has less then 400 pages and the movie lasts around 3 hours; Eragon has around 500 pages and it lasts around hour and a half). As a result, instead of complexed, unpredictable fantasy plot you get simple, one-way heading fairy tale. Characters that play very significent role in book(like Murtagh, Ajihad and Angela) are hardly even mentioned in the movie, so that it becomes centered on pretty much only 3 characters-Eragon, Saphira and Brom. Villains and locations lack imagination, so they look cheap and ordinary. Choice of actors is, in my opinion, good, except Edward Speleers. There are way too much "memorable quotes" in the movie, so that movie becomes kind of too much theatrical.Everybody, from director to actors failed, but still, I personally bealive that the biggest failure is Peter Buchman, screenwriter. Although he had a fantastic material to work on, he managed to ruin it, and make a pathetic screenplay from a fantastic bestseller. Only bright side of the movie is always top-of-the-class John Malkovich(King Galbatorix), pretty solid performance by Jeremy Irons (Brom), but most of all dragon Saphira (voice by Rachel Weisz, whose vocal abilities are on very desirable level)

---

395 out of 691 people found the following comment useful :-
Skip it., 20 December 2006

Author: billkubert from Clifton, NJ

Really Bad. If you read the books, do yourself a favor and don't put yourself through the agony of sitting through this travesty. The story line (which skips about 70% of the original story line) wanders miles from the novel. Except for Rachel Weisz's great voice over work for the dragon (which is the best acting this film has) the acting from the rest of the actors is just above high school play level. What were Jeremy and John thinking in taking these roles? The special effects are decent but that's it and the sets are cheesy Save your cash and wait for the third novel.

Let's hope they will not be a sequel.

---

218 out of 349 people found the following comment useful :-
Change the movie name to Saphira and it is OK, 22 December 2006

Author: MKeller14-1 from United States

Let me start by saying I didn't read the books before seeing the movie but I am reading Eragon now. I enjoyed the movie. Not great but not bad. One of the most nagging problems with this movie has it was way to short and seemed like it was in fast forward most of the movie. If they would have increased this movie to 2 hours to 2 and a half hours I think it would have been a very good movie (hopefully the DVD will have more added in). The acting by Rachel Weisz was fantastic. Jeremy Irons did a very good for his part. But those are two experienced actors that will give good performances regardless. The CG on Saphira was very well done. The main problem with the acting in this movie was Edward Speleers, he had no presence in this movie, which is a bad thing for the main character. It was all most like he was just there to read his lines and go home. For which I hold the director responsible but it was also one of his first movies. I think Edward would have made a good side character, but someone with more experienced should have been casted as Eragon or a director with more proved talent. If you have never read the book and enjoy good CG you will like this movie. Just change the name of the movie to Saphira and it is OK. If you have read the book assume it is a coincidence that the movie and characters share names.

---

234 out of 407 people found the following comment useful :-
A letdown, 26 December 2006

Author: threeabigcoad from United States

For a film with potentially more scope and grandeur than even Lord of the Rings, Eragon falls entirely flat due to lack luster acting, a terrible script and a total lack of pace. Only Rachel Weisz voice acting for the dragon Saphira manages to give the movie its only good performance while Jeremy Irons sincere performance is let down by the hammyness of its lackluster script. The special effects are fine and the cinematography is great, the pace is way off and the movie is way too short for its own good. I have not read the books that gave life to this film but I hope it was much better than this because the movie was a letdown.

---

236 out of 439 people found the following comment useful :-
This film plays more like a bad SNL skit parodying the Lord of The Ring., 24 December 2006

Author: margrettgreat from United States

Horrible and very funny adaptation of the popular children's book that plays like a bad SNL skit that is trying to parody "The Lord of the Rings" than the book that it's based on. The screenplay is a major mess with dialog that even little kids would find stupid and the performances are almost all laughably bad. Jeremy Irons and John Malkovich should be ashamed of themselves for even agreeing to be in this film and Djimon Hounsou should start reading his scripts a little more carefully. The only redeeming thing about this crappy film is the great voice over work of Rachel Weisz, who manages to give the dragon Saphira more talent and range in terms of solid acting than all the human actors working in the film. The C.G.I work done for Saphira was also well done, making her more lifelike than her human co-stars as well.

Outside of Rachel Weisz's great voice acting and the great special effects for the Dragon Saphira, this movie is more and less a bad comedy that did not deserve nether of them.

---

51 out of 74 people found the following comment useful :-
No where near as bad as people are saying it is!, 25 March 2007

Author: AJ_is_Awesomness from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Maybe I'm missing something, but I actually really enjoyed this movie. OK, so the acting was a bit messed up in some parts, but wow the effects and Saphira the dragon were both special and breath-taking. If you have read the book, then maybe you will see this movie as a joke, but if you haven't then you might, like me, find it rather extraordinary. It has something to offer to everyone, not to mention a hot young cast, amazing CGI work and cool set visuals. Plus, the ending, when the Saphira dies is quite emotional, and had a lot of my mates weeping into their popcorn lol. So yes, I would recommend Eragon as a good movie, despite a few flaws, and overall I would say Eragon is spectacular.

---

---

Page 1 of 160:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Parents Guide
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history