Eragon Poster

Eragon (2006)

Action | Family   
IMDB Rayting:   5.1/10
Country: USA | UK
Language: English

In his homeland of Alagaesia, a farm boy happens upon a dragon's egg a discovery that leads him on a predestined journey where he realizes he's the one person who can defend his home against an evil king.

Support Subtitles:
WatchList

Movie Trailer

User Reviews

damir-zupanic1 25 December 2006

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)

goldenduc 11 December 2006

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.

anon1mat0 16 December 2006

How to describe a movie based on a lovely book, that could have had a wonderful franchise, but was so hurriedly done, and so poorly directed as to become a horrible flop? First lets say that while the book has some flaws, this movie is really a disservice to it; a more or less complex plot is reduced to its bare elements making it a very predictable ordeal (as any other story would), the photography doesn't reach the standard set by LOTR or HP, becoming quite bland, the casting -while good on the stronger characters (Brom, Durza, Galbatorix)- is really lacking, particularly on critical characters like Murtagh and Arya, and the music -so critical to convey the emotions of the movie- is so corny and clumsily placed that rather than enhance takes away from the experience. So little works on this movie and so many details are ruined using the cheapest tricks, that any sequel would never make it to the big screen (more so when critical plot points were stripped from the movie).

Having read and enjoyed the books with my 11 year old son, we had high hopes and were both devastated with this ... thing promoted as a movie.

It is indeed a sad, sad adaptation, a proof that some movie execs in its eagerness to make a quick buck have indeed killed what could have been a geese of golden eggs.

Hopefully Mr. Fangmeier will go back to do special effects and never return as a movie director. At least I know that I will never see a movie made by him again.

Birstyjr 15 December 2006

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.

normandbutter 16 December 2006

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.

MKeller14-1 22 December 2006

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.

billkubert 20 December 2006

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.

Similar Movies

The Kid Who Would Be King
The Chaperone
A-X-L
Firehouse Dog
Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger
Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie
3 Ninjas Kick Back
Operation Dumbo Drop
Sponsored links
Share this page:
watch movies online
WMO provides links to other LEGAL sites on the internet and doesn't host any files itself.