When I first heard about the movie Eragon, I immediately ran to a nearby bookstore and bought the original novel and devoured it before going to the theaters to watch the movie,because I thought that the story would be hard to understand given the gap between the book's length and the movie's running time.(I have experienced this while watching Lord of the Rings:The Fellowship of the Ring) While I was disappointed that the movie cut out some important details and characters, I was astonished with the rest of the film.
I don't care what other people think. Some of the harsh reviews that other fellow movie fans wrote cited that Eragon is just another copy from Lord of the Rings. I agree that there are characters similar between the two, yet I think that all modern fantasy novels are influenced by The Lord of the Rings. You can see them in many books, including the world wide known Harry Potter series. So why do people not criticize other fantasy novel movies? Yes, I would have to say that the battle scenes are similar, but nowadays every movie is influenced by one another, so you can't blame the special effects department.(some reviews that reporters in my home country argued with this issue)
Yet there is one thing that I have to agree with the anti Eragon movie fans. The special effects and costume,scenery, the acting(Edward Speelers does a much better job than most young actors)are superb, but the storyline and characters have shrunk too much from the original novel. It is all to vast to write, but I was most disappointed with that the Twins(the magicians that envies and jeers Eragon when he joins the Varden)were wiped out, as were Katrina(Eragon's cousin Roran's lover),Jormundur(Ajihad's second in command)and Solembum(the were cat that the fortune teller Angela). Where as the Lord of the Rings trilogy had each at least 150minutes of running time, Eragon has less than two hours, too little for a book over 900pages.
But as in every movie that is based on a book,running time can't be blamed with. Although I don't like it, I also understand that it is inevitable to cut lots of scenes if you are going to make a novel into a movie. So I think that Eragon is one of the best, if not the best,book based movie there is.
I don't care what other people think. Some of the harsh reviews that other fellow movie fans wrote cited that Eragon is just another copy from Lord of the Rings. I agree that there are characters similar between the two, yet I think that all modern fantasy novels are influenced by The Lord of the Rings. You can see them in many books, including the world wide known Harry Potter series. So why do people not criticize other fantasy novel movies? Yes, I would have to say that the battle scenes are similar, but nowadays every movie is influenced by one another, so you can't blame the special effects department.(some reviews that reporters in my home country argued with this issue)
Yet there is one thing that I have to agree with the anti Eragon movie fans. The special effects and costume,scenery, the acting(Edward Speelers does a much better job than most young actors)are superb, but the storyline and characters have shrunk too much from the original novel. It is all to vast to write, but I was most disappointed with that the Twins(the magicians that envies and jeers Eragon when he joins the Varden)were wiped out, as were Katrina(Eragon's cousin Roran's lover),Jormundur(Ajihad's second in command)and Solembum(the were cat that the fortune teller Angela). Where as the Lord of the Rings trilogy had each at least 150minutes of running time, Eragon has less than two hours, too little for a book over 900pages.
But as in every movie that is based on a book,running time can't be blamed with. Although I don't like it, I also understand that it is inevitable to cut lots of scenes if you are going to make a novel into a movie. So I think that Eragon is one of the best, if not the best,book based movie there is.