On the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Eragon holds an approval rating of 16% based on 125 reviews, with an average rating of 4.08/10. The consensus reads "Eragon is a fantasy epic that lacks any magic, brought down to earth by unconvincing world-building and a litany of stars who seem bemused by the material."[17] The Seattle Times described the film as "technically accomplished, but fairly lifeless and at times a bit silly".[18] The Hollywood Reporter said the world of Eragon was "without much texture or depth."[19] The story was labeled "derivative" by The Washington Post,[20] and "generic" by the Las Vegas Weekly.[21] Newsday stressed this point further, asserting that only "nine-year-olds with no knowledge whatsoever of any of the six Star Wars movies would find the film original."[22]
3/10 To put it simply, Eragon lacks. The story is rushed unexplained and poorly thought out, the acting is below par, and the cinematography is annoying with its tilted angles and range so close to the action so that you can't see what is going on.The writing of the movie is by far its weakest aspect. The story is rushed quickly jumping from one thing to the next without any plot development so the viewer is left constantly wondering what is going on, one second our main character is a naive farmer, the next he is suddenly a fully experienced warrior with absolutely no evidence showing exactly where he gained this experience from. Entire scenes of the movie plod along with absolutely no meaning or relevance to the story, scenes which should have been cut out of the movie to make the narrative flow better. Characters come and go as they please with no relevance to the story, such as the archer who just suddenly appears out of nowhere and then just aimlessly follows the main characters without actually adding anything to the story. It almost seems as if the movie was written by a 9th grade high school student for his English class.The acting of the movie is far below par, as it seems that nobody in this movie seems to have emotions as if all the characters were cyborgs from the Terminator series or Steven Segal. For example there is the scene where the main character discovers that the stone he has found isn't a rock but actually a dragon egg as the egg hatches. Now normally people seeing a small monster burst out of a rock would express quite some level of surprise or shock, but all our star does is raise his eyebrows slightly and give a pathetic tiny gasp. Every character in the entire movie is like this, if someone is crying over a slain comrade all they do is frown and have a look of "dang it" on their face, if someone is cheering over victory, all they do is leer and go "woooo". The emotion is non existent.Eragon is a poor movie at best that fails to be entertaining, especially when compared to the other movies it is copying they style of such as "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter". It seems that the makers of this movie thought, "This movie has swords, magic, old English style speech, horses and dragons, it therefore must be good". They were wrong. The belief that just because your movie looks a bit like "Lord of the Rings" it must be good like it, is incorrect.
download film eragon 2 full movie
Many fans have expressed anger at both the movie and Stefen Fangmeier for cutting out too many important characters, places, and events. Most fans of the novel have pointed out that nearly none of the characters in the film fit their descriptions at all in the book (except possibly Murtagh and Nasuada - and even Katrina, the Twins, & Elva in the deleted scenes.)
A lot have blamed the film for making some changes that will hinder the possible production of a sequel. For example, Roran leaves Palancar Valley just because he doesn't want to be drafted into the army, rather than to earn money to start his own family with Katrina (who did not appear in the film). They also made Brom hunt down and kill the Ra'zac, who are crucial to Eldest and the start of Brisingr. Also, they made Arya the princess of Ellesméra, but not an elf. Elves inhabiting Ellesméra are crucial to Eldest. In addition, Jeod, Helen, Orik, Elva, and Solembum, who did not appear in the movie, feature prominently in the next books. Arguably the largest continuity problem for a sequel is the fact that Eragon's back is not scarred by Durza in the film, which is a major obstacle and plot point through most of Eldest. In the movie, they do not mention the other two dragon eggs still in existence (therefore Murtagh cannot become the rider of Thorn), and the Twins (who are important characters in the books) are not seen outside of a deleted scene. As another example, fans criticized the storyline involving the Ra'zac, as they are depicted in the movie as magical beings created by Durza's black magic, yet in the books are actual biological creatures with a thoroughly different appearance than the insect-infested, mummy-like Ra'zac of the film. Others thought the creature effects for Saphira, while very good, made her too slim instead of the muscular build that is freguently mentioned and also gave her an un-draconic look with feathery wings instead of the bat-like ones she and other dragons had in the book. Additionally, Galbatorix's dragon Shruikan (seen at the end scene of the film) is portrayed as being not much larger than Saphira, whereas in the book he is depicted as an enormous dragon with spikes as thick as the trunks of trees.
Christopher Paolini has stated that he enjoyed the film. In an open interview[7] held with a fan community in September 2008, he stated that if there were to be another movie, he would be as involved as possible in the process. He further responded that the movie reflected the film-makers' version of the story, whilst the books reflect his version of the story; he was pleased his book was adapted into a movie, given that few books ever are. Furthermore, the movie introduced many new readers to the series. Paolini also stated that "you have to make peace with the nature of the process when signing on the dotted line." 2ff7e9595c
Comentarios