Movie Review: Eragon

Eragon

I'm a big fan of Christopher Paolini's wonderful the Inheritance series. From the moment I heard that the first book in the series was being made into a movie, I couldn't wait to see it. The film finally opened this weekend, and you can bet that I was there on opening night. An hour and a half later, I left the theater deeply disappointed. While Eragon remains a brilliant and satisfying read (I can say this with all the more authority having just re-read the book prior to seeing the movie), the film adaptation was sadly lacking.

Eragon (Edward Speleers) is a poor farm boy living outside the village of Carvahall. Abandoned by his mother as an infant, he's grown up in the loving care of his Uncle Garrow (Alun Armstrong) and his cousin, Roran (Christopher Egan). It's not quite an idyllic existence — the entire country is under the iron-fisted control of the evil King Galbatorix (John Malkovich) — but Eragon is content. But everything changes when he's out hunting and, instead of a deer, he finds a pretty blue stone.

Unbeknownst to Eragon, the stone is a dragon egg. The egg ends up in his hunting grounds when those guarding the egg — including the pretty elf, Arya (Sienna Guillory) — are ambushed by the King's henchman, Durza (Robert Carlyle). Before she's captured, Arya uses magic to transport the egg out of Durza's reach. Unintentionally, that puts the egg right into Eragon's hands where, a few days later, it hatches.

When King Galbatorix hears that a dragon has hatched, he's incensed and determines the dragon and any allies must be taken captive or killed. Eragon doesn't know the danger that he or the newly hatched Saphira are in, but he begins to get some idea when he hears the village storyteller reminiscing about the days when dragons flew with riders on their backs and defended and protected citizens. Brom (Jeremy Irons) goes on to say that dragons are no more because Galbatorix destroyed them all.

Agents of the King come to Carvahall in short order where they summarily torture and kill as they seek Eragon and Saphira (voiced by Rachel Weisz). Luckily for the boy and the young dragon, Brom knows a bit more about dragons than he's said, and he spirits the pair away before they can be captured. Telling the boy that their best chance is to go to the Varden — a group of freedom fighters who have risen in opposition to the King — Brom leads Eragon toward the distant Boer Mountains.

Eragon and Saphira take advantage of any and all that Brom can teach them along the way, but Eragon only fully begins to see what he's up against when he begins to dream of Arya her defeat at the hands of Durza. At almost the same time, he learns that the King's henchmen are hot on his heals. Eragon, Saphira, and Brom rush onward, but there's some doubt as to whether or not they can reach any sanctuary before the Ra'zac are upon them. And even if they do, Galbatorix won't let anyone rest until Eragon and Saphira are dead!

Edward Speleers did a good job in the lead role, particularly considering Eragon is his acting debut. While it took me a little to warm to him (he doesn't look as he's described in the book), I began to believe before long. Jeremy Irons was an especially fine choice to play the irascible Brom. His craggy looks and his tough demeanor were perfect. Most of the rest of the cast was fine, though far less believable. John Malkovich and Robert Carlyle in particular were hammily melodramatic which took a good deal away from both their believability and frankly the quality of the film itself.

Although negative comments about many performances are impossible not to make, I'm convinced that not a single actor was at fault. Rachel Weisz was woefully miscast — though a terrific actress, her voice was simply too light and weak to personify a dragon. The rest of the poor performances are, I believe, entirely the fault of the director. Stefan Fangmeier was making his directorial debut with Eragon, and his inexperience was painfully obvious (at the same time, his extensive prior experience with special effects working with ILM likely helped give Eragon some of its visual highlights). I suspect it was also his unsure hand that had caused more than a few really lousy edits.

The special effects were, in the main, quite good. I have personal objections to the idea of a dragon with wings that appeared feathered, but the dragon in general was beautifully done. Most of the magical effects were also nicely managed. Make-up, on the other hand, was drastically stinted (were there budgetary constraints?) to the point of detriment. Arya is an elf, yet she appeared entirely human — even her ears. The Urgals are horned monsters, but in the film, they're merely ugly humans with a few dirty facial tattoos. The Ra'zac are disgusting, but they're not at all as described and they're frankly lesser. And the dwarves? They're very, very tall...<cough> Don't even ask me about the sets. The exteriors are terrific; the interiors are just the opposite.

Worst of all, however, was the screenplay. Penned by Peter Buchman (his only previous effort was Jurassic Park III — 'nuff said), the dialogue was never more than average and much was downright painful. And the liberties he took with Mr. Paolini's book are quite literally inexcusable! I understand poetic license, and I understand the need for brevity (though "brevity" in this case often degenerated into "incoherent"). What I do not understand — and what I cannot forgive — is taking the brave and heroic Roran and turning him into a pacifist and coward; the pond scum that was the butcher Sloan and making him sympathetic; the indelible contributions of Angela and making them all but non-existent; and suggesting the patriot Brom had committed shameful acts by casting a real blow for freedom.

I suppose it's possible that those who haven't read Eragon might find the film marginally entertaining. To them, I say: If you liked the movie, you'll love the book! Buy it and read it. To those who didn't like the movie, I say: The movie bears little resemblance to the book. Buy the book and read it. If you like fantasy at all, my guess is that you'll love the book. As for myself, I'll hold out hope that someday someone will love Eragon enough to dedicate himself to making a movie that actually does the book justice. Where's Peter Jackson when you need him?

POLITICAL NOTES: The notion of a power-hungry ruler who ruthlessly enforces his own authority and wishes bears pretty obvious parallels to the real world. Certainly, the bravery of those who will stand up for freedom also translates nicely. But while we can say that these things are obvious, that doesn't mean they're not completely true. (I'm also tempted to comment on the notion of conscription depicted in the film, but I strongly suspect that the writer only used the idea as a device to cut great swaths of applicable plot away from the storyline.)

FAMILY SUITABILITY: Eragon is raged PG-13 for "battle sequences and frightening moments." I don't know that any child too young to have read the book will be able to follow the storyline, either. There were gaping holes in the plot that I was able to fill in from my own knowledge, but I suspect at least some of those holes would be a problem for many of those unable to do the same thing. That being said, some of the battles are a little much for small children as are the King's scarier minions. As for everybody else, I recommend Eragon highly. The book, that is...