Eragon

Oh, dear. I truly hope sequels aren't made. They might be more of a disaster than this film. Not having read the book, it's hard to tell which aspects of the film are rip-offs of other fantasy films by the director and which aspects are actually part of the book. Many, many parts of the film seem like they were shamelessly borrowed from other fantasies, most notably 'The Lord of the Rings'. You know what I mean: the outlawed group of men and women hiding in a stone castle in the mountains, the evil ruler who wants the one most powerful object to take over the land, the evil sidekick-here a sage-to the darklord...the list goes on. Some of these things mentioned are just fantasy motifs and ingredients of almost every fantasy story. You almost always see a darklord bent on world domination and he almost always has a sorcerer or similar doing his dirty work. But it's the way these things are portrayed in the film that make 'Eragon' seem like a blatant copy-cat. Again, I have not read the book so I don't know is this copying is done solely by the director or by the author of the book. But the way the film plays out, I'm surprised no previous fantasy director has complained of plagarism. The biggest issue is the end and the set of the Varden's stronghold of Farthen Dur. The fortress looks like a near exact replica of Helm's Deep from 'Rings'. The Varden themselves are clothed in a similar fashion to the people of Rohan, and the entire fortress is built into a stone mountain, just like Helm's Deep. The character of Durza (Robert Carlyle) could be mistaken for Grima Wormtongue's (again from 'Rings') twin brother. You could also argue the connections to the 'Star Wars' saga, but I do not like 'Star Wars' at all so I will not do so. The idea of a young child who does not know his destiny yet in the end must battle evil and restore the kingdom is very similar to the same idea in 'The Chronicles of Narnia'. But I have noticed this theme repeated in other fantasy works, and it is not that uncommon. It seems as if the director is unfortunately short on imagination and ideas of his own and so must borrow from others (not just borrow; more like steal). It's disappointing. When you make a film, it is your own, so it must look as unique and original as you. It is one thing to pay homage to another director's works; there is nothing wrong with this and is often fun to see. But I believe, after watching this film, that this director is as bland and unoriginal as his film is (although, in fairness to the director, the film could just be very close to the book 'Eragon', and perhaps the director here is just making the world in the movie the way it is made in the book). The story isn't bad, but again it is clear that it was written by a teenager without much imagination. It's a typical fantasy, but nothing completely original and captivating. And it's not just the sets or props or story of the film which are so bad. There's also the acting. I love a good villain, someone I can really love to hate, and I hate it when a film puts forth a bad guy and you can't hate him, no matter how bad he is supposed to be (you might even LIKE him). Well, I certainly hated Galbatorix (John Malkovich), but not for the reasons you might think. He was just AWFUL, a bad character, poorly written and scripted. He wasn't anywhere near scary, and didn't seem evil at all. He was so dull it was painful to watch. And Malkovich sounded so bored when he was acting. This is not a good sign. The actors should not be bored when doing a film. Durza wasn't scary either. I am certain he had the same expression on his face during the entire film. And what was with the monsters who turned into leaves or shadows or whatever it was, the ones that had bugs on them? They were supposed to be so evil, and horrible, and they're in the film for no more than five minutes when they are destroyed. You don't make out some evil monster to be so horrible, and then only give five minutes of screen time. It's not smart. So why, then, with all the awful things wrong with this film does it get a higher than should be allowed grade? Because of three things: one, the cinematography. It is gorgeous. I want to go to Hungary (where the movie was filmed). Two, because of Saphira. Baby Saphira was not cute. At all (I might actually be the only person to think this). But adult Saphira is lovely. Alas, boredom seems to have taken it's toll not only on the audience watching the film but on the actors in the film (Malkovich, of course). Rachel Weisz (who is Saphira's voice) sounds bored too. How much more dull can you get? Here is this powerful, majestic dragon. Make it sound majestic. Even when Eragon is injured, Saphira doesn't even sound worried. But design on the dragon is very good. She is a lovely blue grey, with piercing eyes. I love her feathered wings. Not what you would typically put on a dragon, but I like it. Saphira is well constructed (by computer, of course, but still). She almost looks real. She certainly looks powerful and majestic, even if she sounds bored. And finally, the third thing that is actually good is Jeremy Irons, who plays Brom. Irons gives the role his all, as he always does. The character seems a little two-dimensional and shallow (and again, 'Star Wars' fans notice a connection...) but Irons makes him interesting. He's witty, clever, and funny, and I was actually sad when he died (this could possibly be though because Irons was the film's only shining light acting wise and now that he was gone, there was nothing left to enjoy). I must speak though, in conclusion, about Ed Speelers (Eragon himself). He is not a bad actor, and thankfully it is clear that he enjoyed the role and had fun with the film, and thankfully he does not seem bored. He seems to have potential as an actor (although he's not very attractive, is he?) if he becomes better and does not star in any more dull, distressing in a non-hostile way, boring films. Although if sequels are in the works for 'Eragon', they will probably cast Speelers again as same character, and the poor boy's film career will end for sure.